Different Killers

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"The idealists reject non-mental substances."

Correct.

"This conflicts with empiricism."

No, it does not. In fact, IF Berkeley accomplished ANYTHING, he showed that ONLY the subjective idealist could be a consistent empiricist.

I'm glad to see you like Russell; but, I say, IF you wish to understand Berkeley, why not read "The Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous" and "The Principles of Human Knowledge"? I have, and more than once.

Here are the two schools of epistemology set out in order.

1. Rationalism =df. "The claim that one can have knowledge, apart from experience, by an intuition of the mind."

2. Empiricism =df. "The claim that ALL knowledge comes from the five senses."

Additionally:

3. Representative Realism =df. "The claim that we perceive our perceptions, BUT, these represent the external, material world."

4. Phenomenalism =df. "The claim that we perceive our perceptions." (Note the full stop.)

Descartes was 1 & 3; Locke, 2 & 3; Berkeley, 2 & 4.

Cheers.
LC

I understand what you are saying. They make claims as to what they believe.

What I am saying, is that regardless of their claims as to what they believe, their critics, like Russell, have discussed why they are wrong about their own position and he does this by discussing the common theme in their arguments - idealism.

What we end up with is a mixed defence from the idealist, that non-mental objects exist, but we can never know anything about them other than the minds own input via perception into what they are. Kant in his critic of pure reason allows for the existence of non-mental objects, but we can never know them as they are without adding mental attributes because of sense/perception.

What Russell did was to dismantle their understanding of sense/perception, how that the original claims of idealism are wrong and therefore they have no grounds to follow through with their position.

In the 21st century, we need not go back to start and work our way through the history of philosophy to find out who is right and who is wrong on the matter of knowledge acquisition and human consciousness. We can go right to modern times where the neural correlates of consciousness are understood and sense/perception is quantified at a biochemically level. The mind is not a substance other than the brain itself which is physical. The brain deteriorates, so does the person's levels of consciousness. It eventually dies. Medicine can help restore the brain and parts of it, thus returning consciousness and mental properties, that where once impaired. Brain = Mind. Mind is therefore matter and physical. No brain, no mind.

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman.

"It is not a science. It is psychology."

NOW you're making sense.

Keep going!

Cheers.
LC

I did if you read on, especially the last sentence.

[Batman]

Remember JtR wasn't aware of geoprofiling

Btw, if Snook agrees that basic models for geoprofiling are just as good as complex ones, we have to look at why the need for complexity, and it appears that factors such as forensic awareness and the historical record feed back into offender profiles. So the more forensically aware the criminal is, the less likely they will be caught by triangulating themselves.

However, 1888, JtR, the chances of him being this forensically aware is extremely doubtful given how new and rare this was. Therefore even the simplest models which are basically finding a centre, around an area of crime, is very applicable here.

It is simply not just a coincidence that Smith and Tabram died at the centre of such a profile. If you take the canonical 5, basic geoprofiling, there you have Smith, Tabram and George Chapman a few years after working there.

To ignore or not to ignore?

If investigators discovered that today I don't think a judge would have a problem allowing for the investigation to dredge through the residents with whatever they needed to get the job done.

[John G]

Btw, if Snook agrees that basic models for geoprofiling are just as good as complex ones, we have to look at why the need for complexity, and it appears that factors such as forensic awareness and the historical record feed back into offender profiles. So the more forensically aware the criminal is, the less likely they will be caught by triangulating themselves.

However, 1888, JtR, the chances of him being this forensically aware is extremely doubtful given how new and rare this was. Therefore even the simplest models which are basically finding a centre, around an area of crime, is very applicable here.

It is simply not just a coincidence that Smith and Tabram died at the centre of such a profile. If you take the canonical 5, basic geoprofiling, there you have Smith, Tabram and George Chapman a few years after working there.

To ignore or not to ignore?

If investigators discovered that today I don't think a judge would have a problem allowing for the investigation to dredge through the residents with whatever they needed to get the job done.

I think it highly unlikely that George Chapman was JtR. Serial poisoners are remarkably consistent in their MO. In fact, is there a single example of a serial poisoner committing violent crimes?

[c.d.]

Hello John G,

Is there any reason why a serial poisoner could not commit a violent crime as in it would violate a law of physics or something to that extent?

By the way, Sugden felt that Chapman was the best of the known suspects which is not to say that he felt Chapman had to be JTR.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello John G,

Is there any reason why a serial poisoner could not commit a violent crime as in it would violate a law of physics or something to that extent?

By the way, Sugden felt that Chapman was the best of the known suspects which is not to say that he felt Chapman had to be JTR.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

I think the total lack of evidence that serial poisoners, like Shipman, also commit violent murders makes Chapman a very implausible candidate. As George Sims pointed out "it is an absolute absurdity to argue that a cool, calculating poisoner like Klosowski could have lived with half a dozen women and put them quietly out of the way by a slow and calculating process after being in 1888 a man so maniacal in his homicidal fury that he committed the foul and fiendish horror of Miller's Court. A furious madman does not suddenly become a slow poisoner." (Cited in Begg, 2004)

In fact, even Sugden was decidedly equivocal: "But perhaps it's stretching credibility too far to believe that the man who committed six horrific, often frenzied, knife murders in just three months in 1888 could have gone into retirement and then re-emerged a decade later in the covert disguise of a domestic poisoner" (Sugden, 2002)

[Batman]

Surely MOs can change?

Hi c.d.

I think the total lack of evidence that serial poisoners, like Shipman, also commit violent murders makes Chapman a very implausible candidate.

Drugging and poisoning are not a million miles away and some criminals evolved their crimes to involve drugging and then later poisoning. These are MOs right? MOs can and do change.

The actual question should be, why no signature?

[Good, I think I now understand the difference between MO and signature].

I think one answer is that the cooldown period for JtR may have been an extended one. There is evidence in history for this and especially in light of recent crimes.

BTW - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...276#post335276

[Michael W Richards]

"What Lynn, myself and others would like to see happen in these discussions..if I may speak for you Lynn.... is a reality check when making these sorts of assumptions, for example....is the suggestion that I am making supported by any known physical evidence?"

Well said, Michael. I would like to see that too. Now does that reality check apply to you and Lynn as well or is it just the rest of us?

Oh, and there is something else I would like to see and that would be some posters refrain from making laughable, condescending statements.

c.d.

Im glad you see the value in the remarks cd, although I wouldn't know it based on some suggestions Ive seen from you that indicate you are in the group Im talking about....like your suggestion that Jack appears after BSM leaves, or that there was an interruption preventing further damage.....when there is NO evidence for either of those contentions. If you check back you will note that the vast majority of the posts Lynn and I make, as do some others, are to point out where assumptive arguments are made invalid based on existing evidence...like the Stride murder "interruption" for one. There is no indication that Strides killer was interrupted....something that would be easily deduced by ANY incomplete action....i.e.: body half turned on its back, skirts lifted but no abdominal cuts, man seen fleeing when Louis arrived,...a few of the signs that might indicate an interruption. The sum total of what happened to Liz Stride is within the known evidence and there is zero indication in that evidence that a pm mutilator....(which the killer of Annie and Polly was without doubt)...had anything to do with her murder.

So why do we see any arguments for that kind of killer as her killer? Its not only a waste of time but its also putting guesswork ahead of evidence. Yes, she was killed on the same night as another victim alleged to have been dispatched by this "Jack", but with very little inspection we can also see that the physician who actually examined Polly and Annie did not believe Kate was killed by the same hand. Which means, its unlikely that Liz was even killed on the same night as a Ripper victim was. Which makes the Double Event Jackless...not rife with Ripper.

Now John,...let me address some points you make;

1. We DO in fact know that Polly and Annie were soliciting..they admitted it to friends themselves. No other murder other than Marthas has that kind of evidence.
2. Polly was killed very close to sleeping street residents and Annie was killed in the backyard of a house with 17 people in it, some almost waking up for their work. The silence there far surpasses a venue that has singing streaming out a club window at the time.
3.Yes both Eddowes and Kelly were almost decapitated, in fact Mary was taken apart and her head and right arm were almost separated from her body, her right leg seemingly prepared for disjointing...which would indicate that perhaps someone who made Torsos killed her, not a pm abdominal mutilator. Certainly no-one who knew how to make "clean" extractions.If you cut enough off her you will come across organs by default. Not purposefully, like in the murder of Annie.
4. Stride may have been cut "while falling", and Kelly was in bed, off the street completely...circumstantially, unlike either Polly or Kates murder. Eddowes murder is the only other Canonical that may have been killed by the man that killed Polly and Annie.. in my opinion, and if not for the diminished skill sets and the useless cuts made, I might argue that point.
5. Mary Kelly wasn't just killed indoors, she was killed while undressed in bed ...sometime after 1:30am, indicating that her killer was intimately known by her...again, contrary to the evidence in C1 and C2. And Please don't quote a Sutcliffe stat when arguing these points, or any other serial killer tidbit.... they have not been proven to have any relevance to these cases at all.
6. I don't have to speculate what the killer of C1 and C2 wanted...to kill and mutilate. Liz Strides killer wanted to kill her...period. Eddowes killer either masks or reveals his intent with superfluous cuts, and Kellys killer must have had some personal relationship with her, which would open discussions to motivations that are found in many love triangle disputes...like the one Kelly was in at that time.
7.We know that based solely on the physical information found on the bodies in Bucks Row and in the backyard at Hanbury, that the police sought experienced surgical men, in practice, or being trained. At no other time in these cases was that done, and it was only abandoned when they failed to uncover any substantive leads and 2 new murders demonstrating less skill and knowledge were committed.
8.My comments about Stride and Eddowes....that they were killed intentionally for some reason....illustrates that we dont not know why they were killed, only that it was intentional. As I said, that is not the case with the first 2 women...all appearances suggest that they were killed so their abdomens could be mutilated...if this was because the killer hated women, or wanted organs, then I guess that's the real ulterior motive, but its clear what the killers intentions were by the actions performed. In Strides case, he wanted to kill her....why isn't clear, but that he wanted ONLY that is indicated by the evidence.

I suppose swimming upstream in these discussions is causing myself some needless frustration, but since we have academics, scientists, ex-London Police, and various professionals discussing these points as well, I feel my insistence on only credible arguments is well positioned.

People want to believe in Jack, that's their business. People want to come to a fabulous site populated by the above, then they should be prepared to validate their own opinions.

My opinion is obvious...I believe that there were murders committed in Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 that were committed by one sick individual, but I cant bring myself to buy into, for example, that Strides killer was sick when all he did is merely kill her...just like simple murders seen all around the world daily.

Normal everyday people kill daily, and monsters kill infrequently....its usually pretty obvious which is which.

Everyone of us has the ability to lose control and kill, some more violently than others, that's also the case in London in 1888.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Don't hold me to this but I seem to recall in previous discussions of Chapman that some posters referenced poisoners who did switch to violent crimes. I can't recall any of the names. Maybe someone can help with that.

The point is that there is nothing which would have presented Chapman from doing so even if it was rare.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Drugging and poisoning are not a million miles away and some criminals evolved their crimes to involve drugging and then later poisoning. These are MOs right? MOs can and do change.

The actual question should be, why no signature?

[Good, I think I now understand the difference between MO and signature].

I think one answer is that the cooldown period for JtR may have been an extended one. There is evidence in history for this and especially in light of recent crimes.

BTW - http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...276#post335276

Ask any professional who is experienced investigating these kinds of crimes and youll find out why you are so wrong. And, If I may add, not uncharacteristically.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

Since we are now only making arguments that are supported by known physical evidence does that mean you will no longer claim that Schwartz was part of a club conspiracy and that Schwartz did not appear at the inquest solely because his story was discredited? Because as you know, there is no evidence for those assertions, they are simply speculation.

c.d.

[Spotty]

Just a tiny note

Bob Keppel is not a profiler. In fact he rejects the whole concept. He works from the facts of crimes that have been committed and he is the person who first recognised the core "signature" that links a series of crimes (separate from modus operandi).
He is not in any way a profiler and has stated as much several times in print.

[lynn cates]

materialism

Hello Batman. Thanks.

What you say most certainly does NOT apply to Berkeley. And it is debatable whether Kant were an idealist. If you read the "Critique" closely, he most certainly is not.

Your idea that brain = mind (ie, reductive materialism) was scrapped by nearly ALL philosophers in the 1960's (if I recall properly, Professor David Armstrong was a lone holdout (by the way, he taught an ontology class as a visiting prof during my time at university)). At the end of decade, it was replaced by "Eliminative Materialism"--the brain child (pun intended) of Paul and Patti Churchland and Professor Willard Quine.

Are you aware of these events?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

rare

Hello CD.

"The point is that there is nothing which would have prevented Chapman from doing so even if it was rare."

Well put. So, then, because something is rare may not be relevant to its happening? I think I agree.

And having imitators, although rare, . . .

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

[QUOTE=lynn cates;335291]Hello Batman. Thanks.

What you say most certainly does NOT apply to Berkeley. And it is debatable whether Kant were an idealist. If you read the "Critique" closely, he most certainly is not.

Your idea that brain = mind (ie, reductive materialism) was scrapped by nearly ALL philosophers in the 1960's (if I recall properly, Professor David Armstrong was a lone holdout (by the way, he taught an ontology class as a visiting prof during my time at university)). At the end of decade, it was replaced by "Eliminative Materialism"--the brain child (pun intended) of Paul and Patti Churchland and Professor Willard Quine.

Are you aware of these events?

Ok. Lynn and Batman, we all know you are both smart and well educated but it seems you are putting all of that education and those smarts into simply one upping the other person. It might be time to call it a draw and give it a rest because this is hardly Ripper related and is now just a pissing contest. Just saying.

c.d.