|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
LonelyGuy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 09, 2005 - 11:06 am: | 
|
There are those of us here who are 99% sure we know who Jack The Ripper was. There are others who 'want' Jack to be their own 'pet' suspect, and there are others who chop and change from one suspect to the other as each new book is published. There are, probably, even one or two who doubt that he ever even existed at all!!!
So - two questions, what (if anything), could absolutely prove beyond all doubt that a particular person, (it matters not whom), carried out some, or all of the Whitechapel murders of 1888?
And, secondly, if it was ever proven beyond doubt that X was Mr Ripper would we be pleased or disappointed? Is a solved crime anywhere near as fascinating as an unsolved one, and is our morbid enjoyment of these cases deeply rooted in the fact that we don't KNOW who carried out the murders?
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:46 am: |
|
Actually i would be pleased if we knew who Jack was.
Of course people who are sure they have solved it (Paul Feldman springs to mind) do sometimes retreat from the field, which is a shame. Thats not true for all people who think they have solved it.
Jenni
"People don't notice us, they never see,Under their noses a Womble may be"
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 554
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 3:19 pm: |
|
I would be excited, but as with BTK I would want to know what he was like, what made him do it, what else he did that we didn't know about.
At the same time I would be a little sad. Like Sherlock Holmes when there was no case to solve anymore.(Though I wouldn't turn to cocaine -- chocolate maybe.) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3281
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
I agree with Diana here to some extent.
I too would like to know what he was like and the reasons for why he did it (maybe more than really getting a name).
But at the same time I think it would be sad to lose a great mystery, and I personally hope it remains a mystery, because we do need them.
As for addictions... I am already a chocoholic anyway.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1359
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Hi,
I for one would be absolutely delighted if the identity of 'Jack' became known, one could then research everything known about that person, his desendants [ if any] mayby even a picture of the monster or any personal belongings etc.
Of course bias as i am , if the named being happened to have the initials JB, immence satisfaction would enter my soul, and i would have great satisfaction in starting a thread' I told you so'
Alas 'Dream on Richard'
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 182
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
I have noted several phases in JtR studies in the 35 or so years i have taken an interest in them:
i) in the 50s and 60s the "game" was, at least for some, to guess what name lay hidden in the police files - it was always sort of assumed that the police knew their man but could not prove it;
(this was very much the era of the journalist writers, McCormack; Cullen, etc).
ii) then in the 60s, the Macnaghten memo was found by Dan Farson, and the style changed to researching these suspects (Druitt in particular);
iii) in the 70s, post-Watergate, Knight introduced us to the conspiracy theory and the Royal Ripper became fashionable;
iv) in the centenary decade, deeper research became more the trend, and there was a focus on working class Rippers (Kosminski) rather than "toffs";
v) some of the writers who gained respect around 1988 (Fido, Begg, Howell and Skinner) in the 90s brought stronger academic standards and solid research to the case.
I say all this because I think what it shows is that, even if conclusive proof were brought to light identifying the Ripper, it would not end interest in the case. Future generations would focus on the investigation, motives, even perhaps challenge the identification and the "proof".
I would like to know "whodunnit" personally, but part of me would regret the loss of mystery, and the case would never again be quite the same.
But I don't think it will ever happen.
If I have a dream, it is that, as with Richard III and the Princes in the Tower, a group like this on Casebook could single-handedly make respectable this field of study.
The Richard III Society have popularised and made serious their subject; they have raised money for scholarships; created serious journals for the publication of academically valid articles; and funded editions of key works. In the process they have put C15th studies on the map and created a new generation of expert scholars.
We don't know still who killed the Princes, but by heaven, the debate is much better fuelled, more strongly based and more widely respected.
Phil |
Ally
Chief Inspector
Username: Ally
Post Number: 860
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Oh we so know who killed the princes. It's only the delusional who still cling to false hope.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Ally
I agree! Gosh! how could we all have missed the obvious!!! It was Richard!!!!!!
Richard...I agree too that if it was a JB as a possible...BRILLIANT....a GH even better!!!!
Phil
As for being 'well fuelled' as a debate I feel that Richard III soc notwithstanding you'd have to go a long way to out do the good people of this 'Society'.
There is and probably as I type, no immediate answer, but it all lies on thoughts and discussion...out of all this may JUST come something ,that will sadly one day give us a definate answer.....Im sure there will still be those who disagree though and thats what keeps the Boards alive!
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 183
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Alas, I feel we are still exchanging "gossip" on JtR.
The solid research and writing about East End society and life in 1888; about the Met, the biographies of leading personalities (political and police) has yet top be accomplished in depth (I note some major achievements, but not in depth).
What is required is the equivalent of the investigation and analysis of the C15th charters, agreements, contracts etc that now underwrites our knowledge of the Wars of the Roses and has changed judgements in significant ways.
IMHO Chris Scott and AP are two of those doing really important work well on this site. It must often be dreary drudgery for them, but I find the results illuminating. Multiply that by 200% and much more funding and organisation and focus and I'll agree we begin to approach what the RIII people have done.
Anyone that can prove Richard III dunnit, by the way (or not) is free to argue their case.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Well it doesnt surprise me.Groups of earnest people who study the famous kings of history
will always have the headstart in terms of respectable but pedantic scholarship-simply because they are discussing kings and not say Jack the Ripper or Joe Bloggs.
Let them drone on!The Rippers way more cutting edge!
Natalie
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 345
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Phil,
Why do you think we're "still exchanging gossip about JTR" on the Casebook?
I don't think we are - I think we're moving along in waves. Natalie has come up with some great stuff, as has Jane. Point me in the right direction, and then maybe I'll see where you're coming from.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 184
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 1:51 am: |
|
Lindsey - It's not the quality of debate - it's the nature of the evidence and the material we are discussing.
I listed in an earlier post the sort of contextual, sociological and personal research that is required. I see none of it going on.
Natalie - C15th studies were a joke 20 years ago. The Wars of the Roses were seen in terms of Shakespearean history plays, or "1066 and All That" and not taken seriously. No one wanted to write about, or research mad kings and pretenders, usurpers etc, and Ricardians (I am not one, incidentally) were a fringe group of loonies akin to UFOlogists.
All that changed largely because of the impact of the RIII Society.
If you see solid research and academic rigour as "pedantic" or as "droning" on, then I am afraid you lose much of my respect. Those qualities are not always exciting, but they are essential if real progress is to be made.
Phil |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2207
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
Phil
I have been a member of many societies during my chequered career and find the English Civil War Society to have been a well researched and informative group of people.......also the Napoleonic Society ditto ditto........we are all much the same. take a step back and look at what we have to deal with
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 192
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Suzi
I had very close dealings with the English Civil War Society re-enactors (Army of Parliament) in the 80s when we re-staged the Putney Debates in their original setting. I was VERY impressed by their attention to detail, desire to educate and their willingness to help.
However, there has never been any shortage of excellent scholarship on the Civil War from CV Wedgewood on.
I am less sure what the Napoleonic Society have done - there was little to add to what has been done by the innumerable French historians, from Rousselot to Lachouque.
Ripper studies, for the reasons I have given, seem to lag behind.
When you say, "we are all much the same. take a step back and look at what we have to deal with..."
what are you implying?
Phil |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Phil
At the risk of appearing ignorant!..can you inform me as to who 'Rousselot and Lachouque' are ?
...not at length please tho!
They sound like a firm of disreputable Parisian Solicitors!
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 194
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Lucien Rousselot was Painter to the French Army, he died in the 1990s but during his lifetime produced many brilliant watercolours and plates of Napoleonic French uniforms. he was designer of the "Historex" range of military models.
Commandant Henri Lachoque was a French military historian, who did some briliant work on Waterloo. He is best known for his giant work, known in English translation as "The Anatomy of Glory: Napoleon and his Guard". Wonderful.
Does that help? Not too long winded I hope.
Phil |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 2:19 pm: |
|
Hi Phil (and all)
As a longstanding member of the Richard III Society, former chairman of the Napoleonic Association, and having an equally longstanding interest in JTR, (but only recently subscribing to the casebook), I note the current discussion with interest.
I cannot speak officially on behalf of the Richard III Society but I’m sure that they would appreciate your comments (except perhaps to argue that it is a lot more than twenty years ago now since the society established academic credibility).
I suspect that the “membership” of all three fraternities (or sororities) is broadly similar in that there is a combination of professional historians, “gifted amateurs” and “armchair” enthusiasts. (The historical re-enactment groups do contribute a lot to furthering historical knowledge, but the main focus tends to be on “living history”, and I’m not sure that this would have popular appeal if translated to JTR).
However, I suspect that the balance has been very different, in that the study of JTR has been lacking the “historian” to anything like the same extent, as has been the case with eg Richard III and the c15th. Your point about adopting a “life and times” approach rather than just concentrating on the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower is very valid in that this has served to draw more professional historians into the general arena, and by consequence into that specific debate.
One difference between the two areas, although it seems to be slowly changing, is that Richard III as part of general history has long had academic respectability and there has always been a limited, but accepted market for published academic works that co-exist comfortably with books aimed at the more commercial market. Crime history (or at least JTR) seems to be different in that it relies heavily on sensationalism to appeal to the wider commercial market and publishers have not been particularly interested in the academic, which can make for “dry” reading.
Until fairly recently, I don’t think that publishers have seen works on JTR as being serious works of reference that make a contribution to an ongoing study. Consequently, “early modern” works on JTR, eg McCormack, Cullen, Farson, Whittington-Egan, et al. have been of great interest, but of little value to the historian until their “facts” have been confirmed by subsequent identification or validation of sources.
The significant breakthrough came with Paul Begg’s “Uncensored Facts” which I believe was the first work on JTR to include footnotes and detailed reference to sources (and I’m sure that I read somewhere that this was a struggle for Begg to achieve).
Fortunately for the aim of shifting JTR into the realms of serious study, this trend seems to be continuing. It is particularly proving its worth with the more “neutral” published works of reference, such as anything by Begg, Sugden’s Ultimate sourcebook, etc. However, there is still a long way to go, and opening up the field of study to a wider base as you argue, will serve to draw in more professional historians and bring both their research and analytical skills into the arena. As you suggest, there are a few excellent serious historical works on the wider aspects, one good example being Fishman’s “East End 1888”, but I agree that more would be welcome and that this would be of benefit to us all.
Best wishes to all from a newcomer and keep up the interesting posts and the "cut and thrust" of debate.
Clive
ps Sorry to be pedantic (and to enlighten Suzi), Lachouque was a French military historian most noted for a comprehensive history of Napoleon’s Imperial Guard and Rousselot is a modern military artist, not a historian. I also hate to disillusion you Phil, but there is as much continuing debate on aspects of the Napoleonic Wars, as there is on JTR. (The latest “biggy” being that Waterloo was more a Prussian Victory than British). These debates are contributed to, in various arenas, by the professional historian, the “gifted amateur” and the armchair enthusiast alike. One difference seems to be that in this case (and that of Richard III), there is “room for all” with mutual respect. I sometimes get the impression from the Casebook message boards that this is not the case here!
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1690
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Hi Clive,
I was interested in your post above.It confirmed
some thought I had since reading Phil"s posts on these matters.
I do wonder whether, if you both give yourselves a little more time to read archived material,you wont find quite an abundance of scholarship and excellence of one kind or another on these boards.
There is actually a breadth of detailed reference material, as well as contributions from writers ,artists,photographers, crime historians, historians who are not solely or even primarily
involved with solving the Ripper mystery etc.
But this story is mostly about the East End of London.Its not about palaces and princes really
-except in some peoples imagination.
And its the East End of London that can fire the imagination of some people including myself
in a way few other parts of London can.
This scene of consecutive waves of immigrants
didnt just inspire Jack the Ripper to commit his
heinous crimes in 1888,it inspired some of the greatest thinkers of those days- people like William Booth, Lenin, Engels,Eleanor Marx,William Morris,Charles Dickens,The Jewish Radicals and the very founders of the Labour Party began in places like the Hanbury Street Meeting Hall.
If either of you are interested in the Social History of the East End then the brilliant Professor Fishman
still gives talks at the Cloak and Dagger Club
and did so only last Summer.
Best Wishes
Natalie
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 573
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
Hi Clive,
I think overall you'd find a fair amount of scholarship going on in the field. It certainly seems to be going more and more in that direction. Alan Sharp's London Correspondence: Jack the Ripper and the Irish Press is a recent example of another great book focusing on history and cultural context, and Chris Scott is continuously pulling up new facts of interest. Those are just two that spring to mind, as I could list off a long string of names. Of course the trick is getting publishers and the public interested in that aspect of it over the more fictional aspects.
And I also think overall that the field is pretty good about having mutual respect for people of varying interest levels. Unfortunately a small number of people don't really respect anyone, and their loud condemnation of everyone else stand out all the more because of the contrast.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 195
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Two quick points:
a) I am aware of the modern controversies about Waterloo. I didn't think this the right venue to go into detail. In any case, I don't think I had ever suggested that the other spheres of study I had mentioned were in stasis. Simply that they were academically respectable.
In my view Rousselot is every inch as much a military historian as any other - his interest is uniforms, but he pioneered original research in the archives and holdings of the French Army and his work is scholarly in the extreme. I don't make distinctions between writers and other historians (say field archaeologists) - to my mind that's rather a narrow approach. All contribute.
b) on JtR - again, I think I recognised the marked improvement in recent years, although some of those who emerged with high reputations from the late 80s rather blotted their copy-books (IMHO) over the Diary. My point is - and Clive gives some good reasons for it - that there is no cross-over with jack to the mainstream, as there has been with (say) RIII.
I don't want to get off topic any more than necessary. But if anyone wants to continue this debate - or on Waterloo - I'm happy to do so.
Phil |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 6:52 pm: |
|
Natalie, Phil & Dan,
Thanks for your replies and I think that we are all saying pretty much the same thing here, i.e. things are going in the right direction, there is lots of good work going on, but there is still a way to go in embracing some of the wider aspects of the period as it links to JTR.
Another thought that has struck me is that in the case of both Richard III and the Napoleonic Wars there exist specialist publishers who recognise the niche markets for both the wider and the more obscure but interesting areas of study. A glance along the bookshelves suggests that this is not so much the case with JTR, where there seem to be as many different publishers as there are authors, and a lot of both specialist and "wider" works seem to rely on inclusion in Ripperologist, Ripper Notes and the efforts of those brave enough to "self-publish". (Although there does seem to be a number of specialist booksellers).
To me another sad thing was that the centenary of JTR back in 1988 was a lost opportunity for some of the classic or scarce early works to be commercially republished. Possibly with the exception of "Uncensored facts", most of what was churned out by commercial publishers at this time gave little "added value". Compare this for example with the story of the Titanic, where in the wake of (in my view, the awful) James Cameron film, there was at least a glut of quality reprints of early material along with new material and the "regurgitations". Unfortunately, "From Hell" didn't seem to do the same trick for us !
Natalie, I acknowledge the excellent quality of much of the work in the casebook and this has assisted no end in my own studies as an "armchair" historian for this area of personal interest. I also empathise with your affinity for the East End, as I am a "Norf" Londoner but of cockney descent since at least 1837. (My Great Uncle, "Dodger" Mullins, although long dead now, was in fact introduced to the Kray twins by their father as "The Old Guv'nor of the East End. He is also mentioned in Raphael Samuel's "East End Underworld", but I'm afraid that as we also encounter so often with JTR witnesses,I suspect that Arthur Harding was telling a few "porkies". Interesting whether Harding's reference to John "McCarty" of Dorset Street fame as a "bully and a tough guy" has any merit). I also note with interest the information that Professor Fishman still gives talks at the Cloak & Dagger Club.
Dan, again, I agree about the good work going on and Chris Scott and others are excellent examples.The "gems" that Chris seems to pluck from the public records with ease are invaluable.
Phil, I take your point about Rousselot, its just that as a uniform specialist I am not used to him being mentioned in the same breath as Lachouque. As to Waterloo, as a Francophile where the Napoleonic Wars are concerned and a member of a pan-European "French" living history regiment, I accept quite gracefully that we lost and I enjoy sitting back and watching the Brits and Germans slug it out as to who really won the battle. (Although things haven't always gone to script in some of the Waterloo re-enactments and the French have occasionally turned out winners. Perhaps that's European political correctness for you)!
Clive |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 196
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
Briefly, Clive, Waterloo couldn't have been won without the Prussians, but on the other hand, if Wellington's allied army had not stood (and continued to stand) on the ridge at Mont St Jean, there would have been no battle to win. As The Duke observed several times during the afternoon (while looking at his watch) "Give me night, or give me Blucher!" he was under no illusions as to the deal. He would not have fought then or there without the commitment by the Field Marshal to send him at least one corps. They were mutually dependent and trusted each other. For me, end of story.
The other point, of course, is that the French LOST Waterloo, as much as anyone won it. The Emperor's ill-health, internal tensions in the Army, full-blown disloyalty, mistakes (the focus on Hougomont? the mass unsupported cavalry attacks of the afternoon), Soult's unfortunate staff work, Ney's getting too close to the action and lack of imagination on the part of French generals, all played their part.
I have heard it said that almost no wargamer Napoleon EVER loses a re-fought Waterloo. If the French had manoeuvred instead of just "coming on in the same old way", there might have been nothing for the Prussians to do when they finally reached the battlefield.
Interesting interests you have Clive - we overlap a lot.
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2033
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hi Clive, everyone,
i agree with a lot that has been said here don't get me wring (well at least on JTR Napolenonic Wars and Richard 3rd not so hot on!)
As far as what you say about sensationalism you are probably right, this is why a lot of 'normal' people think Walter Sickert/Diary/Walter Sickert in league with royalty did it. these books have popular appeal. unfortunately, i guess. but as Dan says there are some more academic works out there, i think we have a much more scholarly field today than we did ten years ago or even five years ago (when I first started).
As Dan says I think we all get on pretty well here on the boards and in the field in more wider context, perhaps with a few notable exceptions (naming no names).
Hi Phil,
while i see where you are coming from on the diary issue - I can't really agree with you about the peole you are thinking ofs reputations (don't take offence i mean can i ever agree with anyone about the diary!)long term they have still produced some of the best books we have today. we would hardly expect them to have ignored the diary, or would we?
anyway
Cheers
Jenni
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 198
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 11:35 am: |
|
The problem with the Dairy when it first emerged was that several of the then newly emerged "scholarly" writers on JtR appeared so keen to know about it that they unwisely signed "gagging agreements". This made them appear as "stooges" of the Diary's purveyors in some ways and rather discredited them at the time.
The anaolgy that sprang to peoples' minds at then was Lord Dacre and the "Hitler Diaries". He seemed to leap up and claim as genuine what subsequently proved a forgery. He may claim now to have been duped, but that did not help his reputation.
Having been associated with those who control such material, you can never claim complete independence thereafter.
It's all a perceptual thing, of course. I know none of the people involved, so can only speak as I recall things being. I am sure they would disagree - no doubt strongly
This eagerness to be an "insider" and not to be left behind by others probably resulted from the commercialism behind the JtR literature, referred to before by others. But I believe that a proper scholarly approach would have been to argue that the Diary should have been made public without "gagging" restrictions, and to have waited to see - probably with an initial scepticism - what was produced.
It is a shame that a publisher like Alan Sutton which does so much for RIII and (I think) English Civil War books, could not be found to specialise in JtR material.
Phil |
Newbie
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 16, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
I must get a copy of Sugden's Ultimate sourcebook - a great new book by the sound of it. |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Lots of research going on Phil Hill, are you writing a book? If so I hope it doesn't clash with mine! |
Lonely Guy
Police Constable
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 1
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Well .... thanks for the interesting and varied responses. BUT, still no one has said what the ultimate proof could be, or are you all in the same mind as me? That is: no ultimate proof would ever satisfy us. I mean, if we are still releasing people from jail who only a few years ago were "convicted beyond all doubt", what chance have we got of ever pinning down Saucy Jack?
By the way - Hi, I'm a full member now. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 201
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 1:28 pm: |
|
There are things that could "nail" Jack pretty conclusively, I think.
I "Diary" that actually had proper provenance, contained clearly contemporary material and was linked to a specific individual by handwriting, associated letters etc, might be as good as a confession.
A secret police or special branch file - again clearly genuine - which contained detailed evidence related to an individual with reasons why no prosecution was brought, might be pretty damning.
Family papers related to a Druitt or Tumblety type suspect which linked them to place, contemporary suspicion, association with a victim etc, might close the noose, even if not conclusive.
Detailed information on other crimes elsewhere than London, associated with (say) Tumblety, before or after the 1888 events, might narrow things down.
That is not, of course, to say that any of these would be conclusive. There would always be those who, for their own reasons, or for gain, or to promote another theory, would seek to rubbish such evidence.
AIP, I do try to write, but not on JtR.
Newbie - Sugden's original book is, in my opinion the best single book on the Whitechapel murders I know - leaving aside the dubious attempt to show Chapman as the killer. (Begg, Fido etc also have much to offer, and Rumbelow is still magnificent decades after it was first penned).
The Source Book really needs a narrative with it, unless you are VERY well read in JtR already, to give context. With it should go the similar dossier on the Letters. As a reference work, the A-Z is indispensible if you can find a copy.
Phil. |
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Phil / Newbie
Sorry but I had a confusion on titles. It is of course Sugden's "Complete History of JTR" and the "Ultimate Jack the Ripper Source Book" by Evans and Skinner. (Both excellent works and these are the UK titles. I believe that at least one of these was published with a slightly different title in the US).
Lonely Guy - Yes we did stray from your original question a bit, so apologies for that. I think that Phil puts some interesting points and the bottom line is that any "proof" can now only be in the form of documents, and any document will be open to serious challenge of being a forgery, whatever its provenance, content, outcome of tests and analysis, etc.
Those that make a living from JTR probably don't want the mystery solved (unless they are the one that solves it without challenge and therefore get the Kudos that would go with it). Personally I don't really mind one way or the other. As an "armchair" detective (whilst unsolved) or "armchair" historian (if solved) I enjoy the fascination offered either way.
Phil - Alan Sutton was the very publisher I was alluding to for the realms of Richard III and the c15th.
Clive |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
Hi Clive,
I enjoyed reading about your Great Uncle and have often wondered myself about John McCarty!
At the very least he sounds like a Rachman landlord renting out hovels to poverty stricken
girls who sooner rather than later ended up as prostitutes.You bet he brought in the heavies when they didnt pay up!
Shall be reading your posts with much interest
with all this history of the East End in your heritage!
Natalie
|
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 03, 2005 - 9:44 pm: |
|
Even if were to definitively found out, once and for all, the true identity of JTR, I don't think that outright solves the case. The next logical step, would be to decispher motive, and if possible, how doing might prevent future sprees of that nature. Solving the identity, is but one piece of the puzzle. Look at the tragedy at Columbine High School. We knew emphatically who comitted those kilings. But the crime still facinates us, because we still don't know all the "why's". |
Argumentus
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 23, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Even if the proof of the Ripper's identity were out there, there will always be people (lots of them) who will refuse to acknowledge the solution as valid. If nothing else, these boards prove that. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 11:52 am: |
|
you think somewhere on the boards people are disputing evidence which really solves the case?
"All you need is positivity"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 370
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:42 am: |
|
Jennifer, I think Argumentus means that finding definitive proof will almost always be difficult because it will be questioned by some.
Whether there would be the same difficulty if the new "Dr Williams" evidence/cache (see separate thread) was proven genuine I don't know. But it is already being questioned, not least by me.
I suppose on reflection, the answer to the question is, can there now ever be a "that's it!" moment that is the same for everyone? Perhaps, on reflection, there cannot.
Edited to add:
It is always possible that we do already have the pieces of the jigsaw but cannot see them for what they are. (I don't believe so, but it is possible.) So - in theory at least - YES, we could be debating evidence that might prove the case right now.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on April 27, 2005) |
Lonely Guy
Sergeant
Username: Lonelyguy
Post Number: 12
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:52 am: |
|
Hi Phil
I've missed the Dr Williams thread you refer to...
can you point me in its direction? thanks
catch me if you can
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 372
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
See under new Titles "Uncle Jack".
Hope this helps. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 54
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 4:48 am: |
|
Phil,
I do believe that there is something so simple that we may have overlooked. I can be hopeful that maybe through all the discussions something will fall into place. I don't think we may ever solve this, too much time has passed. but with the internet etc. we have more information at our fingertips than ever before. I can access records that would not have been available a few years ago.
I am still waiting for that "aha" moment, it may still happen.
I think with an open mind and open thinking it is possible!
Carolyn  |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 373
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
Carolyn,
I agree and that's my hope too. but whether there will ever be universal agreement, I doubt.
My view is that one day - perhaps through a cache like the "Dr Williams" one, or something like the so-called "Maybrick Diary", we will find a key that puts other information into perspective. one could see it as a lens that allows us to see evidence we already have in a different light.
That is why I find the "Diary" so dubious and (if it were real) so disappointing - because it tells us nothing new about the CASE. (One could argue it tells us much about the mind of the killer, but that is not evidence of the kind we are discussing.
The Diary, so far as I can see, contains nothing that throws light on older information (indeed it simply re-states it) - or anything that could be verified about the victims; the lead into or the aftermath of the murders. It tells us nothing about the wounds and throws light on absolutely nothing tangible.
On the other hand, the "Williams" cache seems to me to give us TOO MUCH - even letters which it is odd the sender retained or retrieved.
Personally, I still hope for a missing or hitherto unknown (but demonstrably genuine) police file; more notes such as those like Farson found or the Swanson marginalia; or another more relevant "Littlechild letter" (not necessarily by him or relating to Sims); or perhaps the material Macnaghten had which led him to suspect Druitt so strongly.
So get up in those attics people, and start using the Freedom of Information Act - the turth may be out there!
Best regards
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2237
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
yeah, i see, even if we had JTRs diary, some people wouldnt believe it,
or even if some canny person found JTRs knife, some people wouldn't belive it,
and even if police had named suspects, some people wouldn't believe it,
true, but still i dont think any of those things can be called definitive proof.
But Phil i see where you are coming from!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
Hi, me again!
"but still I don't think any of those things can be called definitive proof"
Exactly, you have answered your own question. People won't believe it, not if there is no proof. There has been so much debate about things that can't be proved and much speculation, but we are no closer to a resolution. The diary thread comes to mind (gee, I wonder why) Like I said, we need an open mind and open thinking.
IMHO we need to think outside the box, and as Phil said, some new information wouldn't hurt.
Enough of my ranting, 
Carolyn |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2238
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:44 am: |
|
Yes i know,
what can i say!
Jenni
"All you need is positivity"
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 375
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
...we need an open mind and open thinking... IMHO we need to think outside the box...
I agree, but most of all we need scrupulous standards of scrutiny and research, as well as of synthesis. If persuasion is to run to more than a few, those standards have to be the same as are accepted by the outside world - the academic approach, step by step, every step demonstrated and approved by peers, is the only worthwhile and universally accepted one.
As this site shows, speculation can be fun, and it has its place, but hypothesising without a shred of evidence (other than perceived interpretations of writings or behaviour) are a worthless distraction IMHO. I would cite the current thread on Doyle as one example, but published works on Carroll or Barnardo serve equally as examples. They get Ripper studies a bad name and do not advance real knowledge or research by one iota.
I am not saying that "Ripperology" should not be fun. Neither am I suggesting that individuals are not free to entertain any views they wish, however unsupported, unlikely or ludicrous they may be. But let us differentiate clearly between the playroom and the schoolroom; the nursery slopes and the Olympic slaalam run.
The people I salute, and respect, on Casebook are those like Chris Scott and AP Wolf who spend thankless and unknown hours poring over old records and reports, data and returns, and inch by inch uncover new perspectives and a deeper understanding of the Ripper-period. I have no doubt that it is from such a source that a breakthrough will come, or that verification of a "find" will emerge.
The devil, as always, is in the detail.
Just my views, of course,
Phil |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 56
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Phil,
You are right in all you say. We do need scrupulous standards. I feel even more than usual because of all the bad books that have been published under the name of serious research. How many "case closed" do we need?
Yes, speculation can be fun, but so much of the time I have found that speculation is stated as fact. That stands in the way of understanding. It was very confusing to me when I first started reading the boards. Like you said, it can be fun, but that is what I thought "pub talk" was for.
Finally, I also respect the people you have sited, and for myself, I have learned so much from their tireless efforts. They very well could be the source of the next break in this case.
Thanks,
Carolyn
|
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 2:03 am: |
|
What's your point Argumentus? The case is incapable of solution, there is no proof 'out there'. |
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Greetings Everyone,
I suspect that as Phil says, "The Truth is out there" and given the amount of theories and facts given over the years on Casebook, I wouldn't be at all surprised that if the truth were ever to be known for certain (and universally agreed as such), then at least one person would be able to point to their post(s) on the message boards and say, "See, I was right after all" !
In an earlier post on this thread, I speculated that any definitive proof was likely to be documentary in nature, but as the Maybrick document has proved, even with the benefit of modern science, it is clearly still difficult to attest to whether a document is genuine in respect of (i) the time the document was created, (ii) who created / wrote it and (iii) is what is written actually the truth anyway ?
In the light of the "Uncle Jack" claims, I now think that more incontrovertible proof would be provided by a DNA link between one or more of the victims and an object which can be linked beyond doubt to a specific suspect. (Such as the knife belonging to Williams alleged to be the murder weapon). I am not a scientist, but I get the impression that as far as scientific tests go, DNA is more robust than document examination.
As observed on the "latest release" thread, the problem with this is that disinterment of the victims would be required to extract DNA, and I can't realistically see this being authorised by the Authorities.
I stand to be corrected, but I believe that disinterment requires the authority of the Home Secretary in person. There are also probably the sensitivities of known living descendants to be considered as well as the sensitivities of those who would argue that the victims should be allowed to rest in peace.
Having said this, human remains alleged to be those of the "Princes in the Tower" were disinterred for scientific analysis in 1933, although in this case there had been 450 years between the time of the alleged crime (1483/84)and the time the remains were examined. (I believe I am right in saying that more recent requests for further examination of these bones using modern techniques have been denied).
I have often heard it said that the police never close their files on an unsolved murder, but as we know, the Ripper Files were closed in 1892. (If this suggests that the police really thought that they knew who was responsible then that's another argument).
The point is, if the Ripper Crimes are regarded as unsolved, would this give any weight to authority for disinterment being given ? ( I would have thought that public historical curiosity alone would not be sufficient).
As it is therefore, I agree with Phil and Carolyn that we are restricted to serious research efforts. I see this as being reasoned speculation on the identity of the murderer(s) through consideration of serious evidence as to facts (ie having a legal evidential standard of independent corroboration for facts stated), combined with reasoned evidence (not wild speculation) as to motive. Even then, we are restricted to degrees of probability and not certainty.
The commercial and sensationalist "Case Closed" works, can have a value if they are well researched and offer new facts and insights into the period / crimes. They may even produce further evidence / food for thought for existing theories or the development of further theories, but as they usually require quantum leaps of the imagination, and habitually state that "x must be the case" when the correct reasoning is that "x could be the case" (subject to a varying degrees of probability analysis, but never 100% certainty), then this calls their constructive value to the debate into question.
This is in interesting thread, please keep up the observations and comments.
Best Wishes,
Clive |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 203
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
If the slides which form part of the Dr John Williams cache contain DNA from one of the victims , then that would be very interesting !
However the new book certainly doesn't prove that Williams was the Ripper , although there are some co-incidences in relation to the good Doctor and the victims.
My own feeling is that there is evidence out there that has yet to come to light which will confirm the evidence of the Ripper , it just has to be found. Remember , there are always collections of documents being discovered ( like the Williams cache ) and important evidence may be in one of them.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2010
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
Thanks Phil
I've just come across your flattering post and I'm almost blushing... but that probably has more to do with the empty bottle of brandy that I just slung off the balcony into the banana plants.
I think you are right, that somewhere out there in old information land is a tiny bit of paper that will really solve the riddle diddle of who is really in the middle of the riddle diddle.
My money is on the thousands of telegraphic messages contained within the archives of the London Guildhall - and a few other places - and if I do manage to get another ten years without falling down the stairs I plan to leave my island paradise and banana plants full of empty brandy bottles and bunker down in the Guildhall until I have found that little piece of paper.
Do you think they allow brandy into the Guildhall archives? |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 62
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 6:13 am: |
|
Mr. Wolf,
Riddle diddle? I love your words. It is very refreshing to see that someone who works as hard as you do, can still have a sense of humour. Like I said serious research is needed, you just proved it!!! Ha!!
Thanks for the smile on my face, 
Carolyn
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Thanks Carolyn
there is of course a very serious side to what we discuss here, but a sense of humour is essential to that seriousness. Some folk here get so serious about themselves that they forget to laugh, and then post stuff that is so laughable that it just cannot be taken seriously.
As I said it is the riddle diddle in the middle. |
Joan Taylor
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
That is absolutely true Wolf (re the humour) and well phrased. Note the Commissioners' memoirs are always salt and peppered with humour and exactness.
Please can you tell me where I can purchase your work re Cutbush, which sounds wonderful.
I believe it is your writing. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2021
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Thanks Joan
The wonderful thing is that you can't buy it.
But it is available for free right here and now if you click the right buttons. |
Dustin Gould
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
I remember feeling somewhat of a let-down, when the identity of the infamous Watergate informant "Deep Throat" was finally revealed. But I was happy to finally know. There will always be future mysteries to solve. |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1341
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
"When I die and they lay me to rest, gonna go to..." sorry got side tracked. What I meant was that when I die and I'm standing at the pearly gates (I'm a good girl me!) the first question I'll be asking is "who was JTR?" That's when I'll know, not before. To be honest, I don't think I'd like to know before. Odds are, we don't know his name anyway.
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4958
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 09, 2005 - 12:39 pm: |
|
Hi Sarah
Welcome back.
Up there, if there is such a place, the correct question is "Who is JTR?"
Robert |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
