How Brown
03-26-2010, 11:42 PM
The Forums thanks the insightful and very welcome addition to these boards... Mr. Cris Malone...for being a stand up guy and helping out with some responses at gunpoint to the 5 Questions.
Thanks Cris !
*******Dear Cris
1. Briefly give us some details regarding how you became interested in the Case
and
what, if anything special, inspired you to pursue the studies to the extent in
which you
have at this point in time.
Well How, I grew up reading all of the Conan Doyle series and watching the old
Rathbone movies. Sometime in the late sixties I saw a movie called "The Lodger"
and that provoked me to go to my public library where I found Tom Cullen's book
"When London Walked in Terror". I kept it until the overdue fees would have paid
for the book. It took me to a world that was far removed from my own, though I
must admit that my perception of the WM was more fantasy than reality.
My primary historical interest has been the American Civil War so after becoming
involved in several historical organizations, which included re-enacting, I
learned to develop my research around primary sources. When Sugden's book
appeared in the mid nineties, and renewed my interest in JTR, I was impressed
with the way he had conducted his research (though it destroyed my previous
conceptions about the case.) To this day that book in still my Bible, as far as
secondary sources are concerned despite the stack of others I have since
accumulated.
2. Are there one or two areas of the Case which you find yourself gravitating
towards or
are you dedicated to becoming as familiar with all of the aspects as much as
possible ?
I believe one should develop a good understanding of the whole case- even the
parameters like the culture and the political climate because it is necessary
before you can concentrate on one particular aspect.
I find the Stride murder particularly interesting because I can remember a time
when she was just an asterisk in most written accounts- a side show leading to
the main event in Mitre Square. Its a bit ironic that the controversy
surrounding her death has brought her to the forefront. She has become the
lynchpin in this saga; not just for her place in the canonicals but whether
there should be a canon.
3. What are some areas of the Case that you would like to see members of the
Forums
engage in to a greater degree in the future and perhaps all Ripperologists focus
on more ? How about less ?
More? Perhaps the physicians involved because their input was critical yet
controversial. I've been studying Dr. Bond of late and find him a fascinating
individual. He certainly didn't mind contradicting his peers, even early in his
career.
Less? Some of the theories that have flourished from the begining that defy
common sense but seem to make good copy.
4. Which of the following in your view at this present time occurred after the
Kelly murder?
He was incarcerated. He died. He fled Britain. He didn't flee Britain,but
stopped.
I don't know. It depends on how you perceive the McKenzie and Coles murders.
Serial murderers have no template- despite the fact that we try to create one.
Some do indeed change their MO. Some even quit for long periods.
If one person did commit most of these crimes, and from my interpretation of the
evidence, I don't believe this guy was the sharpest tool in the shed. The
murders seem impulsive. He hunted the easiest prey he could find and they likely
led him to their place of execution. The fact that most of the murders were
discovered shortly after they were commited shows me that he was reckless and
very lucky. Kelly's murder could have been planned, given the six weeks that had
elapsed, but no one knows for sure and that's why the fascination wth this case
has continued.
5. What one "thing" would you have done differently than what the police in
1888-1895 did towards solving the Case ? If you don't have one to offer, is it
because you find the efforts of the police satisfactory considering all the
conditions of the times?
I believe the police at the ground level, did all they could do, given what they
had to work with. It would even be difficult nowdays. The investigators from
Abberline on down should be commended for their efforts. Anderson is a different
story. After boasting that he could solve the case, following the Nichols murder
- if he had time- Chapman's murder soon followed with a panic and public outcry
that caught him totaly by surprise. By the time he realized what was on his
hands he was forced to play catch up... and I believe he played it for the rest
of his life.
************
Thanks Cris !
*******Dear Cris
1. Briefly give us some details regarding how you became interested in the Case
and
what, if anything special, inspired you to pursue the studies to the extent in
which you
have at this point in time.
Well How, I grew up reading all of the Conan Doyle series and watching the old
Rathbone movies. Sometime in the late sixties I saw a movie called "The Lodger"
and that provoked me to go to my public library where I found Tom Cullen's book
"When London Walked in Terror". I kept it until the overdue fees would have paid
for the book. It took me to a world that was far removed from my own, though I
must admit that my perception of the WM was more fantasy than reality.
My primary historical interest has been the American Civil War so after becoming
involved in several historical organizations, which included re-enacting, I
learned to develop my research around primary sources. When Sugden's book
appeared in the mid nineties, and renewed my interest in JTR, I was impressed
with the way he had conducted his research (though it destroyed my previous
conceptions about the case.) To this day that book in still my Bible, as far as
secondary sources are concerned despite the stack of others I have since
accumulated.
2. Are there one or two areas of the Case which you find yourself gravitating
towards or
are you dedicated to becoming as familiar with all of the aspects as much as
possible ?
I believe one should develop a good understanding of the whole case- even the
parameters like the culture and the political climate because it is necessary
before you can concentrate on one particular aspect.
I find the Stride murder particularly interesting because I can remember a time
when she was just an asterisk in most written accounts- a side show leading to
the main event in Mitre Square. Its a bit ironic that the controversy
surrounding her death has brought her to the forefront. She has become the
lynchpin in this saga; not just for her place in the canonicals but whether
there should be a canon.
3. What are some areas of the Case that you would like to see members of the
Forums
engage in to a greater degree in the future and perhaps all Ripperologists focus
on more ? How about less ?
More? Perhaps the physicians involved because their input was critical yet
controversial. I've been studying Dr. Bond of late and find him a fascinating
individual. He certainly didn't mind contradicting his peers, even early in his
career.
Less? Some of the theories that have flourished from the begining that defy
common sense but seem to make good copy.
4. Which of the following in your view at this present time occurred after the
Kelly murder?
He was incarcerated. He died. He fled Britain. He didn't flee Britain,but
stopped.
I don't know. It depends on how you perceive the McKenzie and Coles murders.
Serial murderers have no template- despite the fact that we try to create one.
Some do indeed change their MO. Some even quit for long periods.
If one person did commit most of these crimes, and from my interpretation of the
evidence, I don't believe this guy was the sharpest tool in the shed. The
murders seem impulsive. He hunted the easiest prey he could find and they likely
led him to their place of execution. The fact that most of the murders were
discovered shortly after they were commited shows me that he was reckless and
very lucky. Kelly's murder could have been planned, given the six weeks that had
elapsed, but no one knows for sure and that's why the fascination wth this case
has continued.
5. What one "thing" would you have done differently than what the police in
1888-1895 did towards solving the Case ? If you don't have one to offer, is it
because you find the efforts of the police satisfactory considering all the
conditions of the times?
I believe the police at the ground level, did all they could do, given what they
had to work with. It would even be difficult nowdays. The investigators from
Abberline on down should be commended for their efforts. Anderson is a different
story. After boasting that he could solve the case, following the Nichols murder
- if he had time- Chapman's murder soon followed with a panic and public outcry
that caught him totaly by surprise. By the time he realized what was on his
hands he was forced to play catch up... and I believe he played it for the rest
of his life.
************