A Strange Astronomical Pattern

[Robert]

The Ripper was obviously Aarion, the hunter, walking his dog star.

[Fisherman]

But his step father was a Cross

Yes, but he was not the star of the story.

[GUT]

Itīs called the Southern Lechmere, Gut.

But his step father was a Cross

[Fisherman]

Or the Souther Cross....

Itīs called the Southern Lechmere, Gut.

[GUT]

As long as it's not the Big Dipper.

Or the Souther Cross....

[DJA]

And how do you decide which stars to leave out?

As long as it's not the Big Dipper.

[Ginger]

Ok. Any idea why the killer would pick those stars and no others? Is there anything special about them?

Mirphak, or Alpha Persei, a bright yellow star. The Arabic name means "the elbow". Mapped to Liz Stride.

Mirach, or Beta Andromedae, a bright orange star. The Arabic name means "the girdle", and it marks the left hip of Andromeda. Medieval astronmers knew it as "the side of the chained lady". Mapped to Polly Nichols.

Caph, or Beta Cassiopeiae, a bright white star. The Arabic names means "the hand". Mapped to Mary Kelly.

Shedar, or Alpha Cassiopeiae, a double star. The primary is a bright orange. The Arabic name means "the breast". It marks the left breast, or heart, of Queen Cassiopeia. Mapped to Annie Chapman.

Gamma Cassiopeiae, a variable star, a bright blue star, whose magnitude changes irregularly between 1.6 and 3.4. It has no traditional name. Mapped to Martha Tabram.

Alpha Ursae Minoris, or Polaris, a multiple star. It appears as a bright white star, of fixed position, around which the sky revolves. The Latin name is a short form of "stella polaris", or "pole star", although medieval sources sometimes call it "stella maris", or "star of the sea", a name sometimes used also for the Virgin Mary. Mapped to Kate Eddowes.

It's worth noting the mythological connections between Perseus, Cassiopeia, and Andromeda as well. Cassopeia was the Queen of Ethopia, and the mother of Princess Andromeda. Cassopeia was known for her vanity and boastfulness, and eventually offended Poseidon, the sea god. He sent a monster to destroy the Ethopian coast and fishing fleet, but Cassopeia was told by an oracle that if she'd sacrifice her daughter Andromeda to the monster, he'd leave her alone.

Andromeda was tied to a rock on the shore as a sacrifice, but Perseus rescued her, and killed the monster. Poseidon after this caused Cassopeia to be bound to her throne in a crucified position with arms out, and tortured. More often than not, medieval cartographers showed her with her breasts exposed, waiting her torture.

So, with these stars we have a wicked queen, a virginal princess, a hero with his sword, a hand, a hip or girdle, an elbow, a breast or heart, a monster, an offended god, torture, AND the Virgin Mary. If no-one can spin a tale from this, I shall be disappointed indeed.

[Ginger]

I've not been very active here for a while, and somehow I missed this thread. That being said, this is fascinating.

Yes, as some have asserted, you can discern a pattern in any random group of dots. That's beyond question. Where things become interesting is when dots that you thought were randomly distributed can be shown to match not just a pattern, but a particular, pre-existing pattern. It doesn't prove that those dots were deliberately placed to match the pattern, but it's quite suggestive.

There's at least one proven example of a criminal planning his crimes to create a pattern. That's Luke Helder, the "Smiley Face Bomber" from 2002. He didn't kill anyone, but that was more by luck than planning. Had he finished his pattern, and not been caught to confess, would people feel confident in asserting that the fact that each of the bombings occurred in places that matched the pattern was only coincidence?

I think at least part of the conceptual problem here is that we classify patterns as deliberate or random, and tend to believe that it's less likely that a random distribution will match a deliberate distribution than it is that a random distribution will match another random distribution. In truth, the odds are the same for both.

Think of it this way - if we have a field of a given size, and if we scatter five dots about that field by a random process, then each part of the field has an equal chance of having a dot land on it. If the five dots happened to appear in a quincunx (like the five spots on dice), then we'd certainly be justified in suspecting that the distribution wasn't random. The odds of the dots landing in such a way as to match a pattern on a star map is neither more nor less likely than having them appear in a quincunx.

Albedaran's match isn't exact, but it's very close, to the point where the mismatch might well be explained by the 'granularity' of the London streets - you can't always reach the exact spot because of buildings and the like, so you settle for close to it.

It's interesting as well that all of his stars are bright stars, that stand out in the sky, stars that sailors and desert travellers would have known by sight. He's not just matching points to some dim, barely visible star such as the sky is carpetted with, but to the rare, bright stars, the ones that have traditionally been used to mark the constellations.

Anyway, while Aldebaran's certainly not proven anything (nor does he claim to have done so), he's made a fascinating observation, and it's one that deserves attention.

[Ginger]

Is there any precedent for a killer actually choosing locations based on a deliberate pattern on the map, eg. such as a constellation?

Some people believe that the Zodiac Killer chose the locations for his murders based on their geometric relationship to Mount Diablo, across the Bay. I don't know the details, though.

[Karl]

Is there any precedent for a killer actually choosing locations based on a deliberate pattern on the map, eg. such as a constellation?

[GUT]

Interesting.

My problem with the 'stars' and this constellation lark is they never look like the pictures they are supposed to look like. I mean looking at the picture below, does that really look like a great bear...... not to me it does not, it just seems to have all been done rather randomly, a bad join the dots exercise, you could take the same stars 'dots' and join in then in a great number of different ways...
Also as mentioned it's rather amazing for one that Jack could plot the night sky on a map and then find someone at the exact location.... the odds are greatly stacked against... like I said though very interesting, reminds me of a criminal minds case, the Angel Maker I think where he stabbed in constellation patterns....

And how do you decide which stars to leave out?

[Geddy2112]

Interesting.

My problem with the 'stars' and this constellation lark is they never look like the pictures they are supposed to look like. I mean looking at the picture below, does that really look like a great bear...... not to me it does not, it just seems to have all been done rather randomly, a bad join the dots exercise, you could take the same stars 'dots' and join in then in a great number of different ways...
Also as mentioned it's rather amazing for one that Jack could plot the night sky on a map and then find someone at the exact location.... the odds are greatly stacked against... like I said though very interesting, reminds me of a criminal minds case, the Angel Maker I think where he stabbed in constellation patterns....

[Aldebaran]

This might be of interest. Under which serial killer category did Jack fall--organized or disorganized?

http://www.actforlibraries.org/organ...erial-killers/

Gacy dug the graves in advance? Is that really true? If so, that takes the cake for cold-blooded--but organized.

[Aldebaran]

When have I specifically insulted you? I have suggested your theory is a crackpot theory which it is. And I have suggested that this is one of the most ridiculous threads on the site again which it is. I haven't broken any site rules. I think you'll find personal insults are against the site rules. But I have never personally insulted you nor am I planning to. I suggest you re-read the site rules. And I certainly don't use this site to exercise any frustrations however I know when a theory has merit and when one has no merit whatsoever.

Since I have already explained to you that I hold no theory, continuing to assert that I have "a crackpot theory" is not an insult? In what sort of world do you exist that you believe you are innocent of

1. Being rude

2. Being dense

??

It even looks like you have an inability to comprehend the site rules to which you direct me. Why are you still in this thread? Just to keep repeating the words "crackpot theory'? Or do you have a quota of bandwidth that you feel you have to waste on a daily basis? I have news. Well-bred, well-spoken people find it sufficient to say, "I do not believe your theory can be correct" and then supply some points to the contra. Rude egotists think the fact that they have vented their two word opinion is sufficient and don't feel the need to elaborate, of course. [Not that they could]. Now, once again, I do not have a theory about the JTR case. If you continue to state that I do, cracked, potted, painted, or placed on your window sill, people will be justified in suspecting dyslexia.

[Aldebaran]

Look at the murder spots of other serial killers who worked in a localized area and I'm sure you could line the dots up into some pattern. Also, how fortunate that the killer was able to find victims at those specific locations, instead of just randomly trolling the neighbourhood.

I can't agree that there would necessarily be a pattern that resembled anything. You could draw a line from one site to another and get nothing but a bunch of intersecting lines for your pains. And I'll repeat--in the Whitechapel district, the killer worked in a densely populated area and I also wrote before that he didn't just have to stand in one spot. He could still remain within a small area by moving to neighboring streets. In my opinion, hanging about near a pub, of which there were very many, would have probably served his purpose. Look, all of that applies even without any fixed pattern. Serial killers don't simply act on a whim when it comes right down to it. Most of them had some sort of plan or MO, a pattern of action that they had discovered facilitated their ability to find victims.

But, when it comes to patterns, had that night sky not been the one visible at the time of the murders I would not even have mentioned it. That is the only factor that could connect such a pattern to the killings and I said so right from the beginning.