How Brown
12-19-2007, 06:36 AM
1. What modern reference work do you find yourself using in your day to day Ripperological work? If you don't use a book,which source ( message board,private communication,internet googling or other) do you use?
Hands down, Evans and Skinner’’s Ultimate JTR Companion. It’’s dog-eared, soiled, and the cover is falling off. I also have similarly filthy copies of Sugden and the A-Z, first edition. Like A.P. Wolf, I’’m also a big believer in The Times, although one has to drink heavily in order to accept its political slant.
2. Which revelation within the Case within the past..say,3 years...has intrigued you the most ?
I am intrigued by the recent work that has gone into Kosminski, and the increasing likelihood that he was a City suspect. When it comes to the Polish Jew theory I am usually a skeptic, but hats off to Philips, House, Nelson, Evans, Begg, Fido, and the many others who have worked (or worked over) the Kosminski angle.
3. Do you think its plausible that the Ripper may have blitzed his victims or do you feel that the mainstream belief that he approached them with a come-on line and then killed them is far more likely?
I think the blitz is plausible and, in fact, likely in some instances. I suspect it happened in the murder of Tabram, for instance. But it certain doesn’’t seem plausible in the case of Annie Chapman. Overall, I am not a big believer in ‘‘modus operandi,’’ because case studies disprove that criminals behave in predictable ways. Further, who is ‘‘the Ripper’’? It could be that we are looking for two men, one of whom occasionally goes out on his own. This happened in the Hillside Strangler case, and certainly happened in other cases. The belief in a ‘‘lone Ripper’’ is so powerful that it is difficult to overcome, but even the generally conservative Phil Sugden cautions against it. And, of course, Alex Chisholm quite rightly warned about the power of the media to distort our view of who or what ""Jack the Ripper"" was. Maybe ‘‘he’’ was a dance mania.
4. Do you ever develop ideas relative to the Case from watching Ripper films or documentaries?
I can’’t say that I do, but I think the whole ‘‘myth’’ of the Ripper is an interesting phenomenon. To 99% of our comrades, the ‘‘myth’’ is the popular image of the Ripper in a top-hat carrying a Gladstone bag, whereas the ‘‘reality’’ is that he is a sex-crazed working-class nobody. This would seem ‘‘scientific,’’ but is it reality? What makes me rather laugh is that two of the next three serial-murders in Victorian England were toffs in top-hats: Thomas Neill Cream and George Smith (a street kid from Bethnal Green who was released from the borstal just before the Whitechapel murders and ended up as a suave Edwardian murderer). The third was Severin Klosowski who was himself a pretentious middle-class businessmen and a bit of a toff. The only true ‘‘Ripper’’ in Victorian England that I am aware of wore a top hat: Fred Baker, a solicitor’’s clerk who taught sunday school for years and ripped a young girl to pieces in Alton, cut out her heart, and took away her privates. The reality is that much of 19th Century crime was middle-class men victimizing lower-class women. This became a clichéé, and a common feature in melodrama, but it is a mistake not to accept that there were profound sociological reasons for this trend. The fallacy that Ripperologists make, in my humble opinion, is taking a fundamentally ‘‘modern’’ cultural event (random violence committed by urban nobodies) and imposing it onto 19th Century murder. Domestic violence is one thing, but the murder of strangers was rare in Victorian England and was usually done by the middle-classes. These fallacies persist and get airplay largely because criminology has been taken over by psychologists and profilers, with a very dubious belief in a ‘‘medical’’ or ‘‘biological’’ explanation for crime, when the study of murder rightfully belongs to the sociologists. Thus, I’’d suggest the ‘‘myth’’ is 180 degrees backwards. I think it is very likely that the Ripper was a toff in a top-hat (metaphorically speaking) and thus the clichéé will get the last laugh. We are more likely to be looking for a Druitt, a Tumblety, a Cutbush, or even a Maybrick, than a Hutchinson, a Barnett, or a Cohen. Kosminski is an unknown.
5. If you get someone to go to the PRO...and had only one request...what would that one be...and why.
That’’s a hard question for me because I think there is still a lot to be done. I wonder if anyone has really tried hard enough to get inside the Special Branch files? But let me duck the question and suggest that my theoretical researcher pops down a tube-station and goes instead to Colindale. I wish someone should look into the newspapers in the Folkestone area. There was a man who showed up with bloody-clothing in Folkestone around the time of the Kelly murder and I’’ve always wondered if this might not be our man. I think the railway ticket on Druitt might have been a mitigating circumstance in the suspicions against him, since there is some indication that the Met thought the Ripper was coming from outside the area. Here’’s the event I mean: Morning Advertiser, November 27th. ""A strange story comes from Folkestone. About the date of "Jack the Ripper’’s" earlier exploits, a man of gentlemanly exterior is said to have taken lodgings for a day or two in Sandgate-road. He alleged as an excuse for his brief visit that he merely wanted to rest on his way and get his clothes washed. These articles were sent to a laundress, who on opening the bundle found that they were saturated with blood. She at first was disposed to decline the work, but as she knew of no suspicious circumstances beyond the state of the articles, she washed the linen, sent it home, and the owner departed forthwith."" Finally, and not to sound like a broken record, because I’’ve raved about this in the past, but I also think more work needs to be done on 1890-1891. Have the Home Office files for those years been gone over? What about the Colonial office? What about European correspondence? Cutbush, Sadler, Kosminski; they’’re all coming together around February, 1891, but everyone is obsessed with 1888. If nothing else, Coles and MacKenzie deserve a chance at a little belated justice. I’’m convinced there’’s probably relevant material in other govenment files not diretly related to the Met. I’’m glad, however, that there are some people looking into 1891, such as Robert Linford. That Linford/Savage/O’’Flaherty triad is something else, but there’’s a number of ladies that are also doing good things.
Hands down, Evans and Skinner’’s Ultimate JTR Companion. It’’s dog-eared, soiled, and the cover is falling off. I also have similarly filthy copies of Sugden and the A-Z, first edition. Like A.P. Wolf, I’’m also a big believer in The Times, although one has to drink heavily in order to accept its political slant.
2. Which revelation within the Case within the past..say,3 years...has intrigued you the most ?
I am intrigued by the recent work that has gone into Kosminski, and the increasing likelihood that he was a City suspect. When it comes to the Polish Jew theory I am usually a skeptic, but hats off to Philips, House, Nelson, Evans, Begg, Fido, and the many others who have worked (or worked over) the Kosminski angle.
3. Do you think its plausible that the Ripper may have blitzed his victims or do you feel that the mainstream belief that he approached them with a come-on line and then killed them is far more likely?
I think the blitz is plausible and, in fact, likely in some instances. I suspect it happened in the murder of Tabram, for instance. But it certain doesn’’t seem plausible in the case of Annie Chapman. Overall, I am not a big believer in ‘‘modus operandi,’’ because case studies disprove that criminals behave in predictable ways. Further, who is ‘‘the Ripper’’? It could be that we are looking for two men, one of whom occasionally goes out on his own. This happened in the Hillside Strangler case, and certainly happened in other cases. The belief in a ‘‘lone Ripper’’ is so powerful that it is difficult to overcome, but even the generally conservative Phil Sugden cautions against it. And, of course, Alex Chisholm quite rightly warned about the power of the media to distort our view of who or what ""Jack the Ripper"" was. Maybe ‘‘he’’ was a dance mania.
4. Do you ever develop ideas relative to the Case from watching Ripper films or documentaries?
I can’’t say that I do, but I think the whole ‘‘myth’’ of the Ripper is an interesting phenomenon. To 99% of our comrades, the ‘‘myth’’ is the popular image of the Ripper in a top-hat carrying a Gladstone bag, whereas the ‘‘reality’’ is that he is a sex-crazed working-class nobody. This would seem ‘‘scientific,’’ but is it reality? What makes me rather laugh is that two of the next three serial-murders in Victorian England were toffs in top-hats: Thomas Neill Cream and George Smith (a street kid from Bethnal Green who was released from the borstal just before the Whitechapel murders and ended up as a suave Edwardian murderer). The third was Severin Klosowski who was himself a pretentious middle-class businessmen and a bit of a toff. The only true ‘‘Ripper’’ in Victorian England that I am aware of wore a top hat: Fred Baker, a solicitor’’s clerk who taught sunday school for years and ripped a young girl to pieces in Alton, cut out her heart, and took away her privates. The reality is that much of 19th Century crime was middle-class men victimizing lower-class women. This became a clichéé, and a common feature in melodrama, but it is a mistake not to accept that there were profound sociological reasons for this trend. The fallacy that Ripperologists make, in my humble opinion, is taking a fundamentally ‘‘modern’’ cultural event (random violence committed by urban nobodies) and imposing it onto 19th Century murder. Domestic violence is one thing, but the murder of strangers was rare in Victorian England and was usually done by the middle-classes. These fallacies persist and get airplay largely because criminology has been taken over by psychologists and profilers, with a very dubious belief in a ‘‘medical’’ or ‘‘biological’’ explanation for crime, when the study of murder rightfully belongs to the sociologists. Thus, I’’d suggest the ‘‘myth’’ is 180 degrees backwards. I think it is very likely that the Ripper was a toff in a top-hat (metaphorically speaking) and thus the clichéé will get the last laugh. We are more likely to be looking for a Druitt, a Tumblety, a Cutbush, or even a Maybrick, than a Hutchinson, a Barnett, or a Cohen. Kosminski is an unknown.
5. If you get someone to go to the PRO...and had only one request...what would that one be...and why.
That’’s a hard question for me because I think there is still a lot to be done. I wonder if anyone has really tried hard enough to get inside the Special Branch files? But let me duck the question and suggest that my theoretical researcher pops down a tube-station and goes instead to Colindale. I wish someone should look into the newspapers in the Folkestone area. There was a man who showed up with bloody-clothing in Folkestone around the time of the Kelly murder and I’’ve always wondered if this might not be our man. I think the railway ticket on Druitt might have been a mitigating circumstance in the suspicions against him, since there is some indication that the Met thought the Ripper was coming from outside the area. Here’’s the event I mean: Morning Advertiser, November 27th. ""A strange story comes from Folkestone. About the date of "Jack the Ripper’’s" earlier exploits, a man of gentlemanly exterior is said to have taken lodgings for a day or two in Sandgate-road. He alleged as an excuse for his brief visit that he merely wanted to rest on his way and get his clothes washed. These articles were sent to a laundress, who on opening the bundle found that they were saturated with blood. She at first was disposed to decline the work, but as she knew of no suspicious circumstances beyond the state of the articles, she washed the linen, sent it home, and the owner departed forthwith."" Finally, and not to sound like a broken record, because I’’ve raved about this in the past, but I also think more work needs to be done on 1890-1891. Have the Home Office files for those years been gone over? What about the Colonial office? What about European correspondence? Cutbush, Sadler, Kosminski; they’’re all coming together around February, 1891, but everyone is obsessed with 1888. If nothing else, Coles and MacKenzie deserve a chance at a little belated justice. I’’m convinced there’’s probably relevant material in other govenment files not diretly related to the Met. I’’m glad, however, that there are some people looking into 1891, such as Robert Linford. That Linford/Savage/O’’Flaherty triad is something else, but there’’s a number of ladies that are also doing good things.