Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection.

[Batman]

Her first contact was the lodging house. She told them she had been attacked by more than one individual, as I said it was pointless trying to hide from them the fact she was a prostitute when they already knew her to be one

I am not talking about the lodging house occupants. Everyone gets it's about the hospital and police that they would call. She would have to tell them a client did this to her... or make up a story.

[Batman]

Hi Batman,

No. The handle had a leather strap attached. The main shaft of the truncheon would have been perfect [if that's a word I can use in this context].

Regards,

Simon

Yeah it's possible. Would make a lot of sense as to why she was afraid and how he gets away with it all.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

Yes, a policeman, but not necessarily the same person/people who murdered the others.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Can you give an example of sexual homicides like Emmas happening in Whitechapel, East End, London or Great Britain let alone in this small area near Flower & Dean St.?

Well, we can't cite Tabram's an example, that's for certain, because her death was unlike Smith's in so many ways. Oh, and stop saying that Smith's death was a "sexual homicide", will you? It's by no means certain, and such labels are subjective at the best of times.

The chances of your coincidences happening are more improbable than the same hand at work

It's not a "coincidence" when three women like Smith, Tabram and Nichols get assaulted (in three different ways) in the roughest, most overcrowded, crime-infested part of East London.

[Batman]

Well, we can't cite Tabram's an example, that's for certain, because her death was unlike Smith's in so many ways.

We discussed this and it's easy to show how problematic this view is and in fact I just did it in my very last post. You hold multiple coincidences here unless you accept Tabram is a JtR victim.

Coincidence #1 (Smith) x coincidence #2 (Tabram) for you there.
Then... x Nichols must defacto be coincidence #3 unless you link JtR here.

The probability of them all being different hands is low. It is less low to suggest Smith x Tabram coincidence #1, Nichols #2 (or Tabram and Nichols, not Smith), but the probabilities are still low. They have to be as you bring more low probability coincidences in. A fact of the math.

Now here we have the huge fatal issue to your non-criteria argument for segregating out these from a lust murderer. It can be applied to Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly just as much. 'Sput-of-moment puter gone rabid/angry gang'.

That means it's a bust. The road to no-JtR.

Oh, and stop saying that Smith's death was a "sexual homicide", will you? It's by no means certain, and such labels are subjective at the best of times.

Today Smith would be classed as a sexual homicide and as well as Tabram. Sexually motivated homicides are the highest category of 1st-degree murder you can commit in Britain. They get the longest sentences outside of multiple offenses, are sent to the worst prisons but most, if not close the lot, end up in Broadmoor (a max secure hospital) because attacking women's vaginas is so rare and batty. That's why you don't have examples. It is also why Smith and Tabram have been discussed with the C5 (an invention of Macnaghten which we know isn't right because JtR learned before Nichols some things. They just don't start like Nichols.) through time since the murders. They have never been forgotten.

It's not a "coincidence" when three women like Smith, Tabram and Nichols get assaulted (in three different ways) in the roughest, most overcrowded, crime-infested part of East London.

You have no examples of 1, let alone 2, let alone 3 women getting their vaginas attacked in Whitechapel, East End, London or Great Britain like this. You only have those 3 to work within the same small area. Apparently, that fact doesn't register even an eyebrow raise from you or that you have no examples.

We have investigators who were there who disagree with you and Wynn Baxter telling you it was extremely unusual murder and the press understanding this to be case.

You wanted examples only a few weeks ago of serial killers who turned to poisoning and I gave examples like H.H.Holmes. Yet here you are without any examples except the very three we are discussing and want to claim it a common affair despite nobody historically telling you that, having no contemporary references from the police, zero from the press. What's your reference?

This shows your entire position of highly improbable coincidence believing, fuzzy criteria for linking or unlinking these homicides, and no shred of historical support for your position on crimes there, is simply not acceptable without modifications.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you give an example of sexual homicides like Emmas happening in Whitechapel, East End, London or Great Britain let alone in this small area near Flower & Dean St.?

No I can’t but that doesn’t mean that it hadn’t happened before. Not everything gets recorded. Perhaps it occurred within the confines of a ‘domestic’ situation and the woman died days later?

The chances of your coincidences happening are more improbable than the same hand at work, especially given you have no other examples to show except ... JtR.

They are only similarities because you are labelleling them as such. This is not a coincidence. There is absolutely no similarity between Emma Smith’s death and any of the Canonical victims and yet you sweep this glaring difference under the carpet to play the ‘statistics’ game.

We know how Emma Smith died because she told us. There is absolutely no connection between her death and the rest of the victims and that fact won’t change however many graphs or equations you employ.

[Batman]

We know how Emma Smith died because she told us. There is absolutely no connection between her death and the rest of the victims and that fact won’t change however many graphs or equations you employ.

So you think women having being attacked in the lower sexual parts and dying not only easy to segregate from the C5 but fairly common in Whitechapel just no one reports these things?

[Batman]

Emma Smith, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly all had their ear cut.

Smith's had a badly cut ear, Eddowes had the lobe and auricle of the right ear were cut obliquely through. Mary Jane Kelly had her ears partially removed.

Smith and Eddowes have single ear injuries whereas Mary Jane Kelly had injuries to both ears.

It seems none of these involved the complete removal and an ear.

[Simon Wood]

You're making me feel that Pierre may have been right.

[Sam Flynn]

So you think women having being attacked in the lower sexual parts and dying not only easy to segregate from the C5 but fairly common in Whitechapel just no one reports these things?

If any man, or woman for that matter, decides to commit an outrage on a woman, chances are they'll attack their sexual parts. (I won't say "lower" because that would be a tautology. We all know what "sexual parts" are, and where they're located, and they're not to be found in the brassiere.)

Secondly, the Ripper victims died immediately of exsanguination due to a cut throat, whereas Smith died later of peritonitis.

[Batman]

If any man, or woman for that matter, decides to commit an outrage on a woman, chances are they'll attack their sexual parts.

'Chances are'

... meaning higher probability. This is demonstrably not the case at all.

You have investigators at the time telling you this is not the case. You have the coroner Wynn Baxter telling you this is not the case and you have the press covering these sexual homicides as highly unusual. We have a history of women being assaulted in Whitechapel and none of them are having their lower sexual parts attacked except within these Whitechapel murders.

(I won't say "lower" because that would be a tautology. We all know what "sexual parts" are, and where they're located, and they're not to be found in the brassiere.)

This shows you don't understand that the evolution of female human breasts serve several different functions including being sex organs. They are even neurologically linked to sexual functions.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...womens-breasts that references 5 sources from 1951 through to 2011.
The point though is the male 'perception' of the female breasts as sexual parts of the woman.

Secondly, the Ripper victims died immediately of exsanguination due to a cut throat, whereas Smith died later of peritonitis.

These aren't discriminatory factors because we know early on in their crimes serial killers experiment with MO and Signature and may continue to do (50% of them). This is demonstrable. Do you want examples of serial killers who started off murdering their victims one way and then escalated to another? I don't think I need to do this though. It should be readily apparent if you read a bit of true crime. If needed I'll get it though.

Basically, you are sidelining chronology of escalation. Emma Smith, Tabram, Nichols. It fits perfectly. Not out of order. Same area. Same time. Same victimology.

While news and media want to paint Whitechapel as some overviolent place that was full of horrible louts in among lots of poor people who would rob you blind, Whitechapel was nothing of the sort. 99% were good law abiding people who were just poor and looking to make a life for themselves away from crime, fear, and hunger.

[Batman]

You're making me feel that Pierre may have been right.

What's that about?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you think women having being attacked in the lower sexual parts and dying not only easy to segregate from the C5 but fairly common in Whitechapel just no one reports these things?

I find it unbelievably simple to segregate Emma Smith’s murder from the rest as they are so dissimilar. You have ‘same area’ and ‘same type’ of woman and that’s it. To get to a ‘connection’ we have to assume that she lied something for which there’s no evidence apart from typically conspiracy theorist thinking.

You’re looking to fit her murder into some neat FBI Files type pattern but it just doesn’t work. It’s an example of ‘blinding by science’ of unnecessary over-complication.

The biggest coincidence is the coincidence that all conspiracy-minded people don’t think that coincidence’s exits.

[Batman]

I find it unbelievably simple to segregate Emma Smith’s murder from the rest as they are so dissimilar. You have ‘same area’ and ‘same type’ of woman and that’s it. To get to a ‘connection’ we have to assume that she lied something for which there’s no evidence apart from typically conspiracy theorist thinking.

You’re looking to fit her murder into some neat FBI Files type pattern but it just doesn’t work. It’s an example of ‘blinding by science’ of unnecessary over-complication.

The biggest coincidence is the coincidence that all conspiracy-minded people don’t think that coincidence’s exits.

They had their vaginas assaulted, so no, that wouldn't be just it.

So let me get this right. Lying to investigators and hospital staff to cover that one was working as a prostitute is a conspiracy theory?

And science causes people to be less knowledgeable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

They had their vaginas assaulted, so no, that wouldn't be just it.

So let me get this right. Lying to investigators and hospital staff to cover that one was working as a prostitute is a conspiracy theory?

And science causes people to be less knowledgeable?

No I’m not saying either of those things Batman. I’m saying that whilst it’s to be commended that researchers think ‘outside-the-box’ and that they chase down every lead there is, I feel there’s often a tendency to over-complicate or to seek mystery where a more prosaic answer might serve better. I’m not accusing anyone of being a conspiracy theorist but we can be in danger of disappearing down the same paths that conspiracy theorists often do. A transcription error becomes a ‘revelation’ for example. My point about coincidences is that they happen all the time, all around us. We’re actually falling over them. So it can be an issue when we focus on them. Conspiracy theorist always say “can this be a coincidence?” The answer to which is for the vast majority of time, “we’ll, yes it is actually.”
I don’t see anything that would make anyone connect Emma Smith to Jack.