How much does accuracy matter to you?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

The JtR mystery was a concoction.

There were no real suspects.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Maybe I've led a sheltered life but of the (not many) JTR books I've read, nearly all were written by people trying to tell the truth. This includes books that I bought before I knew that the author was a name/would be a name in Ripperworld, e.g. I bought Fido's book when I saw it by chance in a shop. I hadn't a clue who he was. Ditto Skinner and Howells, and one or two others.

But for the extreme sceptics among us, I suggest the ideal Ripper gift : a book called Jack? The? Ripper?

[Wickerman]

Yikes. You just called a lot of people irrational. Too much name-calling on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Very few 'suspect' books have any real value Tom, and the numbers keep growing.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

The JtR mystery was a concoction.

There were no real suspects.

Regards,

Simon

A Rose, by any other name, Simon.

The Whitechapel murders certainly existed, and someone was to blame.

Regards, Jon S.

[Robert]

Hi Jon

"A man's been murdered - and somebody's responsible."

(Plan 9 From Outer Space)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. I just find something ironic, or maybe 'irrational', about the fact that we were all brought into our interest in this case through SOME theory at SOME time, and yet sit around bitching about the existence of suspect books. Without interest in the identity of Jack the Ripper, there is no Jack the Ripper.

Now, if what you mean to say is that some of the theories you've read are irrational, or that all the Ripper theories are biased to one degree or another, I don't think anybody could disagree with you.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Sound comment

Dave

[Errata]

Hi Wick. I just find something ironic, or maybe 'irrational', about the fact that we were all brought into our interest in this case through SOME theory at SOME time, and yet sit around bitching about the existence of suspect books. Without interest in the identity of Jack the Ripper, there is no Jack the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Not necessarily. I came into it reading one of Donald Rumbelow's books. No suspect was particularly put forth. It was the photo of Mary Kelly that got me. I just had no idea how that could even happen to a human being, much less why. Being entirely too young at the time to process, I became very determined to find out how a person does that to another person. I think I was hoping to find some way to identify them at a safe distance. It's why I find serial killers terribly fascinating.

The irony is, I can understand why various killers do what they do. I understand Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy... and I still don't understand why Mary Kelly's killer did what he did. There's just something so completely unnecessary about what was done to her. So she sparked an interest that lets me understand just about every depravity ever committed on a human being, except for what was done to her.

[lynn cates]

Edward D Wood Jr

Hello Robert. And how shall we figure out who's responsible? "By going down and finding out."

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

"A Rose, by any other name . . . The Whitechapel murders certainly existed, and someone was to blame."

Agreed.

What makes you so certain they were the work of someone known colloquially as Jack the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick. I just find something ironic,

Yes Tom, it is ironic. Often it is those same 'fantastic' theories which introduced us to the case. Whether it be the 'Diary', the Royal Conspiracy, or in my case, McCormick's Pedachenko, all those years ago.

We get in for the wrong reasons, but we learn, at least that is the hope. And our knowledge base expands so we can see the falsity of those types of suspect theories.
I guess we could say, it is those who have failed to learn who are the ones responsible for continuing to promote that deplorable level of 'suspect' analysis.
One recent example, Uncle Jack. Apparently a genuine physician, Dr. John Williams, thrust into the Whitechapel murder case as a 'suspect', with absolutely nothing close to a trace of evidence to support the suggestion.
That seems to be the level of analysis today, pick a name, and look for any circumstances that can be used to leverage this 'unknown' into the fray.
These kind of authors are more concerned with getting their own name out there than providing a well researched and sound theory.

Now, if what you mean to say is that some of the theories you've read are irrational, or that all the Ripper theories are biased to one degree or another, I don't think anybody could disagree with you.

I don't think anyone is, Tom

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Errata,

Congratulations, you're the only person to have purchased their first Ripper book without wanting to know who he was.

Wick,

You now seem to be talking about a certain sub-genre of suspect books - the crank ones - as opposed to ones like Rob House's or Evans & Gainey or Skinner & Howell - where they investigated a legit suspect and, although clearly swayed towards their own suspect, produced books that in no way have led the majority of us to conclude they were 'irrational' or their works 'deplorable'. Even some books with stupid theories, like 'The Ripper Code' have interesting and even viable information or ideas in them.

I think this is a case of what Bridewell was talking about. Some see an idea from the worst scenario, some from the best. When I think of 'suspect books', the good ones like House and E&G come to my mind first, whereas your mind sees that absolute worst, such as Uncle Jack or Trenouth first. But I think if we were to have a book-specific discussion, you and I would probably have few disagreements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Wick,

You now seem to be talking about a certain sub-genre of suspect books - the crank ones -

Tom, the thread deals with the issue of accuracy, which includes all authors, and no doubt some Casebook posters.

as opposed to ones like Rob House's or Evans & Gainey or Skinner & Howell - where they investigated a legit suspect and, although clearly swayed towards their own suspect, produced books that in no way have led the majority of us to conclude they were 'irrational' or their works 'deplorable'.

Which I covered by saying:

I am glad to say though, that in the few rare cases where this has occured the resulting book is in an altogether different league to the run-of-the-mill 'suspect' rubbish.
Don't get me wrong, we do need books which provide backgound on many of the central characters throughout this case. Foremost in my mind in this regard is Kozminski and Tumblety, but these books are not representative of how most 'suspects' are selected and promoted. I think we all know the type I am talking about.

I think this is a case of what Bridewell was talking about.

That may be applicable to judging the viability of a suspect. I am really more concerned with the methodology of creating this suspect in the first place.

When I think of 'suspect books', the good ones like House and E&G come to my mind first, whereas your mind sees that absolute worst, such as Uncle Jack or Trenouth first.

Accuracy is not normally an issue with the works by House, E&G, Fido, Sugden, Howells & Skinner, etc. The thread is debating 'accuracy' so I raise the worse sources of inaccuracy, doesn't that make some sense?

But I think if we were to have a book-specific discussion, you and I would probably have few disagreements.

I think so.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

What makes you so certain they were the work of someone known colloquially as Jack the Ripper?

I'm not, Simon.
Because we cannot possibly know how many murders this JtR was responsible for, then by defacto neither can we truely claim how many were the work of one man, ie; Jack the Ripper. It works both ways.

What we can say without reservation is that more than one hand was at work throughout the Whitechapel murders.

My view, if it has any relevance is, that Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes fell to the same hand, and very likely, but not obviously, Mary Kelly.

So long as the killer never claimed the monica "Jack the Ripper" then it wasn't him who was responsible, right?
Does it matter what the press called him?

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

Congratulations, you're the only person to have purchased their first Ripper book without wanting to know who he was.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Don't congratulate me, I pulled it off the family bookshelf when I was 10 or so. I had no idea what it even was about. My parents didn't monitor what we read, until of course I started asking my ob/gyn dad some odd questions about removing uterii. But despite my reading level far outstripping my ability to cope with what I read, I still think it was a better choice than one of the 30 Judy Blume novels I could have chosen.

But yeah, I totally thought the ghost of my grandfather, Jack the Ripper and a T-rex loitered outside my window. Completely unprepared for that level of truth.