Faecal matter on apron piece

[lynn cates]

wandering thoughts

Hello Neil. Thanks.

“That was truncated Lynn?"

Of course. I could go on and on. But I recall what Shakespeare said about mercy. (heh-heh)

“Statistical joke will never catch on. 50% of the readers won't find it funny whilst 45% are still trying to figure it out whilst reading my post.”

Ah, but my humour may. In fact, the probability that I will play the Palladium this year is . . .

“Figures are there, like them or not. As it kind of breaks your opinion it’s only natural you would do your best to belittle them.”

What figures? Do you mean the 67% spike in knife murders on women from 1887 to 1888 or the 200% spike from 1886 to 1887?

“As I've stated, there is evidence to include at least 3 murders in the series, and stated that evidence.”

SOME evidence? OK. And there is some not to include. And I’m delighted to see the 3 figure. Any fewer and talk about a series would go up like vapour.

“So, where's your sauce? Surely there is some.”

There is indeed. You may have it to baste the crow. (heh-heh)

“No, I didn't mention your name in previous posts regarding attacks on the police. I was fully aware of that why I wrote it, that's why I didn't use your name, I stated "anyone". So your point is?”

My point is that you mentioned an attack. As you are well aware, I do not attack—haven’t and won’t. Police? I haven’t attacked them either. Right now they rather impede progress, so I put them in brackets.

“Re Jackster - the point of view it encapsulates may be worse? I can think of far worse views.”

Oh, sure. As bad as it is, at least it’s not Dodgson or Toulouse-Lautrec. (By the way, one must be careful of the spelling. 2 letters and you have Kosminski.) (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

That was truncated Lynn?

Statistical joke will never catch on. 50% of the readers won't find it funny whilst 45% are still trying to figure it out whilst reading my post.

Figures are there, like them or not. As it kinda breaks your opinion its only natural you would do your best to belittle them.

However they are there.

As I've stated, there is evidence to include at least 3 murders in the series, and stated that evidence. So, where's your sauce? Surely there is some.

No, I didn't mention your name in previous posts regardind attacks on the police. I was fully aware of that why I wrote it, that's why I didn't use your name, I stated "anyone". So your point is?

Re Jackster - the point of view it encapsulates may be worse? I can think of far worse views.

Monty

[lynn cates]

scribatus interruptus

Hello Neil. Thanks. No problem with the truncated reply. I’m sure you don’t mind the same.

“Apologies, stats are inconclusive and unhelpful. Especially when they go against ones beliefs? Or do I have that wrong also?”

I’m afraid you do have that wrong. Try this for illustration. Statistically, how many people meet their demise driving through Devonshire and being “attacked” by a bale of hay? Of those so dying, how many are rock cellists and have last names beginning with a vowel, not a consonant? So did Mike Edwards not die?

“So just because one side hasn't presented evidence (though I believe they have) exempts the other side from such an act? Wow, that's a sound base to present theories.’

Actually, I think it’s referred to as the pot having certain epithets for the kettle. Put another way, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”

“Similar mutilations, you heard me right. Where mutilation occurred, including Kelly.”

Ah, WHERE they occurred. Interesting codicil.

“No, the police didn't solve the murders. Neither has anyone here so I see no reason for anyone to feel superior and attack them. Especially given the ignorance shown on the matter.”

Attack? Hmm, don’t recall that. In fact, your name did not come up in my previous posts as I recall. Did mine come up in yours?

“Jacksters? What an awful term. Bluff and distraction, not worth commenting upon in my opinion.”

Perhaps. But the point of view it encapsulates may be worse.

Well, I would have written more, but I was INTERRUPTED. (heh-heh) But I’m sure it’s all part of a SERIES of my posts.

(And don’t be offended—I’m certainly not.)

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Thank you Lynn,

I'm afraid I do not have the incination to respond in full, sorry.

How strict do you wish these evidences so that a series is confirmed? Because I feel whatever they are, your criteria will not be met.

Locations, victims, M.O and signature are all very similar.

No, coincidences cannot be confused with evidences, else they would be called evidences, however they are coincidences.

Apologies, stats are inconclusive and unhelpful. Especially when they go against ones beliefs? Or do I have that wrong also?

So just because one side hasn't presented evidence (though I believe they have) exempts the other side from such an act? Wow, that's a sound base to present theories.

Similar mutilations, you heard me right. Where mutilation occured, including Kelly.

No, the police didn't solve the murders. Neither has anyone here so I see no reason for anyone to feel superior and attack them. Especially given the ignorance shown on the matter.

Jacksters? What an awful term. Bluff and distraction, not worth commenting upon in my opinion.

Monty

[lynn cates]

assertions

Hello Neil. Thanks.

"The evidences are clear and shown for a series."

Assuming, of course a rather loose interpretation of series--not to mention evidence.

"The coincidences required to be beleived in so that a multikiller scenario is valid is beyond reasoned belief."

Odd you should mention coincidence. I have been given to understand that coincidences happen--usually when making a point about multiple hands. Perhaps one person's coincidence is another person's evidence?

"Lynn will claim the stats are invalid . . ."

No he won't. Validity is an adjective applied to deductive arguments. No deduction here. But he might state them inconclusive and unhelpful.

"Phil will state that the Police supported a myth and Simon will tell us all Jack did not exist."

I'll let them speak for themselves.

"Yet none of them have provided that one piece of evidence which will support these views."

Right. Nor yet a piece of evidence to the contrary presented by the others.

"If their views are correct we have multiple killers working in the same small area with very similar MOs preying on very similar victims leaving very similar mutilations . . ."

Well, I'm delighted that they are now "similar" and not "identical" as some imagine. And I won't bore you by asking how large an area must be, to abrogate the argument, nor how much an "MO" must be like another nor what you mean by similar victims--although I suppose they were all XX chromosomal types. Similar mutilations? I hope you don't mean Liz and MJK.

" . . . and the police covered this up because they were worried about their reputation than the safety of the public (which is insulting beyond belief)."

I have nothing to say about the police. Given they did not solve the "murders" they interest me but little.

"And then it all just stops, and both (or more) just slip away."

But that's a problem for the Jacksters too.

"And they say the simplest answer is the solution?"

Hmm, well it IS a solution. Can't say that for the sexual serial killer scenario. They are still discussing a depressed barrister and a chap with alternative culinary and recreational habits.

"If others want to believe this conspiracy hype then fine."

What conspiracy?

"I'm not fussed, as long as they provide a more balanced presentation than they have done so far."

Waiting for that from the Jacksters.

"I hope they realise their responsibility to the facts, however so far they are failing to do that."

Quite. And my wish is the same for the Jacksters.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Phil's post #245 does indeed contain much food for thought...for example it'd never really occurred to me before that perhaps the police themselves had a reason to perpetuate a mythical JtR (the alternatives, released to a panicky public, being worse)...There's certainly a lot in that post I want to take away and think about...thanks Phil

All the best

Dave

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree Dave,

Phils post is anti police, sensationalist and shows a misunderstanding of policing of the time.

The evidences are clear and shown for a series. The coincidences required to be beleived in so that a multikiller scenario is valid is beyond reasoned belief.

Lynn will claim the stats are invalid, Phil will state that the Police supported a myth and Simon will tell us all Jack did not exist.

Yet none of them will provided that one piece of evidence which will support these views.

If their views are correct we have multiple killers working in the same small area with very similar MOs preying on very similar victims leaving very similar mutilations and the police covered this up because they were worried about their reputation than the safety of the public (which is insulting beyond belief).

And then it all just stops, and both (or more) just slip away.

And they say the simplest answer is the solution?


If others want to believe this conspiracy hype then fine. I'm not fussed, as long as they provide a more balanced presentation than they have done so far.

I hope they realise their responsibility to the facts, however so far they are failing to do that.

Monty

[Monty]

I've always thought it was a series of murders.

It is a series of murders Paddy.

Just that some are stating personal belief on old ideas, providing little as they do.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dr H, Lynn, Jon S, Dave,

Thank you for your kind comments.


best wishes

Phil

[Archaic]

'An Epidemic of Murder', 1888

There is one possibility. Criminal contagion. Those in the UK may not be that familiar with it (outside of a mob phenomenon), but we in the US have seen it many times.

Hi Errata.

There were actually magazine editorials on the subject of 'criminal contagion' back in 1888. They considered it a form of 'Moral Contagion' and 'Social Contagion'.

A few years ago I posted a large number of Ripper-related articles from both UK & US Medical Journals and I remember that one of the articles had the catchy title 'An Epidemic of Murder'. I don't know offhand where it is on Casebook, but if you're interested I can find it for you.

If you want to read all of the Medical Journal articles- which personally I found to be quite intelligent, well-written, and compelling- you can do a search on threads started by me and go back to about the Autumn of 2009. You'll find a slew of them, and I think with your interest in Medicine and Psychology, you'll enjoy them.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

There is one possibility. Criminal contagion. Those in the UK may not be that familiar with it (outside of a mob phenomenon), but we in the US have seen it many times.

Specifically in school shootings. Columbine was not the first (not even the first in that town), but it was the first huge story. After Columbine, we started averaging two high school shootings a year. And all of them were patterned after Columbine. It wasn't identical, different number of shooters, different body counts, etc. But the perpetrators were all versions of the Columbine shooters. Similar experiences, similar tastes in music, similar manifesto type writings. Had Harris and Klebold not committed suicide at Columbine, had there not been so many witnesses, it would be easy to conclude that all of the school shooters were the same man.

But what happened was much more tragic. Disaffected kids looked at those two shooters, and recognized themselves. They saw the fame and attention given to these shooters after their crime, and wanted the same for themselves. The saw the shooters as heroes, and thought that a similar massacre was their answer.

We know it happens. There doesn't need to be a desire to frame another criminal, or a separate evolution of psychopathy. A man could read the exploits of Jack the Ripper and have it resonate within him. A bunch of things could click in his head and he could decide that that's what he wanted. He wanted to do what Jack did. And if the man kept killing he would move away from copying Jacks work. He would find his own thing, and then "disappear". But there's no reason that these kinds of murders couldn't affect people the way school shootings affect bullied kids.

Well, actually there's a lot of reasons why it's unlikely. But nothing in the brains of mankind is ever impossible. Last night I dreamed that giraffes were extinct because they were doing skateboard tricks on Noah's ark and fell overboard. And if there are three things I never think about, it's giraffes, skateboards, and the stories of Genesis. Brains are funny things.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Paddy

Well I started commenting on one post, and then it disappeared to be replaced by another. Nonetheless in response to your original (now deleted) enquiry:-

I suspect the police had never before been exposed to such a huge press scrutiny during a major murder investigation. Coupled with this, has to be the coronial criticism implicit within the Nicholls and Chapman inquests...frankly they didn't know how to handle it...

With reference to your much amended posting

I've always thought it was a series of murders.

Bless you...how long before that disappears also?

Dave

[lynn cates]

former belief

Hello Paddy. So did I for many years.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

intention

Hello Colin. Thanks. Again, not saying anything about Liz, I think Kate was intended to die.

Cheers.
LC

[Paddy Goose]

I've always thought it was a series of murders.

[Bridewell]

Dead

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"As far as assassins go he was remarkably organized and goal oriented. Nor was he insane."

Indeed. And that was why I chose him. He accomplished his "goal" and then stopped.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

This only explains why one killer stopped. He accomplished a goal and fled to Virginia where he was traced & killed. I acknowledge that you've answered it with regard to Nichols & Chapman. Why did they all stop?

Regards, Bridewell.