We thank you for your time and attention as well. You’ll find that we tend to nitpick things to death around here, so forgive any absurdity you may have trodden in while here.

I think the questioning of ‘what’s the point’ was more that not everyone feels that the Ripper murders need to be solved/debated today. While studying it is certainly fine and good, it’s an event so far in the distant past that most folks just don’t give the proverbial rodent hindquarter.

Additionally, with an event so distant, with so little information available, much of the speculation and conjecture seems to stretch itself into the realm of storytelling and fable. It would be like debating what color socks Caesar wore (pink, with lace*), or what dodo *really* tasted like (I’m led to understand it’s recorded as not being that good). As a result, most folks - particularly those here, as we’re used to it - tend to take it with a grain of salt or two.

Personally, I feel that unless some ancient diary turns up with a ‘I done it’ chapter, the Ripper murders will never be ‘solved’, merely ‘talked about a lot’. Given the Ripper’s apparent love of the spotlight, he’s likely giggling himself silly in the afterlife, knowing his little crimes still capture the attention of so many.

*Actually rather possible. There’s been some evidence that Caesar was extraordinarily sexually indiscriminate, even for the standards of the day.

How Brown - 04 June 2008 02:07 AM

Five Star:

That’s not my name. Is all your research so thorough?

Allow me to address your points above…and yeah,I’m that Howard Brown.

This Howard Brown? Really?

Eliminating all of the proposed suspects that a Ripperologist or interested civilian encounters in serious or superficial research ought to be a priority,but as we know,its not.

But if you were to eliminate all the proposed suspects you’d arrive at a point where the identity of Jack the Ripper is unknown, which is where you started from.

One “point” to Ripperology is the study of an event that forever changed several areas of life that we in 2008 take for granted. Another “point” is that its a community effort to “set history” straight, since virtually all Ripper-suspect books are written from the position that that individual (or individuals) are guilty of something. These negative hagiographies are incomplete histories of the many fascinating characters within the whole of the Case…and Robert Stephenson…a.k.a. Roslyn D’Onston…is no exception.

I think you overestimate the Ripper’s influence on the Victorian age, and he rarely rates more than a couple of paragraphs in mainstream histories. That one ripperologist, or even a community of them[*], contests another seems rather incestuous. I’m all for setting the records straight, but only a documented and confirmable alibi could actually exclude someone from being JTR.

Well, it’s your own time, so who you chose to biograph is up to you, but to choose someone purely for their relationship to the Ripper case seems to me to be tenuous grounds to call them ‘fascinating’. I find them pale shadows of contemporaries like Svante Arrhenius (who first proposed both global warming and panspermia), Fleeming Jenkin (inventor of the cable-car), Antonio Meucci (inventor of the telephone) or Frederick Bakewell (who built the world’s first fax machine, in 1851). JMHO.

[* I think the proper collective noun for ripperologists should be a “suspect”.]

David B. - 04 June 2008 03:21 AM

[* I think the proper collective noun for ripperologists should be a “suspect”.]

What about a ‘slash’ of Ripperologists?

Robin Bobcat - 04 June 2008 02:53 AM

or Her Royal Highness if he’s got the dress and tiara on

Oh, I rarely wear the dress anymore (not since someone pointed out that aquamarine taffeta doesn’t tone well with my eyes), now I stick with just the tiara.

Just the tiara.

Thank you, Mike and Howard.  You’ve made this thread interesting again.  I don’t know enough about Ripperology to really ask any decent questions, but I enjoy reading about it here.  (And enjoyed From Hell.)  Your posts are well-written, thoughtful and explain your answers clearly.

*Hopes they stick around for some more conversation.*

David B. - 04 June 2008 03:21 AM

How Brown - 04 June 2008 02:07 AM

Five Star:

That’s not my name. Is all your research so thorough?

In all fairness, the lay out of the forum can be a little confusing for a new person not used to it.  I had a few problems finding things when I first started here.

Thanks Tah, I hadn’t posted here prior to my response to David. I thought his screen name was 5 Star. My mistake.

How Brown - 04 June 2008 02:07 AM
Five Star:

That’s not my name. Is all your research so thorough? 

Actually,its my magnum opus.

This Howard Brown? Really?

Right name,wrong tribe buddy.  ; ) I only meant that I was that Howard Brown being referred to in posts prior to my joining the site.

Eliminating all of the proposed suspects that a Ripperologist or interested civilian encounters in serious or superficial research ought to be a priority,but as we know,its not.-

But if you were to eliminate all the proposed suspects you’d arrive at a point where the identity of Jack the Ripper is unknown, which is where you started from.

That IS a goal of mine,David… to see them all eliminated. Current research into transcripts from the Old Bailey in London recently made accessible might contain “better” suspects than the ones the field has been dealing with for 120 years. Some,like Tumbelty and Druitt,refuse to go away so quietly. Hopefully we can put an end to their candidacies in the near future.

One “point” to Ripperology is the study of an event that forever changed several areas of life that we in 2008 take for granted. Another “point” is that its a community effort to “set history” straight, since virtually all Ripper-suspect books are written from the position that that individual (or individuals) are guilty of something. These negative hagiographies are incomplete histories of the many fascinating characters within the whole of the Case…and Robert Stephenson…a.k.a. Roslyn D’Onston…is no exception.

I think you overestimate the Ripper’s influence on the Victorian age, and he rarely rates more than a couple of paragraphs in mainstream histories. That one ripperologist, or even a community of them[*], contests another seems rather incestuous. I’m all for setting the records straight, but only a documented and confirmable alibi could actually exclude someone from being JTR.

Dave…whomever Jack The Ripper was, he or they( !) definitely had an impact on the police,press,people and politics of that age which has carried over to this one in one way or the other. The Ripper didn’t necessarily influence the age he lived in as much as he would future generations.                

Well, it’s your own time, so who you chose to biograph is up to you, but to choose someone purely for their relationship to the Ripper case seems to me to be tenuous grounds to call them ‘fascinating’. I find them pale shadows of contemporaries like Svante Arrhenius (who first proposed both global warming and panspermia), Fleeming Jenkin (inventor of the cable-car), Antonio Meucci (inventor of the telephone) or Frederick Bakewell (who built the world’s first fax machine, in 1851). JMHO.

Dave, in the pantheon of characters ( and there are some very unique critters in the field), within the field of Ripperology…and I mentioned their “fascinating” qualities only within the context of Ripperology. I suppose one would have to be as passionate towards Ripperology to understand how I meant “fascinating”.

I appreciate your response and humorous reply.Take care.

How

Uh huh.. Ok.. No.. we’re not gonna have another one who doesn’t know how to use the ‘quote’ function.

Instead of using ‘b’ and ‘/b’, use ‘quote’ and ‘/quote’. Please. It makes the threads a lot more interesting to read and keeps things neat and tidy.

Major pet peeve of mine.

(tinkered to appease Tah)

Robin Bobcat - 04 June 2008 03:25 PM

Uh huh.. Ok.. No.. we’re not gonna have another one who doesn’t know how to use the ‘quote’ function.

Instead of using ‘b’ and ‘/b’, use ‘quote’ and ‘/quote’. Please. it makes the threads a lot mroe interesting to read and keeps things nead and tidy.

Major pet peeve of mine.

Actually, he’s using ‘i’ and ‘/i’ to quote and bolding his replies.

And proofread your posts.

But, yes, the quote function makes the post easier to read and decipher.

How Brown - 04 June 2008 02:55 PM

I only meant that I was that Howard Brown being referred to in posts prior to my joining the site.

Oh. Shame, I thought we had a celebrity join us.

whomever Jack The Ripper was, he or they( !) definitely had an impact on the police,press,people and politics of that age which has carried over to this one in one way or the other. The Ripper didn’t necessarily influence the age he lived in as much as he would future generations.

Some examples would be nice, since his ‘influence’ otherwise seems to consist mainly of books about him and cameo appearances in a number of films/novels of varied worth (he even turned up on Babylon 5, I seem to recall).

(BTW, ‘whomever’ is the objective case but kudos for knowing the word existed.)

Dave, in the pantheon of characters ( and there are some very unique critters in the field), within the field of Ripperology…and I mentioned their “fascinating” qualities only within the context of Ripperology. I suppose one would have to be as passionate towards Ripperology to understand how I meant “fascinating”.

Fair enough. If biologists can get excited about the caecal valves of lizards, I’m sure finding Roslyn O’Donton fascinating is allowed.

Hello Howard and Mike. I enjoy listening to you guys on Rippernet.com. I am the one who wrote to the host, Jonathan Menges, about having another Roslyn show with a Mary Kelly and the Freemasons angle. Maybe the member of your site who showed up on National Treasure Book of Secrets Secret History of the Freemasons could further explain why he doesn’t believe in the Masonic angle. All he mentioned on the show was the Juwes writing and Mitre Square. I think the action of the masonic doctor and coroner in the Chapman and Kelly cases was highly suspicious. My own personal opinion is that Stan Russo is on the right track about a non-Mason sending a message to a Mason or Masons. The Masons though thought it was one of their own.

How Brown - 04 June 2008 02:55 PM

Dave, in the pantheon of characters ( and there are some very unique critters in the field), within the field of Ripperology…and I mentioned their “fascinating” qualities only within the context of Ripperology. I suppose one would have to be as passionate towards Ripperology to understand how I meant “fascinating”.

The mystery of Mary Kelly’s identity is very new to me. She seems to have been glossed over in favor of the search for Jack the Ripper. I have had a long term passion for the Ripper mystery and somehow missed this aspect of the case.
Where does Mary Kelly now stand in the pantheon of Ripperdom? She should be right up there at the top with Jack because her identity is as much a mystery, not to mention that of her alleged son and therefore the identity and possible Masonic connection of his father (someone mentioned Arthur Sullivan) if the child existed. Where do you stand on the Kelly mystery? In the context of “Maryology”, is there a hoax with regard to her identity and is Roslyn Stephenson and/or the painter, Walter Sickert, woven into the alleged scam?