How Brown
05-28-2010, 04:59 PM
Again, we thank Mr. Scott for the time and effort.
*********************************
7. You mentioned a sense of liberation in that you don't have a particular suspect to promote when you author books or share newspaper articles on individuals who may have been suggested in the past.
Do you think that had the articles which you have found related to these persons and still find would have changed the nature of Ripperology back in the days when digitized articles weren't so easily accessible (in many cases not at all ) and many Ripperologists depended almost entirely on phone calls, letter exchanges, and personal meetings which seem to have formed a large part of their opinions and were the primary factors in those authors' promotion of suspects without the advantage of the newspapers that surfaced with the advent of digitization ?
Any period of research can only be judged on its own terms and it is exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - to extrapolate backwards to try and imagine the impact current knowledge would have had on research in the past. Which is a polite and long-winded way of saying I don't know!
On a purely personal note, however, I have to say that, although the modern era of digital databases and text searchable images is undoubtedly more productive and efficient than previous eras, it has had the effect in some ways of making research a more solitary and isolated activity. I have fond memories of spending hours in various obscure libraries in London, finding unexpected help from frequently charming and often eccentric librarians - the Internet is undoubtedly more productive in terms of bare results but can be soulless and impersonal.
That is why, in my opinion, sites such as Casebook and JTR Forums are so important in that they reinstate the elements of personal contact and companionship.
8. On occasion we've read posts on message boards or even commentary from the civilian world which insinuate or directly state that Ripperology might be better with some sort of set of guidelines in presenting suspects or researching in general.
What are some of the positives you see in the efforts of individual researchers, virtually all unpaid and certainly not recipients of grants, such as those that other disciplines bestow on devotees of a variety of fields... ? Their determination ? Their imagination ? What, if any, positive trends or activities do you see and please list as many as possible.
I would personally abhor any such list of "guidelines" in researching or presenting findings. One of the joys of this field is the presence of certain outspoken, even abrasive personalities, some of whom border on the eccentric. You may strongly disagree with their interpretations or their theories, but thank God for them, say I!
In a world that has become stiflingly over regulated, over sensitive, afraid to offend anyone, tediously homogenised, packaged and obsessed with image and appearance - let us preserve at least one small corner where substance and individuality are still valued and nurtured - I feel better for that!
The positives from this band of unpaid, highly skilled and selfless researchers would include:
1) The willingness to share giving access to sources the individual might not have
2) Sharing of knowledge acquired by years or even decades of study. The modern trend is for instant gratification and instant pundits - serious study of a field does not work that way.
3) Sharing the contents of private collections or JTR related material that would otherwise be impossible to access
4) The message boards give one access to a whole gamut of opinion and research which would otherwise be impossible to access
5) The simple act of exchanging opinion and arguing one's corner can in itself be both fruitful and enjoyable
??
9. What would Chris Scott like to see in terms of a Ripper documentary ? What exactly would it focus on ?
Quite simple - one that actually followed at least the basic facts of the case. I find it amazing that makers of both documentaries and dramas based on the case seem incapable of getting even basic facts right. This is not a case of sitting there waiting for errors and triumphantly pointing out the faults - it is more that if the makers cannot get even the basic facts right then it undermines one's confidence in the whole production.
If there is one case that does not need "hyping up" or over dramatised, then surely it is that of the Whitechapel murders. My ideal documentary would be sober, low key even, and clearly differentiating between fact and speculation, which some productions signally fail to do.
??
10. What is the one piece of research work that you have spent the most time on ( other than A Cast of Thousands, Will The Real Mary Kelly... ?...or the Ripper In Ramsgate ) ? It could be a newspaper trawl on a certain aspect,individual, or event.
Irrespective of the book, I have to say that I have spent more time on looking into the story of Mary Jane Kelly than any other person or thread of the story. This is not because I have some kind of obsession with her as a character but rather it was the pull of a mystery within a mystery. Although the Ripper case abounds with unanswered questions, the background and, to some extent, the personalities of the first four canonical victims can be at least partially retrieved. Neal Shelden has done amazing research in this area and his book on the first four victims is an essential read. Kelly was a challenge - and it was that puzzle that led to the book and has kept me interested in her ever since.
11. What has been your general perception of how the British police force handled the Whitechapel Murders ?
Whenever I see this question, I am reminded of the saying that everyone can be wise with hindsight.
I think it is easy to underestimate how much policing and the tools available to the police have changed and grown since 1888. I was, of course, aware that Victorian police had no access to DNA and fingerprinting, but I was amazed when I first read that police at the time of the Whitechapel killings not only could not classify blood by group (A,O, etc.) but could not even definitively identify blood as human or animal.
I am sure mistakes were made, and I am sure that the internal wrangles of Warren, Munro etc. did not help, but I do not subscribe to the theory that the way the police handled the case was an unmitigated disaster. Various police chiefs at the time castigated the London police and boasted that they would have done better, but some, when a similar case landed in their own backyard, such as the Carrie Brown case, fared little better.
*********************************
7. You mentioned a sense of liberation in that you don't have a particular suspect to promote when you author books or share newspaper articles on individuals who may have been suggested in the past.
Do you think that had the articles which you have found related to these persons and still find would have changed the nature of Ripperology back in the days when digitized articles weren't so easily accessible (in many cases not at all ) and many Ripperologists depended almost entirely on phone calls, letter exchanges, and personal meetings which seem to have formed a large part of their opinions and were the primary factors in those authors' promotion of suspects without the advantage of the newspapers that surfaced with the advent of digitization ?
Any period of research can only be judged on its own terms and it is exceedingly difficult - if not impossible - to extrapolate backwards to try and imagine the impact current knowledge would have had on research in the past. Which is a polite and long-winded way of saying I don't know!
On a purely personal note, however, I have to say that, although the modern era of digital databases and text searchable images is undoubtedly more productive and efficient than previous eras, it has had the effect in some ways of making research a more solitary and isolated activity. I have fond memories of spending hours in various obscure libraries in London, finding unexpected help from frequently charming and often eccentric librarians - the Internet is undoubtedly more productive in terms of bare results but can be soulless and impersonal.
That is why, in my opinion, sites such as Casebook and JTR Forums are so important in that they reinstate the elements of personal contact and companionship.
8. On occasion we've read posts on message boards or even commentary from the civilian world which insinuate or directly state that Ripperology might be better with some sort of set of guidelines in presenting suspects or researching in general.
What are some of the positives you see in the efforts of individual researchers, virtually all unpaid and certainly not recipients of grants, such as those that other disciplines bestow on devotees of a variety of fields... ? Their determination ? Their imagination ? What, if any, positive trends or activities do you see and please list as many as possible.
I would personally abhor any such list of "guidelines" in researching or presenting findings. One of the joys of this field is the presence of certain outspoken, even abrasive personalities, some of whom border on the eccentric. You may strongly disagree with their interpretations or their theories, but thank God for them, say I!
In a world that has become stiflingly over regulated, over sensitive, afraid to offend anyone, tediously homogenised, packaged and obsessed with image and appearance - let us preserve at least one small corner where substance and individuality are still valued and nurtured - I feel better for that!
The positives from this band of unpaid, highly skilled and selfless researchers would include:
1) The willingness to share giving access to sources the individual might not have
2) Sharing of knowledge acquired by years or even decades of study. The modern trend is for instant gratification and instant pundits - serious study of a field does not work that way.
3) Sharing the contents of private collections or JTR related material that would otherwise be impossible to access
4) The message boards give one access to a whole gamut of opinion and research which would otherwise be impossible to access
5) The simple act of exchanging opinion and arguing one's corner can in itself be both fruitful and enjoyable
??
9. What would Chris Scott like to see in terms of a Ripper documentary ? What exactly would it focus on ?
Quite simple - one that actually followed at least the basic facts of the case. I find it amazing that makers of both documentaries and dramas based on the case seem incapable of getting even basic facts right. This is not a case of sitting there waiting for errors and triumphantly pointing out the faults - it is more that if the makers cannot get even the basic facts right then it undermines one's confidence in the whole production.
If there is one case that does not need "hyping up" or over dramatised, then surely it is that of the Whitechapel murders. My ideal documentary would be sober, low key even, and clearly differentiating between fact and speculation, which some productions signally fail to do.
??
10. What is the one piece of research work that you have spent the most time on ( other than A Cast of Thousands, Will The Real Mary Kelly... ?...or the Ripper In Ramsgate ) ? It could be a newspaper trawl on a certain aspect,individual, or event.
Irrespective of the book, I have to say that I have spent more time on looking into the story of Mary Jane Kelly than any other person or thread of the story. This is not because I have some kind of obsession with her as a character but rather it was the pull of a mystery within a mystery. Although the Ripper case abounds with unanswered questions, the background and, to some extent, the personalities of the first four canonical victims can be at least partially retrieved. Neal Shelden has done amazing research in this area and his book on the first four victims is an essential read. Kelly was a challenge - and it was that puzzle that led to the book and has kept me interested in her ever since.
11. What has been your general perception of how the British police force handled the Whitechapel Murders ?
Whenever I see this question, I am reminded of the saying that everyone can be wise with hindsight.
I think it is easy to underestimate how much policing and the tools available to the police have changed and grown since 1888. I was, of course, aware that Victorian police had no access to DNA and fingerprinting, but I was amazed when I first read that police at the time of the Whitechapel killings not only could not classify blood by group (A,O, etc.) but could not even definitively identify blood as human or animal.
I am sure mistakes were made, and I am sure that the internal wrangles of Warren, Munro etc. did not help, but I do not subscribe to the theory that the way the police handled the case was an unmitigated disaster. Various police chiefs at the time castigated the London police and boasted that they would have done better, but some, when a similar case landed in their own backyard, such as the Carrie Brown case, fared little better.