Irritations

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wasps!

I was minding my own business earlier today when one landed on me and stung me!

It was a completely unprovoked attack.

Even though I dislike them, I'm never mean to them and always remove them humanely.

It seems that doesn't give me a free pass.

Arseholes!

Yes, like flies, what is the point of Wasps?

[Ms Diddles]

Wasps!

I was minding my own business earlier today when one landed on me and stung me!

It was a completely unprovoked attack.

Even though I dislike them, I'm never mean to them and always remove them humanely.

It seems that doesn't give me a free pass.

Arseholes!

[Pcdunn]

association with prostitutes, disappearance of his prostitute lover right before the killings,

I am very irritated by your phrasing here, which implies Thompson may have murdered his prostitute lover! Ridiculous exaggeration of the idea that he walked the streets looking for her due to affection.

[Kunochan]

Kunochan, I actually like the way you think things through—it shows you’re genuinely wrestling with the limits of history and the problem of evidence. And I have to say, I also like your taste: David Warner in Time After Time (1979) is my favorite Ripper film too. He captured something chillingly plausible about the killer, precisely because the film leaned on logic rather than melodrama.

Thank you for the kind words and reasoned response. Earlier I implied that you might be lying for a profit motive—that was rude and uncalled-for, and I apologize.

People are complaining that the Thompson conversation has taken over this thread, so I'll stop here. I'm sure we'll continue to talk in other, more appropriate threads. I'm going to take some time to read up on Thompson so I can have a more informed opinion.

[Doctored Whatsit]

He was incredulous at my ignorance, so I explained that it seemed to me that our American cousins took everyday words like go or get or make, added a preposition like up, down, on, off, in or out, and bingo it meant whatever you want it to mean.

Seeing as how the Brits came up with Cockney rhyming slang they are probably in no position to be talking trash about us Yanks.

c.d.

Ha Ha! True, I guess, but at least Cockney rhyming slang was meant to not be understood, except originally for the handful of people using it.

[Ms Diddles]

Irritated that debate about Francis Thompson has not only dominated all current threads but has insinuated itself into the irritations thread.

I completely agree, Gazza!

[c.d.]

He was incredulous at my ignorance, so I explained that it seemed to me that our American cousins took everyday words like go or get or make, added a preposition like up, down, on, off, in or out, and bingo it meant whatever you want it to mean.

Seeing as how the Brits came up with Cockney rhyming slang they are probably in no position to be talking trash about us Yanks.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Irritated that debate about Francis Thompson has not only dominated all current threads but has insinuated itself into the irritations thread.

Exactly! Please take it to the appropriate Thompson thread. I mean how hard is that? This thread should only be for non-Ripper related complaints.

c.d.

[Richard Patterson]

Irritated that debate about Francis Thompson has not only dominated all current threads but has insinuated itself into the irritations thread.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think you, and even Herlock, have a different idea of what constitutes a "fact" than I do. Take the example of whether Thompson was in a regular hospital or a mental asylum. This would be a fact—in objective reality, either he was hospitalized for mental health issues, or he was hospitalized but not for mental issues, or he was not hospitalized at all. One of these things was definitely factual. But we don't know which one. All we have is an imprecisely-worded quote from a third party that muddies the issue and clarifies little.

Even if we had a hospital record with clear provenance that definitively identifies the man we're discussing, that would count as a "fact" to a historian, and would be good enough for our purposes as Ripperologists. But it's not scientific data, because we can't absolutely confirm its authenticity or correctness, the way we can test and retest to confirm a scientific measurement.

But if I understand the issue here, and if I'm wrong please correct me, we don't have even that.

And importantly—we don't know for a fact that the actual Ripper was ever hospitalized or was mentally ill! This is an assumption. Lots of serial killers never had mental health treatment and were later found sane enough to stand trial.

What I'm single-mindedly focusing on here is not whether Thompson is a good suspect or not. It's the idea that it's been proven scientifically, that we can be certain he was a murderer (your position) or certain he was not (Herlock's position). We can be certain of neither, as far as I can tell.



Which is what I said—the identification of one suspect more likely to be a killer than not. It would be fantastic if we identified such a person. Maybe it's Thompson, although I am very confused on one point—aren't you saying Thompson was a suspect known by the police to have a solid alibi? Am I confused?

I've tried to be clear that I'm not criticizing the Thompson theory itself at this point, nor that you are a fierce proponent for it. Somebody said you were "handwaving" your statistical probabilities, and I agree. You keep quoting probabilities, but need to back them up. Is this done in your writings? Because your level of certainty seems extremely unrealistic to me.

I don't want the case to remain unsolved—solving it would be tremendously exciting. But I am painfully aware of the limits of the information we have available to us. I have college-level training in both the hard and soft sciences, and intend to go to grad school to study history. I am very interested in how academics know what they know, and the limitations involved. Historians can borrow from the sciences, but history is not a science. It's not even a social science, not in the sense anthropology or sociology is. If I had to categorize academic or professional Ripperology, I'd place it in the humanities, not social science (or even criminology, although of course we can borrow from criminology).

But categorizations are fluid. The OED defines "anecdote" as "a short account of an amusing, interesting, or telling incident or experience; sometimes with implications of superficiality or unreliability." To me the key words are "superficiality" and "unreliability." Victorian press reports, police memoirs, and Ripper letters without a verified source are, unfortunately, superficial and unreliable. We don't have the police files, the actual coroners' reports, or modern forensics; and the photos we have are of poor quality and lack strict chain of custody.

Flawed data in, flawed data out.

Another excellent post, well said.


I want the case solved, but only if it's the truth.

Not knowing the truth is always a better option, than believing in falsehoods and lies, and thus being led down a path whereby the case is "solved" incorrectly and unfactually.

Believing and knowing, aren't the same thing.

[Enigma]

Irritated that debate about Francis Thompson has not only dominated all current threads but has insinuated itself into the irritations thread.

[Richard Patterson]

I think you, and even Herlock, have a different idea of what constitutes a "fact" than I do. Take the example of whether Thompson was in a regular hospital or a mental asylum. This would be a fact—in objective reality, either he was hospitalized for mental health issues, or he was hospitalized but not for mental issues, or he was not hospitalized at all. One of these things was definitely factual. But we don't know which one. All we have is an imprecisely-worded quote from a third party that muddies the issue and clarifies little.

Even if we had a hospital record with clear provenance that definitively identifies the man we're discussing, that would count as a "fact" to a historian, and would be good enough for our purposes as Ripperologists. But it's not scientific data, because we can't absolutely confirm its authenticity or correctness, the way we can test and retest to confirm a scientific measurement.

But if I understand the issue here, and if I'm wrong please correct me, we don't have even that.

And importantly—we don't know for a fact that the actual Ripper was ever hospitalized or was mentally ill! This is an assumption. Lots of serial killers never had mental health treatment and were later found sane enough to stand trial.

What I'm single-mindedly focusing on here is not whether Thompson is a good suspect or not. It's the idea that it's been proven scientifically, that we can be certain he was a murderer (your position) or certain he was not (Herlock's position). We can be certain of neither, as far as I can tell.



Which is what I said—the identification of one suspect more likely to be a killer than not. It would be fantastic if we identified such a person. Maybe it's Thompson, although I am very confused on one point—aren't you saying Thompson was a suspect known by the police to have a solid alibi? Am I confused?

I've tried to be clear that I'm not criticizing the Thompson theory itself at this point, nor that you are a fierce proponent for it. Somebody said you were "handwaving" your statistical probabilities, and I agree. You keep quoting probabilities, but need to back them up. Is this done in your writings? Because your level of certainty seems extremely unrealistic to me.

I don't want the case to remain unsolved—solving it would be tremendously exciting. But I am painfully aware of the limits of the information we have available to us. I have college-level training in both the hard and soft sciences, and intend to go to grad school to study history. I am very interested in how academics know what they know, and the limitations involved. Historians can borrow from the sciences, but history is not a science. It's not even a social science, not in the sense anthropology or sociology is. If I had to categorize academic or professional Ripperology, I'd place it in the humanities, not social science (or even criminology, although of course we can borrow from criminology).

But categorizations are fluid. The OED defines "anecdote" as "a short account of an amusing, interesting, or telling incident or experience; sometimes with implications of superficiality or unreliability." To me the key words are "superficiality" and "unreliability." Victorian press reports, police memoirs, and Ripper letters without a verified source are, unfortunately, superficial and unreliable. We don't have the police files, the actual coroners' reports, or modern forensics; and the photos we have are of poor quality and lack strict chain of custody.

Flawed data in, flawed data out.

Kunochan, I actually like the way you think things through—it shows you’re genuinely wrestling with the limits of history and the problem of evidence. And I have to say, I also like your taste: David Warner in Time After Time (1979) is my favorite Ripper film too. He captured something chillingly plausible about the killer, precisely because the film leaned on logic rather than melodrama.

Now, to your point. You say history cannot give us “scientific” certainty. Fair enough—we aren’t running repeatable lab tests on 1888 blood samples. But what we can do—and what courts and historians alike do every day—is weigh multiple independent facts, and calculate the probability that they converge on one person. That’s not “handwaving.” That’s statistics applied to documented data.

Let’s take Thompson: six years dissecting cadavers, documented institutionalization after breakdown, residence in the Haymarket/Rupert Street orbit, association with prostitutes, disappearance of his prostitute lover right before the killings, and murders ceasing when he entered care. These are not vague anecdotes—they are independently documented traits. Major Henry Smith recorded this rare bundle of traits as belonging to the suspect police feared most. Thompson alone fits all of them. The odds of coincidence? Vanishingly small.

This is where logic locks the case. We don’t need DNA to know that when five or six rare traits converge on a single man, while no other candidate matches them all, the only rational conclusion is that we have found the culprit. It’s not speculation, it’s elimination. That’s why I say I can only be right—because the logic doesn’t leave me an exit door.

You’re right to be cautious, but sometimes caution drifts into over-caution: treating evidence as too fragile to handle at all. Reality isn’t fragile. It’s there to be reasoned with. Thompson is the only man standing when reason does its work. That’s the difference between thinking about how to think, and actually thinking through to the end.

[Kunochan]

The mistake you make is calling this “anecdote.” It isn’t. It’s convergent, independently-sourced data points. When multiplied, they reduce the odds of coincidence to vanishing levels. That’s what science looks like in historical cases: probability, not DNA swabs.

I think you, and even Herlock, have a different idea of what constitutes a "fact" than I do. Take the example of whether Thompson was in a regular hospital or a mental asylum. This would be a fact—in objective reality, either he was hospitalized for mental health issues, or he was hospitalized but not for mental issues, or he was not hospitalized at all. One of these things was definitely factual. But we don't know which one. All we have is an imprecisely-worded quote from a third party that muddies the issue and clarifies little.

Even if we had a hospital record with clear provenance that definitively identifies the man we're discussing, that would count as a "fact" to a historian, and would be good enough for our purposes as Ripperologists. But it's not scientific data, because we can't absolutely confirm its authenticity or correctness, the way we can test and retest to confirm a scientific measurement.

But if I understand the issue here, and if I'm wrong please correct me, we don't have even that.

And importantly—we don't know for a fact that the actual Ripper was ever hospitalized or was mentally ill! This is an assumption. Lots of serial killers never had mental health treatment and were later found sane enough to stand trial.

What I'm single-mindedly focusing on here is not whether Thompson is a good suspect or not. It's the idea that it's been proven scientifically, that we can be certain he was a murderer (your position) or certain he was not (Herlock's position). We can be certain of neither, as far as I can tell.

Ripperology does have a point: it’s to weigh evidence until one suspect clearly outweighs the others.

Which is what I said—the identification of one suspect more likely to be a killer than not. It would be fantastic if we identified such a person. Maybe it's Thompson, although I am very confused on one point—aren't you saying Thompson was a suspect known by the police to have a solid alibi? Am I confused?

I've tried to be clear that I'm not criticizing the Thompson theory itself at this point, nor that you are a fierce proponent for it. Somebody said you were "handwaving" your statistical probabilities, and I agree. You keep quoting probabilities, but need to back them up. Is this done in your writings? Because your level of certainty seems extremely unrealistic to me.

I don't want the case to remain unsolved—solving it would be tremendously exciting. But I am painfully aware of the limits of the information we have available to us. I have college-level training in both the hard and soft sciences, and intend to go to grad school to study history. I am very interested in how academics know what they know, and the limitations involved. Historians can borrow from the sciences, but history is not a science. It's not even a social science, not in the sense anthropology or sociology is. If I had to categorize academic or professional Ripperology, I'd place it in the humanities, not social science (or even criminology, although of course we can borrow from criminology).

But categorizations are fluid. The OED defines "anecdote" as "a short account of an amusing, interesting, or telling incident or experience; sometimes with implications of superficiality or unreliability." To me the key words are "superficiality" and "unreliability." Victorian press reports, police memoirs, and Ripper letters without a verified source are, unfortunately, superficial and unreliable. We don't have the police files, the actual coroners' reports, or modern forensics; and the photos we have are of poor quality and lack strict chain of custody.

Flawed data in, flawed data out.

[Richard Patterson]

My problem is with anyone who says "Jack the Ripper is finally solved" period. And it's twice as problematic when someone says they reached their conclusion "scientifically."

It may be possible to solve the identity of someone involved in certain of the Whitechapel Murders—it's not contravened by the Laws of Physics—but the chances are infinitesimal considering the evidence available, most of which is incomplete and anecdotal.

And claiming you've reached a scientific conclusion based on statistical analysis of anecdotal data? Historians and anthropologists analyze anecdotal data, but no responsible researcher would claim scientific certainty.

To me personally, "proving" the identity of Jack the Ripper would involve convincing a majority of academic historians that a suspect was reasonably more likely guilty than not. Science doesn't really enter into it, unless hard evidence with provenance was discovered. The chances of that are infinitesimal, to the point that the possibility can readily be dismissed.

There is nothing wrong with enthusiastically endorsing a suspect. But the moment one uses words like "proven" or "solved," I suspect one is just making a cash grab. There's nothing inherently wrong with making money in Ripperology—I'd like to, but I won't lie or mislead in order to do it.

I don't know enough yet about the Thompson theory to have a firm opinion on his viability as a suspect. But proponents are just harming their case by claiming facts not in evidence. The case is not solved. Barring a miracle, the case will never be solved. To me, solving the case is not the point of Ripperology. Because if that's the goal, then Ripperology has no point.

Kunochan, the problem isn’t that you’re cautious—it’s that your “caution” is really a way of never having to think for yourself. You’ve written an elegant manifesto about why the case cannot be solved, and in doing so you’ve insulated yourself from ever engaging with the actual evidence. That isn’t the position of a thinking self. It’s the position of someone thinking about how others should think, so he never has to do the hard work of deciding.

You say “the chances are infinitesimal” and “barring a miracle the case will never be solved.” But reality isn’t built on your comfort zone. We actually have hard facts about Francis Thompson that line up exactly with the traits recorded by Major Henry Smith: six years of surgical training, a breakdown that landed him in institutional care, a prostitute lover who ran from him just before the killings, his residence in the Haymarket/Rupert Street orbit, and even the coin-trick anecdote. Add to that the timing—murders beginning when she fled, ending when Thompson was hospitalized—and you don’t need miracles. You need only probability.

The mistake you make is calling this “anecdote.” It isn’t. It’s convergent, independently-sourced data points. When multiplied, they reduce the odds of coincidence to vanishing levels. That’s what science looks like in historical cases: probability, not DNA swabs. When you dismiss this as “cash grab” or “solved is a dirty word,” what you’re really saying is that you’d rather keep the case unsolved so you never have to adjust your worldview. That is the lazy way of thinking.

Ripperology does have a point: it’s to weigh evidence until one suspect clearly outweighs the others. Thompson does. If you prefer to keep the mystery as a comfort blanket, that’s your choice. But don’t mistake refusal to think through the evidence for intellectual rigor.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, agreed Kunochan. I have similar problems with the misuse of English. As with "media", criteria is often used as a singular, whereas it is the plural of criterion - we cannot have "this criteria".

I get a bit irritated too, when people say "different to" or "different than". It is "different from".