|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 2:44 pm: |       |
We have hashed JTR to death for years and gotten nowhere. But we've never really talked about the process. I want to initiate a thread where we talk about how we go about finding an answer.
The first suggestion I would like to make is that every proposed theory have a "checkable detail". This could be a birth record, death record,etc. Something outside the known body of evidence.
What the person is suggesting may even be true, but in the absence of a checkable detail we cant know if it is true.
Insisting on a checkable detail for every theory would eliminate some of the wrangling which goes on. Some of it is based on personalities. A says B's ideas are stupid so when A comes up with a theory B says his are stupid too. If A has an abrasive personality which has offended a number of other posters, his own theory is likely to be laughed at and rejected for the wrong reasons. But with the introduction of the requirement for a checkable detail the whole thing gets more objective.
If I want to propose that JTR was an insane cowboy from the American wild west, who came to London in 1888 to visit relatives for three months, then I should request that those with access to information look at passenger lists on boats to find a name of a person whose address is in the western U.S. I should try to think of other sources of data that would either confirm or disprove.
It is not that the proposer of a theory would have to be the one that checks it. Many of us on this side of the Atlantic do not have the access to information that those of you in the British Isles have.
I think other ground rules would be useful too provided they dont squelch spontaneity. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 192
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:14 pm: | |
Very reasonable, Diana. Probably not workable,but rational and reasonable and designed to minimize altercations.
I don't have a pet theory, though, so do I just get to chime in with my two cents?
Mags |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 404
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:54 pm: | |
I, on the other hand have 275,606 pet theories. I come up with two or three a day. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 353
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:57 pm: | |
Diana,
A reasonable suggestion, but probably ineffective. As it is, most of the theories floating around do have "checkable facts" but that doesn't seem to stop the constant wrangling. Problem is, no matter how well documented a suspect may be, the crucial question is always: was he at the scene of the crime when it occurred? And that is the nut we can't crack. In most cases the answer is "Well, he could have been there, but I can't say for sure." Nor can we in most cases say someone was not there. Even those theories that involve suspects based in the north of England, France, America or incarcerated at the time have proponents arguing that after all these years we can't positively say so-and-so wasn't in Miller's Court or Mitre Square.
In contrast, the Theory of Relatively was not, when proposed, checkable but there was such a scintillating and satisfying beauty to it that it was soon embraced by most in the field. Since then various methods of testing the theory have been devised and so far the score is Einstein "many" and Opponents nil.
Personally, I find none of the theories wholly satisfying, nor do I expect there will be a theory presented on the order of brilliance of that of Relativity (for one one thing, I would hope that his/her intellect would be turned toward something more important that who was JtR).
But that there is still in some dusty attic trunk or solicitor's deed box a few documents of impeccable provenance that would answer the question . . . well, hope springs eternal.
Don. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:04 pm: | |
Every theory has unique features which often have points that may be checked. If it doesnt, then even if its true, its not provable. We have to come up with something that is both. |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:42 pm: | |
Hi.
If i had the time , the know how, mayby the money that P cornwell has at her disposal, then I would concentrate on the following.
a]to trace if still alive, the relative of Joseph Barnett who showed Paul harrison his clippings of original newspapers , said to have been collected by the real Barnett.
It would be intresting if these cuttings were the original press cuttings that were not stored in a old newspapers for sale outlets.
b] To obtain the name[ impossible] of the elderly lady who wrote to Farson in 1959, refering to a alleged grave spitting incident that occured at St patrick church [Leytonstone 1888].
And research from whatever means that could be availiable, to trace the actual J Barnett from 1888-1906 where he seems to have vanished.
If all of these above could be ascertained, then pastures new could arise.
Richard. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Diane
Robert, Debra, Chris, and many other good people also, including myself have been following exactly the path you describe for over two years now... where every single last detail has been painfully checked and rechecked time and time again. Nothing has been left to chance, we have traced the voyages of people connected to this crime right across this planet, found the graves of their relatives in far off distant lands, traced their ancestors to sugar houses and Corn Chandlers in the Whitechapel Road... and so on.
But sad to say such a course does not bring us one step closer to a solution, final or otherwise.
All that will do what you seek is a chance turn of a card.
Therefore I am turning cards very fast.
It is that sort of age. |
Olivier P.M.G. Donni
Police Constable
Username: Olivier
Post Number: 4
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:46 pm: | |
Hi,
This is an interesting thread.
I think a good methodology for ripperology could be inspired from the methodology of sciences. An old idea in science indeed is that a theory should be refutable or falsifiable. That means that, when a new theory is proposed, the theorist should also propose a way to reject it (or prove this theory is false).
Let us consider two examples. The two most debated suspects on this site are probably Maybrick and Barnett. In this case, one should determine, exactly, under which conditions these theories should be rejected.
From this point of view, the example of Maybrick is very clear. A lot of arguments against this suspect have been proposed. The line of defense is always the same: these arguments are not conclusive. For example, the differences in handwriting between letters and the diary can be explained by a schizophrenic personality. This is not a valid defense. (In sciences, it is called ‘conventionalism’. Formally, it is not possible to prove that Maybrick is (or is not) Jack the Ripper. And arguments can be rejected (against or in favor Maybrick) ad infinitum.
The problem with Barnett is the same. There are a lot of arguments against this candidate (absence of a clear motive, his probable alibi, his personality and so on). Of course, these arguments can be brushed aside. They are not conclusive.
There is a small posibility that his alibi has not been checked by Aberline.
There is a small possibility that the motive advanced by Barnettists is valid.
....
An finally, there is a small, very small possibility that Barnett is actually JtheR.
The question is: when will Barnettists accept that this candidacy should be rejected? What are the conditions that have to be fulfilled? If these conditions are not determined a priori, it is always possible to find a explanation if there is something wrong with a candidacy.
I think this is the first question that a serious methodology should pose.
Olivier |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 444
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
Well, I do think people have been checking a lot of these things out, for all the impact it has on some theories. The main problem, as I've discussed elsewhere, is that some people are masters at ignoring or rationalizing evidence that goes against their case and then coming up with excuses on why it should be ignored.
Beyond just checking facts, it's also a good idea to check the arguments for logical fallacies. This is where a lot of the theories just fall down completely. Items that just don't make sense don't need to be checked because even if they turn out to be true they are still meaningless. Of course if someone has the time and the intellectual curiosity to check them anyway, by all means, but I think coming up with a list of things to check really displaces the burden of proof and insinuates that theories are all just as likely to be true unless someone disproves them, which is actually the opposite the way things should be.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 417
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 9:55 am: | |
Well as usual your excellent comments have honed my thinking. I still like the idea of a checkable detail but I think that one detail verified does not necessarily prove a theory. Of course it would depend on what the detail was, because some could be conceivably very conclusive. However if a theory flunked the checkable detail test, we could toss it and be free to focus on more promising avenues. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 420
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
After reflection, I see that some threads really are about an open-ended search for evidence rather than being in support of any particular theory. An example is the "Exume the bodies" thread. What are some ways we can be sure to get the most bang for our buck with these?
Another problem I have already alluded to is the tendency to confuse the poster with the theory. (The medium is the message.) If someone has made me mad in the past by being insulting and abrasive, can I be objective about what he or she has to say? If a person's ideas seem ill conceived and illogical most of the time, can I be open to the possibility that once, just once, they might have a good idea? |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 194
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
Diana, I think it all boils down to frustration. The case is immense, the cast of characters daunting, the evidence maddeningly paltry and the possibilities overwhelming.
How do we approach this case? is,I think, your fundamental question, and a good one it is. We need to step back from time to time and take a breath, and what better time to do it than at the beginnings the new year?
There are a few threads along the lines of "what can we agree on" or "back to basics" that I've seen. Of course,we can agree on very little-not even WHO the victims were let alone who the killer was!
Most rational people would agree that we need to have some grounding in reality to approach the case. We need to know something about the history and culture of the era. We need to know something about how serial killers are made and about basic police/forensic techniques. We are VERY fortunate to have some incredibly talented researchers who take the time to post to this site and share their labors with us.
For myself, I have very few givens in the case. I'm willing to discard ideas when they seem to be either fruitless or proven untenable.I don't think we'll ever know who killed these women,period. That said, some theories are far more likely than others because they're more "real"--more (to me)sensible, more likely to fit with everything else we know about history,psychology and the human heart.
Your comments about personalities are right on. This is a cold medium.Some people are not writing in their native languages, some people are writing in the middle of the night when they should be asleep and some are just naturally abrasive and confrontational. How can those factors help but color our views?
Brava to you for your attempt to organize the chaos,anyway. It's good to see your comments "popping up" on threads to remind us to get real.
Happy Holidays. Maria
Mags |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 120
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:53 pm: | |
"Your comments about personalities are right on. This is a cold medium.Some people are not writing in their native languages, some people are writing in the middle of the night when they should be asleep and some are just naturally abrasive and confrontational. How can those factors help but color our views? "
Right on, Mags.
I am writing not in my right mind...
Happy Christmas!
Lyn |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 197
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 1:22 pm: | |
Well,Lyn, I didn't want to name names...
Mags |
Lindsey Millar
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 126
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 3:37 pm: | |
You mean me, Mags???
Wouldn't be surprised if you did!
Lyn |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
I like the idea Diana.
I have always wanted to get a group of like minded people with a deep interest in JtR together in a hotel for a long weekend. we'd have our sources with us and as much reference material as possible. Maybe web-access.
Then, like Barlow and Watt in the old BBC series, we'd systemeatically go through the case, piece by piece as if we were policemen at the time.
No theorising at first, just looking at the evidence and using the sort of "rules" you mention.
I think a great deal could be gained by such intense, group-focus.
But maybe this could be done here on Casebook, as a "cyber-hotel" with us all taking part, in real time (once I get registered, of course!!)
The other possibility is an extension of an idea that has been taken forward on Tolkienonline.com (the site I used until recently) where i set up an "annotated Lord of the Rings" project. This is going forward still, on the basis that each chapter is analysed and annotated in detail - with possible sources and cross references etc.
Would something similar - an "annotated Whitechapel casebook" be possible here. All can participate, but each murder, each piece of evidence and all that has been said about it, could be brought together. Maybe some surprising conclusions could be reached??
Great idewa Diana, I'm right behind you.
Phil |
Debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 6:25 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Just a bit about your post above:-
I placed this on the Joseph Barnett thread some months ago but you may not have seen it.
Joseph Barnett's sister married and had children that appear to have ended up in Canada, there is an online family tree with a contactable descendent in Canada, I can't remember the details offhand, but its all on the Barnett thread somewhere and might be of some use to you. You might be able to fulfill one of your list of research ideas, hope it helps.
Debra |
Enid
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:34 pm: | |
Hi All
I would like to offer two pieces of Methodology from a man of the times!
"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains,however improbable,must be the truth."
The Beryl Coronet
"It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.
A Case of Identity
Merry Christmas
Enid |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 11:09 pm: | |
Friends,
1. The beginning is asking questions. You have to be asking questions and developing critically before you decide anything, or else everything you decide later will be subject to a critique on the adequacy of your most primary assumptions. Therefore, the only way to develop a methodology for study of the Whitechapel murders is to ask: What would be the best methodology for studying the Whitechapel murders? Although this thought seems too simple to miss, everybody misses it. What everybody always does is just simply PICK a starting point, any old starting point that looks promising at the moment, and then follow it down its track. Conversely, what is required for success is to subsume the whole of the case evidence within a logical framework, leaving nothing outside the envelope. The first question therefore is a “should” question. How should the Whitechapel murders be studied? If you can’t answer this reasonably, then you have part of the case evidence within your logical envelope and part—your starting point—without.
The same thing said another way: You have to know what you are looking for in order to be able to find it. If you don’t know the quality of your solution before you do Ripperology, then how do you know if you’ve caught the murderer by your Ripperology?
This may seem paradoxical, but unless you can pull the paradox apart by your own devices, you can’t solve the case. In the end, it seems, it all comes down to you. I’m not sure Ripperology could conceivably be made into a team sport. At least it brushes up against basic questions of individual conscience, like “How do I really know?” and “What should I do?” I believe it has an ethical dimension.
Mr. Norder wrote:
2. “Well, I do think people have been checking a lot of these things out, for all the impact it has on some theories. The main problem, as I've discussed elsewhere, is that some people are masters at ignoring or rationalizing evidence that goes against their case and then coming up with excuses on why it should be ignored.”
>>No big problem. When encountering such a person, simply point out the evidence they’ve been ignoring. By all means, a solution to the case must be based on the empirical case evidence.
3. “Beyond just checking facts, it's also a good idea to check the arguments for logical fallacies. This is where a lot of the theories just fall down completely.”
>>I’ve been a Ripperologist studying theories for 16 years, and I can recall very few serious ones that “fall down completely” on a logical fallacy. You can say maybe that it is illogical to think JtR could be Tumblety because he was gay and the people murdered were women, but isn’t this an empirical, not a logical matter at bottom? I mean, it is an empirical fact that a male sexual serial murderer of women is never or almost never gay, it isn’t a misappropriation of logic. Conversely the mistakes of Ripperologists, I’ve found, lie mainly in the claims made that various empirical pieces are parts of the case. In other words, failed theories try to adduce all sorts of unrelated data, and then conclude on the murders on that. But there is no way to really test if the data adduced belongs in the case or not. The royal conspiracy theory, Cornwell, Greystoke, Harris, etc. all do this. These theories do not question the quality of the solution to start; they merely proceed down the first empirical track that looks good to the theorist.
4. “Items that just don't make sense don't need to be checked because even if they turn out to be true they are still meaningless.”
>>If it is true, and if it is related to the case evidence, then how can it be meaningless? This position seems to argue against truth itself, as if the writer believed that truth is whatever he said it were.
5. “Of course if someone has the time and the intellectual curiosity to check them anyway, by all means, but I think coming up with a list of things to check really displaces the burden of proof and insinuates that theories are all just as likely to be true unless someone disproves them, which is actually the opposite the way things should be.”
>>”Burden of proof” is a legal term. It deals with the legal adversarial relationship between the people and the accused, and concerns which side is required to support what aspects of the legal arguments. Is study of the Whitechapel murders like a court case? This concept rather presumes an adversarial condition in Ripperology, where there may be none. On the other hand, if a Ripperlogical theory is untrue, then there must be a way of disproving it reasonably; if not, Ripperology itself is unreasonable.
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 460
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
David wrote:
"When encountering such a person, simply point out the evidence they’ve been ignoring."
And (as he well knows) after that he then just ignores it again and again, and then lies and claims no evidence was ever posted.
"If it is true, and if it is related to the case evidence, then how can it be meaningless?"
Because most of the time these things are not related to the case evidence in any meaningful way.
"This concept rather presumes an adversarial condition in Ripperology, where there may be none."
Except we're talking about instances in which there are, obviously.
"On the other hand, if a Ripperlogical theory is untrue, then there must be a way of disproving it reasonably; if not, Ripperology itself is unreasonable. "
But if the theory is unreasonable and doesn't follow logic -- like, say, the A?R theory -- attacking the logic of it doesn't help, because the author of it just comes up with more nonsensical rationalizations.
The primary goal of any intelligent debate is to support your side with logic and then have it be accepted by others because it makes sense. People who claim that a theory should be accepted as true until it can be 100% proven to be wrong instead of giving good reasons to support their theory are intellectually dishonest with themselves and others. To accept their ground rules means the end to any intellectual progress.
If I were to say that Jack the Ripper was an alien from outer space (or a demon who possessed people, or really pissed off fairies, or a band of trained monkeys), nobody here can disprove it, so it must be right... at least by the rules that people like David Radka, Patricia Cornwell and others want us to follow, at least when it's their own theories being discussed.
And that's why people who care about logical methods of examining theories don't follow those nonsensical rules. There has to be logical reasons to support a theory, you can't just claim that anything and everything could be right until proven wrong.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1544
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 01, 2005 - 7:50 am: | |
David,
how I enjoy your posts!!
Jenni
ps hi Dan, happy new year!
"I wanna really really really wanna zigazig ah"
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 07, 2005 - 4:38 pm: | |
Diana,
Would you object to me offering a few ideas on the subject of methodology? What I mean is, would you reply.
I think you made a very valid point regarding verification as part of the research process. I would hate to see this thread become inactive, and thus deny the readership the opportunity to discuss their ideas about this important topic.
I don't mean to imply that my input will resurrect interest in a question that has already been answered, but, based on the relevant commentary offered thus far, it appears that a few key points regarding methodology, haven't been fully developed. I am very interested in learning your perspective concerning these issues.
Sincerely,
Mephisto
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
