The State Of Theoretical Ripperology

[How Brown]

Over on a Tumbelty thread, Roger Palmer made a reference to what he feels is a minimal amount of Ripper theory being conducted today. He mentions a pair of well regarded Ripperologists...but aside from these gentlemen...well,perhaps R.J. will chime in on this thread with his reasons as to why this area is somewhat bereft today.

I'm sure each one of us has fabricated theories in specific areas, at least, but perhaps not to the extent that the whole of the Case has been sorted out.

Some of us might,myself to be precise,have been for the most part,"one trick ponies"....concentrating on one or two areas of the whole of the case...while learning something virtually every day and changing the structure of our belief system as we go along.

Would someone care to share their opinions on this situation,as R.J. has originally commented upon?

Thanks....

[How Brown]

Two of the "two schools of thought" within theoretical Ripperology are the eliminationist and constructionist methodologies.

One good example of a eliminationist would be the late Melvin Harris.

Two good examples of constructionists would be either Tom Wescott or Stan Russo.

All approached/es Ripperology from uniquely different perspectives...

My question is....which perspective do you tend to gravitate towards in general ? Which is best suited to your aims?

Thanks again....

[Stan Russo]

I worked in construction for a few summers, if that helps.

Stan

[Magpie]

Personally I prefer a "reconstructionist" approach--offering alternative explanations for existing evidence that are almost or equally plausible.

Michael Bradley coined the term "rehistorian" to cover the approach (since revisionist had already been taken and applied in a negative context)

As an intellectual exercise, it encourages people to rethink what they "know" about the case, and in several instances it has led to the overturning of previously accepted ideas (one major example being the long-held assumption that Druitt was a "failed" barrister). I agree that Tom's rethinking of Stride's murder has opened up fascinating possibilities re: LeGrand. (note to Tom: Hurry up with the g*ddam book already!!!)

[Adam Went]

Hi all,

IMO, the best way to deal with this case (as with any other mystery) is to think outside the box. It's important not to have too many set views on different aspects of the case because you can become too stubborn and not willing to listen to reasonable arguments which go against what you think. I've made that mistake, and I'm sure most of us have. It always makes the case more interesting and gives us fresh topics to discuss when new theories are made, and the way to do that is to think outside the box.

Obviously when it comes to suspects and theories like the Royals, the Masons, Maybrick, Sickert, etc, their followers have lost sight of the box altogether, so a line has to be drawn somewhere, but in general, thinking outside the box has only improved the interest in the case and the mysteries within it. Let's keep it up!

Cheers,
Adam. :D

[Robert Linford]

My attitude is : just do it.:)

[Tom_Wescott]

I just went back and read the Tumblety/Andrews thread to see what RJ had to say on theorising and for the large part I agree with him. I've said the same thing before, that people are creatures of extremes. Once upon a time Ripperology was 'anything goes'. Prove that Neil Cream was locked in prison in another country when the murders were committed and there'd be someone standing nearby to suggest he had a doppleganger. Then in the 1980's, with the files open and books like Fido's and Begg's, people became more interested in the facts. A good thing! Then the 90's came with the Casebook and the journals. Many old myths were exposed as such and I feel at some point skepticism overtook all else to the point where nothing is regarded as fact any more. And that can't be good for research because it leaves you with no solid foundation.

I'm certain RJ would agree that any theory should be scrutinized and put to the test. But some of the 'deconstructionism' I see going on is more irresponsible than the theory it's supposed to be testing. Here's a recent example from my own experience: It's well documented that the Whitehchapel Vigilance Committee would meet nightly at the Crown public house in Mile End Road, a rather short distance from Berner Street. It's also well-documented that Charles Le Grand were in charge of the foot patrol. The patrolmen would set out around midnight. None of this is theory, mind you. Using this information I pointed out in a thread that this puts Le Grand in the vicinity of Berner Street at the time of Stride's murder. An established poster tried to say this is not the case simply because I could not prove that on that very night Le Grand went to work. He might have called in sick! And because of this my evidence was useless. We simply cannot expect miracles from historical sources and it's irresponsible to ignore or disregard what information we do have when considering a case for a particular suspect. In the case of my example, we know Le Grand reported nightly to a location near Berner Street. We know that shortly after midnight he and his men would take out. We know Liz Stride was murdered between 12:45 and 1am. For this reason I'm able to place a nutcase notorious for his hatred of prostitutes in the area and near the time of a murder of such a prostitute. Other evidence also connects Le Grand to the very club at which the victim was murdered. This evidence alone makes him stand out from every other suspect in the case (at least for Stride's murder) and yet an established Ripper commentator said 'it's no good' because I didn't have a pay stub proving Le Grand reported for duty on that particular night. This is what I find so frustrating about discussing suspect theory on the message boards.

On the flipside, I also find it frustrating when theorists become married to their suspect. They become impossible to talk to rationally. I'm happy to say that I'm not at all convinced that Le Grand or anyone else was the Ripper. But I find him a person of interest and worth pursuing and do not at all appreciate when viable evidence is irrationally mocked or discarded by someone with an agenda, whatever it may be. Disregarding or fabricating evidence to dispute a viable suspect is not so different from doing the same to bolster a weak suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Lord Tom, I'd be interested to know why you think Le Grand hated prostitutes?

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

I think he hated women in general. He just took it out on prositutes inparticular. I guess when a person makes a habit of abusing a certain class of women he runs the risk of history recording him as having hated those women. Figure it out for yourself, AP. It's pretty clear to everyone else. But then, you think that Le Grand was an angel and too old at age 35 to have been the Ripper. You also think Stride might have accidentally slit her own throat with a wagon wheel or bootscraper. So given your perspective I won't be too offended if you don't understand how a man who ruined women to make his lively hood, who threatened to murder them on the street, had them stalked and beaten, sadistically enjoyed trying to get them arrested for sport and even wrote that 'a woman shall pay' for having ruined him, could possibly be termed a mysoginist and psychopath. Nope, that's just wild speculation on my part.

Anyway, back to how you know more about Tumblety than Littlechild.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks my Lord Tom, from my understanding though most of his threats of violence directed towards women were made to very wealthy and what might be termed 'upper class' ladies.
His single physical assault against a woman was surely made in a moment of temper?
And the woman he assaulted was surely prosecuted for an assault on Le Grand in the same court of law?
Sounds like a domestic to me.
Personally I think Le Grand liked prostitutes, for supposedly he made money from them.

[Tom_Wescott]

Thanks my Lord Tom, from my understanding though most of his threats of violence directed towards women were made to very wealthy and what might be termed 'upper class' ladies.

In this singular case he used threats of murder for blackmail. He threatened to use explosives to blow them up if they didn't pay him. When arrested he did, in fact, have such explosives in his possession so it appears he was all to happy to follow through on his threat.
Let us not forget he also threatened to murder a policemen with 'six inches of steel'. And this was just before attempting to throw him under a train. Le Grand was a psycho, AP, there's no question of this.

His single physical assault against a woman was surely made in a moment of temper?

Singular? I think not. I recall more than one. And of course he also had one of his stooges stalk and beat up a girl. Rather similiar to what Schwartz saw, don't you think? You find the man who served two months for beating up the girl and you might just find BS Man.

And the woman he assaulted was surely prosecuted for an assault on Le Grand in the same court of law?

You don't mean she was prosecuted for attacking Amelia Demay? Are you suggesting that Le Grand was a cross dresser going by the name Amelia Demay alias Madame Pourquoi? I think not.

Personally I think Le Grand liked prostitutes, for supposedly he made money from them.

How silly of me. Pimps don't look at their women as commodities and objects. No sir. They respect and cherish and 'like' them. Okay, AP. You know more about Tumblety than Grey Hunter. You know more about Le Grand than me. Why do you even waste your time with a bunch of green upstarts like us?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

I like to talk, Lord Tom, and discuss things, and I enjoy the company.

[How Brown]

Another area of Ripperology which should be mentioned prominently is the area of specialization...regarding such aspects as censuses and other relevant data.

Do you prefer discussing data rather than "working on" an overall theory ?

[Stan Russo]

How,

I am not sure why those two areas need to be independant.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

It seems to m that what is taking place is a revolution of some kind where information that was once only available to a very small and select number of individuals is now widely available to a general mass of interested people.
Twenty years ago this information was transcripted and presented by such a small number of individuals that the focus and intent of their work naturally suffered from the individual leanings and attitudes of whichever individual was presenting it.
Now that hundreds of individuals have access to that same material - twenty years later - we are seeing some very different, and often, very radical transcriptions and presentations of the very same material.
This has got to be a good and decent thing.
Twenty years ago the situation was very much like a court of law in which a suspect was being tried by the prosecution with no means to defend himself.
All the evidence was supplied by the prosecution.
All the witnesses were supplied by the prosecution.
There was neither judge or jury.
And the final verdict was in the hands of the same man who had conducted the prosecution.
So I see myself as a defence witness who is introducing material and witness for the defence, as in the Tumblety case where I am arguing against twenty long years of totally negative and fully biased argument from prosecutors who have never allowed a defence to take place, and I am doing this honestly and robustly.
It's about time.

[Stan Russo]

A.P.,

Damn - well said

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, that was an uncharacteristically lucid post and I agree with everything you said, barring the last paragraph where you take your place atop your high horse. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

How,

Am I allowed to agree with Tom agreeing with me agreeing with A.P.?

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Sir Stan and Lord Tom, much appreciated.
Tom, take comfort from the fact that those who ride a high horse have a long way to fall... but I'll probably land on my slouch hat, greyhounds and American accent, so I should survive.

[Tom_Wescott]

I should think those Yankee dollars you've been working so hard for would go a long way in padding your fall as well. :washing:


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

Those would be East Indian dollars, Tom, not Yankee.
I bet you never knew that the American flag is an inheritance from the East India Company's dominion over your land, and mine.
These days I seem to fall on swords.
But sharp I like.

[Dan Norder]

I feel at some point skepticism overtook all else to the point where nothing is regarded as fact any more.

Well, nothing that isn't proven as a fact should be taken as a fact. That should be obvious.

On the other hand, there are certain things that are not (and often cannot be) proven as a fact that are the only reasonable answers from all available evidence. Those should be treated as *likely* to be true until such time as contrary evidence comes along.

Of course the problem here is that so many people are so in love with their own ideas that they automatically believe that any thing they think up fits this description even if the face of other well respected Ripper authorities saying something different. (See, for example, many of Begg's claims, which he insists as presenting as fact despite that others disagree with him, including people like Evans, Rumbelow, Sugden and others whose right to offer contrary opinions cannot possibly be ignored even if one wants to dismiss lesser known researchers.)

[SirRobertAnderson]

(See, for example, many of Begg's claims, which he insists as presenting as fact despite that others disagree with him, including people like Evans, Rumbelow, Sugden and others whose right to offer contrary opinions cannot possibly be ignored even if one wants to dismiss lesser known researchers.)

That might make an interesting thread of its own, Dan. Not to rag on Begg, but to have in one handy spot which of his assertions are contentious.

[Adam Went]

Hi all,

How, I think it's important to discuss data because otherwise you can become very ignorant of other people's views, which while they might go against what you think, they could also potentially lead you to more information.
Some people have one set theory and aren't very willing to take others into account, which IMO isn't a good attitude, and doesn't help us move the case forward. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't stick with your beliefs though, just that it's good to be objective at the same time.

Most of you would know that my preferred suspect is George Chapman. He's been my favourite since the time I first got interested in the case. I like him because he's a genuine suspect, not one of these Maybrick-Sickert-Royals-Stephenson (sorry!)-Masons, etc types which rely on all sorts of conspiracies, hidden information and occults to be seriously considered.
Chapman is a known serial killer, had atleast 3 police officers who were involved in the JTR case name him as their preferred suspect, had some medical knowledge, lived in the area of the murders, resembles witness descriptions, was known to be violent to women AND was used to handling sharp instruments. The same can't be said of many other suspects - infact, I can't think of any!

While I feel he's the strongest suspect we have out of the known suspects, I still think it's best to remain objective while researching the case. It is frustrating when you see ridiculous theories being put forward, but they're best to be simply left out of the equation. We shouldn't waste our time on them anymore.

It's almost a certainty that we'll never know for sure who JTR was - it'd probably spoil a good mystery to know now anyway, and it would be of no gain, as whoever JTR was, he's long dead. What we can do is keep sharing information, keep proposing ideas, keep trying to solve the smaller mysteries within the case....but most importantly, keep the memory of the case alive, and who knows what continued interest in it will lead to in the future!

Cheers,
Adam. :thumbsupbud:

[A.P. Wolf]

Yes Adam.
And what does no good is to sit in a camp and say everyone outside is the enemy… unless of course they come into the camp and agree with the camp followers.
I don’t believe there is an enemy, only a killer on the loose.
But I believe there are camps, with their followers, who will hear no discussion or argument that falls outside their very narrow remit… to name Jack the Ripper, and damn the consequences, and the clowns.
My own personal remit in this strange and fractured little world has never been to name Jack the Ripper, but rather to explain him and his motives for the slaughter of the life and blood of the Late Victorian Period of English history.
As I have said all along, I believe the crimes of the Whitechapel Murderer to have had a social motive, rather than a sexual or political motive, but the more we attempt to name the killer, and then construct our wonderfully destructive theories around the clown, the more we dance to his tune as he pulls our strings; and we become the clown.
Yes, have a suspect by all means, and twin that with a suitable theory, but don’t let that destroy the basic elements of what this is all about… which is discovery and a true understanding of historical times lost to us by modern interpretation of events that still, basically, remain a complete and utter mystery to us.
I have been astonished by the amount of vitriol and hostility that a simple post, questioning some long held views, can generate, especially when that post concerns a favoured suspect; and then find myself bewildered because I have just gently tested a subject that in reality should have been solved fifty years ago; but perhaps it hasn’t because the believers ‘believe’ and will not tolerate any test of their faith.
I think the faith of such folk should be tested, time and time again, for there is no true Lord in the sky and we must deal with the darkness.
Of ages.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

How do you explain him without naming him?

How would you know if you were right in your explanation unless you could show it through a suspect's viewpoint?

I undersatand that you believe the murders were socially motivated, yet how is that different from someone saying they were sexually motivated? In essence, why is your idea better than someone else's idea?

I believe that is where the suspect comes in.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, the suspect thing is fine, as long as it doesn't exclude the motive, which in my opinion most suspect-led theories do.
Being gay; disliking women; drinking too much; taking drugs; bad parentage; reading the Bible; contracting syphilis from a prostitute; being a painter; being a poet; being a doctor; being a Fenian; prescribing drugs that might procur an abortion; stabbing women with a knife; writing letters; wearing rubber boots; being declared a lunatic... are all symptomatic conditions of life in the LVP, and most went through that life without murdering and mutilating five prostitutes.
An abundance of symptoms doesn't make a motive but it sure makes a lot of suspects.

[Tom_Wescott]

One point that Stan's written about in the past is how a bad theory can exclude a potentially viable suspect from consideration, even though it might have been the theory - and not the suspect - that was flawed. I feel this observation extends beyond suspects to suspect 'types' and even ideas. For instance, because of all the hulabaloo over Stephen Knight's very flawed Masonic theory, any suggestion that the Ripper was a Mason will be poo-pooed automatically. But is it really impossible that the Ripper was a Mason? Why is it impossible?

Or if you feel that Howard and crew have demolished D'Onston as a Ripper suspect, does that mean the Ripper couldn't have been an occultist?

In short, a theory and a suspect are not always mutually exclusive. Also, some evidence or ideas make sense with some theories but not others.

For instance, let's say that Emma Smith WAS a Ripper victim. It doesn't make a long of sense if Montague Druitt was your man, but it would if your suspect was Joseph Silver (who was 20 at the time and could have been the 19 year old she described) or Tumblety (who hung around young boys) or Le Grand (who carried a stick and employed thugs). Please understand I'm NOT saying I believe she was a victim. Just using her as an example.

If your suspect is Kosminski, then it's a forgone conclusion that the 'Dear Boss' letter was a hoax. But not if it's D'Onston, an anarchist, Le Grand, or Stephen. And yet, because of the backlash against the letters in the last 20 years, many would view you as a crank for taking them seriously, even if they fit in well with your suspect.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

That was a very good post, my Lord Tom.

[How Brown]

Yes A.P....Tom did make several good points.

Stan, indeed, has reminded me several times that a bad theory about a potentially viable suspect has often created a reduction in investigation into that suspect on other grounds or motives.

Simply said about RDS....if the whole motive is shown and it has been...to be deficient....then what would he have committed the WM for? That naturally applies to any proposed or dredged up suspect. There's no evidence that the police suspected this man despite the wishful thinking of first, Melvin...and then whomever.

Yet... Stephenson,since he fulfills the only real requirement which modern Ripperology demands...his location at the time of the crimes....might have had some other reason aside from the demonstrably false "black magician" premise. Due to a hatred of prostitutes? Due to a syphilitic condition? For kicks? To make a name for himself? As a social righter of immorality? Several come to mind that might worth pursuing,since we do know RDS was far more capable than the average person in the area of 'religious' acumen by his performance in his life. Who knows? He might have been the Ripper for a completely different motive...and one not based on this occultist nonsense...nonsense as far as he is concerned....not that an occultist could not have been behind the crimes.

Anyway....

Yes....the Ripper might have committed these crimes for a plethora of reasons. If any of the existing suspects lived,frequented,or temporarily resided in the East End...then of course,their candidacy will be kept afloat till the cows come home. To me,and I know that this will be opposed,I don't think any...with one or two execptions....of the suspects are worth more than being the subject matter of civil discussion. Its great that we do discuss them even if only as individuals. Just an opinion.

For me...again just an opinion...Le Grand...one of the persons I'm interested in.... is a cut above the average for the reasons Tommy has presented elsewhere....I believe he was,as Tom posits,a bona fide psychopath and worth all the time in investigating him. Under every visible iceberg lays 90 percent of the bulk of that very same block of ice. This guy was bad news.

[Tom_Wescott]

Well, given that D'Onston's acute interest in the occult, I'd say that if he were the Ripper that would had to have been a motivating factor. But I digress.

Yes, Le Grand is interesting. The original essay published by Gerry Nixon only hinted at his career as a theif and I believe this is why he remained untouched all these years. No real reason to suppose he was violent (although my mind still boggles at how Nixon's article failed to generate ANY discussion or further research about this man). But now we can see that he indeed had a very, very violent career. And the fact that he edged his way into the Ripper investigation makes him all the more suspicious. Doesn't make him the Ripper though. But his actions sure make it easy to develop a theory around him!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[How Brown]

......and,may I add...

That even if a suspect is proverbially shot to hell by deconstructing the mainstream theory,as with the case of RDS...that should be an encouragement to study the individual,not forget him....for other possible motives. Many people were interested in the occult in 1888....yet the main one proposed is not,likely ever to be known to have even practiced or proven to have learned the "dark arts". That doesn't mean that someone who WAS practiced or practicing in this mumbo jumbo couldn't have been the Ripper.

The last thing in the world we should want to see is any viable ( Not some Ostrog or PAV...or Gull) suspect dismissed based on baseless motives.

[Stan Russo]

All good posts.

I'd like to especially say that AP's 1st post (in response to mine) is exceptional. A lot of symptoms does not make a murderer. I believe that that specific aspect has hampered this case for years - decades even. People seem to be looking for a kind of person rather than the person. I think that leads nowhere, unless going around in circles is not nowhere.

My interest in suspects leans toward examining why that particular suspect might have committed these murders.

I don't care who did it, I just care WHO did it. I know that may not make sense, but to simplify it, it doesn't matter who the murderer was, only that we find out WHO the murderer was. I guess that wasn't much clearer. I hope someone understands what I mean.

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

I know what you're saying. You're saying you couldn't care less what the motive was or what trade the Ripper was in, or what his agenda might have been, etc. you just want to put a name to the man. I'm exactly the same way.

And I know what you and AP are saying. Most Ripperologists have made up their mind that (for example) the Ripper had no medical knowledge, or that he was a medical genius and must have been a surgeon, and because of this they won't open their mind to suspects who don't 'qualify'. The importance of this is that many of these Ripperologists are great researchers and because of their personal bias they might miss a crucial piece of evidence that comes across their lap and that the rest of us may never find ourselves and then we ALL miss out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

Tom,

Yes and no.

I agree with your second paragraph wholeheartedly and that has been a detriment to Ripperology for decades because of it.

What I am trying to say, which you got some of the jist of, is that it wouldn't matter to me if it were Druitt or Stephen or Stephenson or Tumblety. I have no personal stake in any of the suspects being the murderer. My only stake is getting the right guy. I do care about the motive, but I am not tied to or pre-tied to a particular motive in my search for the murderer. By pre-tying myself to a particular motive, I eliminate a bevy of suspects who are intriguing for various reasons and sectioning myself off within an idealized motive that does not have to be correct.

As I told Adam, in another thread, the basic profiling techniques have failed and blown up in Ripperology's face. You know it as well as I do that there are those out there who would dismiss a suspect such as Stephenson because he lived past the murders and there is no evidence of similar murders around him simply because they insist, primarily to themselves, that the murders were an atrocity and that the culprit was an unstoppable monster, who could only be stopped by something other than himself - if that makes any sense.

Along those lines, there are those who will still put forth Druitt but very rarely do you see any of them put forth Edward Buchan, who fits that profile much better than Druitt, using their own idealized notion.

Then again, there are those who latch onto a suspect and disregard logic and evidentiary analysis. IMHO, the case is actually too big for them, because they cannot see past their own investigatory limits - again, if that makes any sense.

I am not saying that anyone is better than anyone else, but I believe you understand what I am saying about this matter.

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

Stan,

Yes, I do. I understand perfectly. And I freely admit that I occassionally fall victim to my own biases as I imagine we all do from time to time. That's human nature, but what's obnoxious are those who cling to their biases for dear life even in the face of logic or fact.
Any good theory should be put to the test of rational argument, but what I find so frustrating is that when I post an idea of mine so little of the argument against it is rational. It tends to come from those with a bias against me personally or against the jist of the theory. Most recently I posted my theory of what the GSG really said and although it received support from certain circles, the anti-graffiti crowd used ever tactic in the book to disparage the idea and myself. What could have been a stimulating and fun exchange turned nasty almost immediately. The upside of it is that the desperation of their actions showed me I must be on to something! Ha ha.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

You and me, Lord Tom, we go way back with such debate, where bias or personal feelings have road-raged a number of perfectly respectable threads which had places to go and were indeed getting there.
I'm not blaming you.
I'm blaming me and you.
Maybe it's that Yank-Brit thing, you tend to overstate a case and I tend to understate a case... perhaps the British are just more reserved in their opinion, and it needs a Yank to winkle out the truth of that opinion with some of the good old ticker tape and a couple of moon shots?
Personally I enjoy it when some new author suddenly emerges on the scene with a 'brand new suspect', so we all enjoy the pleasure of shooting his suspect out of the water, with proven fact and data, so the author changes the suspect in the next edition.
This is true and rewarding fun, and has its place in history.
But you and me, Lord Tom, we have been round the block a few times now, and I see no useful purpose or good in you employing me as a duck shoot, or me throwing coconuts at you just to get a strange teddy bear to take home at the end of a drunken evening.

[Stan Russo]

Tom,

we all do. that is what makes us passionate about the case. Take, for example, your new suspect - Le Grand. You believe hating women and prior abuse of women is enough to have him be a serious candidate. I disagree.

I have not undertaken any dissection of your ideas simply because I do not know enough about Le Grand to make a cohesive argument against him.

I will say that there needs to be more and the case will never be solved without finding that one element that trips the culprit up. Like Howard said, Rader would not have been caught if it were not for Rader.

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

Stan,

Actually, what I first found suspicious about Le Grand (before I knew he abused prostitutes and owned a brothel) was that he showed up in Berner Street right after the murder and started producing false witnesses for no apparent reason. In fact, I'd say he LOST money by becoming involved with the viglilance committee.
But yes, I'd call a nutso woman-hater walking the streets of Whitechapel every night with a free pass and silent footwear to be a man worth looking into. And I haven't dubbed him 'Jack the Ripper', just a person worth looking at.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

Tom,

Fair enough.

I think almost everyone is "worth looking at", because anyone can do anything at anytime. There are no rules to acts such as the ones committed by JTR, just theoretical guidelines that do not always fit.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, I did mean to thank you for some kind comments a few posts back, so thank you.
Le Grand is a sparkling suspect, with a lot of previous, a lot of intent, and miles of malice... especially towards women.
I have studied Le Grand, and Tom is quite right to pursue this dangerous man through the shallows and gallows of time; but again, I feel it is perhaps part of the American way to 'big-up' a suspect to make him more plausible.
I'd rather see Tom 'down-sizing' Le Grand, fitting him into the fabric of time with a bit of grease and a push, rather than a lump hammer.
But that is probably just the small bit of Brit in me.
Just to take the single point that Le Grand being in Berner Street that night after the murder of Liz Stride is somehow suspicious.
Surely it was Le Grand's job to be on site anywhere in Whitechapel after any attack on a woman in Whitechapel because he was an employee of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee whose remit was to protect the women of Whitechapel.
It would have been highly unusual if Le Grand had not been in Berner Street that night.
Tom's case for Le Grand would do well for less pepper and more salt.

[Tom_Wescott]

AP,

Don't be dull. The whole point is that Le Grand clearly had no intention to 'protect' the women of Whitechapel. His actions before and after the murders make that clear. That is what makes him and his actions during the murders so suspicious. Meanwhile, the evidence against Cutbush is what - a fictional blind kid? I'd say the American way must be the right way in this case, because you make absolutely no sense whenever you talk about Le Grand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Stan Russo]

To be honest, I do not know that much about Le Grand. I have been working on a new book, unrelated to this topic, so I haven't kept up as much with the boards, until about a week or two ago, when I shipped the book to be edited.

In all honesty, is there anything other than an appearance near a murder sight one night to link him to the murders? Even if it is superificial and not merely hypothetical (such as history of hating prostitutes). i think we all know that numerous suspects have been named for their hatred of or attempt to save prostitutes, which has led nowhere.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Ah my Lord Tom, you throw coconuts, but I'm not shy.
Taking the criteria that you observe in your selection of Le Grand as a suspect in the Whitechapel Murders, I would put it to you that Lord Howard de Walden is a more suitable candidate - see my very recent post on another thread - for he was in Whitechapel at the time, he used prostitutes very cruelly, frequented brothels in Whitechapel, used extreme violence to women, wrote hostile and threatening letters to women... and was very much above the law of the land for many a long year.
And to the merriment of many he was actually known as 'Jack the Ripper'.
I think this is the point I was attempting to make in a previous post, that if you use the social conditions and influences of the LVP to carve your suspect then everyone was guilty.
Basically you need a sharper knife to cut a better edge.
I always think that the edge starts with a suspect actually being named as 'Jack the Ripper' during the Late Victorian Period, and the closer that is to 1888 so much the better.
Now, let's see who that could be?

[Stan Russo]

A.P.,

That post was about as perfect in explaining why the ideology behind profiling does not work here. If we were to make a profile of what we believe JTR should have been, we would come up with more suspects than we have now and quite possibly eliminate the person who was actually responsible for the murders.

I am all for investigating suspects, but there has to be more to a suspect than he was simply cruel to prostitutes. You could include a majority of the men in England at the time in that group, not to mention a majority of the men visiting from other European countries who would similarly fall into that category.

I believe the hating women or cruel to prostitutes is ared herring in this case, the same way that other murders committed is as well (Joseph Silver, Deeming, Cream, etc.). Look at what James Kelly did, killed his wife and escaped from prison and fled England. Disregarding the fact that he has been named as a suspect by two authors, there has never been another murder linked to James Kelly anywhere in the world, and he lived until at least 1927. If he was a killer, and we know he was, how does he not kill again, while living free for 39 years? The answer is that it is not a required trait. Killing once does not mean you need to kill again. James Kelly proves that.

That is why it is tough to grab suspects and exalt them upon high simply because they have violent tendencies or have committed a murder in their history. It is a slipper slope, but of course, they should be looked into, if for nothing more than historical research.

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

In all honesty, is there anything other than an appearance near a murder sight one night to link him to the murders?

Yes.

Even if it is superificial and not merely hypothetical (such as history of hating prostitutes). i think we all know that numerous suspects have been named for their hatred of or attempt to save prostitutes, which has led nowhere.

Obviously, any case against a suspect will be one of circumstancial evidence. I doubt we'll find a photo of a man standing over Kelly's bed with a bloody knife, and at this point, nobody would believe it was real even if it were. Regarding the 'leading nowhere' that is subjective. Obviously those who believe they've solved the case, or the even greater number of people who believe a certain author has, feel the case has gone somewhere and reached a satisfying climax. And at the other extreme of that are those who - no matter what occurs - will feel the case has gone and is going nowhere. I'm in between.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[A.P. Wolf]

But my Lord Tom, you do win the strange teddy bear tonight.
Give him some milk and honey and maybe, just maybe, he won't snore all night.

[Stan Russo]

Tom,

That yes cinches it for me. Le Grand is our man.

Stan

[Tom_Wescott]

Stan,

I don't mean to be coy with you, but I don't enjoy discussing Le Grand with AP around because he attempts to make a mockery of it, as he does with many discussions when he doesn't have anything real to add.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Stan,

I don't mean to be coy with you, but I don't enjoy discussing Le Grand with AP around because he attempts to make a mockery of it

It's late and I'm off to bed and just don't feel like nuking your post, Tom.

Why don't you take Tim's hint from last week and put A.P. on ignore if he bothers you so much ???

Wouldn't this be easier for all concerned ? No deletions, no editing, no nuthin'. :fencing:

[How Brown]

Even better....just discuss LeGrand as if no one else was here....other than me,for one,who is interested in this character.

I think LeGrand is one of the more interesting people to have emerged or re-emerged in the field in the last year...if not the most...at least to me. The presentation that you've made so far this year ( the guy,LeGrand,is a bad character...probably a psycho when circumstances developed...) has been well recieved by me.

You can have your cake and eat it too,if you just focus on LeGrand and let the comments roll off your back. You know of course that you aren't obligated to respond to any posts you personally don't wish too. Same as it does for anyone else.

Here's a little ditty for you to remember....

A.P. is a beauty...
& Stan may be the Man...
But I wanna keep readin'
'Bout Charley Le Grand...

[Stan Russo]

Tom,

Not a problem. I understand. I hope you find out the required info so I won't have to publish my second Ripper book. My friends (others than all youse guys) think it's a bit creepy that I write on this stuff. One actually talks about the conventions as if they were Star Trek conventions, although Kelly, How, Dan and Bob will attest to the fact that there are some strange ones who show up and wander about.

Stan

[SirRobertAnderson]

One actually talks about the conventions as if they were Star Trek conventions, although Kelly, How, Dan and Bob will attest to the fact that there are some strange ones who show up and wander about.

Stan

I'm not sure that some of the folks at Baltimore were carbon based life forms.

[Tom_Wescott]

Why don't you take Tim's hint from last week and put A.P. on ignore if he bothers you so much ???

Wouldn't this be easier for all concerned ? No deletions, no editing, no nuthin'. :fencing:

No, it would not be easier for me to put him on ignore and allow him to continue with his character assassination unabated. Why on earth would I want to allow such slanderous comments as his (saying I 'big up' my suspect and inferring I exagerate or fabricate evidence, for instance) to stand unchallenged? To my mind a reasonable question is why do you as admin consider this behavior perfectly in keeping with decorum and only speak up when someone such as myself finds cause to respond or someone such as Grey Hunter decides to leave the site altogether?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Howard,

I appreciate what you're saying, and maybe one day I'll be in the mood to talk about Le Grand, but not at present. In fact, it's been quite some time since I've done any research on the man, my attentions for the moment being elsewhere. On top of working a job, starting a new business, and house hunting on the weekends, I'm researching and writing a lengty essay on Schwartz for Ripper Notes (my essays for which are sort of rough drafts for my first book). Once some dust has settled I hope to find a couple of London based researchers (not Ripperologists) to help me dig up the dirt on Le Grand. There's more unanswered questions about him than answered.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[SirRobertAnderson]

Howard,

I appreciate what you're saying, and maybe one day I'll be in the mood to talk about Le Grand, but not at present.

When you're ready, we're all ears. The stuff you've presented to date is very thought provoking.

To my mind a reasonable question is why do you as admin consider this behavior perfectly in keeping with decorum and only speak up when someone such as myself finds cause to respond or someone such as Grey Hunter decides to leave the site altogether?

Well, the three of us (Tim, How and myself) don't feel you're being slandered, that's why. We can't/won't censor to the point where all jibes are removed. But you see efforts to discredit your research where we don't . And don't think we haven't spoken to your jousting partner; he's toned it down considerably.

[A.P. Wolf]

I think if I remember the post correctly I had the thought that some of the problems we encounter during these debates might have its origins in the American habit of 'overstatement' and the British habit of 'understatement'... and was hoping that perhaps the two could meet somewhere, together, over the mid Atlantic.
I'm not throwing coconuts at Tom when I suggest that his assertion that Le Grand was a man disposed to violence towards prostitutes is unproven. I'm just saying how I feel as a reader of his yet unfinished work, and as a fellow researcher who knows a little detail about Le Grand and his life.
Similarly when I say I would have expected to have seen Le Grand in Berner Street on the night of Liz Stride's murder this is not an 'attack' or an aspersion on Tom's truthfullness or character. Simply a simple truth.
My Lord Tom should heed the words of his peers now, before he commits himself to book form, for once in print these mild and fairly harmless suggestions could very well develop into ernormous errors that might well sabotage his otherwise genuine and honest effort.
I bet I know a few honest and good writers and researchers in this field, who if they could, would gladly peel back the fabric of time by some ten or even twenty years, and rewrite what they wrote then so that they don't have to wince when they see a copy of their once famous volume which is now about as good as a cheese wedge in an oak door.
Fine... unless there are mice about.
And there are mice about, and they do roar.

[Stan Russo]

Does anyone else get the feeling that AP, while he's making these posts, is pissing on an American Flag made out of apple pie?

Just food for thought.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan, I'd need to cock my leg a long way up to get that job done.
My family helped design the American Flag, and I would piss on it at my peril.
I drove my Chevy to the Levy but the Levy was dry,
and those good old boys were eating American pie.
Tumblety reckoned the British put too much ale in their pies and that's why they couldn't catch Jack the Ripper.
My own private theory is that the Americans put too much piss in their ale and that's why they can't catch Jack the Ripper.
But hey, I'm all for compromise.
We'll cut down on the ale in pies, and you stop selling Bud.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

Bud is rotten to the bone. Give me Killians or Bass.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Thanks Stan
I haven't crossed the pond in years, but when I do I always take refuge in San Miguel.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

I think what you are talking about, regarding people who propose suspects, is pretty universal. It's not an American or British thing.

I seem to remember you being pretty adamant about a certain suspect, as are most who want the glory of solving the case, even if the case if a muchy bigger animal than envisioned.

I will give you this - there are some who can't see the light of day - however, that is information that should not be held against suspects and only should stregthen the field (or those who encapsulate what the field should truly be about), rather than diminish it.

I fall prey to the n egative attitude on the overall state of Ripperology, primarily due to the majority of followers of the case who are here for reasons other than the overall solving of the case. Of course, people can do whatever they want, but that, IMHO, is the real negative blight on this field.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

Stan
good thoughts there.
I don't believe I have ever been a suspect led researcher, or writer, but rather someone who is passionately interested in the type of individual who might well adopt a pattern of unintentional mayhem to redress the imbalances in society which only they can see because of the peculiar circumstances of their own life.
I've always looked for someone who is a complete and utter alien to the normal concepts of society that provide for us and protect us, someone - if you like - who has stepped out of the door, forever as an individual within that society, and his contribution to society can only be measured by what he has left behind.
Bereft of family, and friends, and shunned by society, childless and hopeless, hapless and sexless, he will have nonetheless scratched the entire fabric of his life across the universe.
Others seek a monster.
I seek the pit into which the monster stared.

[Stan Russo]

AP,

Interesting, but you do allow for the possibility that those criteria need not apply, right?

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

That I do, Stan.
For a monster can always trip and then fall into a pit.
Which is what most serial killers do anyway.

[Stan Russo]

So looking for a monster may not be the best method for finding the murderer.

Stan

[A.P. Wolf]

But looking into the pit sure might help.

[Stan Russo]

No one is saying it won't, but that's very different from insisting the answer or the murderer is in there.

Stan