How do Suspects compare?

[lynn cates]

Kant, et al

Hello Sally.

"I think perhaps I should put Kant on my reading list."

He is a difficult read due to his native garrulousness. He recognised this in himself when he noted that there were others who knew his system ("Critique of Pure Reason") well, but who could articulate it in fewer words (about 1/3 fewer I'd say). For me, I read each passage thrice. When I read it the third time I said, "Oh, is he trying to say . . . ?" He was.

"Firstly, if we cannot agree on what constitutes a fact; can we ever hope to adopt even a partially objective approach to the consideration of our suspects?"

Possibly not.

"And secondly, do matches on our collective reference set determine the extent to which we will agree with each other? The answer has to be yes, I would think. In which case, we will never reach a consensus."

I agree with both parts here.

"Then again, in other fields of study, a broad consesnus can be and is reached - although rarely conclusive."

Yes, it changes every few years.

"Perhaps there is a correlation between the availability of empirical data and the likelihood of a consensus.'

I should have included ego. (heh-heh)

"This would explain why so many theories abound in Ripperology."

Yes. At least it would provide a partial explanation.

"But at the same time, it may be only through the acquisition of that data that we can ever agree; in which case the research should certainly continue."

It should indeed. Better than working. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally.

"Oh I don't know, it's quite entertaining to think of everyday objects being a collective. We interpret what we can see by consensus. If we don't know what an object is, because it's cultural context is unknown to us for whatever reason, then we try to explain it using our own reference set."

Indeed, but I would go further. Insofar as we even REFER to an "object" at all depends upon our "categories," to use the Kantian word.

"I suppose the same could be said to be true if we're looking for a suspect; which brings us back round to bias again."

That's it, in a nutshell. My "fact" is your "conjecture"; one's "definitely ascertained X" is "faith that X" to another.

"Yes, very true. But even our own 'reality' is subject to mutable influence - it's why the same object or set of events can and will be interpreted and reinterpreted according not only to who is making the assessment; but according to the times.'

Indeed. But a change can occur at a whim. It is like the 2D representation of stairs. Do they ascend or descend? Well, the "gestalt switch" can change all that. (Note that, given they ARE 2D, they neither ascend NOR descend--merely a perception.)

"That's a very good point - you mean it may all be real?'

Indeed. There may be "res"--an external, material reality, after all.

"Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we were all really living in a Matrix reality - but I'm wandering off now..."

Actually, that is how my students put it. But all one need do is read Berkeley and append Kant's "explanation."

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn - I agree with all of this. I think perhaps I should put Kant on my reading list

But two points pertinent to the present discussion:

Firstly, if we cannot agree on what constitutes a fact; can we ever hope to adopt even a partially objective approach to the consideration of our suspects?

And secondly, do matches on our collective reference set determine the extent to which we will agree with each other? The answer has to be yes, I would think. In which case, we will never reach a consensus.

Then again, in other fields of study, a broad consesnus can be and is reached - although rarely conclusive. Perhaps there is a correlation between the availability of eimpirical data and the likelihood of a consensus.

This would explain why so many theories abound in Ripperology.

But at the same time, it may be only through the acquisition of that data that we can ever agree; in which case the research should certainly continue.

Oh dear - Sunday afternoon theorising

[Sally]

Hi Sally,



Profiling is a good example of the problems we are confronted with in a very cold case like ours. Even if the profiles that have been made in the past are correct, there is no way to apply them to each and every suspect simply because of a lack of data.

That is why I think that criminological methods should only be a subset of a thorough historical research with the aim to fill all the gaps.

Of course these gaps can also be filled with speculation, and that is not a bad thing per se if it is done with your feet firmly on the ground.

In most suspect cases, there is not enough meat on the bone yet to bring out the ol' truncheon. Take Cross for example, he looks like a worthy candidate for further research but as of yet, the theory of him being the Ripper is based on a handful of peculiarities during his discovery of the body, his actions afterwards and general movement patterns in the Whitechapel district. Perhaps this makes him a valid contender for suspect status but not a real suspect yet. Only meticulous research will tell us more, and the more we know, the more we will be able to evenly apply the same criteria to all suspects, including Cross, Hutch, etc.

Regards,

Boris

Hi Boris - thanks for a great post - I agree with you entirely. Research is the way forward.

[Sally]

Hi Sally!

Have you finally found yourself a thread where you may answer my question? Letīs hope so!

Here goes:

On account of the fact that Charles Cross does not have any evidence in the way of a recorded history of psychosises or other psychological issues, and no recorded police record, you stated on another thread that this makes him a "crackpot" theory.
As for Hutchinson, it applies that we have no records at all on any psychological problems and we have just as little on any police record. If Hutchinson was Toppy, this still stands.

Based on the total lack of any evidence of any kind at all, would you say that Hutchinson is only for crackpot theorists too?

It would be nice to hear you elaborate on this, Sally. If Hutchinson is NOT a crackpot theory, then why would that be? And exactly why is Cross so?

The best,
Fisherman

No thanks Fish. You either don't read or you don't understand. My response to you on your chosen thread stands.

Now if you'd like to offer your take on, say, why the similar 'family man' biography of Cross and Hutchinson can legitimately be interpreted differently when it comes to considering them as a suspect for the Ripper - then please go ahead.

This thread is to discuss the way in which we approach evidence. It isn't a Hutchinson thread.

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally!

Have you finally found yourself a thread where you may answer my question? Letīs hope so!

Here goes:

On account of the fact that Charles Cross does not have any evidence in the way of a recorded history of psychosises or other psychological issues, and no recorded police record, you stated on another thread that this makes him a "crackpot" theory.
As for Hutchinson, it applies that we have no records at all on any psychological problems and we have just as little on any police record. If Hutchinson was Toppy, this still stands.

Based on the total lack of any evidence of any kind at all, would you say that Hutchinson is only for crackpot theorists too?

It would be nice to hear you elaborate on this, Sally. If Hutchinson is NOT a crackpot theory, then why would that be? And exactly why is Cross so?

The best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hi Sally,

What do you think about criminal profiling? Should we be looking for a person that fits a profile?

Profiling is a good example of the problems we are confronted with in a very cold case like ours. Even if the profiles that have been made in the past are correct, there is no way to apply them to each and every suspect simply because of a lack of data.

That is why I think that criminological methods should only be a subset of a thorough historical research with the aim to fill all the gaps.

Of course these gaps can also be filled with speculation, and that is not a bad thing per se if it is done with your feet firmly on the ground.

In most suspect cases, there is not enough meat on the bone yet to bring out the ol' truncheon. Take Cross for example, he looks like a worthy candidate for further research but as of yet, the theory of him being the Ripper is based on a handful of peculiarities during his discovery of the body, his actions afterwards and general movement patterns in the Whitechapel district. Perhaps this makes him a valid contender for suspect status but not a real suspect yet. Only meticulous research will tell us more, and the more we know, the more we will be able to evenly apply the same criteria to all suspects, including Cross, Hutch, etc.

Regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

on reality--part 2

Hello Sally.

"Oh I don't know, it's quite entertaining to think of everyday objects being a collective. We interpret what we can see by consensus. If we don't know what an object is, because it's cultural context is unknown to us for whatever reason, then we try to explain it using our own reference set."

Indeed, but I would go further. Insofar as we even REFER to an "object" at all depends upon our "categories," to use the Kantian word.

"I suppose the same could be said to be true if we're looking for a suspect; which brings us back round to bias again."

That's it, in a nutshell. My "fact" is your "conjecture"; one's "definitely ascertained X" is "faith that X" to another.

"Yes, very true. But even our own 'reality' is subject to mutable influence - it's why the same object or set of events can and will be interpreted and reinterpreted according not only to who is making the assessment; but according to the times.'

Indeed. But a change can occur at a whim. It is like the 2D representation of stairs. Do they ascend or descend? Well, the "gestalt switch" can change all that. (Note that, given they ARE 2D, they neither ascend NOR descend--merely a perception.)

"That's a very good point - you mean it may all be real?'

Indeed. There may be "res"--an external, material reality, after all.

"Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we were all really living in a Matrix reality - but I'm wandering off now..."

Actually, that is how my students put it. But all one need do is read Berkeley and append Kant's "explanation."

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hi Lynn

Well, I would not quite have used "doomed." Perhaps a better way is to say, we filter "reality" according to our own structures. For example, given the current atomic theory, we know "objects" are merely collections of atoms. But when we eat, the food is placed on a table. We hardly think in terms of food being placed on a collection of atoms. We naturally interpret reality, however, in terms of "objects" like tables.

Oh I don't know, it's quite entertaining to think of everyday objects being a collective. We interpret what we can see by consensus. If we don't know what an object is, because it's cultural context is unknown to us for whatever reason, then we try to explain it using our own reference set. I suppose the same could be said to be true if we're looking for a suspect; which brings us back round to bias again. Hmm..

Well, first, what is actually a bias is often referred to by us as "reality" whereas the bias of another we call "fantasy." But, given our awareness of our biases may, as you suppose, cause over correction.

Yes, very true. But even our own 'reality' is subject to mutable influence - it's why the same object or set of events can and will be interpreted and reinterpreted according not only to who is making the assessment; but according to the times.

Bias may not be a bad thing. After all, lack of proof notwithstanding, there may be an independent external, material reality. In which case our bias to believe in such may actually correspond to what is the case.

That's a very good point - you mean it may all be real? Still, I wouldn't be surprised if we were all really living in a Matrix reality - but I'm wandering off now...

[lynn cates]

on reality

Hello Sally.

"So in other words, we're all doomed to begin with because of our hidden bias?"

Well, I would not quite have used "doomed." Perhaps a better way is to say, we filter "reality" according to our own structures. For example, given the current atomic theory, we know "objects" are merely collections of atoms. But when we eat, the food is placed on a table. We hardly think in terms of food being placed on a collection of atoms. We naturally interpret reality, however, in terms of "objects" like tables.

"But the trouble is, if you're aware of your own bias do you then find yourself in a position whereby you consciously try to circumnavigate that bias in your research; and in doing so create another bias?"

Well, first, what is actually a bias is often referred to by us as "reality" whereas the bias of another we call "fantasy." But, given our awareness of our biases may, as you suppose, cause over correction.

Two things to bear in mind.

1. What we call an external material world (ie, "the real world") cannot be proven to exist. At best, we have sensory corroboration which ultimately depends on our faith in those same sensory modalities.

2. Bias may not be a bad thing. After all, lack of proof notwithstanding, there may be an independent external, material reality. In which case our bias to believe in such may actually correspond to what is the case.

But enough of my rehash of Kant's noumenal/phenomenal distinction.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

motive

Hello Harry.

"Whatever method is used, bear in mind that people lie."

Quite. But usually for a motive.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

Hello Sally. It may depend upon the model one has before the mind. If your model is of a sly and sinister intellectual, clever and taunting, you might be led to D'Onston. If you think it is a psychotic, you may think Kosminski or Levy appropriate. An ordinary person? Perhaps Druitt, Cross or Hutchinson. A thug? Perhaps LeGrande would work.

And if you are not looking for a single person, then you are a crackpot like me. (Heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

So in other words, we're all doomed to begin with because of our hidden bias? Hmm.

But the trouble is, if you're aware of your own bias do you then find yourself in a position whereby you consciously try to circumnavigate that bias in your research; and in doing so create another bias?

It's very perplexing!

[Sally]

Hi Wickerman, thanks for your interesting response.

1) As no actual evidence exists, suspects are rated on suspicion value.

But many modern day suspects were involved in the case in some capacity at the time - could that be construed as circumstantial evidence in your opinion? And what of contemporary suspects? Is a contemporary suspect a better starting point than a latter day suspect?

2) Rather than stick with what is known about a suspect, theorists tend to offer conclusions based on their own assumptions on what is not known about the suspect. What this does in effect is take the wireframe of a real life person, and then flesh out the frame with the body of a pseudo villain that in truth never existed.
This is essentially inventing your own killer.

I agree with you. As there is no conclusive evidence, some conjecture is obviously necessary. I think though that there is conjecture; and then there is conjecture - I think the 'known facts' would have to support the theory rather than contradict for a suspect to carry any weight. But then as you say, an assessment of viability will be subjective. Is there any way in which we might strive for objectivity?

3) The criteria for entertaining a viable suspect should be no different than that used by police authorities today.

What do you think about criminal profiling? Should we be looking for a person that fits a profile? The suggested profile of Barnett by Paley springs to mind as an example - it looks convincing at first glance (well, it did to me, many centuries ago ) but in fact many of those points against him - such as an absent father for example - would have been commonplace in context.

And if we know about the subsequent life of a suspect, should that be taken into account in our assessment?

[harry]

Whatever method is used,bear in mind that people lie.

[Cogidubnus]

Personally at present I don't "like" any candidate....

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

paradigms

Hello Jonathan.

"Perhaps Macnaghten's real agenda was the same? He was committed to Scotland Yard not being linked to any pogroms, and so regardless of any evidence it was not going to be a Jew."

I never thought of it just that way, but a definite possibility.

Cheers.
LC