Ripperologist 133: August 2013

[Phil Carter]

Hi Rob,

"It is basically a fantasy, a fabrication . . . you have taken a few scattered facts and invented a theory that is quite fantastic and unbelievable."

I eagerly await your expert analysis.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Pardon me for asking, but did you ever get an analysis from Rob? I too would look forward to that. Your two part (thusfar) article has been most interesting, to these eyes. Food for thought indeed. Well done :-)


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Silence has been the stern reply.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris]

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.

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.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hello Simon,

Pardon me for asking, but did you ever get an analysis from Rob? I too would look forward to that. Your two part (thusfar) article has been most interesting, to these eyes. Food for thought indeed. Well done :-)

Hi Phil

As much as I like Simon Wood (who I have never met) and your good self (who I have, on very pleasant terms), I'd say that Rob House doesn't have to analyse anything with regard to Simon's long touted grand theory which is supposed to prove that there was no such person as JTR but has so far proved squat.

[robhouse]

Hi Phil

As much as I like Simon Wood (who I have never met) and your good self (who I have, on very pleasant terms), I'd say that Rob House doesn't have to analyse anything with regard to Simon's long touted grand theory which is supposed to prove that there was no such person as JTR but has so far proved squat.

That was pretty much what I would have said myself... and only to add that I do not have any time for it, and could think of about a million more productive things to do if I did have the time.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

"It is basically a fantasy, a fabrication . . . you have taken a few scattered facts and invented a theory that is quite fantastic and unbelievable."

A fabrication, eh?

Are you suggesting I'm a liar?

Regards,

Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

What's up?

Cat got your tongue?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

I am not calling you a liar. I think you have concocted a rather incredible theory with little to back it up. As far as "cat got my tongue", I told you, I do not have time... nor I am even interested.

RH

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Fair enough.

I guess it spares you having to think.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

As much as I like Simon Wood (who I have never met) and your good self (who I have, on very pleasant terms), I'd say that Rob House doesn't have to analyse anything with regard to Simon's long touted grand theory which is supposed to prove that there was no such person as JTR but has so far proved squat.

Hello Stephen,

Rob has explained himself that he hasn't the inclination to persue the matter.
I think that is a pity, for the undermining of the work that Simon Wood presented in Ripperologist was pretty blatant and not so very flattering on Simon Wood's historical research abilities in regarding the piecing together of the "suspect's" background.

The articles show far more than we know about Montague John Druitt, for example, and show a far greater possibility to using violence. (the army connection helps the cause there)

We know far more about the man's antecedants than the infamous Aaron Kosminski too, and as far as comparison of "suspects" violent behaviour.... well, I need say no more there.

This scant disregard for just these two points, amongst MANY other points that Simon Wood has raised by calling his work a gathering of facts rolled into a fictional tale is asking for a deeper explanation..especially from one who is regarded as one with knowledge in the area of the WM.

I myself am reading and re-reading the articles, cross-checking and researching as much as I can in order to boith verify or query any point Simon has made.

As far as I can see at the moment, he has supplied more information of positive use that the little that can be questioned. 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.

Yes, I can well recall our friendly meeting and the lovely time we chatted. I enjoyed it immensely and am honoured to have had the pleasure of your company, albeit for only a short while. Hope you are well?


Phil

[Phil H]

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.

Except of course that Kosminski and Druitt were contemporary (or almost so) suspects, are mentioned by senior police officials of the time, and thus have to have a certain standing whatever else may be said or thought of them. Simon's suspect has no such locus, whatever arguments he advances.

As I read it, the weakness of Simon's case is in the special pleading necessary to deconstruct the "persona" of JtR, and the expectation that certain events in the suspect's ligfe can be linked to a particular "Ripper victim". Though I have as yet seen no arguments in support (perhaps this awaits another episode) there appear to be hints of police or official collusion.

These are not, IMHO, "strengths" in Simon's case.

I myself have questioned the canonical "5" perception of the JtR case - and AP Wolf and Peter Turnbull have published books arguing for a new interpretation. But their position in the deconstruction of the case seems to me to be different to Simon's. They question the whole case without seeking to prove thereby a particular suspect; Simon is seeking to isolate a case because it then fits his suspect. Playing with the evidence to support your case is always a dangerous game, self-serving and a weak argument: special pleading is you will.

Don't get me wrong, I admire Simon's research, enjoy his writing and am interested in his conclusions. I remain unconvinced, however. And to argue that his suspect is now somehow superior to contemporary suspects (where evidence has almost certainly been lost) is pure nonsense.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

[B]. And to argue that his suspect is now somehow superior to contemporary suspects (where evidence has almost certainly been lost) is pure nonsense.

Hello Phil H,

Thank you for that point of view. It has been noted for posterity.

Did I say SUPERIOR??? NO. I didn't infer it either. I said that a fair look was needed and used TWO, of the many examples of the weaknesses of the Druitt/Kosminski suspect cases to compare the BACKGROUND material Simon made available to us.. there bare more holes in the Druitt/ Kosminski cases than Simon's work and one of the main reasons id that The MacNaghten Memoranda is very flawed in it's factual presentation, as is the Swanson Marginalia. Near contemporary or not.. makes no odds... when comparing the details Simon has presented, the cases for Kosminski and Druitt are woefully lacking in factual content that can be proven. Simon's work ISN'T-.

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


Phil

[Phil H]

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

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

Thank you. I appreciate your critique.

The argument in support of Annie Chapman [or anyone else] having been a Ripper victim is based on an uncritical acceptance of everything we have been told. Over the years this acceptance has hardened into dogma which, from an historical standpoint, is unsatisfactory. Dogma perpetuates myths whilst vigorously defending itself against all other possible explanations.

And as Ripperology continues to demonstrate, myths can be repeated over and over again. Whereas the truth need only be told once.

I haven't played with any evidence. I have merely re-examined the known [and some hitherto unknown] facts surrounding Leather Apron, Edward Stanley and H-H and exposed a potential weak point in the myth of Jack the Ripper.

If someone demonstrates that I have been barking up the wrong tree, then jolly fine. So be it. I have no ego in this matter. All I want is the truth.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

Simon, thank you for your courteous reply, but you are 9in my view) being a tad disingenuous.

You are constructing a case to seek to prove/demonstrate a particular point. That X could have killed Chapman. To do that you HAVE (in the sense of it being essential to your case) to disconnect Chapman from the other victims.

Thus, in my view (maybe not in that of others) you have "played with" the evidence. You are re-arranging facts and seeking to make points crucial to a wider case.

This is intellectually different from evidence suggesting that Chapman was killed by a separate hand and then seeking what that implied.

I have merely re-examined the known [and some hitherto unknown] facts surrounding Leather Apron, Edward Stanley and H-H and exposed a potential weak point in the myth of Jack the Ripper.

That may be true - it is how you then use the "findings" that troubles me. "Leather Apron" has long been an oddity - and Pizer's admission in court and then dismissal is inexplicable. Nothing new there. But whether your interpretationis any more correct waist to be seen (IMHO I hasten to add). The character of Sgt Thick(e) - who maybe of relevance here - was one I raised in a recent thread on the "controllers" of Spitalfields.

I believe there may be other interpretations/explanations of events than that you assert.

The argument in support of Annie Chapman [or anyone else] having been a Ripper victim is based on an uncritical acceptance of everything we have been told.

With respect, I don't believe that is true - and I write as someone who has faced a lot of "stick" for questioning the inclusion of Stride and Kelly in the list of "Jack's" victims. So I am not some unquestioning and uncritical observer.

"Jack's" victims have been reviewed many times - but in my view there is a reasonable (and reasoned0 consensus that Nichols, Chapman and eddowes (at least) form a series that appears to be by the same hand, shows a learning curve that should be expected and is acceptable. The nature of the three victims, their condition etc, is all relatively consistent. So no - leave out the implication that we are all daft or asleep please. It won't wash.

Over the years this acceptance has hardened into dogma which, from an historical standpoint, is unsatisfactory.

The conclusion you reach in that sentence might be reasonable, if the contention was true. It is not. You are generalising to support your thesis.

Dogma perpetuates myths whilst vigorously defending itself against all other possible explanations.

Sorry but that is another generalisation. You can do much better than that.

And as Ripperology continues to demonstrate, myths can be repeated over and over again. Whereas the truth need only be told once.

But as Pilate asked - What is truth?

There is a difference between analysing a situation or finding new evidence and coming to a logical conclusion; and finding a conclusion that then has to be justified. Your articles fall into the second camp.

You have done somewhat better than the "celebrity" theorists picking Maybrick, Van Gogh or Barnardo, your proposed killer (at least of one woman) is someone (at least in the guise of "the Pensioner") who is mentioned in the surviving case evidence, and thus a known contemporary associated with the case. But even if you can prove that he was a second (secret) identity for your real suspect, that of itself would not make him a killer or the killer. there coulod be other explanations for such behaviour which while socially fatal (at the time) would not have been such in law.

But the weakness in your argument - and that is all I was pointing out in my reply to the other Phil - 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.

Now that is what I call "situating the appraisal". You are NOT letting your conclusion arise from the evidence, but are effectively resorting to special pleading to make your case. Frankly, Annie is one of the few victims not frequently (if ever) questioned as killed by JtR but NOT for the reasons you cited. You need to suggest that we have all been missing something here - we have NOT.

If someone demonstrates that I have been barking up the wrong tree, then jolly fine.

I am really not very interested in demonstrating you wrong. I entered the discussion on a different point. I find your articles entertaining, well-written, persuasive on several points, very very well-researched, but not (unless there is more to come) convincing.

Sorry. I genuinely hope that I have not bruised your ego in what I have said. I am simply seeking to express my view that the way the parts are brought into a whole is essentially flawed as the case you advance stands at this point.

I wait to be proved wrong.

Phil