One JtR and only 1

[Batman]

The single killer hypothesis refers to environmental conditions to support the series of murders being by one hand. The multiple killer hypothesis is that 'cut throats' don't mean a serial killer. That's it in a nutshell with some quibbles over how the mutilations where done.

The multiple killer hypothesis is easily debunked. There is a direct correlation between the degree of mutilations of the canonical 5 and the confidence levels of the killer dependent on environmental conditions.

For example, the environment directly correlates to the confidence the killer has and therefore how complex the mutilations will be. The less confidence the killer has, the less complex the mutilations will be.

• degree is degree of the complexity of mutilation.
• confidence is the environmental impact on the killer's state of mind.
• time is measured in 100% with 100% meaning as much time as they want and <10 meaning no time at all.

Nichols killer may have been disturbed by approaching people. Nichols wounds where extremely fresh.

With Chapman, while boxed in, he was confident he had the time to do what he wanted without being disturbed if he acted quickly.

Stride's attack was interupted by Schwartz. Hence the low values.

Eddowes had JtR boxed in, which is why there is lower degree of confidence in the first chart.

Kelly had her own room so the values all peaked.

Eddowes can be explained by looking at how 'boxed in' JtR was. There where not one, but at least two exits from the square. Also if JtR had been disturbed with Stride his will to kill may have lowered any safety guards and instead is replaced with a rage to get the job done. So with two exits and this in mind I think we can raise the confidence level to at least that of Chapman because he was actually boxed in there as opposed to here. The decrease in time simply means JtR with prior experience can do things quicker. So the second chart is the better chart.

In the first chart, Stride is not the odd one out. Stride displays what is found in Nichols and Chapman, that is that there is a correlation between degrees of mutilation, confidence and time involved. Eddowes seems to be the odd one out, low confidence, high degree of mutilation yet this is purely based on him being 'boxed in' which he actually isn't.

In both chart 1 and 2, mutilations and confidence levels are very similar in their correlation. Time is something JtR would be able to decrease with experience.



The third chart is an example of what things would look like if there are different killers. The results would have to be much more random than what we find in the first 2 charts.



Basically the multiple killer hypothesis is unable to explain the correlation between environmental confidence levels and the degree of mutilation without needing the same psychological state (and therefore influence) for each of the killers involved so that they fit the 'pattern' of a serial killer. Many minds or one mind?

There is only 1 and 1 only for the canonical 5.

[John G]

Hi Batman,

An interesting and well thought out post. In relation to the various victims, do you think that organized and disorganized could also be a factor? Thus, I believe that Sutcliffe, whilst generally organized, also acted impulsively on occasion. And in the case of Stride, for example, it could be speculated that, assuming she was a JTR victim, her killer was not intending to commit murder that night. Maybe he'd been visiting friends or family in the locality when he came across Stride and the urge to kill overwhelmed him.

This could also explain why the murder site, although still in Whitechapel, was a somewhat outside the small geographical area in which he normally operated.

An impulsive kill could also explain why She was not mutilated, i.e. not intending to kill that night he was equipped with only a short-bladed knife that was unfit for purpose. Moreover, the evidence suggests that, unlike the other victims, Stride failed to co-operate with her killer. Maybe she wasn't soliciting that night, James Brown's evidence might suggest this, and that could also explain why she failed to fall into the trap of accompanying him to a seclude place, before turning her back on him, as the other victims, oblivious to the danger, had done.

Might JTR, in such circumstances, have embarked on a risky full-frontal assault, as suggested by Schwartz's evidence? Of course, this action would then create further problems: a victim who is resisting and fighting for her life, as suggested by the defensive wounds, and a killer forced to quickly improvise as regards the location of the murder. In such circumstances, perhaps the near pitch black darkness of Dutfield's Yard must have initially seemed like a tempting location for a murder. At least before he quickly realizes the presence of what appears to be a busy club.

Maybe, in all the circumstances, he simply decided he'd made a mistake and went in search of another more suitable victim and location.

[Scott Nelson]

Completely incomprehensible. Define your model, your parameters, your data generation. What exactly is the y-axis?

[Batman]

Completely incomprehensible. Define your model, your parameters, your data generation. What exactly is the y-axis?

The first reply comprehended it and I shall reply shortly.

Y axis is described in the text above.

[Batman]

Hi Batman,

An interesting and well thought out post. In relation to the various victims, do you think that organized and disorganized could also be a factor? Thus, I believe that Sutcliffe, whilst generally organized, also acted impulsively on occasion.

Disorganized killers can prepare kill kits and have a general theme of the fantasy they want to act out. That's about the limit on JtRs 'planning'. Everything else is about the environmental conditions that bring about opportunity.

And in the case of Stride, for example, it could be speculated that, assuming she was a JTR victim, her killer was not intending to commit murder that night. Maybe he'd been visiting friends or family in the locality when he came across Stride and the urge to kill overwhelmed him. This could also explain why the murder site, although still in Whitechapel, was a somewhat outside the small geographical area in which he normally operated.

I think Stride was a trigger event too. I think he asked her something, she didn't want to do it and became suspicious he was dangerous, possibly even this killer in the newspapers, and before she could do anything, he killed her there and then even with a witness passing by.

An impulsive kill could also explain why She was not mutilated, i.e. not intending to kill that night he was equipped with only a short-bladed knife that was unfit for purpose. Moreover, the evidence suggests that, unlike the other victims, Stride failed to co-operate with her killer. Maybe she wasn't soliciting that night, James Brown's evidence might suggest this, and that could also explain why she failed to fall into the trap of accompanying him to a seclude place, before turning her back on him, as the other victims, oblivious to the danger, had done.

Sure, this makes sense. The way he blitzed her there and then is an indication that he had lost control over her.

Might JTR, in such circumstances, have embarked on a risky full-frontal assault, as suggested by Schwartz's evidence? Of course, this action would then create further problems: a victim who is resisting and fighting for her life, as suggested by the defensive wounds, and a killer forced to quickly improvise as regards the location of the murder. In such circumstances, perhaps the near pitch black darkness of Dutfield's Yard must have initially seemed like a tempting location for a murder. At least before he quickly realizes the presence of what appears to be a busy club.

In Schwartz's account the man only meets the women shortly before Schwartz comes upon them by which stage he is already attacking her. It seems the man stopped, suggested something to her, she panicked and instead of having a full club chasing after him screaming 'Jack the Ripper', he killed her, dragged her body quickly into the yard and then in his incompleted bloodlust, went after another.

Maybe, in all the circumstances, he simply decided he'd made a mistake and went in search of another more suitable victim and location.

One of the reasons JtR was never caught was luck. Pure random luck. There where several instances where he took great chances. Chapman for example hit the fence on the way down which a neighbour in the yard heard! All he had to do was pop his head over the fence and there is JtR.

[Scott Nelson]

Y axis is described in the text above.

No, it isn't. Nor any of the other things you're trying to show.

Maybe a descriptive post without the bar graphs would be better...

[GUT]

How did you arrive at the figures in graph 3?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Batman,

Congratulations on your obviously time consuming effort presented above.

The problem is...as with all sets of statistics, they cannot be proven in an unsolved case, no matter the parameters used.

Whether an individual sees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more connecting dots between cases proves nothing. Probability, possibility, interpretation, presentation, slant and even bias will always be (in differing degrees) a determining factor whilst individuals evaluate data.

An example of how impossible the problem becomes is how special the technique used to remove the heart of the victim known as Mary Kelly? That particular organ removal leaving the pericardium intact is highly unusual.

Therefore it can easily be argued that the Kelly murder is of a different hand than the others. (Just an example)

Another being that the Stride murder can in no way be compared with the Kelly murder on body mutilation alone and requires the assumption, or guesstimate on whether the Stride murder was part of a series. This point alone is highly contentious as it is based on option of option both from at the time and since.

So with all respect, and kudos for your efforts, people will have formed an opinion on the subject either way long before your examination.

In my honest opinion, the ONLY way any of this muddle of supposition and theory connected to the case will ever see greater clarity is when the papers and files missing or ascertained through purloined or the like turn up. Official Met police and Home office papers I may add.


Just an opinion.


Phil

[lynn cates]

Pub worthy

Hello Scott. Well spoke mate.

If bar graphs could solve crimes, ALL would have been laid to rest years ago.

This belongs in the Pub.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

files

Hello Phil. Just so.

Finding Isenschmid's files from Grove Hall would amount to more than ANY statistical analysis I have seen yet.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

No, it isn't. Nor any of the other things you're trying to show.

Maybe a descriptive post without the bar graphs would be better...

You asked what the Y_Axis represented.

In the original post I highlighted these in bold. I also described their relationship to the X Axis. Maybe if you want to ask more specific questions about these I can answer that for you. However as you can see others who can understand it, have done so and asked questions.

[Batman]

How did you arrive at the figures in graph 3?

Chart 3 is randomized. You can repeat randomization infinitely. This simulates murders not by the same hand. The multi-killer hypothesis if true would produce the variation of a randomized chart.

Chart 1 and 2 are not random and do not appear random either as there are correlations directly related to confidence levels which is environmentally influenced i.e - a pattern.

[Batman]

Hello Scott. Well spoke mate.

If bar graphs could solve crimes, ALL would have been laid to rest years ago.

This belongs in the Pub.

Cheers.
LC

If a Forensic student said that in a Forensic101 exam, they would get an F- and be told that maybe something less scientific would be a better carreer move, like the arts.

Quantification is an essential part of any forensic analysis and was even present in 1888. If you can't quantify something then chances are its imaginary. Hence why many people who enjoy imaginary things don't like quantification.

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello Batman. Thanks.

If you wish to do quantified LOGIC, by all means.

But this is all more twaddle.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman,

Congratulations on your obviously time consuming effort presented above.

Thanks. It didn't take more than a few minutes. As a biologist with statistical training (population genetics etc.) I just knew what data I had to punch in to produce a simple chart.

The problem is...as with all sets of statistics, they cannot be proven in an unsolved case, no matter the parameters used.

I don't accept that. They are used in court.

For example in genetics we use statistics all the time. We even use mtDNA from fossils to give us statistical examples of possible evolutionary patterns (hence predictions of what to expect).

Statistics caught BTK when his family DNA was compared to those found at crime scenes. Statistics are used to locate car tire tracks, size of vehicle, type of vehicle. What statistics can do and does very well, is give us a range in which we can capture the actual answer we are looking for. I think some people confuse statistics with a guess.

Whether an individual sees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or more connecting dots between cases proves nothing. Probability, possibility, interpretation, presentation, slant and even bias will always be (in differing degrees) a determining factor whilst individuals evaluate data.

Confounding variables are what they are. However the data we have to work from is the same. Degree of mutilation, time and confidence levels can be described here. They are readily accessable from the case files. One doesn't have to be 100% accurate in interpretation... all one has to do is a better job of it than the next person. This is done by giving better reasons than the other.

So my reasons against the claim of multiple random killers is that one must explain how they managed to resemble a pattern of escalating mutilation complexity when it can be shown environmental factors influence the variation. We don't need to add any more additional murderers if environmental factors influence the variation. Much more parsimonous and... best of all... we have a history of modern examples of this.

An example of how impossible the problem becomes is how special the technique used to remove the heart of the victim known as Mary Kelly? That particular organ removal leaving the pericardium intact is highly unusual. Therefore it can easily be argued that the Kelly murder is of a different hand than the others. (Just an example)

Nick Warren, a surgeon and ripperologist, discusses this and Eddowes Kidney removal. They are both unusual. Chapman is unusual too. Anyway the chart isn't about medical knowledge. its about mutilation complexity and environmental factors.

Another being that the Stride murder can in no way be compared with the Kelly murder on body mutilation alone and requires the assumption, or guesstimate on whether the Stride murder was part of a series. This point alone is highly contentious as it is based on option of option both from at the time and since.

Actually Stride can be compared to Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly if we look at mutilation complexity and environmental factors. Where there is greater risk of being caught or in the process of being nearly caught (Stride/Chapman even) there is a lower degree of mutilation complexity. In the case of Stride, hardly any. This is consistant. Not inconsistant.

So with all respect, and kudos for your efforts, people will have formed an opinion on the subject either way long before your examination.

Yes, but I change my opinion when given better reasons to do so. For example, since the early 90s I accepted the Kozminski/Cohen hypothesis put forward by Fido and even believed it while reading House's new book. However today I don't accept Kozminski anymore due to good reasons why I shouldn't.

In my honest opinion, the ONLY way any of this muddle of supposition and theory connected to the case will ever see greater clarity is when the papers and files missing or ascertained through purloined or the like turn up. Official Met police and Home office papers I may add.

Sure. However I can still demonstrate that variation in the canonical 5 is more likely due to environmental factors than a different hand.

I would also like to point out that there has been a failure of the multi-killer hypothesis crowd to show any sort of example of multiple lust killers operating in the same place at the same time with similar MOs. What we have is the opposite of that. Single lust murderers with an MO. They even change their MOs.

The multiple killer hypothesis has absolutely no grounds for its claims. Modern or contemporary.