How did he do it?

[lynn cates]

no need

Hello Ruby. No need to apologise--we all have those days. I was merely distinguishing a valid argument from a sound one.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

canon

Hello Errata. Yes, Kate is out of my canon. Baxter at inquest wondered whether she were the work of an imitator. And there are several subtle differences.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Sorry for the late reply, Phil and Hunter. I agree with both your points entirely. It does seem more than likely that Arnold was behind the "Police Notice" outlined in Tom's post. (And happy new year to you too, Phil!)

Hi all,

From a criminological perspective, i.e. after taking into account the behaviour of other serial killers, the argument for dismissing Tabram as a likely ripper victim is essentially nullified. It's fine to have a personal hunch that it doesn't "feel" the same, but in terms of murderous diversity, the differences in injuries between Tabram and Nichols are absurdly minimal in comparison to the vast majority of serial killers.

as she was according to the doctor`s report lying originally on the right side of the bed nearest the wall and was then moved over to the other side for the "operations", the conclusion is that she had originally had someone lying beside her

Not necessarily, Curious4.

If she was sleeping on her right shoulder, the likelihood is that she would be nearer to the partition anyway. Phillips based his conclusion on the quantity of blood on the partition and on the floor below, but if the throat cut commenced on the right-hand side, one would expect the blood-flow to be concentrated in that direction, regardless of her position on the bed when the attack commenced. Alternatively, she may have cowered closer to the partition as soon as she became aware of the man's intentions. Plenty of plausible explanations, in other words, that don't involve a killer who spent several non-murderous hours in Kelly's company (Blotchy or anyone else) before deciding to strike.

Best regards,
Ben

[RedBundy13]

robert newell

Hey Robert,
I liked your post. It sounds as if you really picked up on some of the discussions theyve had on here. I do like your idea about JtR being a gang member(maybe the Emma Smith case set him off, he could have been one of the attackers and realized he liked murdering prostitutes too much and decided to go it alone??). Your post was much appreciated.

[RedBundy13]

Lynn

Yes, I have the same question as well. Sadler was found to be innocent, so if it wasnt him then who else?

[DVV]

Hello David. I mean that both Coles and McKenzie would be canonicals now had not a bit more time separated them.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, ok I understand...but you think the case against Saddler is quite strong ?

Cheers my dear.

[Rubyretro]

Latin forms of arguments in classical logic.

Thank you Errata, I know what the expressions mean ( because I look them
up in the dictionary when I don't know).

I apologise for being rather rude yesterday -I was in a temper with somebody else altogether, and so too brusque with Lynn.

[Errata]

Hello Robert. Welcome to the boards.

"Sometimes it seems to me that it may be a mistake to think of the JTR murders in the sense of a modern day serial killer."

You are wise in your generation. I think that way ALL the time.

"I do believe that one killer is responsible for at least 3 of the canonical 5."

As do many--including the distinguished Mr. Stewart P. Evans. I merely disagree about Kate Eddowes.

Hope you enjoy all the discussions.

Cheers.
LC

No on Kate? I think it's 3 out of 5 as well, maybe four. I think Mary Kelly is right out. I would have thought that Chapman and Eddowes would be the two most people agreed on as being killed by the same man.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;204151]

Your reply was lofty and superior, and not in plain English, nevertheless
I still like you (!) so I will say that my 'assumptions' are based on the statistics for murder in the given time and location and make perfect sense.

In stating that the Canonical victims, and Martha Tabram, and probably others, were all victims of the Serial Killer known as 'Jack The Ripper', I don't think that I'm putting forward anything contentious.

Ruby,

Latin forms of arguments in classical logic. Modus ponens is essentially an "If/Then" statement (if you ever had to do programming). If the sky is black at night, and the sky is black, then it is night. It's a valid logical argument, but one that only is true if both premises are true. So you can have accurate logic that does not lead to truth.

Petitio principii is the logical fallacy of begging the question. Politicians use it all the time. "The previous administration's spending habits were so out of control that we are drowning in debt. We have to drastically cut our spending." The argument the politician wants to make is that we have to cut spending. But he loaded the initial premise by stating that the debt is a result of overspending. He attempts to prove his own argument by slipping the proposal into the premise. The correct way to phrase it would be to say "We are overburdened by debt" and then introduce his solution (cutting spending) after the premise.

On the other hand, if you've gotten this far without needing Aristotelian logic in it's original construction, odds are you never will. I had it as a required course 15 years ago and I swear this is the first time I've used it.

[lynn cates]

wise

Hello Robert. Welcome to the boards.

"Sometimes it seems to me that it may be a mistake to think of the JTR murders in the sense of a modern day serial killer."

You are wise in your generation. I think that way ALL the time.

"I do believe that one killer is responsible for at least 3 of the canonical 5."

As do many--including the distinguished Mr. Stewart P. Evans. I merely disagree about Kate Eddowes.

Hope you enjoy all the discussions.

Cheers.
LC

[robert newell]

Hi all...I'm a lurker here, and I've learned more in the last year from the posts on this site then in all my previous study. Thank-You to all who contribute regularly. It is appreciated. I'm certainly not speaking from a wealth of knowledge-so please bear with me. Sometimes it seems to me that it may be a mistake to think of the JTR murders in the sense of a modern day serial killer. I do believe that one killer is responsible for at least 3 of the canonical 5. I also feel that the gangs in the LVP had quite a large bit of influence in the violence and even killings around the time of the JTR 'scare'. I feel that whoever committed the JTR murders may have been a gang member who not only joined in on the crowd action but may have ventured out on his own to live out his deeper fantasies and needs.
If not a current gangster at least one who honed his skills in the trade. Hey- maybe even a gang member who showed such skill and promise that he was chosen for his destiny by someone who needed his skills.
All and all I just feel that so much violence was prevalent in the area that instead of a lonely serial killer like our twentieth century 'next door neighbor' that the JTR killings may of just been part of the overall violence that was part of the daily norm. That someone was sick and committed atrocious acts in some murders is obvious but I think he was part of a culture that allowed him to think about killing as no great thing. It was the organ collection he enjoyed.
I know this topic has been covered before and thanks for reading. I just had to write something to help get me out of this lurker shell....Robert

[lynn cates]

canon

Hello David. I mean that both Coles and McKenzie would be canonicals now had not a bit more time separated them.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

ps: I think the most interesting discussions that we should be having here, is not which victims should be discounted as being 'Jack's' but rather which of the non-canonicals should be counted in (and for me Tabram is a cert, it is which of the others...?)

I kind of like that idea, though I would not include Tabram. On the other hand, I might be inclined to include Ada Wilson as his first attempt.

Problems.
If Ada Wilson was an early example, a young man cutting her throat with a clasp-knife, then why not accept the earlier attempt against Annie Millwood, which also involved a clasp-knife?
Unfortunately we have no description of her attacker.

So then if Annie Millwood is tentatively included, due to the use of a clasp-knife, then what about the target area of Millwoods body?, her lower torso & legs stabbed with the knife.
There isn't a world of difference between the failed attack on Millwood and the frenzied attack on Martha Tabram.

It appears that a very slender sequence can be argued beginning with Annie Millwood, then Ada Wilson, and ending up with Martha Tabram.
I don't particulalry believe it, any connections are tenuous at best, principally relying on the type of weapon, clasp-knife, which was a common pocket knife for men to carry.

At the other end of the scale Coles & McKenzie present challenges of their own.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hello Greg. Right you are about these 2 ladies. And here's a thought experiment. What would have happened had both McKenzie and Coles died in early December and on the same night? How would the public and the Met have reacted?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, and oh ! no, won't fall in that trap....what is this supposed to mean please ? !

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Greg. Quite right. And time seems to be the chief element regarding one's canonisation.

Cheers.
LC