|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Cases That Haunt Us, The (Douglas and Olshaker, 2000)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Media: Specific Titles:
Non-Fiction:
Cases That Haunt Us, The (Douglas and Olshaker, 2000)
Author: Stewart P Evans
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 07:30 pm |        | Dear Martin,
Well, I think that we have both had our say now, and I am certainly not going to carry on arguing the points that we have both already covered fairly comprehensively.
I accept what you have to say about the difficulties you experienced regarding research when you wrote your book, and also that the circumstances were very different. I would just like to say, for my part, that when I wrote my first book it was several years before I retired from the police service and I was still very much on shift work with only one weekend a month off. This caused untold problems with both my research and my writing, not to mention one or two 'domestic situations.' And, it was at that time that my major work on what was to become The Ultimate Sourcebook began.
I cannot, and must not, allow Paul Gainey to accept full blame for any errors in the discussion of your theory. The blame must lie equally with both authors. I do recall that we had great difficulty understanding your theory and therein must be the answer to the problem. The problems imposed by the requirements of your publishers I fully understand. I don't recall ever having said that you found Kosminski by accident, as I have always thought that your work on the asylum records commendable and thorough.
You may have noticed that in my subsequent books I have studiously avoided any attacks on the theories of others and intend to continue to do so, unless I find cases of deliberate deception, which charge could not be levelled against you. So far as the Polish Jew arguments are concerned I see little reason in pursuing them any further unless any substantive evidence comes to light. I will merely repeat that there is absolutely no solid evidence against any Polish Jew - nor against any other suspect.
What seems to me to be the plus side of this debate is that we have, hopefully, cleared the air a little. Nothing would be gained from repeating your words at the Norwich conference but I now better understand what prompted them. The way forward for us all is to work in better harmony, and with a better understanding of each other. I do appreciate your comment about 'no personal animus' and that I find heartening. As ever, should you have any queries in areas where I may be able to assist you, you know that you only have to ask.
Best Wishes,
Stewart |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 10 December 2000 - 11:49 pm | | Dear Stewart,
I would only add that, whatever the constraints of time and funding I have had to work under in most of my books subsequent to the Murder Guide to London, I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for those like you and Don and Nick Connell and Bruce Paley who have managed to write books under the even greater retsraint of time left free from fulltime jobs, without benefit of academic vacations and sabbaticals to make such things possible, as also, indeed, for those researchers like Mark King and Adrian Morris - and many others, including contributors to these boards - who have never found the time to write full length books or the good fortune to find commercial publishers, but whose unpaid work in their spare time has filled in so many of the gaps in our knowledge of the case.
I aree with you that nobody can seriously want us to reopen debate on whether what you call 'solid evidence' is the same as reasonable historical evidence. I can agree with you that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence against any suspect, and that ALL official police suspects are worthy of research. My first wife noted with disappointment on reading my book that for all my personal conviction that Cohen was probably the Ripper, I had clearly left the door open to the fact that Druitt and Ostrog (about whom nothing reliable was known to anyone except Mr Goffe at the time) could not be conclusively dismissed from suspicion.
By the way, it was not I but, to my great surprise, the television magazine presenter who, after unexpectedly ending a general interview on the Ripper and the best-known theories by asking me whether I had any personal theory, exclaimed on hearing it, "Oh, so there isn't any mystery now!"
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 05:06 am | | | Hi Martin. I wasn't so much leaving a question begging as trying to avoid getting involved in conclusions based on an assessment of the source. I, like you, feel that Anderson's reference to the Ripper was of no greater significance than the banging his much favoured drum about many crimes being unprosecuted rather than unsolved. He said as much in his interview to the Globeon 7 March 1910 and the importance he attached to the case may also be judged from his letter to the Jewish Chronicle in which he said that his words "flowed from my pen without any consideration." However, I also agree with Jon that Anderson may not have shrugged off criticism as easily as others might have done (as, indeed, may be suggested by his beating of this very drum). However, even if Anderson did feel defensive, this doesn't mean that he would have fabricated an identification story just to salve his ego, and if it is to be argued that he would have done then some comparable examples of ego-salving must be shown. And the important word here is 'comparable' because I am not at all sure that these "Anderson's ego" theories take any account of the imporatance - or, rather, the unimportance - of the Ripper case in 1910. Anderson himself appears not to have recognised any particular significance about the crimes, it is noticeable that no brouhaha erupted around Anderson's claim that the identity of the Ripper was known and that even Churchill stated in the Commons that Anderson's remarks about the Ripper were less important than other revelations in his memoirs. If this reflects the status of the Ripper case in a career that had embraced events of national and international significance, would Anderson have had reason to feel culpable or defensive about it at all? |
Author: Harry Mann
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 05:33 am | | Martin,To be derisive is no answer to anything.It is an old trick to to try and trivalise what is widely acknowledged,that family colleagues and friends are good sources of information.
The questions that Anderson left unanswered are these,who was the witness ,who was the suspect,where was the place of confrontation and when did it happen,and as yet these questions remain unanswered.
Yourself and Shirley Harrison may well know the difference between a fact and an opinion,so do many others.
I said I didn't have a priority in the matter of suspects.I have not done the neccessary research to form an opinion of who merits a better consideration in relation to the large number of persons named.You cannot know what I think,and the names given by you,Prince Albert Victor etc,are a product of your reasoning not mine.
I would not comment on Pauls or Jons traditional scholarly methods,or their brilliant epistemological exposition,except to say it has not solved the question of whether Anderson told the truth.
If you wish to be derisive in future,then expext a strong retaliation,and do not be irritated that I do not pay a blind bit of attention to what Paul writes.Let Paul be irritated by that if he wishes to do so,and he can then explain the cause of his irritation,and i'll do my best to placate him.
Regards,
H.Mann. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 06:00 am | | This discussion is fascinating , but please , please , please keep it civil gentlemen !
I don't think that we can say for sure whether Anderson lied about (1) Knowing the identity of the Ripper or (2) that there was an identification of a suspect. It is a question of judgement therefore , based on what we know of Anderson's character , whether these events actually occurred ; Anderson had been guilty of a deception before , but we must look at the context of this and ask whether it could apply in any way to his comments on the Whitechapel murders. Personally , I can only say that Swanson's memoria , whether written at a later date or not , seems to confirm that there was an identification of a suspect , although the facts about this identification are not at all clear. As to whether Anderson knew who the Ripper was or not , he might have thought that he did , based on either this identification or theories of his own undisclosed ; we are not in a position to say without further evidence. But I am not convinced so far that evidence has been presented to show that Anderson would have lied about this matter ; maybe he exaggerated certain points yes , but this does not equate to a downright untruth. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 09:10 am | | Martin and Stewart, hello to you both,
I've been watching and reading your posts to each other, seeing them getting hotter and hotter, and I've thought, what a shame that two blokes like you should come to a situation like this.You know better than me that no two people think exactly the same, and the written word can easily be taken the wrong way,--can't see facial expression or hear tone. I don't think a bit of praise would hurt either of you,-- myself and the others on these boards feel quite a lot of respect for our authors and policemen. Where would we be without our cops?, and authors give us so much pleasure, what would life be without a good book?. I've never read a book about JtR that I haven't enjoyed, no matter who wrote it! You belong to a brotherhood of writers, you shouldn't be falling out over a difference of opinion. I would know nothing of JtR if it wasn't for chaps like you two. Maybe you should use the phone, or meet more often, anyway it's nice to see it cooling a bit.
My Best Wishes to both of You
Rick |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 09:10 am | | Dear Mr. Mann, forgive me but it appears to me thatyou are indulging in a bit of goalpost shifting here. This discussion is an explanation of how historians assess the overall reliability of a source. Scholarly methods and epistemological exposition isn't intended to prove anything - after all, if we had the means to prove something then there wouldn't be debate about it - but is designed to help us understand what we are dealing with. Historical method is no more than a recognised and tested way of extracting the true facts and events of the past from what the past has left us. It isn't an exact science. Scholarly method doesn't prove anything any more than a trowel builds a house; scholarly method is used to distinguish good evidence from bad evidence. It is a tool used by a historian much as a trowel is a tool used by a bricklayer.
Now, you wrote: "The questions that Anderson left unanswered are these,who was the witness ,who was the suspect,where was the place of confrontation and when did it happen, and as yet these questions remain unanswered. " But Anderson did not leave these questions unanswered (he may have answered them). They are questions to which we do not know the answers. I hope you can appreciate the distinction. Because Anderson did not expand further than he did does not reflect on Anderson's dependability. There are thousands of dependable sources that only give us a detail, alerting the historian to the existence of a person or event, but we don't discount the validity of the document because its author didn't give us chapter and verse.
And Martin didn't dispute or gloss the value of family and oral tradition to the historian. What Martin disputed was its relevance to the assessment of Anderson as a source based on the information currently available to us. Of course Anderson's descendants might have material that would change how we assess Anderson, but it currently has no bearing on how Anderson is currently assesed as a source.
Finally, Martin didn't say that you give priority to the Duke of Clarence etc., he only observed that if you did then your methodologies are so divergent as to preclude sensible further discussion.
I hope you won't think it a liberty if I remind you that this discussion began because you wrote it is in my opinion, doubtful if such a confrontation as Anderson states, ever took place. I disagreed, it being my opinion that the confrontation did take place, that opinion being based on my assessment of Anderson's writings, which finds them to be honest insofar as I have been able to check them. You questioned this, saying: "How in this case would we test for the truth or untruth. Even if a hundred people professed a belief in Anderson's inability to lie, that in itself does not make a general statement of his unquestionable." I replied, explaining the methods by which the reliability of sources is assessed, namely that if comparable statements can be verified it is assumed that unverifiable statements are probably true also (but please observe the word 'probably' because all sorts of things effect the balance of probability). This is an over-simplification, but it is the way things are done. Thus, if one accepts that the identification did take place, one then goes on to examin and test the story in greater detail, where one begins to observe anomalies of the kind Stewart and Martin have highlighted elsewhere. One seeks to explain these anomalies within the context of the event having actually happened, which is what both Martin Fido and Philip Sugden have done. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 10:42 am | | Simon and Warwick - I do hope Stewart's and my last two posts have reassured you. It can't be much over a week ago that we spoke very amicably on the telephne, and he kindly guided me to a discovery of his which falls outside the realm of official files, and so did not get into 'The Ultimate Source Book', but which was actually crucial to work I was doing at the time. I don't think we shall come to blows, though we may have to be careful about how robustly we word disagreements over the reading of history!
Martin F |
Author: stephen stanley
Monday, 11 December 2000 - 05:03 pm | | | And they all lived happily ever after..... |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 04:36 am | | Dear Mr Begg,
I cannot agree that I have changed the position of the goalposts.I have always said I believed it possible that Anderson was lying.I maintain that stance.
The questions that his statements posed,have been the subject of inumerable searches by well qualified researchers.No one has yet supplied an answer to the four items I mentioned.
If one uses all possible means,and explores all known avenues in the quest for proof of an event,and fails,then I think I am justified in believing that the source,in this case Anderson,was probably false.
If anyone is of a different opinion so be it,and I wish them luck in their continued search for the truth,and hope one day their search will be successful. |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 12 December 2000 - 10:55 pm | | I love my five masters, but they are wrong.
David |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 12:25 pm | | David
Is that a definitely ascertained fact? |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 13 December 2000 - 10:21 pm | | | No, a centrally epistemological one. |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 02:14 am | | Hello Mr. Radka,
Epistemology is a term that encompasses a wide range of philosophic knowledge, beginning with the pre-Socratics, e.g. Pythagoras, Protagoras, Democritus, and the Sophists, running through Rene Descartes and John Locke, to the postmodernists like Derrida, Lyotard, and Rorty, so we're talking about a span of roughly 2500 year or so. Do you think you could narrow the "a centrally epistemological one" down to something a little more manageable? Say, one century.
Best Regards |
Author: Paul Begg
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 04:19 am | | | Dear Mr Mann:- If we could corroborate unverifiable data then it wouldn't be unverifiable and we wouldn't have any argument about it. Since we do have information that is unverifiable, if the solution is to dismiss it as 'probably false' then we'd be discarding large chunks of potentially valuable historical data. If you are happy with this then there no point in discussion. On the other hand, if you recognise it as being unsatisfactory, you're left with the problem of assessing the probable reliability of unverifiable information. Historians do this by assessing the reliability of the source overall (by comparing the accuracy of the source when describing verifiable material). This is what has been done with Anderson, it being concluded that he is overall reliable and that he is probably reliable about matters for which we have no independent verification (although in the case of the identification there is independent testimony in the shape of Swanson). If you don't agree with that methodology, how would you suggest that historians assess their source material? |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 12:36 pm | | Joseph,
I basically mean neoplatonism, especially insofar as our ol' buddy Giovanni DiFidanza Castello is concerned. "Joe," as he is often affectionately referred to by his followers, is the fellow who is known more formally in the philosophy books as Cardinal Bishop Saint Bonaventure.
Basically the neoplatonists, especially Joe, retooled Plato's theory of the Forms, originally set down in his famous dialogues portraying Socrates, in such a way as to be able to do some neat Catholic theology. That's why they called it neoplatonism--it served as the Medieval period's "new take" on the ancient Greek thinker. Essentially, Bonaventure starts out with a his personal intuition of the One--a mystical intermingling of the thinker's mind with God's presence in the universe. From there, by more ordinary intellectual means, the thinker logically unpacks the relative positions of everything else under the One. Art, the sciences, time, space, the whole works can be understood in their respective places, provided one proceeds from, and always in concert with, the One. It works in some ways like Plato's Forms work, the principal difference is of course that Bonaventure is a monotheist Christian and a mystic, whereas Plato is a polytheist Pagan and not a mystic (although some philosophers do interpret Plato as a mystic, as possibly Bonaventure himself did. I interpret Plato as a non-mystic.)
This is the idea I have concerning solving the case. I work on the same principle. I've tried hard to figure out what the central idea of the Whitechapel murders is. Some say there is none, but I have persisted, basically because I seem to have an affinity for Joe's style. WHAT a man St. Bonaventure was, everyone should read up on him if they want to be inspired and stimulated. Once you figure out what the murders were all about, the case basically solves itself for you. Or it almost does. Your problem is basically the same as Joe's problem--you've first got to get your starting point determined, get your basic bearings and solid ground to stand on, then you can proceed. Nothing published has correctly done this before, concerning the Whitechapel murders as far as I can see, and I've been reading the case for ten years.
When I participate on these boards, I basically am posting at less than my normal consideration of matters. Those who read my posts don't know that I am ahead of what I write here. I cannot speak much more about this now, and certainly do not want to sound condescending--if you'd figure out the nature of what I'm talking about, you'd know I am not condescending. However, I will say that the case is near-completely solvable on evidence published in secondary sources, you don't need to consult anything primary, and that a number of our better posters in fact have solved the case, they just don't know they have. At least these posters have solved it: Viper, Yazoo, and Mr. Nelson. I have read Yazoo say the answer here, and simply sprint right by it in sheer blindness of what he had, two or three times. A former poster calling himself Rotter was close enough for a cigar. Mr. DiPalma is warm. Without a doubt many others can solve it, it doesn't require Einstein's genius, I can assure you. It seems to me that human beings are too interested in forming cliques with one another for political purposes, and not interested enough in each thinking on their own. If they did a bit more of the latter, many problems could be solved. This is what happens here. But I am not the cliquey type of person.
Once in awhile, when I see that someone is posting close to the solution, I simply post "...tick...tick...tick..." Nobody picks up on it, it seems. Maybe I should post "...clique...clique...clique..."
David |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 05:13 pm | | Hello Mr. Radka,
I don't find your tone condescending at all; in fact, as I read your continuing contributions to this forum, I became aware that you write from erudition, and not from condescension.
I enjoy the hints you occasionally drop, regarding your solution to the Whitechapel murders. I see it as a type of JtR crossword puzzle, where the puzzle master has decided to list the clues periodically, and in no particular order. To me, that is what's interesting. We are, after all, pursuing the perpetrator of a 112 year-old crime; I guess that makes us puzzle enthusiasts of one sort or another, and figuring out your solution to the Whitechapel murders is just another puzzle to solve.
I'm sure you'll admit, that like minded people gravitating together in contracting sub-circles, is a normal social occurrence. The circles of friends, or cliques, are just groups of people who recognize they share common interests, but retain their own personality characteristics, and thinking patterns.
Mr. Radka, I am not trying to patronize you, nor am I being sarcastic, when I say that you are a member of the Casebook clique; your contributions, and personality add to the ambiance. This place wouldn't be the same without you. Perhaps you are more of a cliquester then you thought.
Your reference to St. Bonaventure as the Neo-Platonist who clarified the theory of monotheistic Emanation for adoption by the Papacy is incorrect. Plotinus began writing his doctrine of the One some time around 268 BCE. One of his students, Porphyry, arranged his work into six Enneades, which remained obscure to medieval philosophy until they were published in 1492.
Boneventure, whose father was named Giovanni DiFidanza, was a thirteenth century Papal dignitary, who wrote The Commentary on the Sentences superiorum praecepto. It is a treatise critical of his contemporary Peter Lombard.
How does this mistake affect the template you used to construct your solution? Is your mistake purposeful? If so, where will it lead me?
Only the shadow knows. :-)
Best regards |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 06:59 pm | | David , I think I would be correct in saying that both Socrates and Plato were monotheists rather than polytheists , but I'm not sure ; they were certainly not Christians anyway.
If I interpret this rightly ( and its late at night and my brain is hurting ) are you saying that the ' Neoplatonic One ' is an attempt to understand the way that God works in the universe ? Thus when you say " Once you figure out what the murders were all about the case basically solves itself for you " are you talking about the case in relation to mankind and the human race in general , or speaking more specifically in that the Ripper murders had a purpose and were intended to produce some sort of result or effect viz a certain section of the human race or 19th century British population ? This may sound mumbo-jumbo , and indeed it may be that , but I am trying to look at the case from a philosophical angle ( or epistemological angle if you like ) and I don't really want to say " God was behind it all ! "
Help ! :o |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 08:56 pm | | | So, David....tell us about William Druitt. |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 14 December 2000 - 10:33 pm | | Joseph,
Thank you for clarifying matters concerning neoplatonism. I am well aware of the Roman Plotinus and his Enneads--I studied them in my MA program. Bonaventure used Plotinus' neoplatonism to a significant degree in his work.
Simon,
What I mean is that I think I've found the equivalent of a One in the Whitechapel murders, and I use it as a guide to questioning the evidence. I think of the evidence in terms of some one thing, to see where doing so leads me, and what doors may be opened. I'm not the first person to do this. I won't say at this time who did so before me--you can figure it out for yourself. I have a different center than he. I see this work as being logical, not theological. I aim to produce in my reader what I conceive of as an "epiphanous paradigm shift."
Jon,
Oops!
David |
Author: Rotter
Friday, 15 December 2000 - 05:05 am | | | Thank you David, but you needn't send the cigar. Recognition is enough. |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 15 December 2000 - 11:15 am | | Rotter,
You needn't merely lurk this site. Your posts would be welcome.
David |
|
|
|
|
