How Brown
09-16-2007, 01:01 PM
1. Over the past three years or so,have you seen a shift in the direction regarding *what* Ripperologists research? For example and if you did see a shift...does it lean towards less "suspect-based" research and toward more "aspect-based" research?
2. Certain individuals within our field are more inclined towards "eliminationist" based Ripperology ( such as me for example...) whereas others are "solutionists" ( such as those who plump for Barnett,Tumbelty,and others). Do you think we will see more "solutionists" in the near future or perhaps more individuals hammering away at poor "suspects" such as Stephenson,Cream,and Ostrog?
3. How long exactly,have you been engaged in your line of Ripperological work?
4. Any plans in the future for a collaboration such as the magnificent Coronial Series ( featured in Ripperologist ) with Dave O'Flaherty and whatsisname....er,John Savage?
5. Since you are one of the most visible individuals on this site...and since I value your opinion very much...can you elaborate on the pros and cons of this site in order to improve it?
Thanks a million for your time,Robert.
---End Quote---
OK than, How, here you go.
1. I have seen a bit of a shift and a leaning, but I think that’s because a castor came off my armchair.
Seriously though, it does seem that people in general are not as suspect-driven as they used to be. I don’t myself object to suspect-based books, but the case is now being studied much more in its totality, and that’s a good thing. You find that the best Ripperologists probably always have done this – they might have a suspect but they have a lot to say about other aspects of the case, too.
There are all kinds of ways that you could approach the case, e.g. writing a biography of a particular lodging-house in Dorset St. It might not of itself tell you who Jack was but anything that deepens the understanding is good.
2. I think there will be more hammering – I’ve got to get the castor back on my armchair somehow.
Actually, hasn’t this always tended to happen? Person A proposes a suspect and persons B - Z hammer person A’s suspect. Person B then proposes a suspect and persons A and C – Z then hammer that. If a suspect is shown to be a poor suspect, then that’s a gain in knowledge. The danger is that people might hammer a suspect simply to protect their own candidate, but people should be able to read between the lines. I think it all goes back to Question 1. Once a suspect has been seriously proposed, inevitably that suspect will have to pass through fire and brimstone. It’s all part of Ripper studies and it’s all to the good. Even quite bizarre theories have pages of comment devoted to them – see KT.
3. I’ve been interested in JTR since I was 17 (a very good year – Mafeking had been relieved) but I only got seriously into it when I got on the net in 2003. After a year or so I tried my hand at research – census stuff etc. That’s the kind of thing that gives me the biggest buzz. I just love trying to track things down.
4. David, John and myself are working on an article at the moment, but it’s taking a while. I can’t go into detail, but it involves a possible cover-up, and finding the info isn’t easy. In fact, Dave and John’s individual books will probably be out first (“Pipes I Have Known” by D. O’Flaherty; “Pubs I Have Known” by J. Savage)
I am also down to do a Cutbush book with AP. It would have been written by now if only the legal records had survived.
2. Certain individuals within our field are more inclined towards "eliminationist" based Ripperology ( such as me for example...) whereas others are "solutionists" ( such as those who plump for Barnett,Tumbelty,and others). Do you think we will see more "solutionists" in the near future or perhaps more individuals hammering away at poor "suspects" such as Stephenson,Cream,and Ostrog?
3. How long exactly,have you been engaged in your line of Ripperological work?
4. Any plans in the future for a collaboration such as the magnificent Coronial Series ( featured in Ripperologist ) with Dave O'Flaherty and whatsisname....er,John Savage?
5. Since you are one of the most visible individuals on this site...and since I value your opinion very much...can you elaborate on the pros and cons of this site in order to improve it?
Thanks a million for your time,Robert.
---End Quote---
OK than, How, here you go.
1. I have seen a bit of a shift and a leaning, but I think that’s because a castor came off my armchair.
Seriously though, it does seem that people in general are not as suspect-driven as they used to be. I don’t myself object to suspect-based books, but the case is now being studied much more in its totality, and that’s a good thing. You find that the best Ripperologists probably always have done this – they might have a suspect but they have a lot to say about other aspects of the case, too.
There are all kinds of ways that you could approach the case, e.g. writing a biography of a particular lodging-house in Dorset St. It might not of itself tell you who Jack was but anything that deepens the understanding is good.
2. I think there will be more hammering – I’ve got to get the castor back on my armchair somehow.
Actually, hasn’t this always tended to happen? Person A proposes a suspect and persons B - Z hammer person A’s suspect. Person B then proposes a suspect and persons A and C – Z then hammer that. If a suspect is shown to be a poor suspect, then that’s a gain in knowledge. The danger is that people might hammer a suspect simply to protect their own candidate, but people should be able to read between the lines. I think it all goes back to Question 1. Once a suspect has been seriously proposed, inevitably that suspect will have to pass through fire and brimstone. It’s all part of Ripper studies and it’s all to the good. Even quite bizarre theories have pages of comment devoted to them – see KT.
3. I’ve been interested in JTR since I was 17 (a very good year – Mafeking had been relieved) but I only got seriously into it when I got on the net in 2003. After a year or so I tried my hand at research – census stuff etc. That’s the kind of thing that gives me the biggest buzz. I just love trying to track things down.
4. David, John and myself are working on an article at the moment, but it’s taking a while. I can’t go into detail, but it involves a possible cover-up, and finding the info isn’t easy. In fact, Dave and John’s individual books will probably be out first (“Pipes I Have Known” by D. O’Flaherty; “Pubs I Have Known” by J. Savage)
I am also down to do a Cutbush book with AP. It would have been written by now if only the legal records had survived.