|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:46 pm: | 
|
Hello.
There is now doubt that in recent years,research into the Whitechapel murders of 1888 has generally moved forward and consequently maybe brought us a little closer to finding a solution to the great mystery.
However,it seems to me that of late,an unhealthy trend has arrisen.
I am talking about the increasing propensity in the modern "Ripperologist" to dismiss good evidence and even to contradict hard facts given to us by the people who knew more than we will ever know.Namely police officials and witneses who were around in 1888.
For instance in Dr.Bond's report of the Millers Court murder,he clearly states that Mary Kelly's corpse was naked.
But oh no,this is not good enough for the "Modern Ripperologist" who,armed with his or her grainy black and white photograph,can clearly "See" that Kelly was wearing a puff chemise.
So Bond is either wrong,or was so distressed at the time,he missed it!
I don't think so.
Again,some eagle eyed detectives from the same school, have taken the other end of the same bed sheet and turned it into a longitudinally split femur!
But of course poor old absent minded Bond must have neglected to include this minor detail in his report!
Aren't we being a tad arogant here?
These documents contain hard facts.
We are talking about a competent Dr. making a record of exactly what he saw infront of him at the time.
Very different from a retired police official recalling and recording hazey memories and Sharing with us,his theories in an autobiography written tens of years after the event.
I am not saying that every police official or witness got everything right every time.
I just think we should have more faith in the abilities of those who were there and working on the case at the time.
Regards,
Kane Friday |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Many of us do have faith in the abilities of those who were working on the case. I agree with you that contemporary evidence should not be so quickly dismissed, but I disagree that it's a "trend" to do so. Your view of the "Modern Ripperologist" might be just a bit biased.
-Kelly
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 490
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Hi Kane,
I would agree with you for the most part. I was going to clarify that I think the opinions of the officials made years later should not be considered solid facts, especially since the parts we have been able to check show considerable errors, but then you covered that later in your post too.
I think the police officials and doctors could have missed certain things, but a bone split by an axe, letters on a wall, words carved into body parts and so forth just do not seem at all likely.
The chemise thing is more ambiguous. Someone recently pointed out in another thread that a different doctor on the scene mentioned she had underwear on, which contradicts the statement that she was naked. Conflicting evidence would seem to give some room for doubt.
I started a thread specifically about the chemise question:
Click to go there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Detective Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 73
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
The key here is to seek diligently to understand what the people involved at the time meant. Misinterpretations, given changing use of words/grammar and assumptions of class/ethics, can mislead seriously.
However, the initial post makes a mountain out of a molehill, IMHO.
Phil |
Jeff Leahy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Hi Kane
Are we talking about the same doctor Bond that clearly made mistakes in Rose Myletts autopsy and a few months later committed suicide due to depression.
The basic facts of the Ripper case are that it is full of contradictions, conflicting reports and eye witness statements. Bilding your house out of paper cards probably means starting with official documents as the foundations, yes, but without question, no.
Dr Phillips reports are far more complete than Bonds yet most posters appear to differ to his conclussion that the Ripper had medical knowledge or skill. If we followed your line of reasoning we'd have poor old William Gull back on the gallows.
Jeff |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 01, 2005 - 10:58 pm: |
|
Hello Kane,
Without getting into an arguement, regarding the validity of specific evidence in question, I will, nonetheless, back your observations in general. I, too, have noticed that trend as well. And furthermore, have found myself subjected to the ridicule, of such social aphids, merely for pointing out the possibility, that some aspects of the case maybe shouldn't warrent unnecessary arguement. And that maybe certain absolutes COULD be known and depended upon. For reasons beyond my understanding, this plausibility resulted in me being lambasted, on at least one other message board. Which resulted in my leaving that piticular cyber "sandbox", so that piticular juvenille, could toss sand at some other unsuspecting poster, who might happen to have a line of reasoning more logical than his own. I've met so called "expert Ripperologists" online, who are SO rigidly nihilistic in their beliefs, it begs the question: WHY do they even bother following the case at all (since NOTHING could EVER be known for certain), but even further more, just based on their actions, would they even wish it to be solved one day? I could have posted, the most ASININE theory EVER concocted. And they would have subsequently argued it theoretically possible. Something like, "I heard a theory, involving an American man as 'The Ripper'. The night of each murder, he crept out of his house, without waking his wife and family, rowed a boat over to London, committed the murder, rowed BACK home to American, and crept back into bed without waking his wife. He followed this pattern with each victim.". And guess what? They would have argued it entirely conceivable!
In summation, I do feel there's a degree of validity to your findings. While I readily agree, that many things are possible, and that people are falible, that certainly wouldn't result in me abandoning logic as a whole.
All the best,
Dustin Gould |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3125
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Yo Dustin,
your post made me laugh. But i don't expect that was the intention?
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 807
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
One mistake that I do think modern researchers often make is forgetting that these were real crimes involving real people and not just some 1930s detective novel in which every word by every witness must be weighed carefully lest we miss THE clue that unravels a tangled skein of contradictory evidence.
Specifically in the case of "No Chemise Please" it could well be that both doctors were correct. That is, a woman clad only in a wispy, open chemise might well be "naked" to Dr. Bond, whereas another observer would take note she had "something" on.
Don.
PS: Yo Jenni -- you have work to do and no time for laughing. [I'm in for it now.]
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 226
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Don,
Good points as usual, especially with regards to Jenni having work to do.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
Jenni,
No. That wasn't my intention. However, the grandiose examples of detective idiocy I have been subjected to in this case, combined with the elementary levels of common sense encountered online, have, on more than one occasion, caused me to collapse into seizures of unabated laughter. With theories so preposterously unfathomable, containing conspiracy upon concpiracy, with a cast of villians longer than the Thames River, it resulted in my racing to the pantry, and pillaging my drawers. In the vain attempt, of finding enough tinfoil with which to construct a hat, which would therfore enable me to block out the radio transmissions sent to me, from the aliens residing on Mars. That being my last line of defence. Having already deadbolted my doors.
Donald,
You make a very practical observsation regarding interpretation. I am reminded of the phrase "splitting hairs". I feel alot of time is spent doing so, in debating this case. Arguing pointless arguements, that further lead to even MORE pointless arguements. I've observed debates like the one above numerous times. I remember one involving DNA. These two gentlemen, verbally tearing into each other, about the relevence of such, had it existed at the time. I'll say this much: It was like taking a dose, of "cyber Sominex". Because it damn-near put me to sleep. Well, DNA technology did NOT exist at the time. And despite its existence today, we have NO physical evidence to use or compare anything to. So it's all a moot point. But don't dare tell those guys! LOL!
All the best,
Dustin Gould |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3163
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Yo Dustin,
no offence was inteneded I was just thinking about what you said about uneccessary arguments. So true.
Of course its theoretical possible you took what i said the wrong way in which case i am sorry
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 10:23 pm: |
|
Yo Jenni!
No harm, no foul. So no apology necessary. 
Dustin |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3183
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:06 pm: |
|
Yo Dustin,
that's ok then.
glad we got that straight
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
A Ripperologist searching for the identity of Jack the Ripper was accosted by a Clue.
"Follow me," said the Clue, "and there's no knowing what you may discover."
So the Ripperologist followed the Clue a whole year through a thousand sinuosities and at last found himself at the National Archives.
"There!" said the Clue, pointing to an open file.
The Ripperologist eagerly scanned the page and found an official statement that the victims were dead. Thereupon he hurried to Casebook: Jack the Ripper to report progress. The Clue, meanwhile, sauntered among the busy haunts of men, arm in arm with an Ingenious Theory. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
