One size fits all?

[lynn cates]

Hello All. I propose to discuss the faux pas of conflating all the Whitechapel murders.

The next post is a continuation from the van Gogh thread. Out of respect for Dale, I propose to answer the last post here.

Let's all be nice and not add to admin's burden whilst on vacation.

Here's to a great discussion.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

For Ruby.

Hello Ruby. Thanks.

“Let's take this backwards Lynn...The amount of experience that 'we' have been able to share because of technical advances in media since the 1880s and correlate into statistics, tend to demonstrate that not only one killer for the C5 is the most probable conclusion, but that he was also responsible for other murders either side of the C5.”

Statistics? Well, over 99% of vicious criminals drank milk as infants.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Thus far statistics.

“That is not a prejudice, it is science, common sense, as you will...”
Of course it’s a prejudice. And I hope you don’t conflate social science with science?

“Yes, because the Serial Killers that have been caught in the intervening years since 1888 are not 'mad men'."

Petitio principii. Invalid.

“They all have a similar MO, victim class, and there were no witnesses to the actual killings, and no one caught ...(der...?)’
Similarity is in the eye of the beholder. By your reasoning, ALL throat cuttings since the dawn of time must have been perpetrated by one chap.

“But just how could the murderer have felt threatened by the victim in each case?"

I refer to Polly and Annie. The man who killed them felt thwarted. And he blamed his wife for many things. He was also delusional. Simple.
“(and if these individual madmen were each not mad on the surface nor planning, I imagine that you mean that each snapped for a different reason each time ?)”

Each? No, only the first. And whoever killed “MJK” was obviously mentally ill.

“Too many 'eaches'.”

Indeed—if you try to conflate disparate crimes.

“How would you know, Lynn?”

Eyewitness testimony says that Polly was falling down drunk. Post mortem established that Annie was terminally ill.

“(and you've only quoted two of the Ripper's victims).”

Actually, I have quoted none. The “ripper” was a nonsense—still is.

“Prostitutes are human beings,”

Well, that is my take.

“ . . . and arguably less naive and more streetwise than other women.”

Arguably indeed.

“ I would think that they were good at summing men up, and had a sense of self preservation. Even drunk or ill.”

Mere speculation.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

There you go, Ruby - and you call ME "slippery" ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Thus far statistics."

Convenient. "I believe that 98,4 per cent of all statistics is wrong" - Woody Allen.
But you are sidestepping the fact that Ruby has a very good point here, a point that is in no way provable visavi the Ripper case, but none the less pretty viable.

"Petitio principii. Invalid."

Posh. But uninteresting.

"I refer to Polly and Annie. The man who killed them felt thwarted."

And you finish off your post by writing "mere speculation"...? Lynn, Lynn ...

"whoever killed “MJK” was obviously mentally ill."

Ill? Or deviant? Who defines the difference?

"The “ripper” was a nonsense—still is."

Not statistically, he wasn´t (there´s those statistics again). And he makes a lot more sense to most of us out here.

"Mere speculation."

Much of what we produce, you and I - and the rest of us - IS speculation. But there is good and empirically based speculation just as there is bad and unwarranted ditto. Throwing speculation out without taking a closer look at it´s potential value can be unnecessarily rash.

Just saying.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

I'm not sure that conflating the victims is necessarily a faux pas. It is a necessary part of identifying a serial killer (identifying that there is a serial killer, not establishing his identity). I mean, yes, you have to examine each murder independently. You can't just assume that everyone who died by a knife was the victim of the same man. And each murder has substantial differences from the others. Its a forest vs. trees dilemma. Look too closely, they all appear to be killed by different men. Don't look close enough and they all appear to be killed by the same man. So too hot and too cold are pretty well defined, but the truth lies with "just right".

So what is "just right"? Given that there is no way of establishing that as a fact at this far a remove from the crimes, it's pretty much down to personal choice. All of the murders have distinct differences. So how do you pick which ones to focus on and which ones to ignore? I think that Stride was not a Ripper victim, because her throat cut was too good, and there was no attempt to mutilate her. And I think Kelly's mutilation was intensely personal, so had a different motive than the other C5, so I don't consider her a Ripper victim. However, I recognize the arguments for including them as Ripper victims, and I can't say those arguments are wrong. All I can argue is that I don't agree. So I group the victims together by knife work and apparent motive. However, I could take Eddowes out because her face was mutilated and her kidney was taken. I could rule out Nichols because her abdomen was never opened. I could even rule out Chapman because she was killed on private property. It depends on what any of us thinks is important.

There does come a time when examining the cases on an individual basis stops being useful. To be frank, the picture I paint of the man who killed Nichols is very different that of the man who killed Chapman. But if I assume that the two women were killed by the same man, then I don't see different men, I see one man with a hell of a learning curve. If I add Eddowes, I begin to see glimpses of motive, victimology, pattern and ritual. At some point, we have to start grouping them together if we believe that there was a serial killer. We just have to find a grouping that makes sense to us.

[lynn cates]

Stats R Us

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Convenient. "I believe that 98,4 per cent of all statistics is wrong" - Woody Allen."

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Samuel L. Clemens

"But you are sidestepping the fact that Ruby has a very good point here, a point that is in no way provable vis a vis the Ripper case, but none the less pretty viable."

Last I heard, there were over 100 points of view that were viable.

"Posh. But uninteresting."

I'll say. I can never be interested in an argument where one's conclusion is placed surreptitiously in the premises.

"And you finish off your post by writing "mere speculation"...?"

Correct. Just as Wynne Baxter suggested.

"Ill? Or deviant? Who defines the difference?"

I presume those in psychology. Grist for your mill, eh?

"Not statistically, he wasn´t (there´s those statistics again)."

Yes, statistics. And those can be nonsense.

"And he makes a lot more sense to most of us out here."

I'm astonished that you are now spokesperson. I suppose the community had time to reevaluate Cross and come round. (heh-heh)

"Much of what we produce, you and I - and the rest of us - IS speculation."

Fair enough.

"But there is good and empirically based speculation . . . "

And this begins with knives and strangulation.

" . . . just as there is bad and unwarranted ditto."

For example, television programmes, like CSI, and FBI reports."

"Throwing speculation out without taking a closer look at it´s potential value can be unnecessarily rash."

Well, let's throw out the rubbish (like CSI & FBI) and stick with people who were violent, carried knives and strangled.

Cheers.
LC

[IchabodCrane]

Having had a look at Dale's website, I have a question to all artist theorists out there: who had access to MJKs crime photo in 1889, when Irises was painted? I always thought it was kept from the public and only used by police and never published in the newspapers. Any artist, Walter sickert or VvG, would have needed the photo or a copy of it to draw the dead Mary Jane into their paintings.
If this has already been answered in this thread, my apologies.

[lynn cates]

subjectivity

Hello Errata. Thanks.

“I'm not sure that conflating the victims is necessarily a faux pas."

Agreed. I prefer to think of it as a contingent faux pas.

“It is a necessary part of identifying a serial killer (identifying that there is a serial killer, not establishing his identity).”

Yes, if there is one.

“I mean, yes, you have to examine each murder independently. You can't just assume that everyone who died by a knife was the victim of the same man.”

Heartily concur.

“And each murder has substantial differences from the others.”

You’ll get no argument here.

“It’s a forest vs. trees dilemma. Look too closely, they all appear to be killed by different men. Don't look closely enough and they all appear to be killed by the same man. So too hot and too cold are pretty well defined, but the truth lies with "just right".”

Perfect!

“So what is "just right"? Given that there is no way of establishing that as a fact at this far a remove from the crimes, it's pretty much down to personal choice."

Now you’re talking!

“All of the murders have distinct differences. So how do you pick which ones to focus on and which ones to ignore?”

Excellent question. I would look to minute indicators. For example, overt signs of strangulation, double cuts to the throat (none superficial), abdominal mutilation, etc.

“I think that Stride was not a Ripper victim, because her throat cut was too good, and there was no attempt to mutilate her.”

No argument here.

“And I think Kelly's mutilation was intensely personal, so had a different motive than the other C5, so I don't consider her a Ripper victim.”

Sensible suggestion.

“However, I recognize the arguments for including them as Ripper victims, and I can't say those arguments are wrong.”

Same here.

“All I can argue is that I don't agree. So I group the victims together by knife work and apparent motive. However, I could take Eddowes out because her face was mutilated and her kidney was taken. I could rule out Nichols because her abdomen was never opened. I could even rule out Chapman because she was killed on private property. It depends on what any of us thinks is important.”

Again, I agree.

“There does come a time when examining the cases on an individual basis stops being useful. To be frank, the picture I paint of the man who killed Nichols is very different from that of the man who killed Chapman. But if I assume that the two women were killed by the same man, then I don't see different men, I see one man with a hell of a learning curve. If I add Eddowes, I begin to see glimpses of motive, victimology, pattern and ritual. At some point, we have to start grouping them together if we believe that there was a serial killer. We just have to find a grouping that makes sense to us.”

All I would remonstrate about here is the victimology. Eddowes? Oh, please.
But other than that, I agree with you about the subjective dimensions of such grouping.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

" let's throw out the rubbish (like CSI & FBI) and stick with people who were violent, carried knives and strangled."

I don´t see the FBI ruling violent knifecarriers with a propensity for strangulation out, Lynn. Do you?

All the best,
Fisherman

[GregBaron]

One man, one motive, one season...

I think Ruby has some good points: all unfortunates killed early in the morning, all destitute
and peripatetic, some drunk, some starving. No one saw or heard anything of note, no evidence
left, no one caught, all killed by throat cutting. It’s hard to see a motive for murdering and
mutilating the lowest members of society other than a psychosexual disorder. If Lynn can show us
that Stride was a spy and MJK wasn’t MJK then we have a different story. I expect that will be a difficult task.

Another item of note, all excepting Stride were left in the exact same pose; i.e., signature. On back, knees splayed and up, privates exposed
– the most humiliating position possible – a pose to denigrate, humiliate, asexualize and de-womanize. Seems Jack had issues…

Also, Nichols did have her abdomen opened up, and for the M.O. nitpickers, as murderer Ted Bundy once said, “you don’t do them the same way every time.”

I like Lynn’s theory but am unconvinced. We all hope for further evidence.

Like everyone, I struggle with Stride and Tabram as members of the canon. My instinct tells me the other 4 were by the same hand.
When we step outside into the Mackenzie, Coles arena I think we’re dealing with violent, drunken sailors and perhaps a copycat.

I must say, in Lynn’s defense, that canonical adherents must scratch their heads when we talk torsos and other murders, and although these expand the timeframe
quite a bit, it’s hard to deny there was more than one similar murderer about, at least in close proximity time wise.

With that said, in the Autumn of Terror, I believe the same man murdered at least 4 of the 5 in the canon. I also believe some of the others could be his work as well.
I also reserve the right to change my mind if any valid evidence is ever revealed. I continue to hold my breath…


Greg

[lynn cates]

Mum & Dad

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Well, it all depends on their Mum and Dad, right? (heh-heh) just so they fit the profile.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Greg:

"I also reserve the right to change my mind if any valid evidence is ever revealed."

CHANGE YOUR MIND!!??? God have mercy on you, Greg!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lynn!

What DID you have for lunch, you naughty boy, you?

Fisherman

[lynn cates]

heartburn

Hello Greg. Thanks.

“I think Ruby has some good points: all unfortunates killed early in the morning,”

Doubtless true of Polly and Annie. But Kate? Kate?

“all destitute”

Liz did well enough with Michael.

“and peripatetic,”

MJK?

“some drunk”

Polly.

“some starving.”

Annie was malnourished.

“No one saw or heard anything of note, no evidence
left, no one caught”

So if it’s not solved, it’s Jack?

“all killed by throat cutting.”

So Coles and McKenzie too?

“It’s hard to see a motive for murdering and
mutilating the lowest members of society other than a psychosexual disorder."

Look more closely, then. (heh-heh)

“If Lynn can show us that Stride was a spy . . .”

No other reasons for being killed?

“. . . and MJK wasn’t MJK . . .”

Why does she not show up in the records like the rest?

“. . . then we have a different story. I expect that will be a difficult task. “

Yes. Almost as difficult as finding that sexual serial killing bloke so many seek.


“Another item of note, all excepting Stride were left in the exact same pose; i.e., signature. On back, knees splayed and up, privates exposed
– the most humiliating position possible – a pose to denigrate, humiliate, asexualize and de-womanize. Seems Jack had issues…”

Have you looked at Kate’s sketch? I advise you to give it a go. Knees? Knee, perhaps?

“Also, Nichols did have her abdomen opened up, and for the M.O. nitpickers, as murderer Ted Bundy once said, “you don’t do them the same way every time.””

But where does the lumping stop? How different can they be?


“I like Lynn’s theory but am unconvinced. We all hope for further evidence. “

Thanks. And, yes, we all seek more evidence—even the Jacksters. (My new coinage.)


“Like everyone, I struggle with Stride and Tabram as members of the canon. My instinct tells me the other 4 were by the same hand.”

And Evans, Rumbelow, Bell, et al. see 3.

“When we step outside into the Mackenzie, Coles arena I think we’re dealing with violent, drunken sailors and perhaps a copycat.”

Ah, so you hold out for a copycat? Hmm, like the story of the young lady who was asked if she would perform a certain “favour” for L1000000. She replied, “Of course.” “What about L1?” “Certainly not! What kind of girl do you think I am?” “Well, we’ve already established that. Now we are just haggling over the price.” (heh-heh)

“I must say, in Lynn’s defense, that canonical adherents must scratch their heads when we talk torsos and other murders, and although these expand the timeframe quite a bit, it’s hard to deny there was more than one similar murderer about, at least in close proximity time wise.”

Thanks for that. Yes, they must also take an antacid for the heartburn here.

“With that said, in the Autumn of Terror, I believe the same man murdered at least 4 of the 5 in the canon. I also believe some of the others could be his work as well."

I appreciate that you couch this in terms of belief.

“I also reserve the right to change my mind if any valid evidence is ever revealed. “

You’re a wise man, van Helsing.

“I continue to hold my breath…”

Come now, do I smell THAT bad? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

heh-heh

Hello Christer. Cute. I meant their:

1. Being psychologically distant from the poor boy--especially Dad.

2. Drinking mass quantities--especially Mum.

Not to mention junior's urination problem--nocturnal.

(If I went askew on any of the psychology rot, forgive me. I'm not very good at it.)

Cheers.
LC