|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Jack the Ripper: An Ongoing Mystery (2000)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Television (Non-Fiction):
Jack the Ripper: An Ongoing Mystery (2000)
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 12:04 am |        | Anyone catch the Discovery Channel's latest Ripper special?
I certainly am disappointed.
While the interviews were very well done, the tone was a bit sensationalistic (ain't it fun to make up words?) and there were a few minor errors. Both Rumbelow and Begg came off very well, though.
My biggest problem occurs in the "denoument" of JTR, with their putting forth our old pal Kosminski as JTR. What rubbish! I thought this guy was effectively discounted even before Sugden dug up all that stuff about him!
All in all, it was a decent job; I just wish they'd done better research.
What do YOU think? |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 12:58 am | | Hi all,
Aside from minor errors and a few laughers, I was stunned that they definitively stated that Israel Schwartz was Anderson's witness and that it was Schwartz who identified Kosminski. Not a word about Joseph Lawende or George Hutchinson. On the positive side, they spent little time on the Royals silliness and mentioned nothing about the cursed diary. But I wish they had specifically identified the photos they used from Stewart's collection. They looked quite interesting.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 07:07 am | | NICK: The Anderson's witness bit stunned you? That's the part where I started screaming at my TV! BTW, what was the point of another documentary on Kosminski? Why not just re-run the 1988 one? I guess asking Stewart about Tumblety would have been too much fair play? Or made the film last 2 hours - too expensive I suppose.
MICHAEL: Disappointed? Ditto here. The web page ad was misleading ... I expected a tour of the Crime Museum and Stewart's study.
I did get a kick out of seeing Stewart sitting next to his computer - a modern day weapon. Seen most of these folks before, but my first time to meet Rumblelow & Stewart in the flesh, so to speak.
The film did give a good quick overview of all the crime scenes ... minus most of the usual myths. And as Nick pointed out - nary a Maybrick in sight.
Ashling |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 07:20 am | | Ashling,
I concur. I just expected a lot more. I do not have a particular suspect, but I in no way believe it was Kosminski. The conclusions of the show demonstrate what happens when researchers and investigators "get married" to their "profiles" and pet theories and ignore the facts. JTR' alleged medical skill - which I feel to be significant - was barely mentioned.
However, I would recommend this documentary to anyone unfamiliar with the Whitechapel Murders. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 08:11 am | | I have to agree with the general consensus that the show did not quite reach my expectations. Of course, it is unlikely that any show of 60 minutes could possibly include enough information to satiate those of us who have spent years on the case.
It was disappointing that the show really did not incorporate any of the 'new' information found within the past decade ... there were no real revelations, it had all been done before. The producers at one time did show considerable interest in Tumblety and Barnett, and were even considering including the possibility that a hatchet was used on Mary Kelly, but apparently these were left on the cutting-room floor.
Errors? Anderson's photo was mixed with Swanson's in one display, and one expert said that Kelly's head was 'completely cut off.' Anyone catch any others? |
Author: Susan K. Topa
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 08:56 am | | One mistake I saw was when they were reading an eyewitness description saying that the man was wearing a deerstalker hat, they showed a man who was definately not wearing a deerstalker.
Edana |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 11:09 am | | It may not be for me to comment on this documentary as I have not seen it yet. The producers did go to a lot of trouble to make this film and they did consult various authorities. However, as many are aware in this field of research, opinion of those allegedly informed individuals often passes for fact and viewers are misled.
The errors I identified were as follows, and I do not know if they stayed in the final cut. (The person making the error is listed first)
1. Narrator - used a description relative to a suspect seen with Mary Kelly in the section about Annie Chapman.
2. Narrator - Called the early suspect Pizer a butcher and not a shoemaker.
3. Narrator - stated that Chief Inspector Donald Sutherland Swanson was picked to head the enquiry into the murders by Anderson. He was not, it was Warren who nominated Swanson.
4. Narrator - should have referred to Abberline by his correct title Detective Inspector Abberline.
5. J. Ross - Schwartz saw the struggle at about 12.45 a.m., not 1.00 a.m. There is no evidence at all to indicate that Schwartz ever recognised or identified Stride's assailant, let alone Kosminski!
6. Narrator - The figure of '15,000 more contables assigned to the area' is totally wrong. The whole of the Metropolitan Force at this time totalled only 14,261 men!
7. Narrator - All the doctor at the London Hospital (Openshaw) confirmed was that the piece of kidney was part of a human kidney. He did not say that it came from a woman, let alone a 45 year-old woman, and there was no mention of Bright's disease.
8. D Rumbelow - "...she suffered from Bright's disease." This is a common fallacy, and is assumed to be the case.
9. Narrator - Kelly was seen by a witness (only one, Hutchinson) outside a pub at 2.00 a.m. not 3.30 a.m.
10. J. Ross (first statement) - Incorrect, Kelly's head was almost severed but not "severed from the body," the vertebrae were intact and the head still attached. Also the breasts did not "lay on the table," they were on the bed, one at her head the other near her feet.
11. Narrator - "His weapon an ax." - This is a totally unproven and unsubstantiated assumption, the weapon used was a sharp knife. The axe idea is a recently proposed hypothesis by Nick Warren who claims that the second Kelly crime photo shows that the left femur was apparently split longitudinally, and that only an axe could have inflicted such damage. The sole support used for this was a single later newspaper report of a visit to the Black Museum where the visitor claimed to have seen an axe "used in the Kelly murder." There is no official or contemporary evidence to support this contention.
12. Hazelwood - Incorrectly describes Kelly's small, single, ground-floor room, as "a flat."
13. Narrator - Warren did not resign as a result of the Ripper murders," and his resignation was tendered the day before the Kelly murder.
14. Grieve - The whole inquiry was not 'stood down,' it continued through 1889-1892, and the file remained open as an unsolved series of murders.
15. Narrator - The witness descriptions were all different and patently, in most cases, referred to different people, thus it is wrong to say 'the suspect', it should be 'the suspects.'
16. Coppelman - Patterns of speech would have given no one away in the East End of 1888. It was full of foreigners and immigrants, and many would have been the customers of prostitutes.
17. Narrator - "...what they reveal is startling. That Swanson and Anderson knew exactly who Jack the Ripper was." - This is totally wrong. Anderson claimed that the killer's identity was "a definitely ascertained fact" but patently this was not the case. It was merely Anderson's opinion. Anderson did not name his suspect, but Swanson names 'Kosminski' in his annotations in Anderson's book. Swanson appears to tacitly endorse what Anderson said, but they also contradict each other in certain ways. It has been shown that there was no real evidence against Kosminski and it would be expected that Swanson's and Anderson's views would be similar as the former was the latter's chief, and Anderson received all his information on the case from Swanson.
18. Narrator - Repeats Ross's earlier error that "Schwartz identified Kosminski in a police line up. But there was a problem Schwartz refused to testify against him." This is totally wrong. In fact all the evidence indicates that the witness referred to was Joseph Lawende not Schwartz. The only other person I have heard seriously suggest that Schwartz may have been the Jewish witness referred to is Paul Begg.
19. J. Ross - Wrongly states (again) "Schwartz identified Kosminski as the man he had seen that night."!
20. J. Ross - states that Kosminski was released into the custody of his brother. It was his brother-in-law and sister.
21. J. Ross - "To actually cancel all the aid after only a month or six weeks after the last murder [Kelly], tells you they knew." This is absolutely unfounded and incorrect. The aid was not cancelled and supplementary patrols were provided through into 1891, the official records on this exist. The Coles murder on February 13, 1891, was initially regarded as another possible 'Ripper' murder, and their suspect, Sadler, was inquired into as possibly being responsible for the earlier murders.
22. J. Ross - (second statement) More errors. They did not look at Ostrog in 1888, nor Druitt. 'They' were not convinced it was Kosminski, this theory did not get an official mention until February 1894, and even then it was not the concensus of police opinion, only Anderson thought so (as a theory). Macnaghten disagreed and favoured Druitt.
The documentary would have been better received, I believe, had it been a balanced look at all the viable suspects, and all the biased and tendentious comments avoided. Also, in my opinion, the documentary accepts the 'canonical five' victims, ignores the others, and the Whitechapel murders are thus seen totally out of context. |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 04:32 pm | | I'm glad to see I was not the only one a bit disappointed with the show. Granted, as SPR points out, there's only so much that can be said in less than 60 minutes (must make time for those commericials, you know), and the whole case is immensely complex - far more so than anyone new to it might think!
SPE has pointed out the inaccuracies, and of course I shan't say I caught them all on the first viewing, but the whole Kosminski thing did irk me. I also wrinkled my brow a bit at the "Bright's Disease" bit, but - well, you all know my stance there!
The (yet again) inaccurate representations of the murder sites is common; only MJK and Eddowes came close to what it could have been. What I found laughable was the prudery engaged in by blurring the breasts and pubic areas on Eddowes' mortuary photograph - which, incidentally, is the first time I have ever seen such a thing in all the Ripper video I have watched. Considering that she was followed by the obscene pile of gutted flesh that was MJK, this quaint bit of dissimulation was amusing. A splayed, plundered crotch is acceptable at 10.00 in America - 100 year old nipples are not. Ah, well.
Still, a worthwhile show even if WE know to take it with a grain of salt. A pity there was no Diary and no Tumblety and no - well, name your favourite bit that was missing.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; someone needs to raise a LOT of money and hire a documentarian like Ken Burns to produce a 10 hour Ripper documentary; that's the only way it will ever really be done as it should be done, outside of the millions spent on yet another movie version.
Stewart, I liked the little police lantern in front of you while you spoke; nice touch!
As ever,
CMD |
Author: JacksBack
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 05:22 pm | | SE, I thought you presented yourself very well and almost got the last word, well almost. You seem to have a lovely garden view of a "typical" bright sunny English day over your shoulder and some very spiffy speakers for your PC, I might add. You certainly have pointed out many, many very important "gross" errors and omissions and just plane mistakes which must drive you nuts. Your detailed comments are expecially amazing because you say you haven't even seem the show, wow, what intuitive abilities you possess. Thanks for your detailed comments above, and it seems to me that these "gross" mistakes just about totally negate the entire value of the "Documentary" except for the spiffy settings and old photos. I have to admitt the "Jack the Ripper Tour" looks like fun and I wonder if the Guide is a recognized expert in this case by virtue of his years of telling the story to "wide eyed tourists". Two little things, quite insignificant in comparison to the gross mistakes you have detailed, but were any of the victims found laying dead on a "door stoop" or step as portrayed for two of the mentioned victims, or were the production company just saving a little money on "set ups" and better lighting angles? Secondly, as Nick Danger pointed out last night, the reader left a whole word (women) out of his reading of one of the letters, the Lusk Note I believe, and didn't Mary Jane Kelly have nice new curtains in her "flat". Minor stuff in comparison with the points you have made, but I thought you really did "boffo" and look forward to many more, and much more detailed, interviews from you in the future. (I hope I won't hurt anyone's feelings by saying that all the contributors, especially Mr. Begg, presented themselves very well and seemed like a "loverly bunch" of fellows.) Wouldn't it be nice to meet the whole lot at the corner pub for a few pints.
JiB |
Author: Christopher T. George
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 08:22 pm | | Hi, JiB:
The guide you saw was Donald Rumbelow himself, leading one of his Ripper Walks, as well as performing as a "talking head" as did Stewart P. Evans and Paul Begg. It looked at one point as if Don was talking in front of an authentic bit of Roman wall, if I am not mistaken--Stewart might be able to confirm that. It was nice to see Beggy esconsed as if on a throne (regal, no, NOT the other kind!) and looking so well, and Stewart so at home in his computer room with which we communicate with him so often. :-) I thought all three experts spoke very well, and that it was only the narrator and the other collatoral "experts"--who after all were not afficianodos of the Whitechapel murders--who misled seriously. Not one of the strongest of Ripper presentations, partially because it focused so much on Kosminski, but, still, not the worst either.
Chris George |
Author: JacksBack
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 09:24 pm | | | I was very worried about you HRH, and glad to see you survived the "Documentary" intact. Thanks for the update on Mr. D. Runbelow's sideline, that is the best gaffa I have made since telling Dave Yost I loved his front door when he sent me a Xmas picture standing in front of the beautiful shiny black Regency entry door to 221B Baker St. in London. My ingnorance is showing again. Glad to hear that you agree that all "interviewees" were quite wonderful, (and surprisingly normal) "Blokes". If they are not careful they will give "Ripperology" a good name..JiB |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 11:56 pm | | I asked friends to videotape the documentary for me, and haven't had a chance to watch it yet. I'll comment on the program later when I do, but IMHO, some of the reactions above seem rather warped. From reading them, it would seem the main thrust of being a Ripperologist is the consuming of mass quantities of information about the case, so as to be able to regurgitate them at will for the sake of artificial and peripheral accomplishments. What does it matter if you can debunk 1,001 fine points about this, that and the other, if you can't come up with some kind of practical notion which unites all the evidence together? Has study of the Whitechapel murders so twisted away from its natural goal as to have sunk into a black hole of knee-jerk deconstructionism? I see no strategy in this kind of occupation, only fetishistic attachment, and sour grapes.
David |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 12:18 am | | At the risk of making myself unpopular, I'd have to agree with Mr. Radka's assessment of the case. To be sure, I have not seen that much of it here, but certainly in many authors' pet theories, which they cling to even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
Though I've studied the case casually for years, I am still only a novice. I have no favorite suspect or pet theory; rather I try to paint a picture of Jack based on the facts instead of the other way around.
Thanks for reading. |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 10:07 am | | | Chris--I believe you're right. Unless my memory fails me, the bit of wall Rumbelow was standing in front of is a section of the old London Wall not too far from Tower Hill. Some of the stonework at the bottom is Roman, though much of it is came later. |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 11:10 am | | Hi All,
I'd like to open a discussion of Stewart's point 21, i.e., the withdrawal of extra patrols from Whitechapel shortly after Kelly's murder.
Several other authors have commmented that the extra patrols were sharply reduced in December 1888 or early 1889, the vigilance comittees told to disband, etc. I think it's a key point; if it can be shown that the extra patrols were sharply reduced at that time, even if not entirely suspended until 1891, then that is a strong indication that the police believed they had identified the Ripper and he was no longer a threat, for whatever reason (dead, left the country, in an asylum, etc). Can anyone offer any primary source evidence, payroll records or manpower reports, that can establish the point one way or the other??
David: please note the topic of this board is "Dissatisfaction with the Discovery Channel", and as such, comments regarding the historical inaccuracies in the program are dead-on topic, however deconstructionist you perceive them to be. It's quite understandable that many of the posters here would be concerned with historical accuracy in such programs. Certainly, anyone with only a passing interest in the case that watched the program would have concluded that Aaron Kosminski was definitely JtR. For years before I started to study the case, I believed the Duke of Clarence was Jtr because I had seen the "In Search Of..." episode that was released shortly after Knight's theory was published. IMHO, I think it is concern over those with a casual interest in the case being misled that is prompting most of these comments, rather than any need to wax pedantic.
Of course, if you wish to start a constructive discussion on possible solutions to the case, please feel free to post your theory :-)
Regards to all,
Jim |
Author: A.M.P.
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 11:53 am | | There are twenty-one pieces of the original City Wall still standing. It was built by the Romans from about 200 AD onwards. Starting at the fort on the site of the Tower, it ran right round the City north of the Thames enclosing the original (approximate) 'square mile'. As Roman power declined in the fourth century, a wall was built along the river to join the two ends together.
The city wall was repaired and extended in the middle ages (mainly thirteenth century) reaching a height of 30ft. By Tudor times it had seven gates. If you are in the City you can tell where these were by some of the place names, such as Aldgate and Bishopsgate.
The wall remained intact until the eighteenth century. As it become necessary to demolish parts of it, three churches were erected near to where gates had been previously. All were called St. Botolph. The one in Aldgate which is only a couple of minutes walk from Mitre Square is the famous 'prostitute's church'. |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 03:50 pm | | Regarding the extra patrols in Whitechapel there is no evidence in the official files that they were sharply reduced after the Kelly murder because the police believed they had identified the Ripper and he was no longer a threat.
The fact is that although they may have thought a person to be a good suspect, they did not have proof. Therefore for practical purposes the killer was still at large. The official records of the financial claims for extra patrols still exist (I have them all), and they show that the only considerations on this aspect was the ever increasing financial burden and the natural complacency that usually sets in when a period of relief from murders extended. Of course further murders such as McKenzie and the Pinchin Street torso case brought renewed calls to increase the patrols. There is no evidence that the vigilance committees were 'told to disband' and this error possibly originates from McCormick's inventive mind.
Typical comments from the reports on expenditure for the special patrols are as follows -
26 Jan 1889 - "Reports that the expenditure for Special Patrol duty in Whitechapel amounted to £306.13 on the 24 inst and asks permission to expend a further £200. He [the Commissioner of Police] is reducing the number of men specially employed as quickly as it is safe." [The extra £200 was allowed]
On 15th March 1889 Monro submitted a report stating "...on the subject of the Police employed on special patrol duty in Whitechapel, I have to acquaint to you, for the information of the Secretary of State, that this duty has now ceased..."
However, on 17 July 1889, the date of the McKenzie murder, the special patrols were again instituted and the fact that the murder was looked at as another possible 'Ripper' crime indicates that the police simply did not know if the killer was still at large or not. In fact HO144/221/A49301I states - "Commissioner of Police Forwards police report respecting the commission of a murder in Castle Alley, Whitechapel, this morning. States that every effort will be made to discover the murderer, who, he thinks, is identical with 'Jack the Ripper,' but that the assassin has not left the slightest clue to his identity."
I think that this alone disproves any claim that after the Kelly murder the police 'the police believed they had identified the Ripper and he was no longer a threat, for whatever reason...'
I hope this helps Jim. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 06:28 pm | | Jim,
Yes, but your response begs the question that the title of this thread should have been "Dissatisfaction With The Discovery Channel" to start with. IMHO, the Brits, going back to John Bishop Berkeley, have had a bit of a sweet tooth for empiricism. For them, everything has been empirically this, empirically that. Never could understand what all the fuss was about. That's why the British mind conceived the title to this thread the way it conceived it. Me, I'm more Germanic. I like idealism, ala' Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, Heidegger, and so on. The idea of a thing is what's important, you know. Hermeneutic, propadeutic, and so on.
David |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Tuesday, 15 February 2000 - 09:18 pm | | Hi All,
From Underwood's "JtR: 100 Years of Mystery", p. 50: "Albert Backert of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee said he was given the same information and the police suggested that the Vigilance Committee and its patrols should be disbanded."
That's where I got the notion that the Vigilance committees were 'told to disband', and I'm certain that I've read that the extra patrols were withdrawn shortly after Kelly's murder in at least a couple of other secondary sources. I did not realize that the source of the Bachert story was McCormick.
Stewart, thanks for taking the time to respond, it was indeed most helpful. From the information you have provided, it seems clear enough that the patrols were continued until at least late January 1889, and then were only gradually reduced as evidenced by the further request for L200 (I don't have the symbol for pounds sterling on my keyboard). It's also clear that there was a financial imperative involved, and that no conclusions should be drawn regarding police knowledge of the Ripper's identity solely from the gradual reduction in extra patrols.
David: I'm pleased to see that you've avoided making any rash generalizations regarding the British mind, I'd certainly hate to think that you would paint the entire 80-odd million of them with the same broad brush. However, I'm not sure I follow your point, nor your line of reasoning. The thread was initiated, and presumably named, by Michael Bruneio, whose profile states that he resides in Pennsylvannia. While Michael could of course be an ex-pat Brit, I can't quite see how you got from there to making a sweeping generalization about British thought.
I found the second part of your post most interesting. I recently had the pleasure of a personal meeting with one of the regular contributors to the boards, who happens to live nearby. Your well-advertised solution was among the many JtR-related subjects we discussed that evening. Since there is insufficient physical evidence to conclusively solve the case, and knowing of your background in philosophy, I opined that I expected your solution to be rife with meta-physics, ie, "I rip, therefore I am." Your last post certainly did nothing to alter that opinion.
And never is heard,
an ill-chosen word,
Jim |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 12:11 am | | Jim,
Please re-read the contribution of Mr. Evans in this thread in the context of my above post, and you'll be able to see what I meant. Perhaps Mr. Bruneo is not a British person, but that was not my point. The attraction of the British to empiricism is well-known in philosophic circles, e.g. under "the British Empiricist Tradition," various interpretations are attempted for the writings of many philosophers, including those of Kant, an idealist. Do you know much about philosophy yourself, Jim?
David |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 12:40 am | | To Jim, David, and Stewart Evans:
This is one of the few times when I am glad to see a discussion taken a bit outside its original parameters. I am especially indebted to Mr. Stewart Evans not only for his excellent expositions in the documentary, but for setting the record straight as to the erroneous claims that the Met Police knew the identity of JTR and had stopped the patrols.
To Jim and David,
I did indeed begin and name this thread, and the direction the thread has taken has been most satisfying. I can say at last that I've joined a discussion board that is well worth participating.
[Unfortunately] I am not British. However, you'll find me quite an Anglophile and I often use "British-isms" in my writing and even my vernacular. If I use such mannerisms incorrectly or out of context, just let me know and I'll either fix it or simply hold my colonial tongue! :-) |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 10:15 am | | I will freely admit I know nothing about philosophy, it not being my line of country. I wonder, however, at your point, David, concering people's dissatsifaction with the DC documentary. You ask: "What does it matter if you can debunk 1001 fine points. . .if you can't come up with some kind of practical notion that unites all the evidence together?"
Anyone can come up with an all-embracing notion, for heaven's sake. The Royal Conspiracy ties everything together, but it's built on faulty assumptions and lies. The "fine points" are flawed, and so is the solution. The DC programme is a case in point. Because of its skewed proposition that the lessening of police patrols "means" something, the show goes on to imply that the Ripper's identity was known to senior policemen, that Anderson and Macnaghten knew and that the Ripper was Kosminski. Kosminski may very well have been the Ripper (that's another discussion), but if his candidacy is based on a faulty premise, how can it hold water?
This raises an interesting question. Which do you think is the paramount objective of the historian - to ensure accuracy in all details or to find the overarching explanation that is the "motion" behind an historical event? The latter smacks too much to me of personal interpretation, and as we know, personal interpretation does not occur in a vacuum. We are all, whether we admit it or not, affected by the mores and perceptions of the times in which we live. Your "solution" to the case (whatever and whenever it may be revealed) might have been seen as outlandish 20 years ago. It may yet be seen as outlandish 20 years from now (assuming it has been publicised by then).
You seem to imply, David, that we are obsessively focusing on the trees rather than the forest. Having had some experience with the field of popular entertainment, I realise there are certain constraints and elisions that inevitably occur when producing a mass-market product. You might say "in the end, what difference does it make if DC showed Nichols' body slumped over a stoop and railing, even though it didn't happen that way? The great public doesn't know that." No, they don't. But small details influence larger ones and will, if allowed to grow, critically affect the search for a solution. Simon Owen's recent posts concerning Sickert are a case in point.
Look at how the DC showed the Goulston Street writing; large block letters on a wide expanse of wall. It didn't look like that. But to make it easier for people to see, the historical fact has been altered. What will come of this? Simply showing an inaccurate representation of the writing without explaining both the inaccuracy and the events surrounding the removal of the writing makes Warren's subsequent removal of such a "large and obvious" message seem sinister in retrospect. And that provides fodder for conspiracy theorists, which further complicates the search for the Ripper.
(actually, I know you can't "look" at this, since you haven't seen the show yet!)
Now if you consider this "regurgitating for the sake of artificial and peripheral accomplishments," then I plead guilty to the charge. The point I wish to make is that there is no longer any excuse for a purportedly "historical" documentary to make mistakes concerning the Ripper case; research has progressed too far for that. Differences in interpretation, certainly; that is their (and your and my) prerogative. But not misstatements of fact, and certainly no using those misstatements to build a specious theory. No, no, no.
You might do us all a signal service, David, if you would at last bring forth your theory. If there's an overarching connexion that ties everything together and solves the case, I for one, would be glad to see it. I could stop wasting my time on some Ripper projects I have pending and employ my talents in a worthier cause, such as debating the merits of blended or single malts.
As ever,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 01:22 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I haven't actually seen the programme under discussion but one aspect of this thread caught my eye nonetheless.
Mr. Radka, your sterotyping of a perceived British attitude baffled me. Experience is often a better teacher than a book (to freely paraphrase Heidegger). For my part, I don't think it's pedantic or arrogant to demonstrate inaccuracies within a documentary - a medium intended for educational purposes. When fiction intrudes into real life scenarios confusion ensues as evinced by such "realistic" themes as those explored in "Titanic", say, or more notably the contemptuous hagiography of Robert Stroud.
Finally, I think you will find that one Universal explanation is as elusive, philosophically, as physically. Cost thingummybob a Nobel prize you know. Besides which, it's an unrealistic and stupid concept. Incidentally, does your Nietzschian attitude also reflect the Germanic idealism offered by such illuminating British thinkers as Houston Chamberlain? Just a thought.
Thanking you
Rabbi Leen |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 03:48 pm | | You don't have to be in favor of lies to comprehend the Sickerts of this world as doing some good, here and there. At least they act as a counterbalance to the evils of a monolithic, mainstream perspective weighing us down. Don't they force people to ask questions, and doesn't asking questions in a sense open doors? How many doors has the historical-empiricist method closed, and how do we know we haven't merely closed ourselves off for the sake of method? Aren't we here to somehow question our way into some kind of a design which unites all the evidence together and solves the case? Shouldn't we consider adopting a playful attitude toward the evidence to help us conceive this design? An attitude which would allow quavering, fluctuating, changing, new ideas caving in old ones, opposites held as simultaneously true at least for awhile, suspending judgement, having little fear of flying? Do we now HAVE such a design? What in fact do we now HAVE? Is it not basically an in-group of people who reinforce one another socially by all accepting the same monolithic empiricist methodology? And isn't the evidence of this that because I seem to represent ALTERNATIVES to it to the minds of people here I continually get kicked around just for living? It seems to me they've found their Jew, so to speak, so they begin the labelling, blaming, stigmatizing and punishing, virtually all in one voice. Mainstream society wins, the deviants are punished, so it goes down through the history of civilization.
Nobody who actually tries to solve this case should be concerned about making a factual mistake with the evidence here or there. If Mrs. Mortimer, for example, turns out to have not much to contribute to a solution attempt, then let's give her second schrift for a change, and not unduly occupy ourselves in honing her every word to razor-sharp empirical worthiness. If you sit around worrying about every single thing you might get wrong, how does this contribute to visualizing a big picture, and shouldn't we at least give the solution to the case a chance to BE a big picture?
Efforts are now being made to shut the door on the Lusk letter and half-kidney, so as to make sure these pathetic maybe's and wannabe's won't haunt our attempts toward monolithic homogenization any more. But doen't this really amount to an attempt to all agree that division by zero in fact has meaning? When I raised objection to this project, which consisted in suggesting that finding faults with the reasons contemporaneously given in favor of the kidney do not rise to the level of adequately dealing with the facticity of the kidney and the letter themselves, I was told "we're better off" not accepting the kidney and letter, and that was that. Find Mr. Chisolm's post, that's what he said, discussion deemed sufficient by all. Because objections can be raised to what Openshaw et al said, "we're better off" believing the letter and kidney to not be genuine. But "better off," like "division by zero," it might be pointed out, is not a rational mode.
Doesn't each side need the other?
David |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 16 February 2000 - 05:42 pm | | David -
The Lusk Kidney is, in my opinion, a time-wasting endeavour because all extant evidence indicates that the thing is a fake. Do you think I just make this stuff up, or what? You have seen my forthcoming article on the LK; you have seen the reasons I believe it a fake. I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that it could have been real and that I can be wrong. However, I do not see that such can be proven from the EXTANT SOURCE EVIDENCE. Therefore, to me it is a closed subject until and unless further source evidence turns up. I am not going to spend time debating the likely results of a real LK just for the sake of that line of thought giving me an "open mind" or "radically different view."
I am afraid I cannot take as sanguine a view of the Sickerts of the world as you seem to. They are time-wasters who are as ready to discard evidence that does not suit their tidy little conspiracies as they are to accept facts that support their contention.
And, though it pains me to say it, David, I do not see you being "the Jew" and "kicked around just for living." I do see that you are receiving brickbats because you will constantly say you have solved the case, but you will not put forth your solution. That's what is irritating, and that's why you are occasionally not treated with the respect you deserve.
I apologise for the somewhat intemperate tone of this post, but that is how I feel at the moment.
CMD |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 07:47 am | | | Chris , I know that you probably think I am indulging in some wishful thinking trying to prove the Sickert theory but I DEFINITELY don't want to ignore any evidence which contradicts it. Rather , I like the theory and I want to prove it , if there is any conflicting information I want to see if there is a way round it , or if it really matters anyway. I know a lot of derision has been poured on the conspiracy theory , this hasn't been helped by the actions of Knight and indeed Sickert himself , but I want to find out if there could be any truth in it. I am willing to be open-minded and I am prepared to give it up if , at the end of the day , I am convinced it is complete rubbish. If there is even a kernal of truth in the Sickert story and it leads to naming Jack then surely it has all been worth it ? I am perhaps guilty of not researching well enough , but time and access to the works is limited thus I welcome anyone putting me straight if their information is accurate. There is no perfect suspect in this case and all have their faults but , like Mulder , I want to believe. So thats why I am trying to prove Sickert's theory but I don't want to gloss over the facts. |
Author: Stephen P. Ryder
Thursday, 17 February 2000 - 08:12 am | | | test |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Friday, 25 February 2000 - 12:53 am | | | Here's that elusive thread David... |
Author: mark.coldwell
Friday, 25 February 2000 - 02:36 pm | | "an on-going mystery" the only mystery is when do us poor brits get to see this fascinating!documentary. judging by some of the previous comments i might give it a miss,come on, there must be plenty of positive comments to make, it cant be that bad!
anyone know when its being shown in the uk, ive tried to e-mail sky tv,but they keep shunting my e-mail to different departments. |
Author: paul branch
Friday, 12 May 2000 - 04:19 pm | | Hello everyone,
In case you've not guessed I'm new, to all of you good people anyway !
Hey Mark you're in luck,
The program of which you speak namely "Jack the Ripper - An Ongoing Mystery" is to be aired by The Discovery Channel here in the U.K. on Tuesday 16th May at 21.00hrs ( 9 pm ).
cheers
Paul |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Saturday, 13 May 2000 - 02:06 pm | | Thank you for that info, Paul; I've a few Brit friends I must inform about this.
As well, I may as well point out that two new Ripper documentaries will be forthcoming here in the US; one on the Discovery Channel, tentatively scheduled for September 18, and another on the History Channel (for the new series "This Week in History") scheduled for the week of August 31. I don't know anything at all about the first other than Paul and Stewart are interviewed; I understand the second will focus more on the press myth of the Ripper than the actual case. More detail when I learn it.
And welcome to the Casebook, Paul. I hope you enjoy your time here.
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 07:47 pm | | Hi all,
This evening the Discovery Channel in America is once again airing this documentary.
I won't debate the strengths or weaknesses of this documentary (one can read the threads to do that).
However, if one is intrigued by the lore of Jack the Ripper this show might be your flavor.
The documentary is somewhat mistitled in that the filmmakers take the position that the mystery has been solved, that the real killer was known by the authorities shortly after the Kelly murder.
For those who are upset at the anachronisms and errors, let me remind you that without the mythology attached to this case there would be no interest in it today.
Rich |
|
|
|
|
