|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 673
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 - 10:30 pm: | 
|
RJ,
Anyone who has ever done serious historical research comes to the conclusion that anecdotal oral history recollections are fascinating and entertaining but except for adding a little local color to a subject must be discounted. Nothing personal and it doesn't suggest that people are lying -- it is just a fact that historians must live with. I have encountered it a dismaying number of times and even documentary evidence or photographic evidence to the contrary will not cause people to change their minds about what they remember or had told to them.
I am no great fan of profiling, but it is based on some empirical ["say the secret woid, win $100 from Groucho"] studies and over time, as more data is collected, may become more valuable. Alas, over time anecdotal oral history only gets less and less reliable.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Gene Autrey
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Dear All,
I think I'm beginning to understand what you're all talking about.
Now, to be un-sensible but serious at the same time - do many people see Jack as a kind of avenging angel(?!) who sweeps in takes his victim and then sweeps off again? Spring-heeled Jack is depicted with wings. A myth and reality situation with Jack creating the myth of his own reality. Scary, bogie man situation, is it not, in all seriousness. But we are not fighting the supernatural - we are 'fighting' a man or men and women, are we not?
My statement above has nothing to do with George Hutchinson except to say 'there goes old Spring-heeled'. This is all philosophical and counter-productive, I think. However I do now think that Jack could have been George Hutchinson but it begs the question 'who was George Hutchinson?'. Does anyone really know? That's what I want to know.
Jaw Jut Chin Son - Jaw forward, jaw back? Very philosophical! And confusing.
(I wasn’t going to post this and then I read Richard Gilchrist‘s point above and wanted to respond.)
In response to Richard’s post, I think what I have just written could have some relevance because while he is talking about fairy-tales I would go back to the ‘myth’ point and say that while Joseph Barnett might have been your archetypal cockney-good bloke, bad bloke- all we actually know about him is his name, like so many of the other witnesses and ‘protagonists’. What people do, I feel, is try to sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of ‘factual information’ and conflicting and sometimes spurious witness statements. How does one do it? And that’s a big question but I think discussion has to be one of the best ways - is it not?
I am glad to see that registered users keep on talking and are not too affected by certain discussion topics introduced by us who have not yet registered.
Good Luck to all, G.Nnnn.
P.S. There is a lot of research on these boards into George Hutchinson but what I’d like to know is what became of him for the rest of his life after 1888. Everyone wants to know that, don’t they and what became of all the other characters in this pea-souper (as Londoner’s used to call the smog).
I’m sorry to keep you all so long but I wanted to say some other things that most of you probably know already, but Romford was and is a dog-track and that would probably be where George Hutchinson lost all his money. Also, as most of you know already, Petticoat Lane is a market (and a busy one by all accounts) and Hutchinson could have gone down there to get some cash-in-hand work or, if he was a villain, to pick a pocket or twelve. (As we have no evidence of this I shouldn’t say it but it may have been a good place to earn some money).
Another P.S. I am Gene and no-one else (except one other person but that does not affect this thread).
Good Luck. (I was going to say ‘Best of British,…’- which is an idiom if anyone is unsure).
Good Luck.
PPS I can't even spell my name right. |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 687
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
"RJ,
Anyone who has ever done serious historical research comes to the conclusion that anecdotal oral history recollections are fascinating and entertaining but except for adding a little local color to a subject must be discounted. Nothing personal and it doesn't suggest that people are lying -- it is just a fact that historians must live with..."
I think you miss the point, Sir.
I'm not saying the locals were or were not correct in believing the murderer was an outsider. The trick here is to not stop thinking the second one recognizes they are hearing 'anectdotal evidence" and fall into that unpleasant habit of knee-jerk knee-slapping hilarity about anything that isn't entirely quantitative. I think that is what might separate the 'serious researcher' from the serious thinker. Of course, saying this won't appeal to those who subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer perspective.
What I was actually responding to is the frequent claim among several posters here that Whitechapel was somehow a 'closed community' where any outsider drifting in from the West End would be immeditiately recognized and robbed, etc. etc. Once again, if the locals, the Met, and the Home Office didn't feel this way, I see no reason why the a-historical John Douglas, basing his ideas on modern culture with the automobile, should. So I repeat...
"The local yokels had no problem believing an outsider could come in their midst...so...listen to the contemporaries...."
If you're studying Rome, listen to the Romans. RJ Palmer |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2822
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Actually............. I THink Huthison has a certain ring and agree with AP....BUT... Bobs got a great point!.........lets TRY to get it right or WRITE chaps!!!!
Suzi |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 675
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 9:37 pm: |
|
RJ,
I might suggest that you, too, missed the point. That is, I think you confused primary contemporary sources with recollections years after an event that are, moreover, usually second-, third- ... many-hand accounts. Any good historian prizes primary sources; even when they are demonstrably false they can provide a good sense of what some people thought at the time or even steer you in a direction that will provide new factual information.
I don't know if you are familiar with any of the articles I've written on JtR, but while often critical of what newspapers reported at the time I have also often suggested that though some statements are at variance with the facts as we think we know them they are worthy of further investigation.
That, however, was not the case with the anecdote related by Mr. Gilchrist. I am sure his story was as he remembered his grandfather told him and was in turn a true rendering of what his grandfather remembered of things he heard many, many years before. Of course, the very unanimity of opinion makes it a little suspect, but we also know that some locals as well as some in the Met or Home Office believed Jack was an outsider so it is nothing new.
Your argument with the frequent claim among several posters here that Whitechapel was somehow a 'closed community' where any outsider drifting in from the West End would be immeditiately recognized and robbed, etc. etc. is valid and worthy of consideration by any counter-claimants.
I see that along with profiling you also don't fancy cliometrics. They are both simply tools and like any can be used properly or abused. Some aspects of historical research (and thinking!) lend themselves wonderfuly to quantification -- but, as in a previous paragraph, the emphasis must be on some.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 51
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
c.d.,
I am not sure about other opinions on these boards, but when I use the term "copy cat", what I am referring to is the second scenario. That someone wants to/is about to commit murder, they try to make it look like the work of someone else. I know I have not put any substantial evidence forward at this time, but once I have a bit more time to go over the facts, I do intend to put down more information to support my claim. I also understand that this case is over one hundred years old, and unfortunately a great deal of the information may only end up as speculation by the time I am done. However, like everyone else, I am trying to look at this intelligently and give what little insight I can. I want to say right now to everyone on these boards that I appreciate not only all of the support, but also all of the patience that has been given to me and to others. I realize that there are many people on here that have certainly done a great deal of research and more than a few that refuse to put anything on here until they have the information and facts to back up and support their views. I am very thankful that even though some of my views may be preliminary, or not appear very well supported, that I am still made to feel comfortable to feel free to get my thoughts and opinions out there. I do, however promise that in the future I will try to be more diligent with using facts associated with the case along with my suggestions, opinions, and alternative perspectives. Thank you all for your understanding.
Sandy |
Sandy
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
OOPS!!!
Sorry everyone!
On the post above, I want to make sure that when I said "...like everyone else, I am trying to look at this intelligently and give what little insight I can", I did not mean that everyone gives little insight. I meant that my insight may not be much. Just thought I would clear that up before anyone thought I was saying something negative to the populace.
Sandy |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 11:01 pm: |
|
Sandy,
Hi. A very honest and much appreciated response from my perspective. Like you, I am still feeling my way on these boards. If you want to know something, the best way to do it is to put the ego in check and ask questions. Don't be afraid to just throw it out there and see what comes back.
c.d. |
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, September 02, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
I'd like to add something to this post.
I've found out that there used to be a pub in Heneage Street called 'The Romford Arms' which I have never seen mentioned elsewhere. It goes under the name of 'The Pride of Spitalfields' now. (I was going to print a photo of it and a map of it's location but couldn't). It could have been where Hutchinson spent the night.
It is in the centre of Whitechapel and only a stone's throw from Thrawl St. Fashion St. and Commercial St. |
Gordon Bennett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 07, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
I had better follow on the same theme but I've done some more research.
Best & Co. Brewery occupied the site at no. 5 Heneage Street, and closed in 1905. The modern day pub is at no. 3. The pub may always have been an outlet for the brewery, but I don't know. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page