How Brown
10-20-2008, 05:53 PM
1.What are your impressions of Ripper tours? How do they help the field ?
I must admit that I have never been on a Ripper tour: time, inclination and the confiscatory rate of exchange arguing against it when I was in England last year. Nor am I sure I would want to take one as I always enjoy more just wandering around an area on my own and the fact that little if anything is left of the murder sites also argues against. And, not having been on a tour I’m not sure how much is factual and how much is dramatic hyperbole. I do know that the few "lay" people I’ve met who took a tour did not learn much about the events of the fall of 1888-or else didn’t listen.
Some day an entrepreneur with money to burn will build a realistic stage set of the Canonic Five murder sites and do very well. Imagine the sights, sounds and smells of Miller’s Court without the danger. Of course that last, the stench, might well chase many a Ripperologist into a more effete interest like stamp collecting.
2. Do you have plans to write any future fiction pieces such as the recent "The Psalmist" which Nina and I enjoyed reading for Ripperologist magazine?
First of all, thanks to you and Nina for the kind comments.
Hmmm, I suspect that there are those who think everything I write for Ripperologist is "fiction." But yes, I certainly hope to whenever an idea hits me, as it did with The Psalmist and the Christmas story last year. I’m very comfortable with fiction pieces and I’ve long had the notion that it might be the best way to present a JtR theory. In the meantime, however, I’m busy working on a follow-up to The Same . . . Only Different, another novel of mystery and modern mores featuring Dan Fowler, so that is where my fiction energy is currently focused.
3. Where do you stand at present on the issue of whether the Whitechapel Murders were undoubtedly of a sexual nature...or is there an outside chance that these murders had another motive or purpose in mind? Or . . . if all else fails, does there necessarily need to be a motive that we would understand ? A series of motiveless murders perhaps?
Well, the concept of "sexual murders" is a modern construct imposed upon a series of old crimes. And those who believe in that framework can-and do- insist that any reasons put forth to explain the murders are sexual at base, which rather limits any attempt to advance an opposing view. And, I would remind everyone that Freud himself once opined that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Moreover, while everyone wants to seek a motive for almost any crime, it is not necessary to prove a motive (or even suggest one) in a court of law-the evidence alone is sufficient for conviction. I suppose that many think that having a motive in mind would help narrow the hunt for Saucy Jack, but we may expend too much effort in that direction. Establish means and opportunity and leave motive to the philosophers might be more productive. If there is any productive course of action to be pursued after 120 years.
4. What is the likelihood of a poisoner such as Chapman/Klosowski being the Ripper in your view? Is the disparity between a poisoner and a knife wielder too great to reconcile?
Too great? I suppose not, there being more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in either Horatio’s or Ripperologists’ philosophies, but it does seem a bit of a stretch. I suppose, in the case of Klosowski, the argument would be that there were a good many years between the Ripper crimes and the poisonings and that might allow for a different MO and the latter murders were seemingly for profit while the Whitechapel murders were for . . . well, here we go again with that motive conundrum. Regardless, though, of the possibility I think there are many others-known and unknown-to investigate before Severin.
5. Which witness of the two...if you had to make the best guess possible...was the witness used in the Anderson Identification, Lawende or Schwartz ? In addition, is it possible that neither of them was used in this specific identification ?
That is an interesting exercise in chasing one’s tail. My strongest guess is that it was Lawende. But, if it was Lawende, and he did identify the suspect without being willing to swear to it, why did they have him later view Sadler? And if it was Schwartz and they still thought he identified the suspect, why bother with the Lawende-Sadler charade? Or were Anderson and Swanson talking through their top hats about the identification, in which case can we believe any of their story? And to suggest the witness was anyone else simply creates the same complications in spades.
Bonus question: What was the most significant "find" in the last 5 years in your opinion in our beloved field?
Oh boy, you’re going to have me chasing down a calendar and that is always dangerous. As Satchel Paige said, "Don’t look back, someone may be gaining on you" and that is surely true with time. Looking back five years only makes me realize how rapidly age is gaining on me.
So, I’ll settle for just three things in the past year, the pictures of Joseph Lawende, Francis Tumblety and that of Dutfield’s Yard. The first two initially appeared in Ripperologist and were the result of someone coming to us in the Lawende instance and of Tim Riordan digging were no one else had in the case of Tumblety.
For me, though, the real lesson of all three new photos is that there are almost assuredly other real gems waiting to be found. It just takes some imagination, diligence and, admittedly, luck. But they are out there so happy hunting everyone.
I must admit that I have never been on a Ripper tour: time, inclination and the confiscatory rate of exchange arguing against it when I was in England last year. Nor am I sure I would want to take one as I always enjoy more just wandering around an area on my own and the fact that little if anything is left of the murder sites also argues against. And, not having been on a tour I’m not sure how much is factual and how much is dramatic hyperbole. I do know that the few "lay" people I’ve met who took a tour did not learn much about the events of the fall of 1888-or else didn’t listen.
Some day an entrepreneur with money to burn will build a realistic stage set of the Canonic Five murder sites and do very well. Imagine the sights, sounds and smells of Miller’s Court without the danger. Of course that last, the stench, might well chase many a Ripperologist into a more effete interest like stamp collecting.
2. Do you have plans to write any future fiction pieces such as the recent "The Psalmist" which Nina and I enjoyed reading for Ripperologist magazine?
First of all, thanks to you and Nina for the kind comments.
Hmmm, I suspect that there are those who think everything I write for Ripperologist is "fiction." But yes, I certainly hope to whenever an idea hits me, as it did with The Psalmist and the Christmas story last year. I’m very comfortable with fiction pieces and I’ve long had the notion that it might be the best way to present a JtR theory. In the meantime, however, I’m busy working on a follow-up to The Same . . . Only Different, another novel of mystery and modern mores featuring Dan Fowler, so that is where my fiction energy is currently focused.
3. Where do you stand at present on the issue of whether the Whitechapel Murders were undoubtedly of a sexual nature...or is there an outside chance that these murders had another motive or purpose in mind? Or . . . if all else fails, does there necessarily need to be a motive that we would understand ? A series of motiveless murders perhaps?
Well, the concept of "sexual murders" is a modern construct imposed upon a series of old crimes. And those who believe in that framework can-and do- insist that any reasons put forth to explain the murders are sexual at base, which rather limits any attempt to advance an opposing view. And, I would remind everyone that Freud himself once opined that "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Moreover, while everyone wants to seek a motive for almost any crime, it is not necessary to prove a motive (or even suggest one) in a court of law-the evidence alone is sufficient for conviction. I suppose that many think that having a motive in mind would help narrow the hunt for Saucy Jack, but we may expend too much effort in that direction. Establish means and opportunity and leave motive to the philosophers might be more productive. If there is any productive course of action to be pursued after 120 years.
4. What is the likelihood of a poisoner such as Chapman/Klosowski being the Ripper in your view? Is the disparity between a poisoner and a knife wielder too great to reconcile?
Too great? I suppose not, there being more things in heaven and earth than dreamt of in either Horatio’s or Ripperologists’ philosophies, but it does seem a bit of a stretch. I suppose, in the case of Klosowski, the argument would be that there were a good many years between the Ripper crimes and the poisonings and that might allow for a different MO and the latter murders were seemingly for profit while the Whitechapel murders were for . . . well, here we go again with that motive conundrum. Regardless, though, of the possibility I think there are many others-known and unknown-to investigate before Severin.
5. Which witness of the two...if you had to make the best guess possible...was the witness used in the Anderson Identification, Lawende or Schwartz ? In addition, is it possible that neither of them was used in this specific identification ?
That is an interesting exercise in chasing one’s tail. My strongest guess is that it was Lawende. But, if it was Lawende, and he did identify the suspect without being willing to swear to it, why did they have him later view Sadler? And if it was Schwartz and they still thought he identified the suspect, why bother with the Lawende-Sadler charade? Or were Anderson and Swanson talking through their top hats about the identification, in which case can we believe any of their story? And to suggest the witness was anyone else simply creates the same complications in spades.
Bonus question: What was the most significant "find" in the last 5 years in your opinion in our beloved field?
Oh boy, you’re going to have me chasing down a calendar and that is always dangerous. As Satchel Paige said, "Don’t look back, someone may be gaining on you" and that is surely true with time. Looking back five years only makes me realize how rapidly age is gaining on me.
So, I’ll settle for just three things in the past year, the pictures of Joseph Lawende, Francis Tumblety and that of Dutfield’s Yard. The first two initially appeared in Ripperologist and were the result of someone coming to us in the Lawende instance and of Tim Riordan digging were no one else had in the case of Tumblety.
For me, though, the real lesson of all three new photos is that there are almost assuredly other real gems waiting to be found. It just takes some imagination, diligence and, admittedly, luck. But they are out there so happy hunting everyone.