Different Killers

[lynn cates]

"The name's Bond--Thomas Bond."

Hello John.

"Medical opinion was clearly divided on this point, and Dr Bond certainly thought that no technical skill was demonstrated in any of the murders."

Bond saw EXACTLY one murder. And I agree that no skill was exhibited in Kelly's case.

But why not adduce what Dr. Phillips/Mr. Baxter said about skill in Polly and Annie's cases but NO skill in Kate's?

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman.

"To date the multiple killer hypothesis crowd can't produce examples in history of this behaviour from several Lust Killers. Not a shred."

But why the devil should we want to?

Now, I challenge you to produce a single shred of evidence that there was a "Big Bang" BEFORE the "Big Bang."

And if no such evidence is forthcoming, then I shall conclude the world does not exist. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Read about Guth's inflation. That's the bang. Then read Krauss on why your infinite regress isn't the scientific view at all.

The reason why you can't produce examples of your multiple killer hypothesis is because the evidence for single serial killers that have demonstrably changing MO of much greater variation than the C5 exist in droves while you have... What exactly?

[lynn cates]

logic grade

Hello Batman. Thanks.

But why assume a serial killer? When you place the conclusion in the premises you are left with a petitio principii.

Now, think you'd better see me in the office. We really need to discuss your logic grade in my class.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

But why assume a serial killer? When you place the conclusion in the premises you are left with a petitio principii.

Now, think you'd better see me in the office. We really need to discuss your logic grade in my class.

Cheers.
LC

First of all, the contemporary view of the investigators was that they had a serial killer. It is not and never had been a modern assumption.

A modern assumption is multiple serial killers.

Following the death of Chapman they made a prediction that if not stopped this killer would do it again. Hence why the following chaos to get the city under control, boarding up empty entrances to store rooms etc, took place.

The prediction was correct and followed a pattern of prostitutes having their throats slashed while lying horizontally on the ground to control the blood flow away from the murderer who, being forensically aware (no bloody foot prints etc), produced an MO through this and his mutilations. The variation in mutilations corresponds to confidence in the environmental situation.

Chapman and Kelly both had their belly cut away in chunks and placed aside. Eddowes and Nichols had their belly slit open. The difference between the variation in MO is the environment. Chapman and Kelly where both off the street in places where the killer could spend more time on them. In the case of Eddowes and Nichols, he could not.

Speculating multiple killers (all of whom decide not to kill in October apparently ) is a big claim given the historical record for serial killers with deviating MO exist galore. Big claims like yours require even bigger evidence... yet you can't even give an example of this happening elsewhere. Not one. That makes it less than a hypothesis. That makes it a guess without any precidence.

As for the philosophy of believing in magical things that don't have a basis in physicalism, I will leave that to your imagination, where it firmly resides. I'll deal with evolved brains and evolved languages describing regularity in nature. Maths is a language. It is not empirical.

[lynn cates]

I think not; therefore, I am--a biologist.

Hello Batman. Thanks.

As early as October, the investigators were talking imitator.

Multiple serial killers? New one on me.

Mind? Res cogitans? I merely extrapolate from my case, and voila! Daresay you do the same--and hence reject mind.

Now, excuse me--I have some college classes to teach and I presume you have some Petrie dishes to clean.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hi Lynn,

Interesting how you choose to ignore relevant statistical information. For example, evidence showing just how rare throat cutting murders were in 19th C England, Why was this? Could it because so few people were psychologically capable of committing this type of crime? And surely they couldn't all have decided to descend on one small part of the East End of London in 1888 and start committing throat-cutting murders! Mind you, it is all rather undermining of your argument!

Eddowes not a prostitute? I'm sure lots of people will agree with you there!

As to what constituted the Whitechapel boundary, well I'm sure we could have a fascinating discussion about that, particularly as it didn't actually exist as a borough in 1888! And wasn't the Whitechapel police district different from, say, the Whitechapel District of the Metropolitan Board of Works?

Perhaps we should settle for the fact that the C5, plus Tabram, plus Smith, plus McKenzie were all killed within a small geographical area, constituting a few small miles. And knowing you're a stickler for accuracy, maybe we could also have a fascinating discussion on what constitutes "small"!

Stride not on her back? Well, according to Dr Philips she was killed whilst on the ground, although Dr Blackwell believed that her throat was cut after her neck was pulled back with the scarf. Either way, the killer would have avoided being covered in arterial spray. Certainly, a successful strategy- anyone would think he'd done this kind of thing before! In fact it's a pity that he didn't make the incision away from him, as that would avoided getting blood-stained and really demonstrated forensic awareness. Oh, wait a minute, according to Dr Philips he did!

Wrong type of knife. Oh sorry, I thought I'd already answered that: JtR was not intending to kill that night so he'd left home without his long bladed knife. However, upon encountering Stride the urge to kill overwhelmed him; she was therefore attacked on impulse. This, coupled with other factors I've mentioned, also explain the lack of mutilations.

[John G]

Hello John.

"Medical opinion was clearly divided on this point, and Dr Bond certainly thought that no technical skill was demonstrated in any of the murders."

Bond saw EXACTLY one murder. And I agree that no skill was exhibited in Kelly's case.

But why not adduce what Dr. Phillips/Mr. Baxter said about skill in Polly and Annie's cases but NO skill in Kate's?

Cheers.
LC

Perhaps. However, the police seemed to place greater faith in Dr Bond, Didn't they ask him to draw up a profile based upon an analysis of all the murders? And wasn't Dr Philips' analysis, or any medical analysis on this point, based at least partly on the assumption that the killer removed organs from some of the victims, and therefore demonstrated medical skill? However, having read Trevor Marriott's arguments, I'm by no means certain that the organs were removed by the killer. Frankly there are just too many unknown factors for me to arrive at any definite conclusion.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

As early as October, the investigators were talking imitator.

Sure it was considered, but they never arrived at that conclusion and all the evidence suggests they predicted a serial killer who would strike again, in the same way. Hence why prostitutes where told to stay off the streets and warned about going anywhere alone with strangers.

I guess all these different killers took budget holidays in October or something.

[lynn cates]

Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more . . .

Hello John. Thanks.

Few minutes before class--so:

Ignore statistics? Bloody well right. I prefer thinking. (Oh, and if you and BM wish statistics, Colin Roberts did all this years ago. And much better than what you're doing.)

What, people disagreeing with me about Eddowes? Well, well. Must look into that. (heh-heh)

Maybe we could discuss why you omit Coles? (Or, if you prefer, we could discuss the overuse of exclamations.)

And your last paragraph is Deus ex machina. Nice try, though.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

brave, brave Sir Robert

Hello (again) John. Thanks.

Greater faith? They? You mean Sir Robert? Sure, he needed information. After all, he was largely absent at the time of the killings.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

guess work

Hello BM. Thanks.

Guess? Well, until now, that's all you have adduced.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

Few minutes before class--so:

Ignore statistics? Bloody well right. I prefer thinking. (Oh, and if you and BM wish statistics, Colin Roberts did all this years ago. And much better than what you're doing.)

What, people disagreeing with me about Eddowes? Well, well. Must look into that. (heh-heh)

Maybe we could discuss why you omit Coles? (Or, if you prefer, we could discuss the overuse of exclamations.)

And your last paragraph is Deus ex machina. Nice try, though.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Yes, I do seem to have got carried away with the exclamation marks! Oops, there I go again. Agree with you about Colin Roberts- where do you think I got most of my statistical information from?

Sorry about the Coles oversight, I also consider that she maybe a possible JtR victim so I will include her now.

I also put "small miles", when I meant "square miles". Really should start paying more attention those little details.

[Errata]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

But why assume a serial killer? When you place the conclusion in the premises you are left with a petitio principii.

Now, think you'd better see me in the office. We really need to discuss your logic grade in my class.

Cheers.
LC

Now now. We can't all be experts on Aristotelian logic, and not everyone read Prior Analytics, and even if they did most of us saw it as a white knuckle book, so the lessons within didn't so much stick.

We assume a serial killer because it's what we know. As 21st century Western cultured people, we see several murders in a short period of time, we see a serial killer. We all know serial killers. In many ways they are like the boogey man or demons. Sort of a go-to monster. A spray painted building makes us see dumb kids. A dead wife makes us see a killer husband. A plane flying into a building makes us see terrorists. That's our cultural priming at work.

Except of course Banksy isn't a dumb kid, and has turned tagging into fine art. Women are murdered for reasons other than they happen to be married, and sometimes planes malfunction, or people do, and a crash into a building can be accidental. Our first gut reaction is what we are trained to think. Trained by media, by personal experience, by immersion. It's not even inherently psychological, it's cultural. And there is no stopping that initial gut reaction. Only by plumbing the depths of a knee jerk conclusion can that opinion change. And that's very human. And it's a process that needs to be respected. People evolve their opinions over time. It doesn't mean they will ever agree with you, or they won't. It just means it's a process, and not one that involves a lot of logic.

But that assumes that the initial gut reaction is wrong. And these are the stereotypical conclusions for a reason.

We also don't have enough information to discard the initial conclusion that it was a serial killer. There are differences in all of these murders. There are similarities. We have contradicting opinions, and we have opinion on qualities that are highly mutable. In many ways it's Schroedinger's Cat. The act of observing disturbs the observed. If you look at the murders as individual murders, they look like individual murders. If you look at them as a group of murders, they look like a group of murders. They are both a particle and a ray. Both alive and dead. But as of yet, we don't have the option of opening the box. We'd have to solve these murders to do that. So we're always going to be a little stuck on this.

I know your theory. I don't agree and I do agree. It certainly makes sense, you are always logical, and there isn't anything I can point to and say "this thing challenges your ideas". It doesn't feel right to me. Which is a completely non logical way of absorbing the information. But it's a valid one (emotionally valid, not logically valid). I believe in people's gut reactions. My gut says you're wrong. But I would be shocked to find out that I have ever in all the years said "Lynn, you are wrong.". Because you aren't. Per Schroedinger, I can see how you can say the cat is dead. And it's a perfectly logical and reasonable to conclude that the cat is dead. I still think he's alive though. I have no reason to think it other than it's got a 50% chance of being true, and I like cats, so live ones are better than dead ones. But while I can appreciate your argument, I'm not on board. And I don't think I can be convinced to your way of thinking. But I would hope that despite the fact you have deduced that the cat is dead, you would respect that the cat could be alive. I get you, you get me, happy debate ensues.

Somebody is bound to be right. I'd like to think I have the opportunity to be in on that discussion. I'm even willing to be on the wrong side of it.

[Jon Guy]

We assume a serial killer because it's what we know. As 21st century Western cultured people, we see several murders in a short period of time, we see a serial killer. We all know serial killers. In many ways they are like the boogey man or demons. Sort of a go-to monster.

I`m sure most of us have just gone with the investigators of the day, and are still waiting for proof to the contrary.

[Michael W Richards]

Lets review The Canonical Five, the assumed series of killings by JtR;

-1 victim without any PM mutilation
-1 victim in her sleepwear in bed
-3 victims with organs taken away
-2 victims disembowelled, one in public venue
-2 victims with uterus or partial uterus taken
-1 victim with a kidney taken
-1 victim with a heart taken away
-2 victims actively prostituting (based on what is known, not surmised)
-4 victims over 40
-1 victim under 30
-3 victims killed on private property
-2 victims single for less than 2 weeks
-1 victim with private room
-2 victims without pre-arranged sleeping quarters (from what is known, not guessed)
-2 victims with a 10 day period
-2 victims within an hour on the same night
-5 victims with slit throats

I could go on with this sort of list but I think the point is clear, the only common thread among all 5 is that they had slit throats....the most common weapon in the area, and by far the most prevalent weapon cited in Old Bailey cases of the period.

In an area where known murderers lived, where a known prostitute killer was at large, in an area where more that 6 other Unsolved murders of women or attacks with knives took place, in an area populated by anarchists, terrorists and revolutionaries, and in an area where Inspector Abberline rose to fame arresting Fenians. Does anyone really believe that all the known killers and all the revolutionaries and all the terrorists and all the men who attacked women brandishing knives suddenly suspended their activities in late August of 1888 and stayed indoors until mid-November of 1888? Just so a lone madman could have the streets to himself?

Im sorry to put it this way,...but that's not only illogical, its ridiculous.

Cheers