Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Robert St Devil 6 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Paddy 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 9 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 9 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (12 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
General Police Discussion: Police Orders 1st October 1888 - (1 posts)
General Police Discussion: J Division Fixed Point Whitechapel Station? - (1 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-04-2016, 03:02 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 755
Default

What time is it where you're at, Pierre? four:20 or beer:30
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-04-2016, 03:06 PM
Craig H Craig H is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 273
Default

Hi Pierre

Do you mean like the red leather cigarette case found on Catharine Eddowes and the red handkerchief given to MJK. ?

Craig
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-04-2016, 04:31 PM
Mayerling Mayerling is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Flushing, New York
Posts: 2,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig H View Post
Hi Pierre

Do you mean like the red leather cigarette case found on Catharine Eddowes and the red handkerchief given to MJK. ?

Craig
Interesting Craig. But how do you know if these items were given or left by the same person with those victims?

Now if it was tea leaves....

Jeff
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-04-2016, 08:46 PM
Craig H Craig H is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 273
Default

Hi Jeff

Yes .... Good point !

I remember reading somewhere that the victims were all found or seen with something new .... Nichols with her new bonnet, Eddowes with the redcigarette case, MJK with the red handkerchief.

From memory, the article was suggesting JTR gave gifts to victims to gain their favour.

I'm wondering if Pierre is suggesting these were done deliberately to leave a message .....

Craig
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-04-2016, 11:44 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig H View Post
Hi Jeff

Yes .... Good point !

I remember reading somewhere that the victims were all found or seen with something new .... Nichols with her new bonnet, Eddowes with the redcigarette case, MJK with the red handkerchief.

From memory, the article was suggesting JTR gave gifts to victims to gain their favour.

I'm wondering if Pierre is suggesting these were done deliberately to leave a message .....

Craig
Well, in another thread he discussed the cachous found in the hand of Liz Stride and opined that the words "cachous" and "cautious" are almost homophones. His conclusion was that this might represent a communication from the killer, i.e. he didn't mutilate Stride because he was being cautious and therefore "avoiding risk." See:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=367224

Last edited by John G : 05-05-2016 at 12:07 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-05-2016, 01:01 AM
Geddy2112 Geddy2112 is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 168
Default

So it continues...

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
And how oh great historian do we know a source was written by the ripper (if there was one) if we don't know who the ripper was, circular argument it seems to me.
Indeed, it's like when they identify unknown people from their dental records. If they do not know who someone is how do they know their dentist?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-05-2016, 01:14 AM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geddy2112 View Post
So it continues...



Indeed, it's like when they identify unknown people from their dental records. If they do not know who someone is how do they know their dentist?
All dental records are good for is to confirm (or clear) a person suspect yo be the deceased.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-05-2016, 10:07 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=Kattrup;379509]
Quote:
For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?
Yes. For example, the piece of apron left in Goulston Street can be hypothesized as having been a communication from the killer, or not.

And those who think that the killer dropped the piece pf apron randomly, perhaps after having wiped his hands or/and knife on it, do not think that the piece of apron was a communication from the killer.

Others think that the killer left the piece of apron intentionally in Goulston Street, perhaps after having already wiped his hands and/or knife at the murder site, and they hypothesize that the killer brought the piece of apron with him with the intention to write a message on a wall and leave the piece of apron beneath it to get the attention of the police. In this case it was a communication. But this part of communication was not in written form. The writing on the wall was.

But the key to understanding the killer is to decide upon which type of killer he was: Was he a type X serial killer who murdered five women without the intention to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or anyone else? Or was he a type Y serial killer who wanted to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or with someone else?

If you hypothesize that he was a type X serial killer, you have a serial killer who did not communicate in any way, who did not produce any sources, who was silent.

If you hypothesize that he was a type Y serial killer, you have a serial killer who did communicate in one or more ways, who did produce sources, who was not silent but was communicating.

So the first and second hypothesis give very different consequences. When I am researching the past, I like to take the hypotheses to their final points, I like to be consequent. And this will help me disprove any hypothesis I have.
Quote:
I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.
When you say "recorded sound" it helps our understanding of how problematical newspaper articles with spoken words are, since they were generated not as recordings, but through other peoples writing and interpretation of what they heard or had heard.

Quote:
But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?
That could be described as a type of unwritten communication and it is left to us in different sources. On the other hand, saying that it was "unwritten" is a problematical statement, since we could claim that it was a symbol or letter written with a knife in the face of the victim. The consequence of such a description would be that he was a type Y killer, but it would also be that he used different forms of writing methods.

So the problem for us is to A) decide what type of killer he was, B) decide what type of communication he produced and C) decide what type of sources describing his communication would have the highest validity and reliability.

Of course, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, will not think that the sources containing descriptions of the cuts on Eddowes face are of any interest or importance. They will not hypothesize that the cuts could have been made as an intentional form of communication.

They will instead hypothesize a killer who was not communicating, who did not have anything to say to the police/press/other people. And the sources containing descriptions of possible communications will be ignored and will disappear into oblivion. The type Y killer will be erased from history and the greetings from the past, if there are such greetings, will be lost.

The problem with such a position is that it ignores what can be the most important material from the past. The problem with the opposing position is that it may give significance to sources without significance.

So how could we know if the sources are significant or if they are not?

If there is a common theme in a set of sources hypothesized as containing descriptions of communications of a serial killer and these different sources of communication is corresponding with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer, there is significance. But since significance can be illusory, one must research the sources properly.

Naturally, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, ignore such sets of sources and their correspondence with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer.

But since sources is all we have, we must use sources that hypothesize both a type X and a type Y killer. The question is which method will be the most fruitful.

Kind regards, Pierre

Regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 05-05-2016 at 10:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-05-2016, 10:32 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,108
Default

[quote=Pierre;379608]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kattrup View Post

Yes. For example, the piece of apron left in Goulston Street can be hypothesized as having been a communication from the killer, or not.

And those who think that the killer dropped the piece pf apron randomly, perhaps after having wiped his hands or/and knife on it, do not think that the piece of apron was a communication from the killer.

Others think that the killer left the piece of apron intentionally in Goulston Street, perhaps after having already wiped his hands and/or knife at the murder site, and they hypothesize that the killer brought the piece of apron with him with the intention to write a message on a wall and leave the piece of apron beneath it to get the attention of the police. In this case it was a communication. But this part of communication was not in written form. The writing on the wall was.

But the key to understanding the killer is to decide upon which type of killer he was: Was he a type X serial killer who murdered five women without the intention to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or anyone else? Or was he a type Y serial killer who wanted to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or with someone else?

If you hypothesize that he was a type X serial killer, you have a serial killer who did not communicate in any way, who did not produce any sources, who was silent.

If you hypothesize that he was a type Y serial killer, you have a serial killer who did communicate in one or more ways, who did produce sources, who was not silent but was communicating.

So the first and second hypothesis give very different consequences. When I am researching the past, I like to take the hypotheses to their final points, I like to be consequent. And this will help me disprove any hypothesis I have.


When you say "recorded sound" it helps our understanding of how problematical newspaper articles with spoken words are, since they were generated not as recordings, but through other peoples writing and interpretation of what they heard or had heard.



That could be described as a type of unwritten communication and it is left to us in different sources. On the other hand, saying that it was "unwritten" is a problematical statement, since we could claim that it was a symbol or letter written with a knife in the face of the victim. The consequence of such a description would be that he was a type Y killer, but it would also be that he used different forms of writing methods.

So the problem for us is to A) decide what type of killer he was, B) decide what type of communication he produced and C) decide what type of sources describing his communication would have the highest validity and reliability.

Of course, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, will not think that the sources containing descriptions of the cuts on Eddowes face are of any interest or importance. They will not hypothesize that the cuts could have been made as an intentional form of communication.

They will instead hypothesize a killer who was not communicating, who did not have anything to say to the police/press/other people. And the sources containing descriptions of possible communications will be ignored and will disappear into oblivion. The type Y killer will be erased from history and the greetings from the past, if there are such greetings, will be lost.

The problem with such a position is that it ignores what can be the most important material from the past. The problem with the opposing position is that it may give significance to sources without significance.

So how could we know if the sources are significant or if they are not?

If there is a common theme in a set of sources hypothesized as containing descriptions of communications of a serial killer and these different sources of communication is corresponding with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer, there is significance. But since significance can be illusory, one must research the sources properly.

Naturally, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, ignore such sets of sources and their correspondence with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer.

But since sources is all we have, we must use sources that hypothesize both a type X and a type Y killer. The question is which method will be the most fruitful.

Kind regards, Pierre

Regards, Pierre
Hello Pierre,

But the "unwritten" evidence you refer to is capable of being subjected to an insurmountable number of alternative interpretations. Therefore, what value can such "evidence" possibly have? How can it possibly be ascertained, in any reasonable sense, whether such abstract "evidence" represents attempts by the killer to communicate or not? What examples can you give of other killers who have attempted to communicate in such abstract forms?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-05-2016, 11:09 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=John G;379614][quote=Pierre;379608]

Quote:
Hello Pierre,

But the "unwritten" evidence you refer to is capable of being subjected to an insurmountable number of alternative interpretations. Therefore, what value can such "evidence" possibly have?
Hi John,

If there is a common theme in a set of sources hypothesized as containing descriptions of communications of a serial killer and these different sources of communication is corresponding with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer, there is significance. But since significance can be illusory, one must research the sources properly.

An example is the theory about Lechmere. The sources that Fisherman has found can be used to establish a significance in the relation between sources and theory. But the risk that the significance is illusory is high, since the sources are not researched properly, i.e. Fisherman uses sources with low reliability. This must not be a problem per se for the significance, but since he also uses a small set of sources for a wide theory, i.e. the murderer of Polly Nichols was the murderer of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, he uses the significance to postulate a theory that has nothing more to stand on than one tiny leg (sources with low reliability for only one murder).

So what we must have is a set of sources, connected to more than one murder site and preferably to all of them, which all correspond with the motive(s) of one specific person. In that way, we avoid making a billion possible interpretations randomly or by our own bias. If the sources are corresponding with the motive(s) and also with the life of someone on a micro level, the significance increases and the risk of low validity and reliability decreases.

What we get then is coherence, and this is something very valuable for writing history. For example, in the case of Lechmere, Fisherman is trying to establish coherence on a micro level. But it is impossible to do so for the rest of the victims, which means that there is almost NO coherence in the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. Just one tiny part of the theory can stand by itself with the help or newspaper articles who are not reliable. This is how historians establish facts, but in the case of Lechmere, they are poorly established.

Quote:
How can it possibly be ascertained, in any reasonable sense, whether such abstract "evidence" represents attempts by the killer to communicate or not? What examples can you give of other killers who have attempted to communicate in such abstract forms?
Clues From Killers: Serial Murder and Crime Scene Messages
By Dirk C. Gibson. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004


And also, here are some examples of other serial killers communications with the police. And it could hypothetically give you a picture of what sort of communications I would expect from Jack the Ripper:

The Lipstick Killer of Chicago:

"For heaven’s sake, catch me before I kill more; I cannot control myself"

(http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol9is2/guillen.html)

The Zodiac Killer of San Francisco:

"Dear Editor, This is the Zodiac speaking I am back with you."

(ibid.)

The BTK killer:

"...How about some name for me, its time: 7 down and many more to go. I like the following. How about you? 'THE B.T.K. STRANGLER', 'WICHITA STRANGLER', 'POETIC STRANGLER'"

(ibid.)

The Weepy-voice killer of Minnesota

called the police to say the newspaper accounts of some of the murders were inaccurate.

(ibid).

Happy Face Killer of Oregon:

A message was found scrawled on a wall at the Greyhound Bus Depot in Livingston, Montana: "I killed Tanya Bennett Jan. 21, 1990 in Portland, Oregon. I beat her to death, raped her and loved it. Yes, I’m sick, but I enjoy myself too. People took the blame and I’m free".

(ibid.)

The Zodiac Killer of New York:

To The New York Post August 4th 1994: "Hi, I’m back".

(ibid.)

By the way, do you see how most of them, in these examples, write about "I" or "me". I find this very, very interesting. You have killers who are making statements about themselves through communications.

Also, the BTK-killer was found through his communication with the police.


"Dennis Rader, otherwise known as the BTK killer, thought he had some sort of understanding with Wichita, Kan., police Lt. Ken Landwehr, head of the multiagency task force that was trying to catch him.

In the weeks before his arrest, Rader had asked po*lice whether he could communicate with them via a floppy disk without being traced to a particular computer.

Police responded by taking out an ad in the classified section of the local newspaper, as Rader had instructed, saying “Rex, it will be OK” to communicate via floppy disk.

A few weeks later, such a disk from BTK was sent to a local television station. The disk was quickly traced to Rader through a computer at his church." http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...ps_caught_btk/

Regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 05-05-2016 at 11:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.