Jack the Ripper, The Facts

[Yatish]

Paul Begg gives us the facts and then speculates on what they mean...he gives both sides of a possible argument,,which is simply good journalism..and what you all end up with ids something interesting and readable..
Jeff

I think this is a fair point. I really enjoyed reading 'The Facts', and as a conclusion to some of the facts he gives, i don't think it's too wrong for him to speculate on what may have happened. On the podcasts, Paul comes across as a guy with great integrity, knowledge, and humour- and seems an all round top bloke! Cheers.

[rjpalmer]

I'm starting a fund to buy Nan Dorder a muzzle.

If anyone is interesting in contributing, please feel free to give me a buzz...

[rjpalmer]

By the way...

Sometime ago, Alex Chisholm, who is one of the only academic historians to have written about the Whitechapel Murders, made a widely ignored post on this forum, where he said something to the effect that 'Ripperologists' are "naive" to talk about 'objective' history. He's right.

Among professional historians, the concept is old hat. It supposes that there is such an animal. There isn't. You have (1) source materials; and you have (2) a historian who is interpretting those source materials.

This is NOT a bad thing; it's a GOOD thing. What you want from a historian is insight, not a regurgitation of "THE FACTS."

The main problem with Norder's comments, beside the fact that they are obviously motivated by Begg's "DreamGuy" editorial, (don't ask), is that they are trite, second-rate, and naive.

Anyone is free to take issue with any specific point made by Begg. If they do it in a respectful and sophisticated way, then we can have an engaging and a useful conversation. But to just rant and rave idiotically is beyond tiresome.

If Norder wants to take issue with Begg's view of the case, the answer is simple. He can get off his backside and write a more insightful history of the Whitechapel Murders. But don't hold your breaths, folks.

Do I agree with Begg's overall view of the case?

No.

Do I think Begg is more insightful than Norder?

Infinitely so.

Indeed, Ripperologists appear to be in mental decline. It seems to have started about 1992 give or take a year or two.

Begg is one of a small breed who is even worth bothering with.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't have a problem with Begg making his own interpretations of the facts, like his suggestion of the witness 'who best saw the murderer´' being Schwartz and not Lawende. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think it's interpretations that Begg is allowed to make.

What I DIDN'T like about the book - and I've said this before - is that it completely lacks all signs of the research that's been done for the last fifteen years. Reading The Facts was like time had stood still since 1987 or 1988 and nothing had happened in Ripper studies since then.
In that respect, I found the book to be an immense disappointment and very conservative.

I disagree with Palmer. As I see it, serious Ripper studies - that actually broke down some barriers of conservative thinking, really trying to look at what the facts say without getting stuck at the expected and 'generally accepted', started in 1992 or 1993, and today things are happening at a rapid speed.
This is what true historical, academic research is all about (Chisholm himself being a prime example), and myself being an academic historian I fully support it. If one see this approach and these developments as something negative, well then I suggest that person should stick to Rumbelow and Sugden and continue to bury his head in the sand.

All the best

[Dan Norder]

It's amazing how the same people always go around attacking stances nobody even made to try to confuse people.

Of course a book titled "The Facts" can contain speculation. It should be made clear, however, which parts are facts, which parts are somewhat speculative, and which parts are not only highly speculative but contradict what all the other experts on the topic say. Instead he says straight out that they are the facts and says things like "there is no question" about certain conclusions when he certainly knows there are severe questions. Using wording that explicitly tells readers that something is true when it not only isn't necessarily true but when he knows that most experts think it isn't true goes beyond merely misleading to outright deceptive.

Sugden is arguably the most qualified historian in the field. He certainly knows all about what history is and isn't, and he's also the main author Begg attacks in his book. Begg (along with his kneejerk apologists) tries to rationalize away his mistakes and bias by arguing that he is the only one doing what historians are supposed to do and all the other authors -- including several with far more qualifications in historical research than him -- should be ignored.

All this screaming from people like RJ and Jeff who have been consistently caught making incorrect statements themselves and continue to do so even after their mistakes were pointed out is nothing but a smokescreen... Instead of willing to be held to the rules of scholarly debate and what the evidence actually says, when someone points out that they are wrong on something they lash out and make it their personal crusade to invent up whatever ridiculous attack they can to try to convince other people to ignore the ones who pointed out their errors. This is why Begg lashes out at so many of the other respected authors in the field and why RJ tries to turn every thread he posts to into "why Dan Norder and everyone associated with him and the entire fields of psychology and criminology should be ignored."

This academic field is basically split between the people who are in it for advancing knowledge about the topic without regard to any specific suspect or theory and those who want to mislead people to try to advance their own suspects for reasons of ego as well as book sales and speaking fees. That's all it really comes down to.

[Tom_Wescott]

Glenn,

I agree with just about everything you say in your post, particularly the fact that Ripperology has improved significantly since 1992, instead of going on the decline as RJ suggested. The only thing I disagree with in your post is that Begg didn't include new thoughts and information post 1988. I thought he actually included quite a bit.

So, I'm going to back away from this thread. - But not the book. As I said, I'm enjoying it too much. And I won't have you marring it any further.

Absolutely you should read the book and you should enjoy it. Never let us fuddy duddies take your fun away. Use us for whatever we might be good for and ignore the nonsense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Septic Blue]

It's really quite pointless for you to hide behind Jeff: His silhouette does little to conceal your presence; and your accent is easily discernible.

... ‘abject’ means a low state or condition, or extremely unpleasant and degrading (as the Shorter OED defines it), which basically sums up the condition in which the poor overall lived.

There is 'poverty'; and there is 'abject poverty' !!!

Your assertion that Charles Booth's survey "... revealed that 35.7 per cent of East Londoners and 30.7 per cent of all Londoners were living in abject poverty." is therefore, erroneous.

In "Labour & Life of the People, Volume II: London", Williams & Norgate, 1891, pg. 21, Booth estimated that 0.9% of all Londoners belonged to his socio-economic class "A" (lowest class: "vicious, semi-criminal"); and that 7.5% of all Londoners belonged to his socio-economic class "B" (casual earnings: "very poor"). These two socio-economic classes would account for the portion of Londoners living in 'abject poverty': 8.4%. Booth also estimated that 22.3% of all Londoners belonged to his socio-economic classes "C" & "D" (intermittent earnings & small regular earnings, respectively: "poor"). So, Booth's 1891 estimates would most assuredly read as follows:

Percentage of all Londoners living in 'abject poverty': 8.4
Percentage of all Londoners living in any degree of 'poverty': 30.7

In "Life & Labour of the People in London, Volume I: East, Central and South London", MacMillan & Co., 1892, pg. 36, Booth estimated that 1.2% of all East Londoners belonged to his socio-economic class "A" (lowest class: "vicious, semi-criminal"); and that 11.2% of all East Londoners belonged to his socio-economic class "B" (casual earnings: "very poor"). These two socio-economic classes would account for the portion of East Londoners living in 'abject poverty': 12.4%. Booth also estimated that 22.8% of all East Londoners belonged to his socio-economic classes "C" & "D" (intermittent earnings & small regular earnings, respectively: "poor"). So, Booth's 1892 estimates would most assuredly read as follows:

Percentage of all East Londoners living in 'abject poverty': 12.4
Percentage of all East Londoners living in any degree of 'poverty': 35.2

Begg's meaning is surely very clear ...

Indeed, it is !!!

pg. 378: "... the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."

"was": Your emphasis

That's "W-A-S", with no semblance of any qualifier !!!

... (indeed, in your own earlier post that you quote it would appear that you understood it quite well), which was that by 1910 Mile End Old Town was a part of Stepney and its workhouse therefore was in Stepney and Swanson might therefore have described the workhouse as being Stepney Workhouse.

"... that by 1910 Mile End Old Town was a part of Stepney and its workhouse therefore was in Stepney and Swanson might therefore have described the workhouse as being Stepney Workhouse."

That Swanson himself, might have referred to Mile End Old Town Workhouse as "Stepney Workhouse", is my train of thought: Not Yours !!!

The Bottom Line: With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as “Stepney Workhouse”.

Remember; yours is "surely very clear":

"... when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."

My reasons for believing that Swanson might have referred colloquially to Mile End Old Town Workhouse as "Stepney Workhouse" go well beyond the reality that The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town became part of the newly established Metropolitan Borough of Stepney, in 1900. They also go well beyond your understanding of the political geography of Victorian London.

From its beginnings, the Ancient Parish of St. Dunstan Stepney was bounded to the north by the Ancient Parishes of St. Leonard Shoreditch and St. John at Hackney; to the east by the River Lea and the Ancient Parish of Bromley St. Leonard; to the south by the River Thames; and to the west by the Ancient Parishes of St. Botolph Without Aldgate and again, St. Leonard Shoreditch.

From approximately 1329 to 1817, most of the hamlets within St. Dunstan Stepney were designated as separate Civil Parishes:

- St. Matthew Bethnal Green
- Christ Church Spitalfields
- St. Mary Whitechapel
- St. John of Wapping
- St. George in the East
- St. Paul Shadwell
- St. Anne Limehouse
- St. Mary Stratford Bow
- All Saints Poplar

The following hamlets remained within St. Dunstan Stepney:

- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff

In 1836, in accordance with The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834, The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town became part of the newly established Stepney Poor Law Union / Stepney Registration District:

- St. John of Wapping
- St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- St. Anne Limehouse
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town

From 1837-1841, several Ecclesiastical Parishes were established within The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, in St. Dunstan Stepney:

- Holy Trinity Stepney
- St. Philip Stepney
- St. Peter Stepney
- St. Thomas Stepney

In 1857, The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town was removed from Stepney Poor Law Union / Stepney Registration District, and designated a Poor Law Parish / Registration District in itself.

From 1858 to 1880, several additional Ecclesiastical Parishes were established within The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, each having the designation "Stepney" as part of its name.

In 1866/67 the three remaining hamlets of St. Dunstan Stepney; Mile End New Town, Mile End Old Town and Ratcliff were designated Civil Parishes in themselves. However, 'old habits die hard', and even the Ordnance Surveys of 1870-1874 identified these hamlets as being part of St. Dunstan Stepney.

While St. Dunstan's Church itself, was actually situated within The Hamlet of Ratcliff, the broad area generally known as "Stepney" was situated within The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town. This included of course, Stepney Green, which was known colloquially as "Stepney High Street".

So, you see, The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town had a very close association with the name "Stepney" for the better part of a thousand years prior to its inclusion in the newly established Metropolitan Borough of Stepney, in 1900. This is why my train of thought has been from the beginning of this argument, that Swanson himself, might have referred colloquially to Mile End Old Town Workhouse as "Stepney Workhouse".

What is important is that this was very clearly offered as an observation in the FACTS, not given as a statement of fact, ...

"... not given as a statement of fact, ..."

That is unadulterated bullshite !!!

... if a historian encounters problems with a document then it is perfectly legitimate for him to suggest explanations for them ...

But it is 'perfectly illegitimate' and totally unacceptable for him to concoct 'facts', which suit his agenda !!!

surely it would have been wrong of Begg not to have mentioned what some might regard as a plausible explanation for what appears to be an inaccuracy in Swanson’s account.

But it was infinitely more wrong of you to convey that "plausible explanation" as being a matter of fact !!!

Need I remind you:

pg. 378: "... the expanding Borough of Stepney absorbed Mile End Old Town in 1901, so, when Swanson wrote nine years later, Mile End Old Town Workhouse was Stepney Workhouse."

"was": Your emphasis

That's "W-A-S", with no semblance of any qualifier !!!

To describe this as an attempt ‘to push a twelve-inch square peg into a one-inch round hole’, or a conscious or unconscious manipulation of fact is a gross exageration ...

It is an exaggeration: You're right !!!

But, we all tend to exaggerate when engaged in e-discourse, because we are left without the use of inflection, facial expressions, hand-gestures, etc ...

... what is being manipulated Colin?

'The facts' !!!

Again;

The Bottom Line: With the possible exception of some sort of vernacular (perhaps used by Swanson), Mile End Old Town Workhouse was never known as “Stepney Workhouse”.

Its absurd and clearly a gross attempt to denigrate Paul Beggs work.

It's not at all absurd; and it is an attempt to limit the so-called Swanson Marginalia to the level of credence that is warranted.


Colin

[Tom_Wescott]

Colin,

I know you're making a point by using Paul Begg's name when quoting Jeff, but that's actually against Casebook TOS policy, and whether or not Paul was playing Cirano to Jeff (which is speculation), it was still Jeff who posted, and people coming on to the thread won't know that from your post.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Admin]

Please read the rules, with attention to #5.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=196

While you can address your replies to whomever you choose, do not change quotes from actual posts.

Thank you.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Is this "Get Paul Begg" week?

If anyone doesn't like/agree with "The Facts" then I suggest they get off their fat backside and spend eighteen months writing a book of their own to show us all how it should be done.

Either put up or shut up.

Regards,

Simon

[rjpalmer]

Question to Adminstration: Is Dan N. allowed to use the phrase “the rules of scholarly debate”?

It’s kind of like Gilbert Gottfried talking about a soft, soothing murmur.

Listen carefully, DN.

I’m not asking you to agree with Paul Begg. To the contrary. What I specifically take issue with is that you AREN’T using the rules of scholarly debate. Even if you had a legitmate beef about one or more of Begg’s points, no one on earth would know it because all they see a vague blur of fury and accusation.

If you want to go after any specific point made by Paul B., have at it. I said as much in my post--if you bothered to actually consider it. I also wrote that I don't even agree with Begg’s overall view of the case, (though I did think his chapter on Druitt was insightful) so I’m hardly a “knee jerk apologist.”

No author would hope or even desire to respond to such bombastic, sweeping, and over-the-top diatribe as yours---hell, most of the time he, she, or they, wouldn’t even realize what you’re ranting on about.

Simply have the dignity and the decency to quote his individual points and give your sources when you are making a rebuttal. And please resist the temptation to blanket every one of your posts with that unique and tedious accusatory tenor.

I’m not tell you to like Begg.
I’m not telling you to agree with him.

I‘m pointing out that it is the very incompetence of your version of “scholarly debate” that leaves one with the impression that all you’re really saying is that anytime Begg doesn’t agree with one of your own silly views of the case, he’s being underhanded or crooked. For instance, the dirty blighter didn’t point out the OBVIOUS fact that John Richardson was lying about seeing Annie Chapman’s body that morning. For, as we all know, you & yours proved that many times. Am I right?

And as far as I can recall, nowhere did Begg "attack" Sugden. I say that even though I’m one hell of a lot closer to Sugden’s view of the Anderson/Kosminski conundrum than I am Begg’s.

Sugden -- one of the last authors I would say anything against-- did not write an objective account of Anderson.

And...wait for it...

THANK GOD FOR THAT.

Who would dare slap that Anglo-Irishman with such a dishonor?

Sugden obviously made a historical argument about the type of man he thought Anderson was; he also gave his evaluation of Anderson’s “Polish Jew” theory and expressed why he ultimately dismissed it. This is what I **want** from a historian. It was an argument. An approach. A thesis. A punch at the nose of ignorance and darkness. And I insist that there is NO OTHER WAY of dealing with a complex bloke like R. A.

The fact that Begg didn’t agree with Sugden’s view of Anderson in no way, shape, or form, allows you to make the silly comment that he “attacked” him. It's that sort of bombast that make people scroll quickly past your posts.

Begg gave his own views of Anderson, and quoted his sources. I may not have liked it anymore than you did, but I’m not dishonest enough to suggest it was crooked. It was painfully obvious that Begg was responding to some of the objections to the Anderson theory legitimately raised by Evans, Sugden, and Harris in the intervening years (ie., between the publication of Uncensored Facts and the 2004 “Facts.” ) Much if not all of his rebuttal was legitimate and reasonably argued, and he raised a number of points that would make for valid and interesting debate on the public forums. For instance, he responded to Sugden’s ‘wishful thinking’ or ‘cloudy memory’ thesis of Anderson’s thought process, by arguing that the Swanson Marginalia implicitly supports Anderson’s views, and wonders aloud if TWO high ranking sources could be so deluded. It’s a fair point. How is that an attack? I do hope you actually crack the binding of a history book now and then, because this sort of thing is commonplace. Indeed, the literature of many fields is almost entirely comprised of an ongoing debate among the various authors.

All I can do is allow the man to make his arguments and then decide whether I accept them or not. In the particular instance of Anderson, I’m much close to Evans and Sugden’s view. Although I’m still open to persuasion.

In short, you can’t shout the fellow down. And I’m hardly defending Begg. Indeed, two of the chapters in his book made me knock the artwork off my walls. Several of them delighted me. All I’m defending is his right to state a historical position in a reasonable manner without being called a crook or a dunderhead.

As for Wescott and Andersson. I'm not saying that no good work is being done post 1992/4. I'm saying that, in my always humble opinion, there is something lacking that wasn't lacking before, and so I find myself returning to Sugden, Fido, Evans, etc. Data is now overvalued to the detriment of theory. Twasn't always so.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The only thing I disagree with in your post is that Begg didn't include new thoughts and information post 1988. I thought he actually included quite a bit.

Well, to be honest, I don't think he did. There is nothing new in the book and none of the issues that are debated today and already were being debated at the time it was written and published are there.
As I said, reading it was like time had stood still since 1988, pretty much prepeating the 'same old truths' as Sugden and Rumbelow at the time. I found that to be really disappointing.
Instead Begg chose to fill one third of his book with incredibly dry accounts of the political life on high level.

What I DO find impressive with Begg's book is the massive footnotes and sources - in that respect I would say the book is irreplacable and worth its weight in gold for enyone who wants to do some further research.

----------------------------

RJ Palmer,

I don't get that. I find the old books by Fido, Sugden and Rumbelow (the old one, not the new one with Evans) to be enormously outdated and way beyond their past date. But each his own.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi All,

Is this "Get Paul Begg" week?

If anyone doesn't like/agree with "The Facts" then I suggest they get off their fat backside and spend eighteen months writing a book of their own to show us all how it should be done.

Either put up or shut up.

Regards,

Simon

Well, I did. Any problem with that?

All the best

[Simon Wood]

Hi Glenn,

No problem at all.

You're a shining example to others.

Regards,

Simon

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Colin

And why would you want to limit the credence of the Swanson marginalia?

Because it does not fit with your theory...

Why dosn't Glenn like Pauls book?...Because it dosnt fit with his theories...(ie reducing the victim count..which actually I think old fassioned)

Pauls book provides the FACTS...lets be honest here Colin most of the pionts you have raissed are Nit Picking..Paul Begg offers pausable insite into those FACTS which he is quite lagitamately aloud to do.

Your critisism really biols down to: lets try and dismiss Aaron Kosminski as a suspect..does it not?

And I dont beleive that at any time Paul Begg has suggested that Aaron Kosminski was Jack the Ripper..at least not to me. (personally I'm far more excited about the idea)

The fact remains however that Aaron Kosminski is still the best Suspect by a long shot....with Druit bringing up second place..(Anyone who still beleives that a six foot American dressed as kernal Sanders commited these crimes needs their brains tested..homosexual serial killers kill men not women).

And trying to denigrate Paul Beggs work will not change that fact.

Jeff

PS. Tom I dont see what your accusing Colin of here? surely he is quoting Pirate Jack. And I have know personal beef with Colin apart from his taste in football teams. At least Colin has cool taste in music..