How Brown
08-25-2008, 02:26 PM
A big thanks to Pilgrim for the contribution to this section of the site...
1. Its an old chestnut but always worth a crack: if you had to pick one of the following as a probable profession for the esteemed Jack T. Ripper which would you pick and why: a) surgeon, b) knacker man, c)apprentice medico, d) non-medical, non-butcher, labourer/unemployed.
Regardless of esteem, I would say that he was at that time most probably unemployed, in some way self-employed, or of no fixed occupation. I do however find it likely that he may have picked up some minimal "anatomical knowledge" along his way.
2. In the pantheon of uncaught murderers and unsolved cases, do you feel that JtR is deserving of his place given the fact that the trail is so cold now that there is no chance of ever identifying him and that Ripperology has moved to sociology, historical pursuit etc. and is therefore no more a criminological investigation?
It is not my impression that the trail, as such, has become significantly colder than it was in mid November 1888. If it has come to be more widely perceived as such over the last couple of decades, then I would say the reason should perhaps rather be sought beyond the facts of the case. I guess it's possible that a rising interest in peripherally related historical pursuits or sociological subjects may have played some part.
3. Of all the flotsam and jetsom that has washed up over the years on the shores of Ripperology, which bit of gossip, rumour, innuendo, garbled recollection do you feel is the most intriguing and of most potential import?
I'm not quite sure if this would be an example of what you're referring to, but if I had to pick one particular bit of recollection, garbled or not, I would say -
"His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it." -- George Hutchinson (The Times, 14 November 1888)
4. Do you consider the police to have been unfairly criticised regarding their efforts at the time and if so would you care to elaborate on what more they could have done?
Solving any murder committed by someone unknown to the victim and without a "rational motive", may be fairly heavily relying on some seemingly chance events. So, perhaps they were unfairly criticized. There could, I guess, still be one or more fair reasons for criticism. Anderson's "knowledge" that the killer would have to be a "low-class Polish Jew" may to some extent have worked to limit the awareness of other possible (types of) suspects and any related clues. And there is of course the "eternal question" of the writing on that wall in Goulston Street. Personally, I would say the most significant facts do seem to have been registered, though it might have been better if a photo had been taken.
5. If you by some quirk of fate found yourself transported to the night of the Eddowes/Stride murder but had a broken ankle and could move but slowly.....which of the two crimes would you attempt to witness assuming you could only drag you and your busted appendage to one of them?
I would surely do my best to at least interrupt the first of them. If I could not hinder both of them then I guess I would have to be a witness to the last of them.
1. Its an old chestnut but always worth a crack: if you had to pick one of the following as a probable profession for the esteemed Jack T. Ripper which would you pick and why: a) surgeon, b) knacker man, c)apprentice medico, d) non-medical, non-butcher, labourer/unemployed.
Regardless of esteem, I would say that he was at that time most probably unemployed, in some way self-employed, or of no fixed occupation. I do however find it likely that he may have picked up some minimal "anatomical knowledge" along his way.
2. In the pantheon of uncaught murderers and unsolved cases, do you feel that JtR is deserving of his place given the fact that the trail is so cold now that there is no chance of ever identifying him and that Ripperology has moved to sociology, historical pursuit etc. and is therefore no more a criminological investigation?
It is not my impression that the trail, as such, has become significantly colder than it was in mid November 1888. If it has come to be more widely perceived as such over the last couple of decades, then I would say the reason should perhaps rather be sought beyond the facts of the case. I guess it's possible that a rising interest in peripherally related historical pursuits or sociological subjects may have played some part.
3. Of all the flotsam and jetsom that has washed up over the years on the shores of Ripperology, which bit of gossip, rumour, innuendo, garbled recollection do you feel is the most intriguing and of most potential import?
I'm not quite sure if this would be an example of what you're referring to, but if I had to pick one particular bit of recollection, garbled or not, I would say -
"His watch chain had a big seal with a red stone hanging from it." -- George Hutchinson (The Times, 14 November 1888)
4. Do you consider the police to have been unfairly criticised regarding their efforts at the time and if so would you care to elaborate on what more they could have done?
Solving any murder committed by someone unknown to the victim and without a "rational motive", may be fairly heavily relying on some seemingly chance events. So, perhaps they were unfairly criticized. There could, I guess, still be one or more fair reasons for criticism. Anderson's "knowledge" that the killer would have to be a "low-class Polish Jew" may to some extent have worked to limit the awareness of other possible (types of) suspects and any related clues. And there is of course the "eternal question" of the writing on that wall in Goulston Street. Personally, I would say the most significant facts do seem to have been registered, though it might have been better if a photo had been taken.
5. If you by some quirk of fate found yourself transported to the night of the Eddowes/Stride murder but had a broken ankle and could move but slowly.....which of the two crimes would you attempt to witness assuming you could only drag you and your busted appendage to one of them?
I would surely do my best to at least interrupt the first of them. If I could not hinder both of them then I guess I would have to be a witness to the last of them.