|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 276
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 06, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | 
|
This may serve as something of a cautionary tale for all of us on the boards, but the other day I was re-reading the definitive book about an American case from the middle of the past century.
The case is not at all germane to JtR (even though the definition of psychopath played an important part in the trial -- but that is for another time . . . preferably another lifetime), but one thing did jump out at me. I thought I had a good handle on the events, yet it was only the other day that I noticed in a memorandum a defense attorney referred -- once -- to five handwritten documents.
The documents were crucial, but there were only four, not five. Indeed, every other time in the voluminous case files everyone correctly mentions only FOUR documents and the author of the book I was reading included a footnote that it was clearly an innocent error.
And it surely was: all of the files, testimony and evidence have been mined minutely the past 50 years by partisans for the defense and the most absurd exculpatory arguments imaginable advanced. Yet, no one seized upon the one mis-statement about the number of documents. This is because with almost all the investigatory material made available long ago, everyone involved realizes the mis-statement was human error.
Still, I couldn't help but think that had it been the JtR investigation, where we have in the main nothing but disparate (sometimes contradictory) scraps of evidence and only occasional documents with which to work, that such a mistake might have been the genesis of many new theories and several books. And, had the error somehow involved the number 39 . . . well, the mind boggles at the thought.
Point I'm trying to make is that innocent mistakes do happen: names, places, times and other facts can be wrongly provided and with the paucity of information available about the JtR investigation we have no way of determining their accuracy. At the same time, people will also consciously lie or pass on dubious hearsay and, again, there is no way to be sure of their veracity.
Still, when trying to find where the truth lies when assaying the evidence we must bear in mind that some of the seeming contradictions can well be simply the result of innocent human error. While it strikes at the heart of my crime-fiction efforts, all seeming anomalies are not meaningful. Accepting that only makes it harder to judge the evidence we have . . . but no one said it was going to be easy, did they?
Don. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 765
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Hmmm, a year has gone by and no one has posted a reply -- definitely embarrassing. Though, not quite so humiliating as the time when in graduate school in Boston a fellow student and I were on a call-in radio talk show discussing our research and no one -- absolutely no one -- called in! Not even a wrong number. I have that show on tape because the girls in the apartment next to mine (hi Charlotte and Joan) recorded it -- but even they didn't bother to call.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 9:55 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Thanks for bringing attention to this thread. Boy, I was just thinking and writing about something similar today. They say the London fog was a myth, but I can tell you it's very real (metaphorically speaking). It's easy to get lost in there! I can well imagine myself wondering what ever happened to that fifth document. It's even worse when you're dealing with events of over a century ago, and for Americans, add some cultural differences on top. Then try to understand the concerns of someone working in a field you've never worked in. It's easy to misunderstand what people were doing back then, which is why I think it's important to try to step back and gain some sort of context. Some questions are unanswerable; the dead really are unknowable, although I like to think we can gain some insight by examining their surroundings and institutions. Sometimes I see some Victorian committing what looks like an outrageous and ridiculous act and I think, "Why in the world did you do that for?" When I take a deeper look into other similar situations, I often find the person was acting quite reasonably in the context of their world. But then there's an equal danger I've encountered,and that's finding the wrong context. Trying to keep it all together in my mind, I see how easy it is to misapply context and precedent. If you're not careful, in the end, you don't understand the situation any better than if you had never bothered in the first place.
This is why I think the Jack the Ripper case has moved out of the detective's province and on into the historian's.
Dave |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Just curious, Donald - what was the case you originally referred to ? Sam Sheppard ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 938
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 12:52 am: |
|
Hi Don,
I remember reading the original post last year and thinking it was spot on, but obviously didn't reply. A year at this time I was setting up another new website for a client and working on a particularly involved issue of Ripper Notes (Octobers and Aprils always seem to cause more trouble than others), so I can only guess I was too busy to post an "I agree wholeheartedly."
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 478
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Donald,
I think you are one hundred percent correct,
I looked at your original post and cast my mind back to the Macnaghten Memorandum with all its errors; and how the date of Montague Druitt's death was confounded by various documents as 3 December; 13 December; and 31 December.
And most aposite of all, the mention of the word "fog" in your thread heading: recently I read an ancient review, of a (then) new JTR book, by Ripper studies' pioneer Colin Wilson; the reviewed author, in an attempt to build up atmosphere had referred to the Ripper emerging from the fog...
"What fog? !" Wilson exasperatedly cried.
Because of the shortage of reliable base documents to review in this long-ago case, we are forced to search for minutae in the pages of newspapers, which, had we lived in 1888, we would not have studied.
But every now and then, some Ripper stalwart quietly posts a tasty morsel....keeps ya goin'. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1921
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 8:05 am: |
|
Don,
Like Dan, I didnt respond because I agreed.
And for the record, hearsay evidence is still evidence....not matter the verification !
Cheers,
Monty
Four candles.....you know, handles for forks ! - The Guv'nor
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 766
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 8:52 pm: |
|
Thanks all for the show of support, but where were you all when I was "dying" on radio? Okay, rather than discussing Puritan life in 17th Century Massachusetts Bay Colony we might have been better advised to pick a topic like "Ex-wives who marry tri-sexuals from Alpha Centauri." That might have generated a few calls.
Robert: No, the case was that of Alger Hiss and the book I was reading was Allen Weinstein's fine Perjury.
John: Yes, the contemporary newspapers are something of a snare and delusion and yet also indispensible. An example would be the inquest transcripts. In many cases the newspaper reports are our only sources for the testimony and yet, because they were transcribed in situ by reporters, there are often differences in what witnesses purportedly said. Some authors prefer one or another newspaper, but without any real proof their choice of transcriber was the more accurate at that moment. The fog of investigation.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 134
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
Don,
Sorry man. I would have called in had I known. Also, puritanism has spread to the midwest, and I'm not happy about it.
Cheers,
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 767
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Mike,
I think you would find that what you define as "puritanism" and what prevailed in New England in the 17th century are two different things.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
Is there a difference (I don't know a whole lot about that period)? One of my ancestors was a Buckinghamshire vicar who got sacked because he opposed the Church's support of sports and recreation on Sundays. He emigrated in 1636 and was the first minister in Salisbury, Mass.
Dave |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 474
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Hi, Don and everyone.
Just dropped i to say that in my experience Don is always right. 
Mags
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 768
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Dave,
It would be the basis for a long and dense post (that would not belong here anyway) to go into the subject adequately, but what I was suggesting to Mike is that often what is called "puritanism" today is really more a reflection of Victorian prudery than what obtained in early New England.
To be sure, they were a tough-minded crew that sought to live by The Book and who probably seem quite intolerant in many areas. Yet, they also had attitudes that I think would surprise many.
A couple of quick examples. They did not proscribe alcoholic beverages and usually the second building erected in a new town (first would be the meeting house) would be a tavern. Spirits were considered a "gift of God" and to be enjoyed freely -- it was drunkeness that was considered wrong.
Similarly, sex was considered one of the ways a couple expressed their love -- but only within a marriage. As with alcohol and drunkeness, it was not sex but promiscuity that was wrong. People today might argue with those views, but I think they are examples that the Puritans were not as popularly pictured.
If you are interested send me a private email and I might suggest a couple of books.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 769
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:06 pm: |
|
Mags,
Where are you when I really need you? Anyway, amidst blushes I think I'll pop that line into my resume.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Thanks for that Don. Email sent.
Dave |
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 138
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 11:02 pm: |
|
Don,
I understand. Modern fundamentalism is a 19th century invention and so has no foundation. At least the puritans liked their beer.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Baron von Zipper
Detective Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 139
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 11:26 pm: |
|
Don,
I know that, at least in Plymouth they moved the public house outside of the town after a time because of the drunken outsiders that were hanging about. Yet it is true that they understood the importance of a meeting house, as do I. Especially if there's a good fiddler.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Hello Don,
Your mention of our constant companion in this life, "human error", reminds me that I have three categories for this 'monster'. Firstly, incompetence; secondly, damned incompetence; and thirdly, malicious deception. I have experienced all three of these in the course of my short life. All are life-threatening...I can assure you.
Rosey :-) |
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Interesting post Don.
Fog
The Macnaghten Memorandum in particular has always worried me, as well as Swansons marginilla & Andersons musings.I've never EVER been involved in an investigation where information went from the top on down, it is always the other way around.I find it unbelievable that the men on the ground would NOT know of this 'suspect'.
Fog
The fact that the doctors could not actually agree on the colour of orange juice is worrying,no wonder Anderson brought his own man in.
Fog
The witnesses,scary.
I tossed out the Macnaghten Memorandum, Hutchinson, & Schwarz quite a while back which does not leave a hell of a lot really. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
