Consistent distances between murders?

[HelenaWojtczak]

Hi

I just read this online. Apologies if this has already been discussed in another thread (I did use the search function but failed to find anything).

RE: Ivor Edwards's 2003 book, Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals

"Edwards begins by claiming that in the entire history of the investigation of the Whitechapel crimes, both then and now, no one before him had ever thought to measure the actual distance from one crime scene to another. He does so and his results are startling. The distances are strikingly consistent, as if these could not possibly have been random murders but were planned for those locations including the room where Mary Kelly died."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/red_19.html

Is this true, about the distances?


Helena

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Helena

As far as I can make out, Edwards not only constructs some of the wildest shapes to complete his geometric plan, but he takes liberties in doing so, by moving the points which help him construct these shapes from their actual locations to what, for want of a better term, I'll call preferred sites...places he reckons the killer would have liked to have done the killings at if the cover hadn't been better elsewhere etc...

I've got to be honest, I'd rather lost patience with the wretched thing by then, so didn't pay much attention to the theory behind it...it was a real cheapo remaindered book from somewhere or other, and frankly if it was only a quid, that was £1.50 too much!

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

How does one measure the distances?

On a map - if so of what scale? Using what map available in 1888 (it might make a difference).

Straight lines or how one would walk? How is the murderer supposed to have done this on the ground?

I'd have many questions.

Phil

[Wickerman]

Hi

I just read this online. Apologies if this has already been discussed in another thread (I did use the search function but failed to find anything).

RE: Ivor Edwards's 2003 book, Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals

"Edwards begins by claiming that in the entire history of the investigation of the Whitechapel crimes, both then and now, no one before him had ever thought to measure the actual distance from one crime scene to another. He does so and his results are startling. The distances are strikingly consistent, as if these could not possibly have been random murders but were planned for those locations including the room where Mary Kelly died."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/red_19.html

Is this true, about the distances?

Helena

Hello Helena.

Ivor and I were close friends on the Casebook forum for several years. When he first appeared as a newbie another poster jumped on him for a small error he made, I defended him and from that point on we grew to be friends.

He developed an interest in the Black Magic aspect, inspired by the books of Melvin Harris and D'onston Stevenson. I cautioned him about this type of theorizing. When he came to writing his book he discussed much of it with me and on the forums. I had a few issues with accuracy, but he had a handful of friends here on Casebook who supported his general theory, so my complaints were not addressed.

As the book developed it became more apparent Ivor was muddying the waters more often, and we drifted apart. I have a low tolerance threshold for people who manipulate the evidence (as you may have noticed).
In the end we were decidedly in serious conflict, both on here and at JTRForums, it was a cross-border conflict for months.

Once the book was published, the cracks began to appear under analysis by many readers, his supporters began to drift away and some actually spearheaded an attack on his sources quite independent of my own position.

Ivor did make precise measurements, in theory he did have a point, but the measurements had to be adjusted to fit the theory. Although his method was exact, the results were not precise, ie; not exactly site-to-site, just close
Numbers can be manipulated to say anything you want, it is the kind of theory you must be willing to believe in first, in order to accept it.
What I mean is, students of Black Magic might adopt the theory more readily than others outside the field.

The bottom line for me is that if an author has to misrepresent factual information then this is a red flag that you should perhaps proceed with caution in accepting the theory as a whole.

Incidently, I was an ardent supporter of Melvin Harris, especially in his expose of the Maybrick Diary fiasco, Harris really knew his stuff. Oddly, when he wrote books on D'onston Stevenson, and the rational he used, I had to wonder if this was the same author
I commented that I wish he had used the same type of rigid criteria when developing his suspect as he used in debunking many long held theories, including the 'Diary'.

If you need to understand more about Ivor's theory you should read those of Melvin Harris, if only for the background.

[Phil H]

Some of you may recall the craze, if I can call it that, surrounding LEY LINES 20-30 years ago.

Ley Lines - first advanced as a theory by a man called Watkins - were supposed to reflect lines of "force" (magnetic lines?) on the earth's surface. They were supposed to be absolutely straight, incredibly ancient and to link sites which had been marked by such things as menhirs, henges, old churches and so on.

The argument was that a stright line linking so many (five, six, seven) sites could not be accidental. Ancient technologies, even aliens were said to be involved.

Two things rather undermined the whole concept:

a) statisticians looking at the odds of straight lines linking random objects found that the phenomenon could be accidental/chance;

b) when lines were looked at on larger scale maps or on the ground: a line that seemed to go right through (say) a church on a 1" Ordnance Survey map, missed the object by yards on a bigger scale map or when checked for real with scientific instruments and using modern surveying techniques.

I am HIGHLY sceptical of anything that purports similar "constructions" in the Ripper case.

Phil

[Damaso Marte]

Would the killer have even had the luxury of picking the exact locations of the murders? I'm of the belief that the victims generally picked their own place of death (unknowingly).

[Phil H]

I agree Damaso.

The wooden gates, fences, hoardings etc at the sites suggest that they were practical sites for prostitutes to use.

Add to that that, to get the bodies precisely in place, the Ripper would be likely to have had to move them after death - there is no sign of that having happened.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Murder in the exact spots maybe taking it to far, however there are a couple of what could be called ''coincidences'' that may point to these murders having been planned.
We know that the alleged C5 start with Nichols killed on the last day of August, we have Stride/Eddowes on the last day of September, we have then an extra pattern which points to certain numbers being to the fore.
31st of the 8th month= 39
30th of the 9th month=39
8th Sept Chapman following 31st Nichols=39
30th Stride /Eddowes added to 9th Kelly=39
That number has strong links to Black magic[ Ivor's theory], also strong links to religion.
We also have two letters that may link , and add credence to the premeditated theory.
I live at 39, Cutler street.
And the letter sent to the police addressed from 14, Dorset street, which was directly opposite Miller court, one week exactly prior to the Kelly murder.
That could be a direct pointer to the killer having an insight to where his next victim was to be, and along with the other links may suggest the killer only operated on days in a pattern he may have conceived.
Many serial killers in history follow a distinct pattern, which may only make sense within their sick minds, and I would suggest Jack was no different.
I have said many times I appreciate numerology is playing with numbers, but nobody can deny they are in this case via factual dates.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Are we really back to the "39" nonsense? Give it a rest, please.

Coincidences often arise, I am minded of the various odd coincidences picked out in regard to the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations. They are amusing and fascinating, but have no relevance.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hello Phil,
I appreciate anyone who expresses doubt, as for the relevance..it is your opinion that is nonsense, and maybe the opinion of a vast number of people , but that does not make it conclusive.
I was merely attempting to observe, that the premeditation aspect may be evident in this case, and made personal observations.
Finally.. if this case was not without its little mysteries, it would not be ongoing in the 21st century.
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

Of course what I expressed was my "opinion" Richard. What else could it be? Even most "facts" - at least when more than one fact is put with others - is subjective and thus "opinion" (as the historian EH Carr pointed out long ago).

Finally.. if this case was not without its little mysteries, it would not be ongoing in the 21st century.

It might well be - as a sociological study? For the role of the press?

Tell me this - since you again assert the "39" enigma.

What was the perpetrator seeking to convey?
How in practical terms did he go about achieving his ends and repeating the "39" figure?
What makes you believe the phenomenon (if that is what it is) is more than coincidental?

Phil

[Stephen Thomas]

I just read this online. Apologies if this has already been discussed in another thread (I did use the search function but failed to find anything).

RE: Ivor Edwards's 2003 book, Jack the Ripper's Black Magic Rituals

"Edwards begins by claiming that in the entire history of the investigation of the Whitechapel crimes, both then and now, no one before him had ever thought to measure the actual distance from one crime scene to another. He does so and his results are startling. The distances are strikingly consistent, as if these could not possibly have been random murders but were planned for those locations including the room where Mary Kelly died."

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/ripper/red_19.html

Is this true, about the distances?

Hello Helena

Why on earth are you troubling your mind over such transparent nonsense?

Please tell.

[Damaso Marte]

Here's something I'm surprised the occult theorists have not picked up on...every canonical murder took place under a crescent moon

Nichols: Crescent, waning
Chapman: Crescent, waxing
Double Event: Crescent, waning
Kelly: Crescent, waxing

[Stephen Thomas]

Isn't the moon a crescent most of the time?

[Damaso Marte]

I'm no lunar scientist, but my inclination would be to believe that the moon is a crescent slightly less than half the time. Also, if you kill in intervals of one week and one month, as the Ripper did if he killed the C5, then you have a good chance of killing everyone under the same phase of the moon.

I don't think the killer gave a damn about what phase of the moon it was, especially since I'm starting to lean towards Tabram as a Ripper victim again and she was killed under a new moon. But I'm surprised that in a field where people have seized on every minor detail and coincidence, they've missed the lunar one.