Chalk and literacy

[lynn cates]

research

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"Graffiti about Jews that isn't antisemitic?'

Certainly. What about, "Aunt Becky's for world class knish"?

"London had a problem with antisemitism."

As does many other places. However, it does not follow that any given graffito will be, for that reason, anti-Semitic.

"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?"

Did I disagree with THAT?

But, frankly, the phrase "random chance" means little to me--quite vague.

"It seems one drops the criteria of random chance coincidences when coincidentally finding a Jew who went mad after Mary Kelly's murder?"

Actually, this should be researched.

"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."

Actually, I think research of Stride's death is to be encouraged. And I have certainly done that--even to the point of spending a large sum of money to have a Yiddish article translated into English and in buying an expensive camera for filming a reproduction of the event.

"It just doesn't seem logically balanced to do this IMO."

Agreed. But who is doing this? Certainly not I.

"It can be balanced by using the same criteria consistently."

Always. Hope you are not isolating my recent posts from the ones of the past 5 years?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Robots, clones and deviations. A forensic . . . oh, skip it.

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"If they where different then the obviousness of the differences would be glaring."

Umm, they were. In fact, Baxter asked if Kate were done by an imitator.

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

Ah! Thanks for using "clone"--"robot" was becoming tedious. But perhaps you can explain why these "deviations" caused the killer to go from 2 to 1?

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Maybe you could clarify on what you disagreed with then. You talked about ontology of probabilities and I gave the example.

Maybe you could give me one example of what the GSC says in a non-semitic tone too, please. I thought even Fido agreed it was antisemitic but random chance explained why it was there next to the apron.

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

Ah! Thanks for using "clone"--"robot" was becoming tedious. But perhaps you can explain why these "deviations" caused the killer to go from 2 to 1?

Cheers.
LC

JtR sliced throats to render the person unconscious so that he could then go ahead with his signature. So within themselves they are not important, but what is important is that its done quickly because of time constraints and done minimally because of all of the blood. 2 slashes is a lot of blood.

In fact there you have explaination why Stride wasn't done 2 times or deeply. The killer had been disturbed and wanted as little blood on himself as possible or else he would be walking the streets with bloody hands trying to chat up his next target...

[lynn cates]

probability

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"You talked about ontology of probabilities and I gave the example."

Ah! I see what you're about. I was commenting on the "nature" of probability. If one knows ALL causes and ALL effects, "probability" would be merely Boolean--0 or 1. But since we are ignorant of all causes and effects, we calculate probabilities. Hence, probability is, at bottom, epistemic--not logical.

"Maybe you could give me one example of what the GSC says in a non-semitic tone too, please."

Very well. "We Jews are tired of being blamed for Gentile problems. So we will no longer stand for it."

"I thought even Fido agreed it was antisemitic but random chance explained why it was there next to the apron."

Can't speak for professor Fido. Is he omniscient then? In which case he would be a good man to know.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mutilatus interruptus

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"JtR sliced throats to render the person unconscious so that he could then go ahead with his signature."

Indeed? Then why did he strangle Polly and Annie first? Redundancy?

Is there any evidence for Stride's being interrupted? And IF there were an interruption, it would explain why no second cut or mutilation; but, it would NOT explain the relatively shallow initial cut.

So Kate was interrupted too?

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

"You talked about ontology of probabilities and I gave the example."

Ah! I see what you're about. I was commenting on the "nature" of probability. If one knows ALL causes and ALL effects, "probability" would be merely Boolean--0 or 1. But since we are ignorant of all causes and effects, we calculate probabilities. Hence, probability is, at bottom, epistemic--not logical.

.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by Boolean (digital?) here. There are many mechanisms in nature where we know the effects and their causes, hence why stuff works with any regularity at all. Then obviously in life we don't know everything so we estimate the probabilities of things all the time. For example if someone told you a golden pig flew over your house dropping gold bars, I think you would find that highly improbable. If someone told you that the postman had delivered letters while you slept, thats not very improbable is it? So I think we use it both subconsciously and consciously.

My point though is this. Changing criteria for defining random chance and correlation without reason is why I find the Stride/Cohen thing not logical. [/quote]

"Maybe you could give me one example of what the GSC says in a non-semitic tone too, please."

Very well. "We Jews are tired of being blamed for Gentile problems. So we will no longer stand for it."

.

That is the most dramatic change in Pronouns you can have. That's going from THEY to WE. It involves changing the GSG radically to do that.

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"JtR sliced throats to render the person unconscious so that he could then go ahead with his signature."

Indeed? Then why did he strangle Polly and Annie first? Redundancy?

Is there any evidence for Stride's being interrupted? And IF there were an interruption, it would explain why no second cut or mutilation; but, it would NOT explain the relatively shallow initial cut.

So Kate was interrupted too?

Cheers.
LC

Only Chapman had a protroding swollen tongue but the report indicated suffocation. I do not believe it said strangulation. I am not sure if he strangled them. Thats two hands. It seems there was one handed suffocation to stop them screaming identified by the thumb finger brusing placement on their faces and chests. There was tongue protrusion in Chapman but I think what this shows is that the pressure on her faces and chests took a little longer before she was silenced. Stride has those bruisings too.

[lynn cates]

random chance

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Problem is, I have NOT defined random chance. I find the concept (if concept there be) perplexing.

I don't see drama in the change of pronoun. Compare:

We Brits are here--other footballers beware.

and

The Brits are not the men to be losing to no one. (bad grammar notwithstanding)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bruises

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"Only Chapman had a protruding swollen tongue. . ."

Polly's was lacerated. And notice her facial bruising?

". . . but the report indicated suffocation."

If you can show me a strangulation without suffocation, I'll shake your hand.

"I do not believe it said strangulation."

Same, surely?

"It seems there was one handed suffocation to stop them screaming identified by the thumb finger bruising placement on their faces and chests."

Chest?

"There was tongue protrusion in Chapman but I think what this shows is that the pressure on her faces and chests took a little longer before she was silenced."

Chest?

"Stride has those bruisings too."

Shoulders? Indeed. But the coroners could not be certain it had to do with her death.

Was her tongue protruding or lacerated? Did she have facial bruising?

Same questions for Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Problem is, I have NOT defined random chance. I find the concept (if concept there be) perplexing.

I don't see drama in the change of pronoun. Compare:

We Brits are here--other footballers beware.

and

The Brits are not the men to be losing to no one. (bad grammar notwithstanding)

Cheers.
LC

Chance events of coincidences do happen. We can measure where there is no correlation what-so-ever and yet the same thing occurs. The problem I have with denial that Stride was a JtR victim, calling it coincidence, is that the argument for this is not used again when coincidentally finding a mad jew who went to hospital after Kelly was murdered. Then its not a coincidence but correlated but only by personal choice not by using the same logical standard of reasoning, i.e - changing the rules to fit a suspect to the evidence.

Let's say your right. Its a positive for the jews, not a negative. You have a pro-jewish cockney speaking literate.

Just compare the two views.

You have an anti-semetic cockney speaking literate person.
You have a pro-jewish cockney speaking literate person.

Are they co-equal views given the social times and location of the place? I think not. The first is much more likely than the second.

There appears to be no evidence that the graffiti existed before the night of the double murder and PC evidence that it only appeared there as did the apron.

[Batman]

Hello (again) Batman. Thanks.

"Only Chapman had a protruding swollen tongue. . ."

Polly's was lacerated. And notice her facial bruising?

The facial bruising is because of a hand to the facemouth not the neck. Its a smothering move.

". . . but the report indicated suffocation."

If you can show me a strangulation without suffocation, I'll shake your hand.

Strangulation is a type of suffocation, but suffocation need not be a strangulation. That is why the report uses suffocation. For example, hand to mouth and chest compression with a knee.

"It seems there was one handed suffocation to stop them screaming identified by the thumb finger bruising placement on their faces and chests."

Chest?

Yes.

Chapman - On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest,

Stride - Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since.

"Stride has those bruisings too."

Shoulders? Indeed. But the coroners could not be certain it had to do with her death.

Shoulders too but he said chest and he watched it and observed it twice since he noticed it. Nothing about it being unrelated.

Was her tongue protruding or lacerated? Did she have facial bruising?

Chapman's wasn't lacerated. I don't think anyone else's was. Only Chapman had a protruding tongue. Stride had brusing basically on the front of her upper torso, chest and shoulders.

Same questions for Kate.

Eddowes face and throat where so badly mutilated I don't think there was much in the way of evidence to answer that question.

[lynn cates]

irrelevant

Hello Batman. Thanks.

I dislike the phrase "random chance." I prefer causal, non-causal and nexus causal.

Whether the GSG were pro-Semitic, anti-Semitic or emetic (well, after you've read it 100 times) it is still quite possibly irrelevant to the killings.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

first two

Hello (Again) Batman. Thanks.

Even if one accepts your bifurcation, my point was that ONLY the first two had signs of suffocation/strangulation and ONLY they had double cuts.

Stride's shoulder bruises may or may not have involved her killing. But it is certain that she was NEVER on her back. Mud/water marks guarantee that.

IF Kate had been strangled/suffocated, it would have been noticed. They looked especially for that.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

It is certainly not a stretch to think that the GSG could have been meant as being Pro-Jewish -- as in "The Jews are tired of being blamed for things they did not do." Only the person who wrote it really knows what it means.

c.d.