Practicality or madness?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

I don’t think it’s very worthwhile to turn this into a discussion of Sapiens. Yes, it’s a good book, but it’s been a while since I read it so I don’t recall every argument. Generally I don’t feel that it’s a very relevant book to drag into a Ripper-discussion but I appreciate that it has given you a fresh perspective and that’s always interesting


The stuff about objectively and subjectively existing things was just a polite way of saying that you’ve slightly misunderstood it.

Objectively existing things like a stone or a tree exist regardless of humans.

The damage done to C5/torsos does not. You dismiss this distinction as metaphysical and philosophical but that ‘s what one gets when discussing such things. Harari’s point is that the ability to form language and discuss immaterial things is what enabled us to decide on large-scale collective assumptions and rules. These myths have then governed human history etc.

But the past no longer exists. A stone today exists. The 19th century paper from police investigation of the crimes exists. You simplistically assume that this means the damage to victims, which is described on the paper, also objectively exists. It does not.

So it was just a small comment: let’s not put the cart before the horse, the facts you presented as objectively existing are not in fact in that category but never mind it’s no big deal

Of course the damage does not exist. It existed, though. Objectively. And that IS a big deal.

Harari does not say that the only objectively existing things are the ones that would exist regardless of humans. What he says is that objectively existing things are things that cannot be decided away; they do not disappear on account of a changed mindset within humans, the way subjectively existing things do.

If you want to check it, then you should realize that Harari divides things up in the three categories I mentioned, and he concludes that all things that exist subjectively or collectively subjective are in fact myths. To claim that the damage done to the victims was only a myth is - as I am sure you understand - wrong. That damage was therefore in objective existence back in the day.

Your claim that I have put the cart before the horse, however, is a splendid example of a subjectively created myth.

[Michael W Richards]

I would think that the damage recorded on all victims did exist in the mind of the examiner based on his visual inspections, but the interpretation of how and why they were caused is subjective. To say one thing marries with another is really what this is all about, and although we have recorded injuries on victims in both series, we don't have contemporary subjective opinions that can be used connect victims within the 2 series to each other.

Stomach flaps have no comparative value with a single throat cut, one appears in both series, one does not. Therefore, a "series" linkage is assumed, presumed, speculated upon is incorrect, but all that can possibly be linked is the murders that had very similar or identical injuries. Of course the author here doesn't want to deal with grouping just the like injuries only, he wishes to link unlike injuries as well. Because, one imagines, the "series" designations are inflexible, which of course, they are not. Not only could there be multiple killers in the C5, there may well have been multiple Torso makers considering the decade lapse in time between Torsos.

[Kattrup]

Of course the damage does not exist. It existed, though. Objectively. And that IS a big deal.

Harari does not say that the only objectively existing things are the ones that would exist regardless of humans. What he says is that objectively existing things are things that cannot be decided away; they do not disappear on account of a changed mindset within humans, the way subjectively existing things do.

If you want to check it, then you should realize that Harari divides things up in the three categories I mentioned, and he concludes that all things that exist subjectively or collectively subjective are in fact myths. To claim that the damage done to the victims was only a myth is - as I am sure you understand - wrong. That damage was therefore in objective existence back in the day.

Your claim that I have put the cart before the horse, however, is a splendid example of a subjectively created myth.

Some subtle differences seem to escape you, I’m sure you’ll agree, as evidenced for instance by stating the Declaration of Independence exists only as a myth - as pointed out, it does in fact exist objectively (as well as as a myth).

vice versa, what I am pointing out is that your facts do no objectively exist, what exists is the records that we then use to construct an understanding of what happened back then.

You stated :”Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.”

These things are not objectively existing, they are interpretations. If there were no humans left, they would no longer exist. The records used would still exist, as they are physical objects like your tree and stone, and if other intelligent creatures come along they might use those records to recreate a similar understanding of the facts.
You dismiss this as irrelevant because the damage done to victims existed at some point, this dismissal underlines that you have not yet taken onboard the argument.

It’s great that you’ve new inspiration, I hope you’ll keep looking into these philosophical foundations for our collective knowledge.

[Michael W Richards]

Some subtle differences seem to escape you, I’m sure you’ll agree, as evidenced for instance by stating the Declaration of Independence exists only as a myth - as pointed out, it does in fact exist objectively (as well as as a myth).

vice versa, what I am pointing out is that your facts do no objectively exist, what exists is the records that we then use to construct an understanding of what happened back then.

You stated :”Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.”

These things are not objectively existing, they are interpretations. If there were no humans left, they would no longer exist. The records used would still exist, as they are physical objects like your tree and stone, and if other intelligent creatures come along they might use those records to recreate a similar understanding of the facts.
You dismiss this as irrelevant because the damage done to victims existed at some point, this dismissal underlines that you have not yet taken onboard the argument.

It’s great that you’ve new inspiration, I hope you’ll keep looking into these philosophical foundations for our collective knowledge.

I think that the line in bold Kattrup is what concerns me, this empirical stance isn't sustainable.

[Fisherman]

Some subtle differences seem to escape you, I’m sure you’ll agree, as evidenced for instance by stating the Declaration of Independence exists only as a myth - as pointed out, it does in fact exist objectively (as well as as a myth).

vice versa, what I am pointing out is that your facts do no objectively exist, what exists is the records that we then use to construct an understanding of what happened back then.

You stated :”Well, the objectively existing matters are the cuts to the abdomens, the taken out uteri, the stolen rings, the cut away abdominal flaps etcetera - the recorded evidence concerning the damage done.”

These things are not objectively existing, they are interpretations. If there were no humans left, they would no longer exist. The records used would still exist, as they are physical objects like your tree and stone, and if other intelligent creatures come along they might use those records to recreate a similar understanding of the facts.
You dismiss this as irrelevant because the damage done to victims existed at some point, this dismissal underlines that you have not yet taken onboard the argument.

It’s great that you’ve new inspiration, I hope you’ll keep looking into these philosophical foundations for our collective knowledge.

Some posts are really predictable. Like this one. Althouygh you have not understood what Haraari says and means, you make it your business to claim that I am the one that have gotten hi wrong.
It is equally predictable that you should commend me on "finding new inspiration" and that you should urge me to carry on looking into philosophical foundations. That particular angle started ouyt a few posts back.

Now, let´s look at what it is you have failed to understand! To begin with, you write:

Some subtle differences seem to escape you, I’m sure you’ll agree, as evidenced for instance by stating the Declaration of Independence exists only as a myth - as pointed out, it does in fact exist objectively (as well as as a myth).

A nice touch there, Kattrup, pointing to me as being unsubtle! But what is it Harari says about the Declaration of independence? Well, he says (my translation):

"Many readers will have felt uncomfortable reading the last chapter. Most of us today have been brought up to react like that. It is easy to accept that Hammurabis laws were a myth, but we do not want to hear that human rights are also a myth. If people were to understnad that human rights only exist in our fantasy, is society then not at risk to crumble? Voltaire said about God: 'God does not exist, but don´t tell my servant so that he will not kill me during the night.' Hammurabi would have said the same about his hirearchical principle and Thomas Jefferson about human rights."

In essence, the declaration of independence "exists" as text written on paper, and in that respect, it exists objectively. But all the ideas and reasoning and bids in it exist only subjectively, or to put it in Hararis terms: it exists only as a myth.

Is that subtle enough for you, Kattrup? I may need to express myself a tad simpler, perhaps, to reach down to you subtlety levels?

The whole idea aboyt mentioning the declaration of indepence in Hararis text was to shwo that something that is incredibly elaborate and embraced by millions of people as being factual is instead only a set of myths. Ergo, the paper the declaration is written on exists objectively, the text on it´s pages exists objectively and in that regard it can be said that the declaration of indepencence exists objectively to that extent. None of the things written in the declaration, however, exists other than as subjective myths according to Harari.

You then say: vice versa, what I am pointing out is that your facts do no objectively exist, what exists is the records that we then use to construct an understanding of what happened back then.

This is not anything new at all, I have already said that we only have records of the damage, but we know from these records that there WAS damage, and what damage there WAS was objectively existing at the time it was inflicted. Of course, on a philiophical level we can question whether there WAS damage, but then again, on a philosophical level we can also question whether there are records of the damage. We can even question your existence; that is the character of philosophy.
If we are to do any research into and old murder case, we must uswe the records, and although the damage does no longer objectively exist, we all seem to agree that there were a number of mutilation and evisceration murders committed in late victorian London.

Last, on the damage, you also say: "These things are not objectively existing, they are interpretations."

The damage is not, as I have already said, existing: It EXISTED. Objectively - or so we all seem to agree. When we speak of interpretation, what I recommend is that we accept the written sources as likely being true or close to the truth. Take, for instance, Bonds notes on Kelly: Although they certainly will be coloured by the source (Bond), for us to enable any research being done, we all accept his notes as being true or very close to the truth.
A real problem only arises when people claim, for example, that Jacksons flaps were very unlike Chapmans and Kellys flaps. Here, there is no evidence or written sources that allow for such an interpretation. Similarly, no evidence or written sources allow for an interpretation of different mindsets inbetween the killer, different level of cutting skills etcetera.

The outcome of this is where Harari benefits our discussion very much: we should embrace the objective existing things (or formerly objectively existing things) like how flaps of flesh were cut from the abdomens of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. But we should NOT embrace any claims of how Jacksons flaps must have differed very much from the ones cut from Kelly and Chapman, because the written sources do not allow for it. Such statements are and remain myths, subjectively shaped and useless other than as discussion material.

But you know, Kattrup, although you have misunderstood what Harari says, it is still nice to see that you at least give it a try - it is always good to see somebody trying to widen his horizons! Better to aim at the sky and reach the treetops than never to aspire at all!

[Michael W Richards]

Some posts are really predictable. Like this one. Althouygh you have not understood what Haraari says and means, you make it your business to claim that I am the one that have gotten hi wrong.
It is equally predictable that you should commend me on "finding new inspiration" and that you should urge me to carry on looking into philosophical foundations. That particular angle started ouyt a few posts back.

Now, let´s look at what it is you have failed to understand! To begin with, you write:

Some subtle differences seem to escape you, I’m sure you’ll agree, as evidenced for instance by stating the Declaration of Independence exists only as a myth - as pointed out, it does in fact exist objectively (as well as as a myth).

A nice touch there, Kattrup, pointing to me as being unsubtle! But what is it Harari says about the Declaration of independence? Well, he says (my translation):

"Many readers will have felt uncomfortable reading the last chapter. Most of us today have been brought up to react like that. It is easy to accept that Hammurabis laws were a myth, but we do not want to hear that human rights are also a myth. If people were to understnad that human rights only exist in our fantasy, is society then not at risk to crumble? Voltaire said about God: 'God does not exist, but don´t tell my servant so that he will not kill me during the night.' Hammurabi would have said the same about his hirearchical principle and Thomas Jefferson about human rights."

In essence, the declaration of independence "exists" as text written on paper, and in that respect, it exists objectively. But all the ideas and reasoning and bids in it exist only subjectively, or to put it in Hararis terms: it exists only as a myth.

Is that subtle enough for you, Kattrup? I may need to express myself a tad simpler, perhaps, to reach down to you subtlety levels?

The whole idea aboyt mentioning the declaration of indepence in Hararis text was to shwo that something that is incredibly elaborate and embraced by millions of people as being factual is instead only a set of myths. Ergo, the paper the declaration is written on exists objectively, the text on it´s pages exists objectively and in that regard it can be said that the declaration of indepencence exists objectively to that extent. None of the things written in the declaration, however, exists other than as subjective myths according to Harari.

You then say: vice versa, what I am pointing out is that your facts do no objectively exist, what exists is the records that we then use to construct an understanding of what happened back then.

This is not anything new at all, I have already said that we only have records of the damage, but we know from these records that there WAS damage, and what damage there WAS was objectively existing at the time it was inflicted. Of course, on a philiophical level we can question whether there WAS damage, but then again, on a philosophical level we can also question whether there are records of the damage. We can even question your existence; that is the character of philosophy.
If we are to do any research into and old murder case, we must uswe the records, and although the damage does no longer objectively exist, we all seem to agree that there were a number of mutilation and evisceration murders committed in late victorian London.

Last, on the damage, you also say: "These things are not objectively existing, they are interpretations."

The damage is not, as I have already said, existing: It EXISTED. Objectively - or so we all seem to agree. When we speak of interpretation, what I recommend is that we accept the written sources as likely being true or close to the truth. Take, for instance, Bonds notes on Kelly: Although they certainly will be coloured by the source (Bond), for us to enable any research being done, we all accept his notes as being true or very close to the truth.
A real problem only arises when people claim, for example, that Jacksons flaps were very unlike Chapmans and Kellys flaps. Here, there is no evidence or written sources that allow for such an interpretation. Similarly, no evidence or written sources allow for an interpretation of different mindsets inbetween the killer, different level of cutting skills etcetera.

The outcome of this is where Harari benefits our discussion very much: we should embrace the objective existing things (or formerly objectively existing things) like how flaps of flesh were cut from the abdomens of Chapman, Kelly and Jackson. But we should NOT embrace any claims of how Jacksons flaps must have differed very much from the ones cut from Kelly and Chapman, because the written sources do not allow for it. Such statements are and remain myths, subjectively shaped and useless other than as discussion material.

But you know, Kattrup, although you have misunderstood what Harari says, it is still nice to see that you at least give it a try - it is always good to see somebody trying to widen his horizons! Better to aim at the sky and reach the treetops than never to aspire at all!

"But we should NOT embrace any claims of how Jacksons flaps must have differed very much from the ones cut from Kelly and Chapman, because the written sources do not allow for it".

Conversely, the similarities are purely interpretative, as are any differences. Your observations are just that, interpretive. The wounds are recorded, what you choose to do with that data is just choice, there is nothing beyond the recorded wounds predestined to be a viable story. You've made one up in your mind, and once you understand that, a lot less pushback will await you.

[Fisherman]

In the unexpected case that someone out here - regardless who - may come up with the weird idea that I in any way interpret for example the abdominal flaps as being of a certain shape or size, it needs to be said that this is the EXACT thing I advice against.

I am saying that there can only be a basic knowledge that the abdominal walls WERE removed to an extent in the three cases mentioned, but I am otherwise NOT interpreting them in any way, apart from what is guidelined by the reports and papers: the flaps were large, and in Jacksons case they were long and irregular (which does not mean that they were not long and irregular in Chapmas and Kellys respective cases). This is all we know, and it certainly does NOT allow for any fact-based interpretation of differences either in shape or size of the flaps or in the mindset of the person(s) who cut them out.

Of course, once we recognize that we cannot claim any differences inbetween the flaps, we arrive at the conclusion that they were in all likelihood cut out byt the same person, given how rare the damage as such is.
If we HAD known that the flaps were very different in apparition or if we HAD known that the one(s) who cut them from Jackson must have differed characterwise from the one(s) who cut them from Chapman and Kelly, there would have been a slightly better reason to mention the possibility of two killers. But as long as we don´t have that information, no such reason is in place.

This may be an unneccesary precaution on my behalf, since I feel pretty certain that nobody would be so dumb as to suggest that the interpreting about the flaps is something that I am responsible for.

[Michael W Richards]

.

Of course, once we recognize that we cannot claim any differences in between the flaps, we arrive at the conclusion that they were in all likelihood cut out by the same person, given how rare the damage as such is.

No, YOU arrive at that conclusion, "we" see similar perhaps repetitive acts. Repetitive because they have been seen before. Repetitive because they had been previously reported in the press, which everyone local was glued to. I don't imagine you are suggesting that only 1 person was capable of the acts, so you must be insinuating that only 1 person would be "inspired" to do something like that. Previously documented acts suggest that "inspiration" can come from many sources.

The flaps do not indicate 1 person must have done all, your opinion is that they do.

[Fisherman]

Once again, should someone - unlikely though it may seem - arrive at the wrongful conclusion that I would have based my take of a common killer on any other similarities than the ones we have on record, then that somebody is of course deluding himself rather badly.
If such a person - unlikely though it seems - should go a step further and claim that the taking away of the abdominal flaps in the same town and time would not indicate a common killer REGARDLESS of the exact apparition of the damage done, he or she is talking delusion one step further.
Once we wisely avoid entering any phantasyland of interpretations and instead cooly simply note that that abdominal flaps WERE taken from the abdomens of two or more victims in the same town and time, the rarity of the act points directly to a common perpetrator.
The inference is self-evident and indisputable.

I do hope nobody is so clueless as to claim the opposite!

[Michael W Richards]

Once again, should someone - unlikely though it may seem - arrive at the wrongful conclusion that I would have based my take of a common killer on any other similarities than the ones we have on record, then that somebody is of course deluding himself rather badly.
If such a person - unlikely though it seems - should go a step further and claim that the taking away of the abdominal flaps in the same town and time would not indicate a common killer REGARDLESS of the exact apparition of the damage done, he or she is talking delusion one step further.
Once we wisely avoid entering any phantasyland of interpretations and instead cooly simply note that that abdominal flaps WERE taken from the abdomens of two or more victims in the same town and time, the rarity of the act points directly to a common perpetrator.
The inference is self-evident and indisputable.

I do hope nobody is so clueless as to claim the opposite!

Once more for the deaf....Rarity is something that is rare, rare implies it is seldom seen. Stomach Flaps were common knowledge in the Fall of 1888 after Annies murder. Ergo, any subsequent flaps are not rare, they are, if anything, repetitive.

You mistake your opinion for fact once again. You conclude only 1 man was capable or inspired to do so, you claim the differences are inconsequential, you claim that since the initial act was rare that all similar acts that follow MUST be linked to the first.

Maybe save some of the disparaging comments for room for actual facts to back your suppositions. To conclude that you are the one that cannot escape this great logic you espouse is getting pretty old Fish. And the supposition you hold up as fact isn't held by any contemporary investigators of either crime "series".

[Fisherman]

But what if somebody is ignorant enough to reason that when an extremely rare feature, such as the abdominal flaps, occur in three killings inside a year, it must be a sign that flap taking is not rare at all...?

Nah. Nobody would come up with such a nutty idea. There are limits to how senseless a suggestion may be! If somebody writes "Charles Lechmere did this one" on three murder victims´ foreheads, it will not show us that it is a common theme among killers. The mere idea is preposterous!!!

I think we may safely rule out such a thing happening; after all, people with any sort of insight in matters like these will avoid doing that outrageous a mistake!

And if somebody should claim that I mistake my opinions for fact? It´s not even worth commenting on. I never do.

[Michael W Richards]

Im going to resist vitriol for a change here, Ive been realizing how confrontational and rude Ive been with some responses to posts. Its not how I prefer to do business and Im not going to allow whatever issues I may have personally be reflected in my posts anymore. Or at least Ill try harder not to. My apologies.

Now, to the matter at hand....there is a great deal of difference between spontaneous and orchestrated activities. There is a "rush" factor in there that may well be part of the thrill for a killer, or there is the more meticulous satisfaction another gets from taking some time, privately, to do what he likes. This seems to be to suggest different throttle applications and therefore different temperatures. Its my opinion in the cases of the first 2 Canonicals that a thrill killer with a penchant for mutilating the abdomen was at work. High throttle guy, one who when he sees what he believes is an opening, he pounces on it. Like a predatory animal. Im not sure he was cognizant or conscious of what risks he took, but I think the imminent danger was a bonus for him. Otherwise, why not get a whore with a room and kill her there...or back at his own hole in the wall. In these cases he can just leave, or dump the parts later. He sought out women working the streets outdoors with all the secretive nooks and crannies as possible murder sites. That's also the reason I believe he was almost certainly a Whitechapel resident. He knew the nooks.

The personas differ from the Ripper series to the Torso making series, and the elapsed time between murders ranges from 10 days to a month or more to more than 10 years apart. If the late 1870"s Torso was made by the same person who made the ones contemporary with Ripper crimes, then what happened? If one accepts a Canonical Group you have a start to finish series time of 2 1/2 months. If you prefer a smaller Canonical Group, perhaps as short as 10 days. Thrills. Danger. Impulsive and risky behavior. Likes to work fast, even in the near dark.

VS....a man who likely lures a victim to a place he has chosen and prepared ahead of time, and over hours or days he methodically separates limbs from the body. He then, over time, disposes of the unwanted parts clandestinely. We can say for sure if he has any tissue fetish, as the man who took abdominal internal organs did...there isn't enough evidence for that.

Practicality VS Madness.

[Fisherman]

One cannot rule out that somebody would get it into his head to once again start mumbling about what inclusions in the two series "seem to suggest" and not least about "the personas differ" and how the series were respective reflections of "spontaneous and orchestrated activities", as if that could be even remotely established. Such an approach would be nothing but more of what Harari calls subjective thinking, and it has nothing at all to do with the case facts.
I would not be baffled about such an approach if the person/persons taking that route had anything at all to show for it, but as it stands, I would find it as tedious as I would find it useless.
What that kind of an approach would need is a reminder about how the evidence must be looked upon with impartiality until any material surfaces that allows for placing one or both series in a predetermined compartment. Up until that stage, all we have is a set of recorded damage that at least basically will have been the same:
-Abdominal flesh WAS taken away from three victims - regardless of how the flaps looked and how big an area they covered, and regardless of how they were taken away, they WERE taken away.
-The abdomens WERE opened up from sternum to groin on these three victims - regardless of exactly HOW long the cuts were, and regardless of what was used to cut them and how the cuts traversed the bodies, there WERE such cuts to them all.
-The uteri WERE cut out from these victims - regardless of how much of the uteri that was cut out and how it was cut out and with what implement, we know that they WERE cut out.
Once we do not have the information about the exact details of these events, we cannot but treat them as three occasions of cut away abdominal walls, openings cut from sternum to groin and taken out uteri. And that information is "sterile" in the sense that it does not invite any speculation of WHY this was done. Coupled with our insights about how rare these kinds of mutilations are, we have no choice but to work from the assumption of a single killer, until evidence (evidence - NOT interpretations!!) arrives that alters that fact.

If somebody was foolish enough to push on with the idea of having identified two different persona responsible for the two series, all we can say is that it would be absolute nonsense - no such identification can be made from the existing evidence. All we can do is to say what we THINK is suggested by the material at hand - and prepare for how others will have diametrically opposed views. And then we can go on claiming that our respective takes are better than our opponents, and we will be wasting a whole lot of time on complete nonsense.

The solution very much suggested by the many rare and odd similarities is that it was a single killer. That is the starting point. If somebody feels that it cannot/will not have been a single killer, and is prepared to claim two or more killers - in conflict with what criminal statistics and experience urges us to accept - then that is their prerogative, as long as they do not entertain the nutty idea that it would somehow be likelier than a single killer on account of how they PERSONALLY believe that one series was carried out by a cunning and clever planner and the other by a raving lunatic, foaming at the mouth, because that would take the evidence evaluation into la-la-land.

Now I really must not despair any more, thinking that somebody would be so badly mistaken and willing to flaunt in on this thread. It really is not likely to ever happen and I have better things to do.

[Michael W Richards]

As for things that are repeated in some form seen in subsequent murders, once something is recognized by its character as being similar to something publicly revealed at an earlier date, the common knowledge factor can be a potential influence and must be considered. That some cutting injuries resemble other later injuries inflicted on victims is certainly noteworthy, but not something that is anything like conclusive proof of a link between the 2 by killer.

The personalities displayed are most certainly relevant, despite the protestations, and similar injuries appearing that have been made public knowledge earlier mean nothing more than similarities.

Since the position by the contemporary investigators was that these were series that were not connected by a single killer, rude rebuff of that simple truth isn't accurately portrayed as some kind of disillusion. Of course, the Agenda is the reason for that.

[Michael W Richards]

As for things that are repeated in some form seen in subsequent murders, once something is recognized by its character as being similar to something publicly revealed at an earlier date, the common knowledge factor can be a potential influence and must be considered. That some cutting injuries resemble other later injuries inflicted on victims is certainly noteworthy, but not something that is anything like conclusive proof of a link between the 2 by killer.

The personalities displayed are most certainly relevant, despite the protestations, and similar injuries appearing that have been made public knowledge earlier mean nothing more than similarities.

Since the position by the contemporary investigators was that these were series that were not connected by a single killer, rude rebuff of the contrary opinion isn't then accurately portrayed as some kind of disillusion. Its the mainstream position. Of course, the Agenda is the reason for that.

Some evidence might help make that match a possibility, but there is none.