Assumptions

[Guest]

Hello all,

It occurred to me while posting on the Apron and Juwes thread.....(a good name for a pub in the East End)... that many assumptions cling to these cases, perhaps misdirecting the context with which we see each individual murder.

In no particular order, here are some Assumptions that I believe can be questioned, see if you agree and have others to add;

-The person who left the apron section off Goulston did not also write a chalk message very near to it.
-Its mere co-incidence that Catherine Eddowes chose two aliases in her last 24 hours that were versions of the next victims name and address.
-Richardson must not have seen Annie lying there.
-Harvey was looking into the court at approximately 1:42-3am and didnt see the murderer over a body.
-Jack the Ripper arrived after 12:46am to Dutfields Yard
-Liz Strides killer was interrupted
-Mary Kelly must have brought clients to her room after Joe Barnett left.
-It is not important that the last victim was almost half the age of priors, and killed in her own bed, in terms of adding her to the Canon
-The killer had no knife skills, and did not have the anatomy knowledge beyond that of a Butchers
-Broadshouldered Man did not kill Liz Stride
-Blotchy Man did not kill Mary Kelly
-"Sailor Man" killed Kate Eddowes
-Cadosh did not hear the killer and victim in the backyard at Hanbury St.
-No killer of a C5 victim wanted specific organs
-Mary met her killer after going outside again sometime after 1:00am, and before 1:30am.
-Macnaughten's List of Suspects accurately refelects the overall opinion represented at Senior Levels when the investigations were ongoing.
-City Policeman Pearce was sound asleep when the murder occured in Mitre Square, with the windows closed.
-Jack the Ripper wanted to mutilate above all else.
-Jack the Ripper was institutionalized by authorities who felt he was the Ripper, but never formally announced that.
-The hat and skirt burned in Millers Court were for light
-The killer left Mitre Square, heading directly through Goulston, and left the apron section by the entranceway just after 2am
-None of the C5 had "pimps"
-That Pizer was innocent of complicity in any Canon killing
-Kate Eddowes did not say to her exlandlady that she knew the killer and intended to collect the reward
-Dr Tumblety did not have specimens of uteri preserved in jars.
-That the killer was a "Polish Jew"
-Jack the Ripper killed 5, and only 5 women: Polly Nichols, Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Kelly
-Killing outdoors was not emminently satisfying for the killer, it was merely where his victims were.
-The murders all occur within the same 10 day period...from the last day of the month to the 9th of the next, but that does not demonstrate a pattern. Nor does it matter that they only were on Weekends, or Holidays attached to weekends.
-Jack the Ripper was not a clever person
-The age range and general descriptions of 4 of the Canon, were not his preferred targets.
-None of the victims knew each other
-Jack the Rippers miraculous escapes from murder sites was pure luck
-The Ripper murders were committed by a single man, acting alone.
-That the murderer must have lived in the East End.

Each individual little assumption helps build a storyline that may not be accurate. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Im not saying that these are all incorrect assumptions to make, I am suggesting that the cumulative effects of adopting these assumptions and others could lead one to believe more was known about these cases than there actually was, and that Jack the Ripper could only have been a bloodythirsty madman.

Im interested in what others feel might be potentially harmful assumptions to make. Any responses are appreciated.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Welcome to the Machine

Dear Mike - if ever there were a recipe for a "free-for-all" thread, this is it. No offence, but I don't see this as very helpful at all. It would be preferable to keep controversies under relevant headings and their appropriate contexts. Think on, folks, before posting.

As the Rev Eli Jenkins might put it: "Oh angels, be careful here with your knives and forks".

[perrymason]

Dear Mike - if ever there were a recipe for a "free-for-all" thread, this is it. No offence, but I don't see this as very helpful at all. It would be preferable to keep controversies under relevant headings and their appropriate contexts. Think on, folks, before posting.

As the Rev Eli Jenkins might put it: "Oh angels, be careful here with your knives and forks".

Hi Sam,

It not my intention to start a scrap, nor create arguments about whether or not the asumptions have merit, but to look at many of the legacy issues which form how some see these cases.

Gareth, I get attacked for suggesting something as benign as Liz Stride's "date" demeanor, so I do hear what you say.

If anyone does post, please do so remembering that we dont need line by line item challenges. Im more interested how preconceptions can dicate outcomes. I believe I only listed things that are not proven, but if I erred, let me know.

Thanks for the spirit of your reply Gareth.

Best regards.

[Dan Norder]

That's a very weird list. Most of them are worded in such a way as to try to insinuate that they are bad assumptions. It seems to be an attempt to paint them all with a broad brush and to suggest that your own assumptions are superior to everyone else's.

[joelhall]

seems a little pointless as the list contains reasonable assumptions, baseless assumptions, rediculous theorising, and assumptions that are really evidential deductions.

[Graham]

Dear Mike - if ever there were a recipe for a "free-for-all" thread, this is it. No offence, but I don't see this as very helpful at all. It would be preferable to keep controversies under relevant headings and their appropriate contexts. Think on, folks, before posting.

As the Rev Eli Jenkins might put it: "Oh angels, be careful here with your knives and forks".

Oh, beware of the pricking of those little forks....

(E Blackadder)

Graham

[perrymason]

Hi again,

It would appear that this exercise is just a waste of time, as I should have anticipated I suppose...I just thought that some folks might be interested in seeing what assumptive analysis can produce, and perhaps how their own interpretations, mine included, can skew perceptions.

But since everyone apparently believes they are already correct in their own assumptions, I guess its best this thread just dies quietly.

Im sorry I suggested it.

Best regards.

[Sasha]

Michael,

I understand your point with this thread ie one's conclusions in this case really depend on what assumptions you initially make but I'm not sure exactly where we go from here. Maybe it would be easier to challenge them by group? For example, you could question whether age was an important factor in determining the alleged canon five ie

"It is not important that the last victim was almost half the age of priors, and killed in her own bed, in terms of adding her to the Canon".
"The age range and general descriptions of 4 of the Canon, were not his preferred targets."

Both these are important propositions. If you believe that Jack was only after a woman in her forties who was also an alcoholic then this would (obviously!) exclude Mary Kelly immediately. I still wonder about this one though. If it is true then Jack was extremely lucky to find a woman of his type so quickly after killing Liz Stride on the night of the double murder - unless, of course, you assume that Jack had made appointments to meet both Liz Stride and Cathy Eddowes (unlikely, I think). But what if there were two murderers on that fateful night (not impossible) eg Liz Stride was killed by a dissatisfied John and Jack just happened to kill Cathy Eddowes close by sometime later? After all, the East End of London was not Disneyland. It was a rough place. I can imagine people killing for less than the price of a callgirl. This list is not exhaustive of all possibilities of course. The second proposition suggests the first four of the canon were just practice before Jack got his real type in Mary. Maybe. I guess we would have to know more about the demographics of prostitutes at the time ie not just their number (including part time prostitutes) but also how many were in each age grouping. If it were found that 'girls' over forty were no more common than in other age groups then you might start to believe that age was important.

Just some thoughts.
Sasha

[caz]

Oh goody, a funny little game to play.

Here are some assumptions that I believe are probably too silly to bother to question in future:

-It has to be significant that Kate Eddowes, whose common law husband’s name was Kelly, called herself Kelly on occasion and also used a couple of predictably common first names that another victim happened to have as her first and middle names.
-Jack the Ripper could not have been in Dutfield’s Yard when Liz Stride was killed.
-Liz Stride’s killer could not possibly have been interrupted because she was definitely dead at least 4 minutes before the pony and cart arrived and nothing else on God's earth could have spooked Jack into fleeing or lying low for a bit on this occasion instead of instantly mutilating the body.
-Mary Kelly never brought strange men to her room at any time otherwise we’d have it on record.
-Mary’s age, and the fact that she was killed in her own bed, are good enough reasons by themselves to doubt that Jack could have killed her.
-Broadshouldered Man must have killed Liz Stride.
-Jack wanted specific organs and wasn’t into mutilating for its own sake.
-Kate Eddowes returned from hop-picking, knowing who Jack was and anticipating that a reward would be offered for the information.
-Dr Tumblety already had jars of wombs but needed to complete the collection with specimens obtainable from the likes of Annie and Kate.
-The victims could have known each other but had a secret pact not to let another living soul know, in case one happened to be brutally murdered and mutilated and it put her friend’s life at risk.
-Jack’s escapes were miraculous. Every other man who went off to spend a few minutes with an unfortunate as often as Jack did was sure to have witnesses after the event saying: “We know what you’ve been up to”.
-Jack may have committed only two of the Whitechapel murders, and the fact that he was not the only killer around at the time means we can safely introduce umpteen more killers to take care of all the other victims between them.

I also promise not to question it if someone starts a Harold Shipman thread and suggests that the victim aged only 55 was killed by someone else because of the overwhelming evidence that Shipman wanted to bump off much older patients and had plenty of those left to choose from, and besides, he would not have been the only killer around during his active period so there were likely to have been others we don’t know about who killed the patients who didn't fit Shipman's pattern to the letter.

Sorry, but I’m trying to catch up with a few old threads and everywhere I go I’m seeing the same faces trying new, not very subtle tactics to carry on squeezing their own quarts into the same pint pots.

If I don't try to see the funny side, the unfunny side may get me one day.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Good post, Caz and I am not just assuming that.

c.d.

[Graham]

Ah, Houly God, an' today's the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, sure an' so it is. Dat was the biggest assumption of dem all.

Amen.

[Supe]

Caz,

Brilliant! And as ever there is considerable truth in jest.

Don.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I don't believe that there is anything wrong with making assumptions. Sometimes we are forced to do so. The question is are they reasonable assumptions. Now for instance, do you believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the residents of Miller's Court were not engaged in a 24 hour observation of Mary's room but rather were more concerned about their own business? Now if the answer is yes, do we have to factor that in in reaching a conclusion or forming a theory or do we simply ignore it because there is no evidence to back it up?

c.d.

[Ben]

The problem with threads of this type is that they quickly become an arena for anyone wishing to air their personal, invariably suspect-based, agenda. All the theory-driven hobbyist need do is recite a list of "assumptions" that run contrary to to their world view and hope that some well-meaning dupe congratulates them for their perceived neutrality.

What might I refer to as problematic "assumptions" if I wanted Tumblety to the ripper, for example? That JTR was a local man; that Littlechild wasn't fully appraised of the facts; that criminologists and profilers have some modicum of insight into the topic; that serial killers aren't generally ostentatious and charismatic? If the poster has a Tumblety-pushing incentive (again, strictly by way of illustration) he or she might be tempted to list any of the above as "dangerous assumptions", but the real danger here is that this suspect-based incentive cannot help but dictate the sort of "assumptions" that poster might wish to seize upon and expose as unreasonable. S/he is picking on the very factors that intefere with X or Y suspect/theory and calling them "assumptions" to detract from their potential worth.

Another example: if it's suddenly a serious "assumption" than Anderson wasn't entirely without flaws, is it a bad assumption, or does the poster who called it an assumption merely subscribe to the polish Jew theory? If someone tells you than Martha Tabram's inclusion in the ripper's tally is the number one "wong assumption", are they really concened that this view is "assumed" too much, or have they just been arguing for ages that Tabram wasn't a ripper victim?

Generally speaking, these threads provide opportunities for people to air their "mind's made-up" view of the case, and that ought to be taken into account when ploughing though these lists of "assumptions" (as though they're necessarily bad or wrong). A suspect-bias, or at the very least a theory-bias, cannot help but dictate the very factors a poster chooses to catergorise as "assumptions".

[perrymason]

The idea of posting the items was ill-conceived, as it was a thinly veiled attempt to see if others were willing to address some of the core "givens" that Ripperology hands down to successive waves of students.

In my humble opinion, there are some structural "givens" or aspects of all these the cases that are unsound, or without any evidentiary validation. Beginning with a fixed list of victims for one killer, and uncluding suggestive motives for the crimes...for example, a bloodthirsty madman who just wants to kill and cut. Who can say its impossible that Fenians killed the women who had uteri taken to disrupt and strain police, in a symbolic gesture of "birthing" a nation. Not likely...but not impossible. I just think reality dictates a review of core principles from time to time.

I did mention I regretted starting it...so if anyone wants to continue its up to them. Im passing. Thanks for checking it out though.



Cheers all.