SPE's Worldview

[Monty]

The answer, again, must lie with each individual.

Speaking as an individual, what else can I do?, there has never been a drive to name him.

To try and understand him is an interest, to establish how he did what he did also grabs me.

Not only that but I am fascinated as to how the crimes were investigated, how they were reported, the socio impact not only within the immediate area but worldwide, the political impact...oh there is so much more to this interest than naming the man who committed the crimes.

It's easy to criticise a suspect theory.

Comes with the territory doesnt it Stewart? Weve all done it, some with relish. I know I have. Its just sad when it gets personal. Again, to my shame, I know Ive done that also.

Monty

[Stan Russo]

Stewart,

You know I have great respect for the work that you have done on this case. In saying that I completely disagree with your worldview.

For starters, this is not a field and I think in trying to make it a field, the primary focus has been pushed off to the side, the solving of this series of unsolved murders. I know that you are not the only person who has tried to make this a "field" rather than keep the focus on where some of us feel it should be, but it is tough to argue that your worldview is not counter-productive to solving this case, when you foster and take part in continued research while at the same time openly stating that there is no way the unsolved murders can be solved.

Monty does make a good point, that there are many aspects to this case that are worthy of research, but his flaw, based on what he just wrote, is to place a primacy of importance when it is merely a subjective primacy and there would be many to disagree with him.

In my humble opinion, there are many other ways or cases to research and study the interests Monty highlighted - and Monty, if I'm not mistaken, is a Druittist, so one must ask the question of when he decided that a solution was at or near the bottom of the list for him on primacy of importance for this case.

I only used Bruce Paley as an example. I have never spoken to him and have no idea what he is doing. His current history in the case is what I was trying to use as a metaphor, for those who put all their efforts into one suspect and then do not use their own strengths to try and tackle another suspect, when their strengths can only take them so far with their original suspect. That was the point. I could have used William Beadle, Richard Wallace or numerous others to illistrate the point I was trying to make.

If I am oversimplifying the situation, at least is a new way to look at things, because the archaic methodology is not working, or at least not working in pushing the case forward.

When you say that there are many "Ripper enthusiasts" who had a great interest in the case and have since lost all or interest, i think you are undersimplyfying it. It is perfectly okay to be beaten by the case and that is not meant as an insult but simply as acknowledgment that the person can no longer push the case and has since lost interest. The error comes in not admitting it and trying to halt others from pursuing it, which can come in numerous forms.

I make the argument with Howard all the time that the message boards are the biggest detriment to the progession of the case that I can name and I think to an extent, you agree with me. Yes they provide valuable information but the way the discussions flow from important issues on the murders to utter crap (which is important to some and has its place on other forums) impedes the progress, in my opinion.

Somebody committed these murders, so the case is not unsolvable, it is just currently unsolved. I do think calling the case unsolvable is a defeatist approach and I do think it casts a shadow on the status of the research in the field, from inside and from outside. Jonas Salk cured polio and polio was incurable, until Jonas Salk cured it. What if the one of the preeminent experts had told Jonas Salk there was no way he could cure polio? Worse - what if Jonas Salk had listened?

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting points, Stan.

I do think calling the case unsolvable is a defeatist approach and I do think it casts a shadow on the status of the research in the field, from inside and from outside. Jonas Salk cured polio and polio was incurable, until Jonas Salk cured it. What if the one of the preeminent experts had told Jonas Salk there was no way he could cure polio? Worse - what if Jonas Salk had listened?

There have been many instances, particularly in the field of science, where things seemed "unsolvable". Preeminent authorities, who took a broadly "defeatist" - I prefer "sceptical" - stance, sometimes made their opinions forcibly known. (A famous example of this would be Einstein's views on Quantum Theory - "God does not play dice with the Universe!".) However, I struggle to think of one instance where such apparent "negativity from the top" prevented new discoveries being made.

Of course, this only works if a discovery can be made - that is, if necessary conditions are met in order to definitively "solve" a given problem. Given that none of the witnesses, or culprits, from the time of the Whitechapel Murders survive - in many cases, not even their grandchildren - and none of the physical evidence has been preserved, definitive proof will be almost possible to obtain. Short of a verifiable signed confession, we will never find it.

That needn't prevent plausible suspects and other aspects of the case from being explored, however - indeed, there is much to learn and enjoy from doing just those things. As to conclusively identifying the culprit, however, there's next to no chance of success. That's a realistic view, by the way; not a defeatist one.

[Stan Russo]

Sam,

It's only a realistic view because you believe it. In fact, it is not a realistic view because there is an answer and that answer is out of reach, for the time being. By saying it is realistic that the case has next to no chance of being solved, you are contributing to the label of the study of this case as a sideshow.

There are alternative possibilities, outside of a signed confession or a photograph of 'JTR' with a bloody knife signed to his greatest fan. I think stating that these are the only types of things that would solve the case shows the limits of the researcher, not the case.

This is why people who are involved in this case are viewed as nuts by the academic community. It's akin to Jonas Salk saying that there is no way he can find the cure but he will keep on playing around because he enjoys touching germs. It's creepy and it is defeatist, when you say you can't do something - the thing that holds any progress of this case back is the majority of the people who revel in that.

[Sam Flynn]

It's akin to Jonas Salk saying that there is no way he can find the cure but he will keep on playing around because he enjoys touching germs.

It's not at all like that. Salk's discovery - as we now know - had at its root fundamental physical elements that were actually there to be discovered. In other words, there was a physical "lock" into which the "key" he discovered would fit - and it would only fit in a certain way. That is not the case with finding the definitive answer to the Ripper mystery, because there is so very little of a physical nature to go on. Indeed, the advancement of several plausible suspects over the years has demonstrated that, if there is a "lock" involved in all this, it is somewhat accommodating of many possible "keys".

There are very few tangible artefacts remaining from the period of the case itself, and the evidence (be it witness testimony, police opinion or suspects' biographies) is extremely patchy. This paucity of evidence lends itself to multiple possible "solutions", none of which can ever be shown to be definitive, because any physical proof - such as would be required to identify the culprit beyond doubt - has long since vanished.

And those are not my beliefs, Stan. They are the plain facts of the matter.

[SPE]

Opinions

Stan, you are perfectly entitled to disagree with my opinions, interpretations and hypotheses. In fact they are areas into which I do not like to stray. I am much more comfortable when presenting only the facts.

Fine you don't think it's a field, that's just a word for an area of study which I think that this is. You speak as if there is some all encompassing goal which is the solving of the case. I do not think that everyone would agree with you, as I think Gareth has indicated. I am not trying to make this a 'field' in order to divert your perceived focus. In fact that doesn't really make any sense to me. Ripperology is very much an individual thing and there are many who love the fantasy side of things, enjoying great stories such as Alan Moore's graphic novel. Anyway, who the hell am I as an individual to have the power to divert anything? People who want to go their own way will do so, as we can plainly see. They simply ignore me - many do.

There will always be those who pursue a solution, and focus on this suspect or that. And that is as it should be and they often come up with some great new information, such as Andy Spallek with Druitt and so on. I really do not know what you regard as 'archaic methodology'. Everyone pursues their own avenues of research in their own way. And no one has the influence to alter how others proceed or what areas they investigate. And if anyone is put off merely by me stating the case cannot be solved, then I doubt that they would have achieved much anyway.

How do you suggest the case is pushed forward? I think everyone who is interested enough is already doing the best they can, given their individual circumstances. It's a finite area of study, there's only so much to be found. And have no doubt about it, the search will go on.

When I say that there are many 'Ripper enthusiasts' who once had a great interest in the case and have now lost that interest, I am not 'undersimplifying' anything, it is a fact. And it's not a question of being 'beaten by the case', no one has ever succeeded in solving it and if you think they can I would be interested to hear of the scenario you envisage in which they could achieve such a thing. Where you have got it wrong is in thinking that I am 'trying to halt others from pursuing it', which is not the case at all. I should hardly assist them with their research if I was, and assisting is something I do frequently. I think you also overestimate the importance and influence of the message boards. I know many leading Ripper authorities who never look at them.

As a retired police officer, and as someone who has read most of what there is to read about this case I am satisfied that these unsolved Victorian murders cannot be resolved. To say that someone committed these murders, so the case is not unsolveable is simply not correct. History is littered with unsolved murders. And with all the protagonists long dead so they will remain. But what I find more worrying is that you appear to be suggesting that I should not voice my opinion - now that's an area where I would not like to go.

[AP Wolf]

Well, I'm wary of all this deep meaning and well intentioned 'worldview'.
My 'worldview' is that you get one shot at this damn target and if you miss you are out.
I do believe SPE took his one shot a few years ago, and missed.
I'm taking my one shot right now, if I miss I'd be very surprised.

[Monty]

Stan,

Like Stewart, I completely respect your views on this and, to a degree, can understand your points. I must point out that I have no inclination in debating this to be perfectly frank. I merely expressed my view.

However, there is one issue I would like to clear up and it is this.

In my humble opinion, there are many other ways or cases to research and study the interests Monty highlighted - and Monty, if I'm not mistaken, is a Druittist, so one must ask the question of when he decided that a solution was at or near the bottom of the list for him on primacy of importance for this case.

I have never favoured any suspect, and most certainly never suggested Druitt was Jack the Ripper. Im confused as to how you came to this conclusion and suspect my profile pic, which was added by Howard as a form of ID, may be the cause. It certainly does not hint to Druitt as my preferred suspect.

I do not have an order of primacy, a list of which topics are important and which are not. I just know what interests me and what doesnt. Thats not to say I think they are important. Maybe I should have wrote "oh there is so much more to this interest than just naming the man who committed the crimes."

Cheers
Monty

[Scott Nelson]

Neil, of course, wants to be buried in or near Mitre Square when he dies, as do I.

[Stephen Thomas]

There are very few tangible artefacts remaining from the period of the case itself, and the evidence (be it witness testimony, police opinion or suspects' biographies) is extremely patchy. This paucity of evidence lends itself to multiple possible "solutions", none of which can ever be shown to be definitive, because any physical proof - such as would be required to identify the culprit beyond doubt - has long since vanished.

Hi Sam

But one never knows does one.

Maybe something new will turn up one fine day.

[Monty]

Neil, of course, wants to be buried in or near Mitre Square when he dies, as do I.

Heh heh, under the cobbles Scott, holding hands, you and I, facing towards Butchers Row.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam

But one never knows does one. Maybe something new will turn up one fine day.

It would be great if it did, Stephen, but its bona fides would have to be proven beyond doubt, and rightly so, before it could be accepted as absolute proof. The sort of thing we'd be looking for would be a verifiable confession/official record with other evidence to back it up. This is something clearly lacking in the extant evidence, and we still don't have anything like it, despite decades of brilliant research and ingenious speculation. So we're left with the serendipitous, I fear - the Ripperological equivalent of the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

[Robert Linford]

Hi Gareth

Any and all serendipity welcome. But as many have pointed out, there are some great researchers around (including yourself) and they tend to make their own luck. Or as Gary Player once answered a spectator who accused him of being lucky, "Yeah, but the more I practice, the luckier I get."

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth, Any and all serendipity welcome.

Indeedy-doody, Rob - and, thankfully, we get to "dip our serends" quite often with genuinely intriguing finds; be they photographs or documents, etc. These often bring new perspectives into play, and deepen our knowledge of this fascinating case and the people involved, which is great. It's wanting more of the same that drives many of us forward, and is surely motivation enough in itself.

New (or old) suspects, however plausible, can never be tied to the crimes beyond doubt, because the physical evidence just isn't there anymore. This is compounded by the fact that biographical data are virtually non-existent for the majority of the people alive at that time, and is likely to remain so. Such information seldom chronicles the daily or hourly activities of individuals in any case, even amongst the relatively well-known, and it's that level of detail we really need.

To compound our woes still further, the only "Ripper diary" we've had was written by someone who couldn't even be arsed to write the days and dates into it! Now, if even that couldn't provide the right sort of info, what chance that scrap of paper lurking in the attic of Miss Ethel Scroggins of 24 Quott Lane, Deptford? For, verily, I have seen the future, and 'tis she who will discover the best evidence so far!

[Howard Brown]

Since this is, in a sense, SPE's thread...maybe he could answer this question:

In your years of research, have you ever come across any attempt to create evidence that most of us, if not all of us, have never heard of ?

I am not referring to the following disputable issues for this particular question:

***The Maybrick Saga
***The September 17th Letter
***The Abberline Diaries
***The "Uncle Jack" Saga
***The Royals Conspiracy

Something not post-1992 or as recent as the advent of Casebook's message boards...something back when you were first starting out in the field.

Thank you.