|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 610
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 2:33 pm: | 
|
There has been a lot of discussion of the subject of speculation on the boards. Ask Jeeves says this about speculation:
noun: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
noun: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
http://web.ask.com/web?qsrc=6&q=Definition+of+Speculation&o=8001&sitesrc=a
We all do it. I certainly do. In a perfect world we could very carefully build a case with every single point based on cold, hard, fact:
A is true, therefore B is true.
The problem lies in the fact that in 1888 the science of gathering and analyzing evidence was not anywhere near what it is now. None of the physical evidence exists anymore. We are left with rafts of written accounts, some of them accurate and some of them not. They have to be weighed against each other.
It is like looking at a fine oil painting with about 20 big burned out holes in it. You must look at the images surrounding each hole and by extending the lines extrapolate what must have been there.
We have to say A,B,C,or D might be true. Then we examine the ideas and paradigms that would naturally follow from each one. If A is true then E or F might be true. If B is true then G or H or even I might be true. Eventually we can discard some options because they contradict other generally accepted facts or turn out to be illogical.
Its like navigating the Okeefenokee Swamp without a compass.
If a person had more information or we knew which accounts were absolutely true and which ones were not, and if we had access to the witnesses in person and the physical evidence, and if we could take a time machine back to 1888 and wander the streets of Whitechapel, then we could build everything on hard fact.
Since we don't have those options we have to say, "what if . . ."
Isn't that the essence of the scientific method? Create a hypothesis which seems to be consistent with what is known. Test the hypothesis. If it doesn't work, modify the hypothesis.
If you are lost in a swamp without a compass, you try various trails until you find the one that leads you out, always keeping track of the ones that have already been tried. You don't sit down on the ground and decide not to try any of them because you don't know which is the right one.
Where a lot of book authors have gone wrong is to treat their various hypotheses as though they were proven. If we stumble onto the correct hypothesis I hope some means of verifying it will be found. I think that initially it will begin to smell right because it will explain a lot of things that didn't make sense before and then some method of verifying it will suggest itself. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 524
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:23 am: |
|
As one of those who has been strongly urging caution about speculation, I'd like to contribute to this timely and excellently introduced thread.
Let me say straight away, I am all for speculation. Got that. I do it, I enjoy it, and it is necessary. But I try to keep it separate from any knowledge or opinion I have which is based on FACT.
I have been a little strident on the subject lately, because I was concerned that a particular poster who expresses himself vehemently, bases many of his conclusions on hypothesising (another word for speculation in this instance, as I see it) and then proclaims the result as fact. This, IMHO, needed to be countered strongly.
Ripper studies have been bedevilled for too long - and this has led to widespread belittling by others - because (as Diana rightly says) some authors have passed off speculation as fact. Leonard Matters theory about Dr Stanley was probably a speculation, but he dressed it up as fact. Knight distorted information to fit his speculation. McCormick too may have been guilty of this.
It causes enormous problems for later researchers who then have to separate fact from "fancy". Was there are South American source for Dr Stanley? Do Dr Dutton's Chronicles of Crime exist? Was Joe Gorman telling the truth?
The answer is to label clearly what is proven and what is speculation (and issue a helth warning on the latter, highlighting the areas where more work would be useful; or "missing links" might be discovered.
Honest speculation is vital if we are to explore evidence, seek out links, try the "fit" of separate pieces of evidence.
But there is a danger that the edifice that is created is so persuasive to those involved (and others who hear or read of it); so attractive; so convincing; that one loses the sense that it is unfounded and that the structure is held together only by supposition and logic, NOT by facts.
Happy to say more, or discuss in detail if others wish, but enough for now.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3444
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
"Since we don't have those options we have to say, "what if . . ."
Isn't that the essence of the scientific method? Create a hypothesis which seems to be consistent with what is known. Test the hypothesis. If it doesn't work, modify the hypothesis."
Well yes and no, but scientific speculation and hypothesis must be based on some kind of indication. It is not scientific to speculate out of the blue. A scientists must account for, WHY the hypothesis was done. In short, in order to try a hypothesis, there must be sufficient reasons to do so, based on reasonable ideas and thought processes.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 611
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Glenn, I agree it has to be based on something and clearly labelled as a theory till there is verification. Since A, B, C, and D are generally understood to be true, it follows that E is a possibility worth investigation. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1918
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
There seems to have always been speculation with regards to this case,Diana.
The police chiefs seem to have enjoyed speculating and all disagreed with each other.
Each one seems to have had his own pet ripper theory!
Anderson,Machnaghten,Littlechild,Abberline---all had very different ideas of who the ripper was- --- and the head of the secret service on Ireland, James Monro, even thought it was a political hot potato!-whatever that meant.
And lets take Mary--- well was she "Mary" or was she "Marie"? Was she Mrs Davis or Miss Kelly or Miss McCarthy?---she seems to have had so many "aliases" its no wonder trying to track her down is such a pain[but Cheers to Chris Scott on his brave task!]
There even a teeny bit of "speculation" on behalf of all those who assumed she was a ripper victim? After all we don"t know for sure she was!
But I tend to agree that one can get so fixated
on profiling,speculating,hypothesising ,analysing,rationalising etc that we may all be missing the obvious!
Natalie
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 612
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
If I said that Polly Nichols was killed by martians who landed their spaceship in Buck's Row and used their four foot long razor sharp claws to slit her throat, and that they behaved that way because the sight of Big Ben in the distance drove them insane (martians hate clocks) and that they stopped after Kelly because the Grand High Pooh Bah on Mars found out what they were doing and threatened to make them spend the next 40 years immersed in chewing gum if they didn't come home RIGHT NOW, that is speculation out of the blue.
If I noticed that of all the eyewitness descriptions of Jack, the only two that seem to be similar are Schwartz and Lawende, I could make a number of inferences from that. They might not necessarily be true, but they could be worth airing. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
I should have added that in fact I agree with your introductory post.
The problem for me is that so much is out of reach-just when you think you have something on MJK say,from which you can begin ,she starts to disappear like trying to build a house on shifting sand. |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
Hello,
I feel that one of the problems with speculation, is in many instances it is stated as fact.
It seems to me that the fact is reached and then the hypotheses is twisted to suit the fact that is being proved. The information becomes twisted.
Another problem I see in dealing with this case is getting buried in the muck. There is so much to be sorted and looked at. Even down to what color JTR shoes were. I feel we have to be careful of not getting so completely off track,
that we miss something so simple it slips through our fingers.
There are very few actual truths in this case. What do we actually know, what can we actually agree on as facts? We can try to sort it all out. but it is only speculation, Hopefully based on logic, but speculation none the less.
Cheers,
Carolyn 
(Message edited by Carolyn on May 13, 2005) |
Judith A. Stock
Sergeant
Username: Needler
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:32 am: |
|
Carolyn, this is EXACTLY what I was trying to say in a post I put up on another board. Thanks to all in this thread...you all said what I tried to say!
Speculation is just THAT....speculation is guessing, theorising, wishing, conjecturing......... NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS. To put forth another analogy, from the look of an elephant's tail, you CANNOT speculate that the elephant is actually a tall stack of snakes!
Unfortunately, this case will always invite speculation; "witness" statements, "eyewitness" reports, red herrings abound, and each leads down another garden path. Carolyn is absolutely correct..we know so little about the actual facts....we don't even know, for certain, how many victims belong to one killer. But the guessing will go on, and there will always be someone with a bit too much time on his/her hands who says, "waaaall, because 'juwes' LOOKS like it should be a certain word, then it MUST be that word...spelled badly or spelled badly ON PURPOSE to divert attention, etc".
Oh, well....the beat goes on. Just wanted to thank you all for saying it so much better than I.
Regards,
Judy
http://www.casebook.org/2006 |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 541
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
This is developing into a very worthwhile and interesting thread. though I notice none of the arch-speculators have ventured in to put their case!!
Carolyn, you are very right when you say: "There are very few actual truths in this case. What do we actually know, what can we actually agree on as facts? We can try to sort it all out. but it is only speculation, Hopefully based on logic, but speculation none the less. "
It was partly to try to get at that that I started the "Back to Basics" series of threads some months ago - seeking to review each aspect of the case and sort out what we could agree on, what we could trust and where the grey areas lay. But they never worked out like that. Should I be surprised?
In books one of the clues that "speculation" is in progress (for me at least) is that a "perhaps", "maybe", "supposing", "could have" on one page becomes a certainty some pages later. This seems particularly a trick of older Ripper writers (Knight did it a lot) - though I think things have improved with the modern generation.
Judith, I thought you made some excellent points.
Thanks to all who have written in this thread,
Phil
|
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Judith,
Let's say different and not better. Your points were well taken. 
Phil,
I for one loved your "Back to Basics" It was a wonderful idea, and I wish it would have worked out. Like I said before it had all been covered before, true, but I liked the idea of staying in a certain subject matter and working through each aspect.
All,
Which brings me to my next point, we are all speculating on this board, and it has ALL been said before, so why is it so bad to bring up a subject matter again to get a new idea or different perspective? I am so tired of hearing it has been said before, my question is what hasn't? And if it has all been said before why haven't we gotten further on this case than I feel we have gotten? We all express ourselves in different ways, maybe someone will say something a little differently that will all of a sudden make sense. I guess I feel some discussion has been cut off because of this attitude. This may have not been the right place to post this, but what the heck, I'm already here.
Cheers,
Carolyn  |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Hi all
By a coincidence, my upcoming editorial in the May issue of Ripperologist (No. 59), is on this topic of the difficulty of assessing evidence in the field of Ripperology, and I also reference an elephant analogy as did Judy Stock in her thoughtful post. 
We are unfortunately left with a dearth of useful evidence in the case of the Whitechapel murders. This is partly because of the missing police files but also because of the appearance of misleading pieces of "evidence" or ideas of various merit or demerit since the time of the murders. To this confusing situation, the growing numbers of speculative authors have certainly contributed. It may not have been foggy in 1888, but it certainly seems foggy now looking back, as we try to discern what is real about the case and what is not! 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2067
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
And there are some of us here, Chris, who are working day and night to lift that fog, though I prefer the word 'fug', with no let or hindrance from our own 'speculations', and I do hope that others can join in and start to really enjoy the factual circumstances of the time and case.
So much time is spent here in back and forth argument about facts that are not even settled yet, and I would dearly love to see them same people getting stuck into the history of the case through the incredible search facilities that are available now through a simple click.
Google it, don't click on number 1, go to 10,709, and then work your way back. Every single day new information is being added at an alarming rate. Somewhere in all that jumble is the simple answer.
And the the best bit of all is that the 'Final Solution' belongs to nobody, because it was probably posted ten years ago. |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 248
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
Hi All. A number of hookers were murdered by knife in White Chapel in the late 1880's. Thats about it for the truely acertainable facts in the case. Aint much, is it? Brad |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 422
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:29 am: |
|
Now Brad,
Hold your hand out........smacked wrist.
 You know I love you really.......
Seriously though, I do agree totally with AP; there are lots of seemingly unimportant pieces of information out there that can make a huge amount of difference to the case. They are generally where you least expect to find them.
Recently Howie Brown helped me out with some information about the fence in the backyard of Hanbury Street, and it literally made me entirely rethink Cadosche's testimony. Now I had been speculating about the veracity of it for ages, but one simple little piece of concrete (well wooden) proof showed that the speculation was in fact warranted.
I do think that speculation is very valid, within sensible limits, but we need to be constantly backing up that speculation with any evidence that we can find, no matter how trivial it might seem.
Them's my thoughts on it anyways.
Lots of love
Jane
xxxxx |
Carolyn
Detective Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 90
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Brad,
Are you positive they were all hookers? Were they murdered by a knife or could it have been a straight razor, or any other sharp long object?
So you see it is even less than you said!!!
Cheers,
Carolyn 
PS I know I am stretching here, but I wanted to make a point.
|
Clive Appleby
Sergeant
Username: Clive
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Hi all,
I agree that speculation can have its place provided it is:
(i) Based on reasoned argument and does not require a quantum leap of logical thought
(ii) Considers all degrees of possibility and does not assert that "C" must be the case if "A" and "B" are true, when "D" to "Z" could be equally valid conclusions
(iii) stated by the author as being speculation and not asserted as fact if it isn't
A very helpful and easily readable work relevant to this whole subject is "Straight and Crooked Thinking" by Robert H. Thouless. First published in 1930, there have been many editions since, although I believe it is currently out of print and therefore hard to get hold of a copy.
In my view this should be mandatory reading for anyone who is contemplating writing a book on JTR (or any historical work for that matter) or posting a message on these message boards.
To give an idea of its content, chapter headings include:
Different ways of Using Language
Some Logical Fallacies
Some Dishonest Tricks in Argument
Misuse of Speculation
The Meaning of Words
Definition and Some of Its Difficulties
Tricks of Suggestion
Prejudice
Pitfalls in Analogy
There is also an appendix which analyses "Thirty-eight Dishonest Tricks".
Well worth the read if you can get hold of a copy.
Clive
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2073
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
Seeing this is a thread about idle speculation, I would like to know why nobody has ever speculated, idly, about a certain 'Herbert Percy Edmund Freund' being Jack the Ripper.
This young chap was on a mission for god like you wouldn't believe, he was in and out of looney bins right through the 1880's, four times in 1882, he was a medical student, he beat coppers around the head with his stick, and when placed on trial he told the court that 'I have come in the name of the Lord. I must fulfil my mission.'
He was removed to the City of London Lunatic Asylum at Stone, Dartford, Kent, but was back again shortly at St Paul's attempting to carry out his mission.
This guy needs looking at. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2075
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 15, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
This 'ere 'Herbert Percy Edmund Freund' was a one-man band terror show, in 1887 he managed to bring the intricate machinations of the Central Jewish Synagogue to a complete and utter standstill by standing in the back row and shouting out 'fire! fire!', thereby causing a massive stampede each time in which good Jewish folk nearly died.
He was an MB and matriculated with honours.
But what a nutter!
In court he claimed that 'he had come to deliver the people out of the city' and was again swiftly removed to a looney bin. |
Mr Poster
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:30 am: |
|
Hello
Heres an interesting and appropriate term coined by R.P.Crease of Brookhaven National Labs:
"Doxoid" from doxa and oid
A doxoid therefore looks like an opinion or belief for it is a firmly (for here, read: rabidly) held expression involving the affirmation or rejection of something in a way that seems to be justified by evidence but unlike an opinion or belief, a doxoid has not been thought out but rather is the product of other beliefs and opinions.
Appropriate for Ripper theories......?
mr Poster |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
