Assumptions

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Not a criticism of you, mate. Far from it. I just recognise that the format is susceptible to mis-use and misintepretation.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

Not a criticism of you, mate. Far from it. I just recognise that the format is susceptible to mis-use and misintepretation.

Fair points Ben, and I agree. Thanks mate.

Hope alls well with you.

[sdreid]

I would assume that JtR was a strong and not cowardly person because he could have chosen smaller women and didn't. All his victims were average to above average in size for that era and, if the witness descriptions are correct, some were even larger than him. This is something you don't see in the likes of a Ted Bundy.

[Dan Norder]

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.

Reality dictates that we stick to how the real world works and not just invent up sheer fantasy for the sake of pretending to be smarter than other people.

By your same reasoning (if it can even be called that), it's "not impossible" that an invisible pink unicorn killed the Ripper victims... but it's a bloody ridiculous theory not worth considering by any sensible person.

[caz]

Hi Mike,

Not a criticism of you, mate. Far from it. I just recognise that the format is susceptible to mis-use and misintepretation.

You what, Ben?

I responded to Perry's little game because I thought everyone recognised that the 'format' was misused from the off by the personal biases shown in his introductory post.

If Perry had merely asked for other people's lists of what they saw as unfounded assumptions, that would have been one thing. But he used the format for his own purposes - to push his own unsupported theories about Jack's motives and methods - which pretty much fits the definition of your objections.

Love,

Caz
X

[Cap'n Jack]

Dan
How did you know about the invisible pink unicorn?
I thought it was just me and the horrors of the drink.

[Ben]

I appreciate that, Caz. I wasn't singling you out for criticism (or anyone else for that matter) and I apologise if it came across that way.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Caz,

I respect your knowledge of the cases, and I understand that your beliefs are whats important to you.

But the only agenda I have is to start a dialogue with some "experts" here on whether or not we have the evedentiary foundation for some of the most basic "assumptions" we, and the investigators have and had, respectively....regarding this alleged 5 victim "series" of murders.

I agree my wording was predjudicial...I have some opinions myself, and am quite capable of having them slip into my posts...and to my eye, one "given" theory that has failed to provide any logical answers is the one that has a serial mutilator killing 5 specific women only. No more, no less.

I thought I should address the fact that it is not what I ask that is so humourous to you and Dan,... it is how it was asked, and by whom that really mattered to you both. Because if youll review the premise, there are indeed some "assumptions" that skew the perspective on how the data is reviewed, and impact the value of the data analysis.

I see 5 unsolved murders of unfortunates in 1888 East End London, among some 11 murdered unfortunates or street level women who were killed in similar fashion around that time. Some see a killer whose motivations are merely spilling blood and cutting, killing the specified 5 unsolved murders above.

Best regards.

[caz]

Caz,

I respect your knowledge of the cases, and I understand that your beliefs are whats important to you.

But the only agenda I have is to start a dialogue with some "experts" here on whether or not we have the evedentiary foundation for some of the most basic "assumptions" we, and the investigators have and had, respectively....regarding this alleged 5 victim "series" of murders.

I agree my wording was predjudicial...I have some opinions myself, and am quite capable of having them slip into my posts...and to my eye, one "given" theory that has failed to provide any logical answers is the one that has a serial mutilator killing 5 specific women only. No more, no less.

I thought I should address the fact that it is not what I ask that is so humourous to you and Dan,... it is how it was asked, and by whom that really mattered to you both. Because if youll review the premise, there are indeed some "assumptions" that skew the perspective on how the data is reviewed, and impact the value of the data analysis.

I see 5 unsolved murders of unfortunates in 1888 East End London, among some 11 murdered unfortunates or street level women who were killed in similar fashion around that time. Some see a killer whose motivations are merely spilling blood and cutting, killing the specified 5 unsolved murders above.

Best regards.

Hi Perry,

But you see, I can't bring to mind anyone today who insists that we can safely assume that a serial mutilator killed five specific victims, no more, no less. Very few posters express rigid opinions concerning names and numbers, but you seem happy enough with those who totally exclude certain victims when it's on your terms. You can't pick and choose when to embrace rigidity and when to sneer at it. And when you sneer it helps if you have evidence of someone being that rigid in their views to begin with.

You don’t know what my ‘beliefs’ are, let alone that they are ‘what’s important’ to me. I have very few hard and fast beliefs, which is probably why I tend to react most strongly when someone shoves their own assumption-laden ideas down people's throats while coming up with weak or whacky reasons for rejecting other perfectly valid possibilities.

What ‘logical answers’ would you expect any theory to provide, regarding one or more unsolved murders that happened so long ago? While it’s fine to consider new or alternative theories alongside the old, for why the murders happened, it’s not fine to suggest that all the explanations to date must be crap because otherwise there would be no mystery today. The simplest reason for the mystery enduring is that the victims were attacked for no tangible motive and in circumstances that made it pretty much impossible for their attacker(s) to be linked to them. Replacing a serial mutilator with a series of individual killers, each with their own agenda, will provide you with more unidentified villains to track down and fewer potential clues to work with, but no guarantee of any more logical answers.

You don’t know what ‘really mattered’ to me about this thread and its initial post. What struck me was the irony of you calling for an end to a whole list of supposed assumptions made by others and never questioned (quite an assumption in itself), when you whine like crazy every time someone questions the assumptions you make in order to reject certain scenarios as outright impossibilities.

Love,

Caz
X