Ripperologist 133: August 2013

[Stephen Thomas]

Yes you praised the overall aspect of his work. Fair enough. But what about the factual details Phil H? I simply can't see anything wrong. And that means, if one is looking at this with close scrutiny, that the very first hurdle is jumped where most other horses fail. (as has been noted)

Can somebody please tell me that I'm seriously misreading things here.

A notorious Tory MP appears at a murder inquest disguised as an East End scuffler who has been known to many people for over a decade and nobody recognises him?

This is the stuff of Carry On films.

[Stephen Thomas]

the fact that 'nothing can be found' tells us precisely nothing!

And nothing ain't worth nothing but it's free.

[Chris]

This statement is misleading - 'nothing can be found' is totally different to what Chris suggested and I agreed with:- that the records for the Southern division Royal Artillery militia records no longer exist anywhere.

Quite. If the records aren't there, then the fact that 'nothing can be found' tells us precisely nothing!

[Debra A]

As far as I can see, and by reading Debs and Chris' posts (and your own, I might add), nothing can be found to rock the events that Simon has presented at this juncture... which does make a fine change from purported facts about purported suspects which have stories attached with countless holes in them! (I could list them but really this isn't the time nor the place).

Hi Phil,

This statement is misleading - 'nothing can be found' is totally different to what Chris suggested and I agreed with:- that the records for the Southern division Royal Artillery militia records no longer exist anywhere.

The record I referenced for Chris was a man who was attested to the Southern Division RA but I later found was discharged from the Royal Garrison Artillery Hampshire ( he switched regiments) and so why his records were in that particular database and not because the database also contained records from he Southern Division RA, as I previously wondered about.

[Phil Carter]

I don't think I ever DO tell people they are wrong all the time - if that remark was aimed at me....

Neither have I overlooked the research Simon has done - indeed, each of my posts has, I think, praised that aspect of his work.

It is the method of using that research that I have commented on. I believe, to use a colloquiallism, that he has put the cart before the horse.

Re-read my posts for my points, but I regard it as very dangerous to situate an appraisal by means of what is essentially "special pleading" - that Chapman was not a victim of JtR - that is a piece of work in itself, I suggest.

Are you suggesting that if Simon published in an acknowledged academic journal, that his methodology and case would not be subject to rigourous scrutiny and frank peer review? I see no reason why an article in a serious publication on JtR should not be subject to the same scrutiny - indeed should expect it.

I did not ask Simon to publish his work, but having done so, I assume that he seeks honest feedback on it. That is what I have given.

Am I wrong?

Phil

Hello Phil H,

Thanks for the reply. Appreciated the manner with which it was written.

It is the method of using that research that I have commented on. I believe, to use a colloquiallism, that he has put the cart before the horse.

This is the crux of my point. Methodology is one thing. We can discuss from dusk til dawn on this interpretation of the methodology Simon used.
However I am talking about the CONTENT of the presentation.
I cannot see anything I can personally put my finger upon that is factually incorrect. Can you?

Are you suggesting that if Simon published in an acknowledged academic journal, that his methodology and case would not be subject to rigourous scrutiny and frank peer review? I see no reason why an article in a serious publication on JtR should not be subject to the same scrutiny - indeed should expect it.

I did not ask Simon to publish his work, but having done so, I assume that he seeks honest feedback on it. That is what I have given.

Am I wrong?

No, not wrong at all, and I am sure that Simon finds the critique stimulating in it's entirety. However, if one is to subject with the same scrutiny, then one must also examine the factual claims and factual content, not just the methodology used. I cannot see any faults, factually. Can you? Scrutinise all you wish.. i agree...but across the board. That is why I very lightly suggested an "over-looking" of the articles?

Perhaps I am wrong?

Yes you praised the overall aspect of his work. Fair enough. But what about the factual details Phil H? I simply can't see anything wrong. And that means, if one is looking at this with close scrutiny, that the very first hurdle is jumped where most other horses fail. (as has been noted)



Phil

[Phil H]

I don't think I ever DO tell people they are wrong all the time - if that remark was aimed at me....

Neither have I overlooked the research Simon has done - indeed, each of my posts has, I think, praised that aspect of his work.

It is the method of using that research that I have commented on. I believe, to use a colloquiallism, that he has put the cart before the horse.

Re-read my posts for my points, but I regard it as very dangerous to situate an appraisal by means of what is essentially "special pleading" - that Chapman was not a victim of JtR - that is a piece of work in itself, I suggest.

Are you suggesting that if Simon published in an acknowledged academic journal, that his methodology and case would not be subject to rigourous scrutiny and frank peer review? I see no reason why an article in a serious publication on JtR should not be subject to the same scrutiny - indeed should expect it.

I did not ask Simon to publish his work, but having done so, I assume that he seeks honest feedback on it. That is what I have given.

Am I wrong?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Thereare times when I cannot figure out why an intelligent person like you posts as you do?

A contemporary suspect can never been discounted fully (though there may develop a concensus that a name might be sidelined - such as is the case now with Ostrog).

Did I say SUPERIOR??? NO. I didn't infer it either.

Whatever you may have meant to imply, I read your words:

"That, I am sure you agree Stephen, really does make the Kosminski and Druitt cases total opposites of this one, with more questions and holes than answers and facts in their cases."

as meaning what I responded to. It is for you to make yourself clear, not for me to second guess what you might have meant.

"there bare[sic] more holes in the Druitt/ Kosminski cases than Simon's work"

This is blatant nonsense as I said before. Whatever evidence we now have is limited. That available at the time was less so. The case that afficianadoes argue today and what was behind the contentions of Swanson, Anderson and MMM are totally different things. I could not give a monkeys about the modern cases for Druitt and Kosminski but neither can yet be ruled out as a solid suspect (whatever evidence survives) same for Tumblety for that matter.

The MacNaghten Memoranda is very flawed in it's factual presentation, as is the Swanson Marginalia.

MM admitted he was writing from memory and the flaws may not be significant if one knew the original intention of the author. They only become significant if someone relies too heavily on them in modern argument. (Which maybe your point but you don't make that clear.) The document would not be problematic if the information MM had read was correct - i.e. he knew Druitt was a professional but got the wrong profession. He misremembered his age by an exact 10 years....

Near contemporary or not.. makes no odds... when comparing the details

Sorry, but it does if you have any claims to being an historian.

Simon has presented,

But the jury remains out.

the cases for Kosminski and Druitt are woefully lacking in factual content that can be proven.

Only today. I agree that if someone advance either name as Simon has done TODAY then his facts might well be more compelling. But that is NOT why Druitt and Kosminski were and remain suspects.

Simon's work ISN'T-.

But as I have suggested, the way the Simon's "facts" are put together into a case is less compelling. He situates his appraisal and it is absolutely clear - the sine qua non of the case - that Simon's suspect could not have been A killer unless the whole JtR timeline is wholly deconstructed. If the same man killed, for instance, Chapman AND EDDOWES, KELLY or McKENZIE then Simon's case evidently falls. His suspect was demonstrably not in the country for the later crimes.

Now, whatever controversy may surround the number and names of the Ripper victims, I think that (for good reason) the concensus is that Nichols, Chpaman and Eddowes AT LEAST appear to be the victims of the same killer. That is, IMHO, the mountain that Simon has to scale. Even if he can show that his suspect had a double identity (which is quite possible) it does not make him JtR.

That isn't nonsense. Thinking that it is, is plainly nonsense.

No - it is your thinking that is muddled.

I repeat that I enjoy Simon's articles and cheer his research. But do not let enthusiasm make us retreat from strict historical reasoning or the clear analysis of the nature of evidence.

Please avoid name calling in your response (which I have no doubt will follow). I have tried hard to make this post solely about the arguments.

Phil

Hello Phil H,

Not being a very good "typist" as it were, a natural spelling error occured in my last post, which you kindly " [sic] " noted. Thank you.

Thank you for the compliment regarding my "intelligence". I happen to post in my own manner because it suits me and that's the way it is.. I don't follow A4 lines on anything, so expect the unexpected. I was the same in school.. and managed to get the teachers irate then too. The more it effects, the more I do it.....(actually, if you believe that you are wrong.. but it fits as a humouristic type of answer).. I post in a befitting way as to my judgement at the time. Right or wrong. I make an effort not to continually browbeat. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to post Phil H.....I wouldn't dream to lay down the law and tell you that you are wrong all the time either. I wouldn't dream of claiming to be an historian either.....(I am interested in history, an enthusiast at most.) And I certainly won't be name calling either. I won't tell you that your thinking is muddled because I won't presume a superior position in this matter.

I appreciate your efforts to keep to historical analysis.. and in doing so, you have perhaps, and I put that very lightly, as a minor suggestion only, missed the in-depth background work that Simon has put together on the man, Stanley, and/or H-H.

As far as I can see, and by reading Debs and Chris' posts (and your own, I might add), nothing can be found to rock the events that Simon has presented at this juncture... which does make a fine change from purported facts about purported suspects which have stories attached with countless holes in them! (I could list them but really this isn't the time nor the place).

Critical analysis is fine, but should be balanced.. and as I said when commenting upon the origin of the critique from Rob House, his comments were derisory and unflatteringly poor without explanation nor in my opinion, real foundation. That is why I looked for an explanation, but he has declined the offer to do so. Which is a shame, and I am not taking the mickey either.. because I am waiting for some intelligent critique on the basis of what we have been presented with.. which has so far, not been forthcoming, because, as I see it...and I have read and re-read the articles a few times now..and there is very little to "attack" as it were. It sits as it sits.. there is very little to actually say.. "that is wrong"..if anything, factually.

Perhaps someone could show me, or for that matter Simon, the errors of his work? All he has done is show the possibility of a man being possibly responsible for one of the Whitechapel murders. He certainly hasn't claimed a "Jack the Ripper"... because, like my own thoiughts on the matter, he doesn't believe in one "Jack".

And no Phil H, I don't have an ego either. I just prefer not to browbeat and tell people they are wrong all the time.



Phil

[Phil H]

I all probability - and this is not my idea, I saw it expressed elsewhere - Stanley was fictitious, but was (in the style of the day) presented as real.

Publishers seem to like (even a tacked on) preferred suspect in a "Ripper" book. Sugden has Chapman, which I find the weakest part of his book - and as I recall, he almost admits he doesn't really believe it.

I retain an open mid on whether Matters' sources might one day emerge, but my bet would be on them being invented.

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

When the Buenos Aires JtR story first appeared in 1901 the physician was referred to as Dr. E.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Could someone please give a quick summation of Simons article and theory in a nutshell? I'm very interested but don't have the wherewithal to read the article. It would be much appreciated.

[Wickerman]

I've always been interested in Matters' Dr. Stanley theory and if Dr. Stanley somehow refers back to Edward Stanley.

".....They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha... "

[Debra A]

No luck, I'm afraid - though I may have been missing something, because unlike Debs I couldn't find anyone in the database from the SOUTHERN DIV R A REGIMENT, even with the benefit of unhindered access.

Thanks for looking, Chris. That probably means the records for the Hampshire Militia haven't survived, as you suggested earlier in the thread.
Looking at a transcription of the record of the soldier (Johnson) I noticed was attested to the 3rd Brigade Southern division RA and whose records were in amongst the Royal Garrison Artillery militia records for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight -He was discharged from the Royal Garrison Artillery and not the Southern Division Royal Artillery so that would be the reason his records were in that particular database- he had been attested to one regiment and then discharged from a different one.

[Phil H]

Why do you insist on seeing "dogma" where there is none?

In a hugely diverse community, known for its iconoclasm in questioning every aspect of the case in a post modern way, I would ask this question:

Where is ANY concensus or even a tendency to question the death of Annie as a Ripper crime?

There has been none, because the factor which link Annie to Polly and Kate are clear. This is, I repeat, NOT because there has been no questioning of the canonical five, but because all the indications are that those three murders (at least) were linked. You have cited no serious new evidence to cause me to question that. You are questioning because you have to to make your case. End of sentence. Period. Full stop.

Further, the debate on who was an wasn't a victim has never abated - it includes consideration of possible victims before and after the canonical five. Lechmere's thesis (for heaven's sake) is more soundly based than yours in linking victims.

Neither, as I have said is deconstruction new - vide Wolf and Turnbull.

So stop this mindless accusation of dogma - it won't work.

I took care not to make H-H a murder suspect [I have no proof— something which hasn't bothered any other theorist], whilst at the same time remaining mindful of his odd behaviour, the ridiculous story he told the New York World and the facts surrounding the identity of "Edward Stanley".

So what is your article claiming then? You could have fooled me - the whole thrust of what you have written comes across as leading to such a conclusion.

In fact, this was one of my final questions: "Was Hughes-Hallett involved in the murder of Annie Chapman?" I put more emphasis on the fact that there would have been a huge scandal had H-H been discovered in a relationship with a murdered Whitechapel prostitute.

But the answer you expect to your question, after two LONG articles, is clear: YES!!

You might be right on the second point. Masquerading as a "ranker" might have caused a few heads to shake too!

Of course he couldn't have killed them. That was self-evident. H-H was in New York on 30th September and 9th November. So, as he couldn't have killed them—and nowhere did I suggest he may have had a hand in the earlier murder of Polly Nichols—that leaves just Annie Chapman who may not have fallen victim to JtR.

So why argue for the singularity of Annie? There is no real question to most of us, I think (and after genuine thought over the years not just based on apathy) that Chapman was killed by the same hand as Polly and Kate. You only need to do that because of her apparent relationship with the pensioner - which need not have been associated with her death, as the police apparently concluded.

Which leads me to two further questions?

Are there further articles to come?

And do you perceive police or other official collusion with "H-H"?

There are hints in the two articles I have read that something odd was going on and why leads were not followed up etc. Or have I got it wrong again?

I'm frankly sorry you responded to my post in this thread as I have to say your responses have made me think less of you and your thesis than I did.

Sorry to have to say that.

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Thank you again. My ego is quite unscathed.

I took care not to make H-H a murder suspect [I have no proof— something which hasn't bothered any other theorist], whilst at the same time remaining mindful of his odd behaviour, the ridiculous story he told the New York World and the facts surrounding the identity of "Edward Stanley".

In fact, this was one of my final questions: "Was Hughes-Hallett involved in the murder of Annie Chapman?" I put more emphasis on the fact that there would have been a huge scandal had H-H been discovered in a relationship with a murdered Whitechapel prostitute.

You wrote: "But the weakness in your argument . . . is that we have evidence that he could NOT have killed the later victims as he was out of the country. Thus it is imperative to you and your case that you show that he could have killed only one victim and thus that that victim could not have fallen to the hand of JtR."

Of course he couldn't have killed them. That was self-evident. H-H was in New York on 30th September and 9th November. So, as he couldn't have killed them—and nowhere did I suggest he may have had a hand in the earlier murder of Polly Nichols—that leaves just Annie Chapman who may not have fallen victim to JtR.

And that turns Jack's five-in-a-row into a busted flush.

We have all been missing something. But your unequivocal "we have NOT" tells me all I need to know.

No offence, but it smacks of that dogma I mentioned earlier.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

I've always been interested in Matters' Dr. Stanley theory and if Dr. Stanley somehow refers back to Edward Stanley.