Dr. X & His Sapient Conclusion

[How Brown]

Just yesterday,Doctor X made a comment regarding how one Ripper theorist may have already come to the conclusion that "his" suspect was the Ripper and that those nagging little things like "facts" weren't a deterrent to the overall theory. At least thats how I interpreted the post he made.

In examining the Customs House material on Stephenson ( Just as an example and everyone is encouraged to bring up another theorist, since the theorist in question may not be alone ) I have picked up on at least 5 unproven declarations or misreadings of the internal data from those few files. I'll mention 4 off the bat. The 5th will have to wait as work is being done by another party.

1. That RDS had acquired a venereal disease is nowhere to be found in the files.
2. That RDS was released after the June ( it had to be late June or early July) shooting in Flamborough. He was released on 12/31/1868.
3. That RDS associated with prostitutes is also not in evidence in the files.
4. That there actually was an heiress to whom RDS was engaged. There's little reason to believe that a man who spent so much time in taprooms and missed over 1/2 of 1868 due to a variety of reasons would be that attractive to an heiress in the first place. In any event, there's no proof, nor a name to give this "heiress".

The origin of the foundation of this man being a suspect, Stephenson, was partly born from the CH records. Nothing in them indicates a future killer nor do they demonstrate anything other than a guy who has had his fill of pencil pushing. They liked him at the CH, but apparently he didn't like them.

The simple truth is that Stephenson's alleged predilection for prosses is baseless....his acquired venereal disease, ostensibly "obvious" to some in a reading of these files, is absent. The "heiress" rigamarole and basis of the quasi-Ada Louise story which predates RDS by a couple of centuries, is likewise not in evidence. Nor did the CH officials dislike RDS...they in fact acquiesced to him within the reading of these files and I am certain that this was because his previous 5 and 3/4 years there impressed them very much. He had a sterling reputation at the CH until sometime in 1867,when perhaps he was as many of us are....tired of being underpaid...and not knowing how to get new work....and while disillusioned at work, make it rougher on ourselves by absences,excuses for bogus circumstances, and a disgruntled demeanor.

Are there any other suspects & theorists who have theories where the facts seem to deflate them by a re-reading of the original source materials?

Thank you..

[Robert Linford]

Hi How

Many things pointed to by theorists aren't particularly crucial. It's nice for the theory if they are true, but if it turns out that they're not true, then it doesn't smash the theory. The sort of thing I mean is abandoned by mother/absent father/venereal disease/previous history of violence/alcoholism etc etc. These things apply to too many people to be conclusive.

"Known to be living in Whitechapel and insane during 1888" is better, but even that isn't a clincher.

Robert

[Doctor X]

Just yesterday,Doctor X made a comment regarding how one Ripper theorist may have already come to the conclusion that "his" suspect was the Ripper and that those nagging little things like "facts" weren't a deterrent to the overall theory. At least thats how I interpreted the post he made.

But . . . but . . . those self-proclaimed avatars of critical thinking Mr. Poster and Stan Russo wrote that I . . . I . . . cannot contribute to discussions!

http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/smilies/waaaa.gif

*Adjusts tiara*

To unpack it a wee bit, this applies to many sides of an issue. Not to drag in THAT thread, but as I thought I made clear even to intellectually crip[Get on with it!--Ed.], the same would apply to the straw "Unknown Local Man" proponents who, when given a good case for a suspect, can only respond, "but we know he was local . . . and UNKNOWN!!!"

Robert Linford point bears repeating:

The sort of thing I mean is abandoned by mother/absent father/venereal disease/previous history of violence/alcoholism etc etc. These things apply to too many people to be conclusive.

"Known to be living in Whitechapel and insane during 1888" is better, but even that isn't a clincher.

With such an absence of evidence regarding Jack, one is forced to make speculations--reasonable though they may be. A reconstructed "Jack"--be he a historical suspect or an "unknown"--will stand or fall on such speculations. Show that one of them is wrong and all that depends on that speculation falls. As Robert notes, it may not destroy the suspect or reconstruction. Some times it does if the evidence shows the person could not have possibly done "it"--proven to be in Schennectady at the time.

You see this a lot in scholarly analysis of mythic figures--particularly those based on presumably historical persons who have accumulated a lot of myth. Ripperologists cannot hold a candle to these debates since they have funded departments with sycophantic graduate students! Watch Arthurian researchers argue! Is it some Roman soldier? Is it some "Unknown Slob?" Works for just about every one.

In fact, such a conflict in scholarship may have lead to one of the greatest hoaxes that would make any diary pale in comparison. This one has been going on far longer, and only recently has a scholar figured out the "hints" left in it.

Back to How Brown: "All you need for a Founding Figure is a name and a place." You say the basis for Stephenson is the CH records--to over simplify a bit. It would seem reasonable that if one shows said records do not support the reconstruction, that would be it.

Oh no! Figures can, literally, take a life of their own! A proponent who needs to believe in his figure will immediately discount that and point to "other evidence" that accumulated/piled up/shoved subsequently. In some cases, one has a point. If one basis his admiration of George Washington on the story that as a boy he could not lie about chopping down a cherry-tree . . . then researches his failures then successes as a military man . . . then his Presidency . . . when told that the cherry-tree story is a fable . . . does one have to dispense with everything else?

Obviously not. The critical difference is that there is evidence for everything else.

Again, you see this in scholarly debates: documents are touted as historically accurate--despite geographical errors and frank anachronisms!--for "My Reconstruction" [Tm--Ed.]--and when those documents are shown to be unreliable . . . well . . . it merely PROVES that the ORIGINAL story BEHIND the documents MUST have been true! In fact, it is "obvious" that there are valid bits of that document!

The "valid bits" just so HAPPEN to support My Reconstruction.

Lather

Rinse

Repeat

--J.D.

[How Brown]

Thanks for the replies to both you gents..

Whats been an eye opener for me in particular over the last 3 years in regard to the individual who has held the most interest for me in the study of the WM is the total absence of evidence which would convince anyone that he was a viable suspect, despite the fact that I did at one time feel he was better than most.

All of this stems from accepting that sources either existed or exist in inaccessible locations to the interested party. These CH files are just more of the same as far as "misinterpreted" or "misread" data which foisted RDS into the mainstream.

A pretty intelligent person argued that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" with me the other day and Mike and JM will remember that little discussion in regard to RDS. Her position was that despite there not being any evidence to finger RDS that that didn't mean something isn't there to make his candidacy credible.

The fact that we now know that neurasthenia isn't quite the less-than debilitating ailment we had been led to believe...that internal data in the CH files do not indicate those things ( see first post) that were claimed about Stephenson...now tell me that nothing in his dossier is damning. No one has had their candidacy built upon imagination alone like RDS did.
________________________________

The idea behind this thread was not to focus on Stephenson, but to use this sort of reexamination of tangible documents in and on other suspects to reevaluate them.

I for one think its possible that some accepted beliefs about suspects may have slipped by us all, either intentionally or unintentionally...and it was my hope that others would come forward with their views on accepted criteria on specific suspects to reevaluate their candidacies.



So is it possible that someone we felt was unavailable at the time of the murders and has all the right stuff to be JTR needs reevaluation?

Could there be some gaffes that have allowed someone to slip back into the pile and reside there at this point in time?

[Doctor X]

A pretty intelligent person argued that the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" with me the other day and Mike and JM will remember that little discussion in regard to RDS. Her position was that despite there not being any evidence to finger RDS that that didn't mean something isn't there to make his candidacy credible.

That is a common mistake--that bromide. Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, particularly when . . . presence? Non-absence? . . . requires that evidence. SCIENCE [!--Ed.] does this all of the time--a theory generates expectations, and if observation does not find those expectations the theory is in trouble. For example, if you tell me you have a fully adult elephant in your tighty-whities . . . well . . . "absence of evidence" for it--shredded undies . . . your crushed pelvis . . . elephant--rather establishes "evidence of absence!"

Could there be some gaffes that have allowed someone to slip back into the pile and reside there at this point in time?

Since there is no consensus for a suspect--and a lot of conflict--methinks you may be able to apply that to every current extant suspect.

Take Druitt . . .

. . . please. . . .

:D

--J.D.

[jmenges]

My man Howard said:
"Are there any other suspects & theorists who have theories where the facts seem to deflate them by a re-reading of the original source materials?"

Many regarded Tumblety's jarred uteri collection story as proof of something sinister in his make-up, and this tale made T a very popular suspect for awhile. Unfortunately, in the premier book on this suspect, SPE and Gainey did not sufficiently challenge this report, failed to connect Conover with Dunham, and in the ensuing years research has brought the validity of this story into serious doubt. When one of the most damning pieces of circumstantial evidence against the good doctor was shown likely to be a lie, Tumblety's stock as a suspect plummeted.

With some. :rolleyes:

JM

[How Brown]

:playball:Doc X said...

"That is a common mistake--that bromide. Sometimes absence of evidence IS evidence of absence, particularly when . . . presence? Non-absence? . . . requires that evidence."

Thats what I wish I could have replied to the person in question, but the discussion got into other areas of the subject matter and I didn't get to elaborate..

Stephenson is in reality an individual who in my view would NOT be supported as a suspect had his "candidacy" been soapboxed in 2008.

But it doesn't stop there...and Druitt is a good choice as well as Tumbelty...to completely " be rid of". These are two jobs for the Gang of Four,I think...

Its odd, but as my man JMenges mentioned...Tumbelty's stock plunged while Druitt's has slightly risen ( my personal view as far as how others percieve him) due to the A.Spallek discovery of Farquarshon's newspaper accounts.....and yet on the other hand:

By the way...whats this about Robert Clack & Phil Hutchinson's book and a reference to Druitt being deuced out of the proverbial mix? Does anyone know much about this situation? I don't have their book yet and have only heard of something in regard to Druitt being 86'ed out of the lineup....

[Mike Covell]

When I began in Ripperology I had grand ideas for Stephenson, I was a resident of Hull and has such was able to look for Primary Sources in the mans ealry life, his family, their businesses and other relevant details that might support his position as being "Public Enemy No 1"

Like most people, I didn't use the Hospital 1888 as a starting point, I used the "Shooting Incident at Flamborough" as a starting point and worked my way through,
Trade Directories, City Year Books, Polling Books, Burgess Rolls, Telephone Books, Council Minutes Books, Census Returns, Birth Registries, Marriage Registries, Death Registries, Christening Registries, Lunatic Asylum Admissions, Magistrate Papers, News papers, Letter books, and so much more.

About 20% of my findings are available for free on this site or on casebook, another 20% is stored digitally in a massive file, and a further 60% is still being digitised.

So what did my findings show?

That, if anything, Richard Stephenson Junior was the bad egg of the family, committing crimes from the early 1870's until the 1880's, and gaining more newspaper columns than his brother who is a self proclaimed "Writer for the press!"

Robert D'Onston Stephenson lived in a world of fantasy, and illusion, a story teller, who was in the right place, at the right time.

A conclusion which was reached by a ripper author, but 1 year later had changed his mind.

The comments in Phil and Robs book are along the lines that Druitt could not have been the ripper, has he was out of london a train ride away. This upset the pro druitt camp! I am sure Phil will, erm "Phil you in" on the details when he returns from the icy plains of Iceland!

[Doctor X]

I will note that it is very refreshing to see a researcher who has an opinion change it based on new evidence/re-checking evidence.

That is how it is suppose to happen; however, emotionally--and sometimes financially--proving the negative is not satisfying. This is why negative results get very little coverage--who cares?

Imagine, if you will, you could put together the best case for, say, Stephenson, call the papers, present it, you might get a "Ripper found?" article published. Try the same thing stating, "oh, by the way, I just demonstrated this guy could not have done it." The response will probably be, "who?" and "So what?!"

--J.D.

[How Brown]

Dear Doc:

If I am not mistaken, I believe Mike came into the arena all ready to tout RDS as a viable suspect ( if not the actual killer ) based on a superficial review of the claims "experienced" Ripperologists had laid out as representative of his guilt. Then I think,I came along.

In the course of Mike's work, he is the first Ripperologist interested in D'Onston who found and pointed out facts about D'Onston's brother, who was as Mike stated, more "criminal" than this alleged Ripper suspect ever was.

I agree with you Doc...in that if someone put together a book on a suspect and someone came along with some fact(s) which demonstrated said suspect's inability to complete murder, there would be...not all the time...but there would be an effort to denigrate those facts which rendered the suspect incapable.

This is precisely what happened in the case of Donston...and I know from experience that no matter what is demonstrated to separate Stephenson from suspectworthiness...and in essence,being a suspect after Dec.26th,1888...there will be those who cling like fruit flies to an overripe mango to the possibility that he "could have" been faking neurasthenia, despite the fact that this claim is groundless.

I sincerely believe that people WANT the current roster of "existing" suspects, such as Ostrog,Stephenson, and that ilk to remain suspects. What their motive is.... (and its not only the last author and holdout in the Donston Alamo either that engages in this sort of thing)....I simply don't understand.

[Doctor X]

I sincerely believe that people WANT the current roster of "existing" suspects, such as Ostrog,Stephenson, and that ilk to remain suspects. What their motive is.... (and its not only the last author and holdout in the Donston Alamo either that engages in this sort of thing)....I simply don't understand.

Different reasons.

Note the passion generated over the concept of an "Unknown Local Man." To lose a suspect removes the promise of a solution. The more suspects removed . . . the more likely one will never know what actually happened.

Oh I know . . . "I do not expect to find the solution"--reminds me of Koester's weak apology: "Neither the historian nor the the theologian should try to answer these questions." Well, they are the only important questions. If I may be allowed to toss about a few straw men, I think, deep down inside any researcher--particularly Ripperologist--is at least the curiosity about "what really happened."

For some, like Koester, it is fear of the answer; for Ripperologists I think it is more the disappointment in not knowing.

To toss about some more straw men, I think the vast large completely made-up percentage majority understands they will not learn the answer and are merely disappointed. I think a smaller amount are bothered by it to some degree.

For others, they have invested emotional currency, time, and resources in a search. Some start with a particular suspects; others find them. Nothing wrong with that. I would like to think that if someone DID prove that Jack was . . .

. . .

. . . Cranston P. Snord of Hoboken--he won a vacation trip to London!

that another completely made-up vast percentage would be happy with that--finally having the answer. Just as some do not accept Celine Dion's complicity in the JFK assassination, there will be a completely made-up tiny percentage who will attack it because it is not the Jack they wanted.

Now for an author, even a completely honest and sincere researcher, to do all the research, composition, finding a publisher . . . all of that, then get confronted with the possibility that . . . well . . . maybe not. It is a strong man who can accept that. Add in $$$ and reputation--even in a small world?

Not so easy to do.

--J.D.