Ripperologist 133: August 2013

[Simon Wood]

Originally posted by Rob House
Classic.

And true.

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Really nice to read about Sarah Lewis, to learn her age and other détails, and how her family kept the memory of her involvement in the Ripper story - without any mention of Lord Randolph Churchill.

Bravo Chris Scott

[robhouse]

And true.

Regards,

Simon

You're saying that "its true" that if you come up with a wildly speculative theory, that does not seem to be grounded in reality, that it is the burden of other people to prove your theory wrong? I am pretty certain that that is not how these things work in the real world. Unless of course you are joking, which I will be open to considering.
RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

It is the traditionally accepted Edward Stanley story which does not seem to be grounded in reality.

If you believe my article is wildly speculative, all you have to do to shoot me down in flames is locate a 47-year-old Edward Stanley who was on duty with the 2nd Brigade, Southern Division, Royal Artillery at Fort Elson from 6th August to 1st September 1888 under the command of Colonel Francis Charles Hughes-Hallett.

Based upon available facts, my argument stands until such time as you find him.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

You're saying that "its true" that if you come up with a wildly speculative theory, that does not seem to be grounded in reality, that it is the burden of other people to prove your theory wrong? I am pretty certain that that is not how these things work in the real world. Unless of course you are joking, which I will be open to considering.
RH

Hello Rob,

Excuse me..and I genuinely mean this in a kind spirit... but I must say that I have heard the very same argument before about "prove the theory wrong"...

It has been said about the Swanson marginalia being meant as the Aaron Kosminski suppliment.

It has also been said that the Aaron Kosminski theory in itself has to be proven wrong before it can be dismissed.


That is the real world Rob. We got it from two people on JTR Forums. Both saying, ok...go ahead and prove it wrong.

I was clearly told that the study of history was that the burden of proof must be not on the presenter, but the disclaimee to any theory.

So if Simon uses that very same argument... go ahead and prove the man wrong.. otherwise his claims stand, no?

Nothing personal in any way. Just what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I complained in the exact way you did when I was told exactly those words.."prove me wrong". Now you do the same thing.
Small world isn't it?


Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

True

Very well said, and true, Rob. Any such wildly speculative story should be given a credible foundation in fact and, at least, be shown to be based on some sort of common sense.

The nature of this subject lends itself to ridiculous ideas and theories, such as the duff 'diary', and they are foisted onto a readership whom is then asked by the proposer of said ridiculous idea or theory to prove it wrong. And there are plenty of gullible and excitable readers to support these strange ideas. Actual facts, or evidence, that are unequivocal are rare in Ripper studies. And when they are they are usually subjected to a debate based on semantics to try and give them an alternative meaning.

As I never tire of pointing out no one will ever prove the identity of the murderer. Many of the peripheral mysteries will never be solved. In the void thus created the fantasists reign supreme. The frustration of those striving to find answers is patent, and they seem ready to believe many a tall story in their efforts to reach some sort of conclusion. Some cling to the fantasists' stories as some sort of consolation.

Anyway, please do carry on with the Ripperological pantomime, complete with its dames et al.

[DGB]

Hi Phil

I personally come from a science background, but the same burden of proof there is the same as a historical one - namely: it is virtually impossible to prove a negative.

Therefore, the burden of proof is actually on the proposer of a theory to prove - as well as they're able - that the theory is correct. There will always be dissenters, but usually proof is required sufficient to convince the majority of educated individuals that the theory holds water.

You raise the Swanson Marginalia, I believe in that case that sufficient evidence has been placed that it is authentic, and the majority believe it so. There are dissenters, but they haven't yet constructed a cogent and realistic alternative hypothesis.

I believe Simon should be congratulated on the strength of the article - as I said in the other place, it's very well written and researched - however I don't believe the hypothesis is strong enough to convince, not without further supporting evidence.

Cheers

DavidGB

Hello Rob,

Excuse me..and I genuinely mean this in a kind spirit... but I must say that I have heard the very same argument before about "prove the theory wrong"...

It has been said about the Swanson marginalia being meant as the Aaron Kosminski suppliment.

It has also been said that the Aaron Kosminski theory in itself has to be proven wrong before it can be dismissed.


That is the real world Rob. We got it from two people on JTR Forums. Both saying, ok...go ahead and prove it wrong.

I was clearly told that the study of history was that the burden of proof must be not on the presenter, but the disclaimee to any theory.

So if Simon uses that very same argument... go ahead and prove the man wrong.. otherwise his claims stand, no?

Nothing personal in any way. Just what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I complained in the exact way you did when I was told exactly those words.."prove me wrong". Now you do the same thing.
Small world isn't it?


Phil

[Chris]

If you believe my article is wildly speculative, all you have to do to shoot me down in flames is locate a 47-year-old Edward Stanley who was on duty with the 2nd Brigade, Southern Division, Royal Artillery at Fort Elson from 6th August to 1st September 1888 under the command of Colonel Francis Charles Hughes-Hallett.

Based on a quick visit to the Hampshire Archives website, it doesn't look as though the relevant records have survived. So you may be asking the impossible.

http://www3.hants.gov.uk/archives/hals-collections/militia-lists.htm

[Phil Carter]

Therefore, the burden of proof is actually on the proposer of a theory to prove - as well as they're able - that the theory is correct. There will always be dissenters, but usually proof is required sufficient to convince the majority of educated individuals that the theory holds water.

Hello David,

Well now... for the last 25 years we have had it rammed down our throats that the Aaron Kosminski theory does hold water.. WITHOUT proof. That is a fair comparison.

The fact is of course that the Swanson Marginalia has more holes in it than the Titanic, and that there isn't one shred of evidence to show Aaron Kosminski anywhere near any of the murders on the nights in question, nor that he has anywhere near the brutality in his known persona.

But that hasn't stopped him being promoted for all he is worth!

Even though we have said "PROVE IT" to those promoters.. they answer back and tell us the onus is upon us!


I think it all depends on one thing.

Whether the bandwagon can afford to let a wheel fall off or not. Fear of the endagerment of the genre, methinks.

Just an opinion.

Cheers :-)



Phil

[Debra A]

Based on a quick visit to the Hampshire Archives website, it doesn't look as though the relevant records have survived. So you may be asking the impossible.
http://www3.hants.gov.uk/archives/ha...itia-lists.htm

I wonder if there may be something on the findmypast 'The National Archives W096' Militia records database? I don't have a subscription but doing a quick check of the index to see what was available yesterday, I did notice they carried some records for the Royal Garrison Artillery - Hampshire & Isle Of Wight. I wasn't sure if this would have the relevant records but checking one random soldier in that database - his indexed entry showed he was attested to the 3RD BRIGADE SOUTHERN DIV R A REGIMENT in 1883. So perhaps it is possible that the 2nd Brigade may be covered in there also. It's impossible to tell without a subscription to check the full records though.

[Chris]

I wonder if there may be something on the findmypast 'The National Archives W096' Militia records database? I don't have a subscription but doing a quick check of the index to see what was available yesterday, I did notice they carried some records for the Royal Garrison Artillery - Hampshire & Isle Of Wight. I wasn't sure if this would have the relevant records but checking one random soldier in that database - his indexed entry showed he was attested to the 3RD BRIGADE SOUTHERN DIV R A REGIMENT in 1883. So perhaps it is possible that the 2nd Brigade may be covered in there also. It's impossible to tell without a subscription to check the full records though.

Thanks for this. The National Archives catalogue doesn't appear to help either. I've made a note to have a look at the database when I'm next at Kew.

[RavenDarkendale]

Just as a curiosity, I'd like everyone to think just a minute about their favorite suspect in this case. If you were shown fact that trumps your theory, do you:

1) Accept it and move on to someone else
2) Argue that the newly discovered evidence is shaky or misinterpreted.

When presenting your case do you:

1) Proceed from a solid stand on facts known
2) Build on the shifting sands of possibilities
3) Throw out everything to the contrary as irrelevant or mistaken.

For example, based on reported facts, I have questioned whether it was Mary Kelly or not in Miller's Court. People respond by questioning the time of death, the competence of the medical examiners, and the reports of eye witnesses. OK. But what we have for facts are the surviving reports, we cannot cross examine the witnesses ourselves. To the police it was Mary's room therefore Mary's body, identified by a man who had motive to kill her himself. For the medical examiners, they believed they had the time of death correct to within a reasonable amount of time. The witnesses knew Mary Kelly and were certain they saw her after the body in the room was dead. The last two at least constitute reasonable doubt as to the identification.

Cue the vitriol...

God Bless

Darkendale

[Jonathan H]

I was 1) in that I accepted, with great reluctance, the evidence that my suspect was probably not 'Jack' and moved on.

Is it possible that the lovely, lovely idea of poor Mary Kelly not meeting such a foul end could cloud a person's judgement about the unlikelihood of her being alive after Nov 9th 1888?

Cue apoplexy ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi RD,

Before going so far as to consider a suspect, perhaps we should first try to establish whether or not the basic premise of the Jack the Ripper story is true.

I personally believe it to have been expedient make believe.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi RD,

Before going so far as to consider a suspect, perhaps we should first try to establish whether or not the basic premise of the Jack the Ripper story is true.

I personally believe it to have been expedient make believe.

Regards,

Simon

I think it is safe to say, now that you have published your theory, that we can all go back to believing that Jack the Ripper existed.

RH