Chalk and literacy

[Batman]

Hello Batman.

"Stride's neck was slit in the same double manner as the other canonical victims."

Not so. ONLY Polly and Annie had the double, parallel cuts. Make of THAT what you will.

Cheers.
LC

Okay. So only 2 of the five where done that way, but Eddowes was a single cut too.

I confused the deeper-side incision as a second cut with Stride, but it was just deeper and deviated. Is that deviation not consistent with the other 2 though? I think yes. That the single cut is the same as one of the two cuts on other 2 victims. That this is the connection, the way it was done, not the number of slits done.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

1. Why is it anti-Semitic?

2. What do probabilities get us?

Cheers.
LC

1. The chances of a graffiti written in Whitechapel in 1888 in cockney about Jews not being anti-semitic is slim.

2. What probabilities are about is selecting a level of skepticism that doesn't vary throughout. For example, to call something random chance and not related and so being dismissive of it and then randomly chance looking for a Jewish suspect who was put into an asylum after Kelly was murdered and ignoring the original random chance argument been made for everything else but that suspect.

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"So only 2 of the five where done that way, but Eddowes was a single cut too."

Yes. And . . . ?

Q: What sort of chap makes double cuts?

Q2: Why stop and go to single cuts?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

anti-Semitic

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

1. But what SPECIFICALLY about the GSG was anti-Semitic?

2. Ontologically, probability is a calculation of ignorance.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"So only 2 of the five where done that way, but Eddowes was a single cut too."

Yes. And . . . ?

Q: What sort of chap makes double cuts?

Q2: Why stop and go to single cuts?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Doesn't that question assume that the killer was aware of the quantity and qualities of his cuts and that he somehow cared? One cut or two the victims still ended up dead.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

I would also be interested to have you way in on the question in Pub Talk as to whether it bothers you that you were not alive in 1888. Be sure to read post number 4 so that you are clear on the parameters of the question.

Is this strictly a philosophical discussion or is the answer rooted in logic?

c.d.

[RockySullivan]

The ripper could have also been a graffito artist

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

1. But what SPECIFICALLY about the GSG was anti-Semitic?

2. Ontologically, probability is a calculation of ignorance.

Cheers.
LC

1. It was done on Goulston street where Jews worked and indicates a flippant view of their character. Its a universal claim meaning all male Jews are blamed not just some. So defining Jews this way would have been antisemitic then as it still is today.

2. I use it as Bertrand Russell would do. Do you agree with my example? That its illogical to call X number of elements coincidence and dismiss them only to then pick a suspect based on X elements that could also be coincidence - I.e David Cohen.

[lynn cates]

conflation

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Doesn't that question assume that the killer was aware of the quantity and qualities of his cuts and that he somehow cared?"

Yes, it does. Are you perhaps conflating a situation where, in anger, the murderer stabs 38 or 39 times and is unaware of the number, with a clear cut (no pun intended) case of twin cuts, in PARALLEL, and close together? BIG difference.

"One cut or two the victims still ended up dead."

As did many others in London in 1888. But we don't attribute THEM to the "Ripper."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

look

Hello (again) CD. I'll have a look.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

De Logica

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"1. It was done on Goulston street where Jews worked . . ."

As they did in MANY areas of the east End.

" . . . and indicates a flippant view of their character."

Given the language, it COULD have been written by a Jewish person. Why flippant?

"It's a universal claim meaning all male Jews are blamed not just some. So defining Jews this way would have been antisemitic then as it still is today."

I have seen in excess of 6 interpretations of the GSG. Some were anti-Semitic, others not.

"2. I use it as Bertrand Russell would do. Do you agree with my example?"

No, not really.

"That it's illogical to call X number of elements coincidence and dismiss them only to then pick a suspect based on X elements that could also be coincidence - I.e David Cohen."

"Pick"? You mean as a subject for further research?

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Doesn't that question assume that the killer was aware of the quantity and qualities of his cuts and that he somehow cared?"

Yes, it does. Are you perhaps conflating a situation where, in anger, the murderer stabs 38 or 39 times and is unaware of the number, with a clear cut (no pun intended) case of twin cuts, in PARALLEL, and close together? BIG difference.

"One cut or two the victims still ended up dead."

As did many others in London in 1888. But we don't attribute THEM to the "Ripper."

Cheers.
LC

JtRs knife wounds to the throat have shapes that are similar patterns including start and end points, depth and deviations. If it was 1 or 4 there should still be correlations. I think Stride demonstrates this.

[lynn cates]

punctus contra punctum

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"JtR's knife wounds to the throat have shapes that are similar patterns including start and end points, depth and deviations."

No. Polly and Annie were deepest, Kate, almost so, Liz less. And Kate's mutilations were distinctly unskilful--at least, so Baxter proclaimed.

"If it was 1 or 4 there should still be correlations."

Like "neck involvement"?

"I think Stride demonstrates this."

How so?

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Graffiti about Jews that isn't antisemitic? Very doubtful in that place at that time. London had a problem with antisemitism.

Maybe you can expand on why you disagree with my statement on the problem of inconsistencies with calling X things random chance and Z not? It seems one drops the criteria of random chance coincidences when coincidentally finding a Jew who went mad after Mary Kelly's murder? For example you said a suspect for further research but why not invoke further research of the other things too then such as Stride's murder instead of saying its a completely different person as per my example. It just doesn't seem logically balanced to do this IMO. It can be balanced by using the same criteria consistently.

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"JtR's knife wounds to the throat have shapes that are similar patterns including start and end points, depth and deviations."

No. Polly and Annie were deepest, Kate, almost so, Liz less. And Kate's mutilations were distinctly unskilful--at least, so Baxter proclaimed.

"If it was 1 or 4 there should still be correlations."

Like "neck involvement"?

"I think Stride demonstrates this."

How so?

Cheers.
LC

I think when it comes to 'neck involvement' that there has never been an example of coincidental knife neck wounds in the history of world pathology when it comes to murders across the world let alone within a few blocks of each other. That if they where different then the obviousness of the differences would be glaring. It seems that the variation between the C5 when it comes to this isn't enough to separate them where there should be obvious variation. Hence the reports by the same hand.

For example the termination below the right jaw is between 2-3". 1" of a difference. Total lengths between 6" and 8". Even if Stride didn't have both large vessels cut, an attempt was made to cut them on the right, but didnt go down enough.

Also remember the C5 aren't clones of each other. They have physical deviations.