Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SPE's Worldview

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Monty
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Over Simplifying?

    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    Stewart,
    Fair enough, yet and you knew there would be a yet, could the same hold true for those who do not even attempt alternative options?
    Let's use Bruce Paley as an example - I think we can all agree that while an interesting theory, Paley, while writing the definitive book on Joseph Barnett, including the best researched to date on the history of the actual man, has not gone any further than his 1995 book. Why not?
    It could be many reasons but here are two:
    a - he is fixated on Barnett as murderer and despite not getting past a hypothetical level and a theory with major holes, he is not doing any more with Barnett because he does not want to.
    or
    b - he cannot do anymore because he either simply cannot get further with his theory or that the theory itself can go no further.
    Either choice places him in the same category, in my opinion, akin to your final statement. His research on Barnett was brilliant - why not apply that to another suspect and see where that leads him?

    Stan , I fear that you might be over simplifying the situation here.

    Taking your example of Paley, let's look at it. I do not know Bruce and have, I believe, only ever spoken to him once on the telephone. We do not know his personal circumstances, nor do we know if his great interest in the case has endured. Others may know Bruce and be in a position to answer this.

    I should imagine that he has remained faithful to his proposed suspect but, of course, only he can answer that. Whether he can or cannot do any more in this regard, again only he can answer.

    From our restricted knowledge of his situation, both personal and with regard to his suspect, how can we categorize him? It would be unfair to do so.

    The answer, again, must lie with each individual. For instance I know several 'Ripper enthusiasts' who once had a great interest but then, for whatever reason, have lost all interest and have no more to do with it.

    For others, such as myself, the interest is enduring, I have had it for over 45 years, and although I know the case cannot be solved that does not stop me continuing my research and providing new information for others, amongst whom are those who have that vigorous new interest in a suspect and are continuing valid research.

    We must also get this thing into the correct perspective. In the wider world the identity of an unknown killer of 120 years ago who murdered a few down and out street women (and I am not deliberately demeaning them here) is of no, or little, interest. Also identifying the killer really has no great effect on history, albeit of the greatest interest to criminologists.

    You may think that my saying that the case cannot be solved will put others off trying to do so. I don't think it will, do you? And, I'm afraid, I have to be honest about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Stewart,

    Fair enough, yet and you knew there would be a yet, could the same hold true for those who do not even attempt alternative options?

    Let's use Bruce Paley as an example - I think we can all agree that while an interesting theory, Paley, while writing the definitive book on Joseph Barnett, including the best researched to date on the history of the actual man, has not gone any further than his 1995 book. Why not?

    It could be many reasons but here are two:

    a - he is fixated on Barnett as murderer and despite not getting past a hypothetical level and a theory with major holes, he is not doing any more with Barnett because he does not want to.

    or

    b - he cannot do anymore because he either simply cannot get further with his theory or that the theory itself can go no further.

    Either choice places him in the same category, in my opinion, akin to your final statement. His research on Barnett was brilliant - why not apply that to another suspect and see where that leads him?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris G.
    replied
    Originally posted by SPE View Post

    To my mind one of the worst approaches is the closed mind, usually caused by fixation on one suspect or theory.
    An excellent statement, SPE.

    Chris

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Approach

    Originally posted by Stan Russo View Post
    Stewart,
    Is there a possibility, in your opinion, that the entire approach may be flawed, which has resulted in "solution apathy"?
    Stan, I think that the approach to the case varies depending upon the individual and how they perceive things.

    Some may be apathetic, but if so why do they stay interested in the case? Again the answer depends on the individual.

    To my mind one of the worst approaches is the closed mind, usually caused by fixation on one suspect or theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Stewart,

    Is there a possibility, in your opinion, that the entire approach may be flawed, which has resulted in "solution apathy"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Thanks very much for the comments,Mr. E.

    If a researcher/theorist doesn't get caught up in the passion of Ripperology once in a while...and it is easy to see why Tumbelty could do that to someone at that time...then I think they are less likely to pursue the "hunt" as a rule of thumb for the amount of years you have been engaged in this field.

    Hey ! Its better to go with Tumbelty than a shlub like Stephenson which this idiot,H.Brown,Phila.Pa., did....since in Tumbelty's case there are sources to verify claims

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert Linford
    replied
    Never mind Tumblety, Stewart - where do you stand on Gabriel Marcel and Thomas Kuhn?

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Opinion

    In view of the foregoing*, I have to say that I am very confident that Dr Tumblety and 'Jack the Ripper' were one and the same, however I do know that it is unlikely that I will ever be able to prove it conclusively. The mystery will live on. But I do say, just how many coincidences do you need before you realise that this man has a lot to answer to?
    Stewart P. Evans
    November 5th, 1996

    This remark was made 13 years ago and I stated that I was 'very confident' in expressing that opinion, with, I note, the caveat that I felt it very unlikely that I would ever be able to prove it.

    I still find many of the coincidences very interesting. However, the accusation then that I was a 'Tumblety man' through and through may have been truer then than it would be now. I have not been involved in Tumblety research since then and have concentrated since on objectivity and overall knowledge of the case. Having a fixed suspect can limit your view and areas of research, something I do not wish to do.

    Others have now taken on the 'Tumblety mantle' and know a lot more about him than I do. In writing a book about a suspect you cannot be totally objective, selectivity being one thing that must be employed. It's easy to criticise a suspect theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stephen Thomas
    replied
    Originally posted by Pilgrim View Post
    .....
    convictions are felt to be definitive, beyond modification. However, when I claim that nothing can change my conviction, I must either affirm that I have already anticipated all possible future scenarios and no possible event can change my conviction, or affirm that whatever events do occur—anticipated or unanticipated—they will not shake my conviction. The first possibility is impossible. The second possibility is based on a decision, a decision to remain constant whatever may come. However, upon reflection such a decision seems as over-confidant as the claim to have anticipated the future. By what right can I affirm that my inner conviction will not change in any circumstance? To do so is to imply that, in the future, I will cease to reflect on my conviction. It seems that all I am able to say is that my conviction is such that, at the present moment, I cannot imagine an alteration in it.

    Very true, Pilgrim, the last sentence especially.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Opinion, Conviction, Belief.

    In view of the foregoing*, I have to say that I am very confident that Dr Tumblety and 'Jack the Ripper' were one and the same, however I do know that it is unlikely that I will ever be able to prove it conclusively. The mystery will live on. But I do say, just how many coincidences do you need before you realise that this man has a lot to answer to?

    Stewart P. Evans
    November 5th, 1996
    While opinions are unreflective and external, convictions—which are more akin to belief than opinion—are the result of extensive reflection and invariably concern things to which one feels closely tied. Like opinions that have entrenched themselves to the point of becoming actual claims, convictions are felt to be definitive, beyond modification. However, when I claim that nothing can change my conviction, I must either affirm that I have already anticipated all possible future scenarios and no possible event can change my conviction, or affirm that whatever events do occur—anticipated or unanticipated—they will not shake my conviction. The first possibility is impossible. The second possibility is based on a decision, a decision to remain constant whatever may come. However, upon reflection such a decision seems as over-confidant as the claim to have anticipated the future. By what right can I affirm that my inner conviction will not change in any circumstance? To do so is to imply that, in the future, I will cease to reflect on my conviction. It seems that all I am able to say is that my conviction is such that, at the present moment, I cannot imagine an alteration in it.

    Belief is akin to conviction; it is, however, distinguished by its object. Marcel insists in many places that proper use of the term “belief” applies not to things “that” we believe, but to things “in which” we believe. Belief is not “belief that…” but is “belief in…” Belief that might be better characterized as a conviction rather than a belief; however, to believe in something is to extend credit to it, to place something at the disposal of that in which we believe. The notion of credit placed at the disposal of the other is another way of speaking about disponibilité. “I am in no way separable from that which I place at the disposal of this X… Actually, the credit I extend is, in a way, myself. I lend myself to X. We should note at once that this is an essentially mysterious act(Marcel 1951a, p. 134). This is what distinguishes conviction from belief. Conviction refers to the X, takes a position with regard to X, but does not bind itself to X. While I have an opinion, I am a belief—for belief changes the way I am in the world, changes my being. We can now see how belief refers to the other, and how it is connected to disponibilité: belief always applies to “personal or supra-personal reality” (Marcel 1951a, p. 135). It always involves a thou to whom I extend credit—a credit that puts myself at the disposal of the thou—and thus arises the problem of fidelity.

    Opinion, Conviction, Belief.

    ~~~
    Originally posted by Pilgrim View Post
    Consistent with the theory of confirmation holism, some scholars assert "fact" to be necessarily "theory-laden" to some degree. Thomas Kuhn and others pointed out that knowing what facts to measure, and how to measure them, requires the use of some other theory.

    Leave a comment:


  • AP Wolf
    replied
    Although SPE can be a bit of a prickly pear at times, I have always admired his sense of purpose and his state of being, a sort of constant in an ever shifting world where we are left with not much to cling to, apart from his common sense and his no-nonsense attitude when it comes to the facts of the matter.
    He has a single fault, and that is an inability to walk away from his younger days when Tumblety was king, for this causes him to stumble today...and my wish is that he could be what he really is today, a master, and dismiss yesterday as the stuff of youth.

    Leave a comment:


  • SPE
    replied
    Thank You

    Originally posted by How Brown View Post
    Allow me to just mention that in our Case, we are faced,as we all know or should know, with incomplete data.
    Imagine purchasing and then setting up a crib for your newborn child with 1/3rd of the necessary and not so necessary pieces missing.
    Many of us would immediately return the crib and the box and holler for our money back.
    But we don't do that in Ripperology. We'll just keep plugging along.
    In fact, the plugging along by Messrs. Riordan,Spallek,Wood, and Hutchinson just over the last year are very encouraging.
    Thank you for the kind words How. Yes there are some great individuals working in the field, those you mention being amongst them.

    But there are many others who add greatly to our overall knowledge and understanding, some unsung and unpublished, who in their own way add much. Many are to be found here and over on the Casebook. I have great admiration for many and it would be unfair to list names. I have told many of them that I admire their work.

    Many individuals make their own unique contribution to the case, even those who may not come up with new information but cause us to look at things in a new way or put interesting new interpretations on known facts.

    I certainly don't wish to put anyone off research nor to dampen enthusiasm. And I do wish to assist serious students of the case whenever I might be able to do so. They keep this subject alive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I think I'd agree with both posts. A good friend of mine, who is generally acknowledged as the "world expert" in his field, once gave a reporter a good perspective. The reporter asked what it felt like to be the expert in the field. He told him that "In my field, there are no experts - just aging students." We can progrssively define more features of the black box but the internal workings of the box must remain unknown.

    Best,

    Tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    Allow me to just mention that in our Case, we are faced,as we all know or should know, with incomplete data.

    Imagine purchasing and then setting up a crib for your newborn child with 1/3rd of the necessary and not so necessary pieces missing.

    Many of us would immediately return the crib and the box and holler for our money back.

    But we don't do that in Ripperology. We'll just keep plugging along.

    In fact, the plugging along by Messrs. Riordan,Spallek,Wood, and Hutchinson just over the last year are very encouraging.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X