Who Is He? What Is He? Where Is He? A Suspectology Roundtable

[Lombro2]

Buckley: he is not a suspect, if only for the simple reason he was not considered a suspect at the time or immediately after.

Any Mary Jane Kelly candidate: are they not a candidate if they were not considered a candidate at the time or immediately after. We have Ancestry now.

I’ll admit that Morgenstern was found by the Sheldon’s, I believe, looking in the census records for Morganstones and equivalent gas workers working near Stepney Gasworks but, when you’re trying to ID someone and have a name to work with, I consider it Candidateology, same as Suspectology.

But I’m willing to consider something like that a wash, or a tie between following "Evidence" to following "Suspects".

[Tom_Wescott]

I thought it was highly enjoyable, and yes, you did indeed make it clear in your introductory brief that suspectology, in all its forms, is both an integral part of Whitechapel studies and something that many of us- and for obvious reasons- evolve away from, directing us along more result-friendly paths to pursue.

You say "evolve" away from. I believe the phrase Menges used was 'progresses on" from. Interesting perspective.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jurriaan Maessen]

By ruling Buckley out as a suspect, one is engaging in Suspectology. If, after considering all the evidence thus far presented, one deems him a ‘person of interest’ and not a ‘suspect’, you are practicing Suspectology. Asking whether or not he is “Jack the Ripper?” is Suspectology. I attempted, perhaps poorly, to make this clear to our guests and listeners. ‘Suspectology’ was the topic I intended to discuss and right off the bat after Steve Blomer’s first comment, Suspectology was not being discussed, it was being practiced. Exhibited.
It was a difficult show to conduct and keep on track and many commentators may have strayed occasionally from the brief. But I hope it was an enjoyable listen regardless.

JM

I thought it was highly enjoyable, and yes, you did indeed make it clear in your introductory brief that suspectology, in all its forms, is both an integral part of Whitechapel studies and something that many of us- and for obvious reasons- evolve away from, directing us along more result-friendly paths to pursue.

[jmenges]

By ruling Buckley out as a suspect, one is engaging in Suspectology. If, after considering all the evidence thus far presented, one deems him a ‘person of interest’ and not a ‘suspect’, you are practicing Suspectology. Asking whether or not he is “Jack the Ripper?” is Suspectology. I attempted, perhaps poorly, to make this clear to our guests and listeners. ‘Suspectology’ was the topic I intended to discuss and right off the bat after Steve Blomer’s first comment, Suspectology was not being discussed, it was being practiced. Exhibited.
It was a difficult show to conduct and keep on track and many commentators may have strayed occasionally from the brief. But I hope it was an enjoyable listen regardless.

JM

[The Rookie Detective]

If the Buckley research is something to be applauded, I assume it has also been actually read.

I get criticized about my countless remarks cautioning against considering Buckley as a suspect in the 80-page dissertation, but reading the comments here I'm tempted to conclude I did not caution against it enough. One should never underestimate the blinding effects of suspectological hunger in some of the readership. But lesson learned: next time I'll put it into capitals.

Indeed, as I pointed out in both the dissertation and the rippercast episode on Buckley: he is not a suspect, if only for the simple reason he was not considered a suspect at the time or immediately after.

I would agree that Buckley is not a suspect on the very basis that you highlight so eloquently.
On the contrary; you have been clear in your declaration that Buckley isn't a suspect and for that you are to be commended.

Arguably, there is also another valid viewpoint; that due to the remarkable research carried out on Buckley; by proxy, he automatically becomes a person of interest in the case.
It is therefore important to differentiate between the specific terminology of a 'suspect' and a 'person of interest,' and to acknowledge that there is no harm in embracing the latter; particularly if you're a suspect driven researcher.

By submitting such excellent thought provoking research on Buckley, you submit the right to determine how the individual you have highlighted can be considered by others, in relation to the case.
In other words, it is up to the individual to make up their own mind as to whether Buckley is a person of interest and/or suspect; rightly or wrongly, that decision is a personal one.
To rule out Buckley as a Person of interest goes a long way to negate him from even being discussed in the first place.
Now that Buckley is out in the open so to speak, it is no longer your responsibility to determine how researchers should consider Buckley.

You're an exceptional researcher and by sharing your work, it now leaves us free to make up our own minds.


RD

[Jurriaan Maessen]

thanks for this. i only had time to listen to first half hour and its great. couple of comments.. i disagree thats it absolutely impossible that the case will never be solved. i also agree with christer that there should be some kind of line on who is a valid suspect. for me its physical connection to the case along with yellow flags and or contemp police suspect. if you cant place a person in london at the time of the murders and they also werent a police suspect, or even person of interest, than they shouldnt be considered a valid suspect.

there was alot of talk about buckley. absolutely applaud the research into him.keep it up. But at this point what we know about him.. should he really be considered a suspect? imho no. he has no physical connection to the case and wasnt a suspect at the time. hes just one of hundreds (thousands ?) of men in london at tje time who were drunk violent thugs who attacked women. same goes for placing violent lunatics, or crazy jews in the frame with no other reason for suspecting them. i placed jacob levy in this category of non suspect until it was shown he might be related to one of the mitre square witnesses. so perhaps a person of interest at least now.

These types are Intriguing characters that warrant further research absolutely. person of interest? maybe. suspect? no.
just my opinion of course no big wup.

looking forward to listening to the rest! thanks again all!!

If the Buckley research is something to be applauded, I assume it has also been actually read.

I get criticized about my countless remarks cautioning against considering Buckley as a suspect in the 80-page dissertation, but reading the comments here I'm tempted to conclude I did not caution against it enough. One should never underestimate the blinding effects of suspectological hunger in some of the readership. But lesson learned: next time I'll put it into capitals.

Indeed, as I pointed out in both the dissertation and the rippercast episode on Buckley: he is not a suspect, if only for the simple reason he was not considered a suspect at the time or immediately after.

[Lewis C]

In this case, many of us, myself included, probably use the term "suspect" much more liberally than what is technically correct. I would call anyone a suspect for whom there's a reasonable possibility that it might have been him. Of course, of those who fall into this category, some would be much stronger suspects (or much less weak) than others.

[Abby Normal]

thanks for this. i only had time to listen to first half hour and its great. couple of comments.. i disagree thats it absolutely impossible that the case will never be solved. i also agree with christer that there should be some kind of line on who is a valid suspect. for me its physical connection to the case along with yellow flags and or contemp police suspect. if you cant place a person in london at the time of the murders and they also werent a police suspect, or even person of interest, than they shouldnt be considered a valid suspect.

there was alot of talk about buckley. absolutely applaud the research into him.keep it up. But at this point what we know about him.. should he really be considered a suspect? imho no. he has no physical connection to the case and wasnt a suspect at the time. hes just one of hundreds (thousands ?) of men in london at tje time who were drunk violent thugs who attacked women. same goes for placing violent lunatics, or crazy jews in the frame with no other reason for suspecting them. i placed jacob levy in this category of non suspect until it was shown he might be related to one of the mitre square witnesses. so perhaps a person of interest at least now.

These types are Intriguing characters that warrant further research absolutely. person of interest? maybe. suspect? no.
just my opinion of course no big wup.

looking forward to listening to the rest! thanks again all!!

[Losmandris]

Awesome. Look forward to that!

[jmenges]

Jonathan Menges and Ally Ryder host a roundtable discussion on Suspectology with Christer Holmgren, author of Cutting Point, Mick Priestley, author of One Autumn in Whitechapel, Tracy I'anson, author of Jacob the Ripper, Tom Wescott, author of The Bank Holiday Murders and Ripper Confidential, and Steve Blomer, author of Inside Bucks Row.

Available to Stream or Download now from the following link:

http://www.rippercast.com/mp3/Suspectology_Roundtable.mp3

Also in every podcast app on the planet.

Thank you to all of our guests for joining us on this episode.

And thank you for listening!



JM