Greetings from the past

[Mayerling]

Hi Robert,

If there was a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888 some people think there was a motive, and not just any motive but a specific motive, and their reason for thinking so is that people in 1888 thought there was a specific motive. So the motive is a tradition from 1888 and people believe in that motive. For example, he must have been a homicidal lunatic - this motive is at the same time functioning as the explanation for the murders.

If people, on the other hand, know nothing about the ideas of motives and explanations from 1888 and know nothing about serial killer motives today, and people start to examine the historical sources from 1888, they may find a motive or motives that were not known and therefore unexpected. If that motive or those motives can be connected to the MO, signature and victimology of the murders in 1888, it can also be connected to the identity of the murderer.

So that is two differents ways of doing research on the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

Which if we take to a logical conclusion, people in 1888 could ascribe that the five killings are by an individual who is a homicidal lunatic, but (for some reason that only Pierre comprehends), in 2016 we no longer believe in homicidal lunacy at all. So we can shelve that theory of the cause of the murder as useless.

You've got to be kidding.

Jeff

[Pierre]

How can you be certain of Jack the Ripper,s motive, Pierre?

Fisherman doesn,t need to explain motive to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper,s identity. He would only need to prove which women were murdered by the same hand as Polly Nicholls AFTER he conclusively proves Cross is her killer.

I noticed you ,(s), at the end of ,motive,. That was smart because... the only motive Jack the Ripper may have had for murdering Annie Chapman could be that he wasn,t able to disembowel Polly Nicholls.

What is ,it, about his motive that reveals his identity?

Hi Robert,

If there was a serial killer who murdered at least five women in 1888 some people think there was a motive, and not just any motive but a specific motive, and their reason for thinking so is that people in 1888 thought there was a specific motive. So the motive is a tradition from 1888 and people believe in that motive. For example, he must have been a homicidal lunatic - this motive is at the same time functioning as the explanation for the murders.

If people, on the other hand, know nothing about the ideas of motives and explanations from 1888 and know nothing about serial killer motives today, and people start to examine the historical sources from 1888, they may find a motive or motives that were not known and therefore unexpected. If that motive or those motives can be connected to the MO, signature and victimology of the murders in 1888, it can also be connected to the identity of the murderer.

So that is two differents ways of doing research on the case.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

An example is the theory about Lechmere. The sources that Fisherman has found can be used to establish a significance in the relation between sources and theory. But the risk that the signifigance is illusory is high, since the sources are not researched properly, i.e. Fisherman uses sources with low reliability. This must not be a problem per se for the significance, but since he also uses a small set of sources for a wide theory, i.e. the murderer of Polly Nichols was the murderer of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, he uses the significance to postulate a theory that has nothing more to stand on than one tiny leg (sources with low reliability for only one murder).

So what we must have is a set of sources, connected to more than one murder site and preferably to all of them, which all correspond with the motive(s) of one specific person. In that way, we avoid making a billion possible interpretations randomly or by our own bias. If the sources are corresponding with the motive(s) and also with the life of someone on a micro level, the significance increases and the risk of low validity and reliability decreases.

How can you be certain of Jack the Ripper,s motive, Pierre?

Fisherman doesn,t need to explain motive to solve the mystery of Jack the Ripper,s identity. He would only need to prove which women were murdered by the same hand as Polly Nicholls AFTER he conclusively proves Cross is her killer.

I noticed you ,(s), at the end of ,motive,. That was smart because... the only motive Jack the Ripper may have had for murdering Annie Chapman could be that he wasn,t able to disembowel Polly Nicholls.

What is ,it, about his motive that reveals his identity?

[Mayerling]

This is absolutely right Jeff. Even today with all the technology available I would say you will never find a transcript of court hearing prepared by official shorthand reporters or transcribers which is 100% accurate even if (as only rarely happens) you have a team of people checking it against available recordings.

People speak in a way which defies accurate transcription, not finishing words or sentences, mumbling, repeating words which don't need repeating and then often overspeaking with the person asking questions and various other issues which ensure that a certain amount of editing is necessary to produce a readable transcript.

For someone simply taking notes there will always be words or sentences that are misheard or misunderstood or missed completely.

That is why it is so helpful that we have multiple reports by different reporters which help corroborate each other.

Even where we have official depositions, we will find more information in the newspaper reports than is included in the depositions.

It is nothing short of foolish for a competent researcher to ignore newspaper reports of court proceedings.

Thank you David.

Jeff

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

Do you mean like the red leather cigarette case found on Catharine Eddowes and the red handkerchief given to MJK. ?

Craig

I don´t know.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The reporters probably used short hand to take down their reports of inquests or interviews or whatever they subsequently submitted in typed form to their newspaper editors for printing purposes. But when using short hand, this naturally will cause them to consolidate words they hear because they have to get down as much of the verbal comments as possible. So naturally errors will occur. However, these reports will still be valuable to later people reading them (say 128 years later) when read and compared with similar reports in other newspapers. And if (as in many cases) official copies of testimony are still missing, these reports do become very important to scholars.

This is absolutely right Jeff. Even today with all the technology available I would say you will never find a transcript of court hearing prepared by official shorthand reporters or transcribers which is 100% accurate even if (as only rarely happens) you have a team of people checking it against available recordings.

People speak in a way which defies accurate transcription, not finishing words or sentences, mumbling, repeating words which don't need repeating and then often overspeaking with the person asking questions and various other issues which ensure that a certain amount of editing is necessary to produce a readable transcript.

For someone simply taking notes there will always be words or sentences that are misheard or misunderstood or missed completely.

That is why it is so helpful that we have multiple reports by different reporters which help corroborate each other.

Even where we have official depositions, we will find more information in the newspaper reports than is included in the depositions.

It is nothing short of foolish for a competent researcher to ignore newspaper reports of court proceedings.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;379690][QUOTE=Pierre;379649][QUOTE=Mayerling;379629]

Next time you decide to quote anything I write, please quote me fully. Otherwise I consider it really insulting to me personally. The only person I know who ever sent replies like just exclamation points and question marks was the novelist and writer Victor Hugo (in communicating with a publisher), and Pierre, you are no Victor Hugo - not by a long shot.

The reporters probably used short hand to take down their reports of inquests or interviews or whatever they subsequently submitted in typed form to their newspaper editors for printing purposes. But when using short hand, this naturally will cause them to consolidate words they hear because they have to get down as much of the verbal comments as possible. So naturally errors will occur. However, these reports will still be valuable to later people reading them (say 128 years later) when read and compared with similar reports in other newspapers. And if (as in many cases) official copies of testimony are still missing, these reports do become very important to scholars.

Jeff

Don't be surprised Jeff he's clearly an ignorant little......

[Mayerling]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379649][QUOTE=Mayerling;379629][QUOTE=Pierre;379620]

!



?

Next time you decide to quote anything I write, please quote me fully. Otherwise I consider it really insulting to me personally. The only person I know who ever sent replies like just exclamation points and question marks was the novelist and writer Victor Hugo (in communicating with a publisher), and Pierre, you are no Victor Hugo - not by a long shot.

The reporters probably used short hand to take down their reports of inquests or interviews or whatever they subsequently submitted in typed form to their newspaper editors for printing purposes. But when using short hand, this naturally will cause them to consolidate words they hear because they have to get down as much of the verbal comments as possible. So naturally errors will occur. However, these reports will still be valuable to later people reading them (say 128 years later) when read and compared with similar reports in other newspapers. And if (as in many cases) official copies of testimony are still missing, these reports do become very important to scholars.

Jeff

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379651]

The book you refer to, and the examples you give, all reference cases after WWII, with the exception of JtR.

The idea that serial killers like to insert themselves in police investigations, either by participating as a witness/bystander etc. or by communicating with the press/the police, is very prevalent in these discussions.

It is often stated as fact.



Yes. I don´t like it. We have no such data from the relevant time period.



No. And it is a type Y. It is a result of empirical work exclusively. Data collecting and analysis. Not very exiting. No "grand theory" to start off with. Not even any serial killer "knowledge" or ripperology or knowledge about "Jack the Ripper". Just plain simple empirical source work.

Regards, Pierre

What empirical source work?

[GUT]

Huh???

That's what most of us thought.

He's getting worse.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,

As a historian I do believe that our only chance to find Jack the Ripper is the sources from the past. These sources must be produced by the killer himself. Otherwise they can not be connected to the murders.

What I think we have to do is to find and understand the sources produced by a murderer who is communicating with people. This is very difficult, since some sources from 1888 are lost and since our understanding is biased by post modern thinking. Nevertheless I think it is the only way forward.

The sources must not be in written form. The important thing is that they are greetings from the past.

"The overall conclusions drawn add to our current knowledge base on serial murderers. Gibson (2004) finds that a “consistent compulsion to communicate characterizes these serial killers” (p. 209). In most cases, communicating with society and law enforcement was imperative for the selected killers examined. In their communications they left clues, taunted and insulted law enforcement, re-injured victims’ loved ones, threatened to kill again, made demands and offered explanations for their behavior (see pp. 210-211). A brief comparative analysis suggests that each killer had different motives to communicate (e.g. a form of venting). In fact, “it is what they disclose about themselves that reveals a greater reality” (quoting Joel Norris (1988), p. 212)." http://www.ccja-acjp.ca/en/cjcr100/cjcr167.html

Regards, Pierre

The sources must not be in written form

Huh???

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Kattrup;379644]The book you refer to, and the examples you give, all reference cases after WWII, with the exception of JtR.

The idea that serial killers like to insert themselves in police investigations, either by participating as a witness/bystander etc. or by communicating with the press/the police, is very prevalent in these discussions.

It is often stated as fact.

However, I would like to ask your opinion about basing a hypothesis about Jack the Ripper's behaviour on sources about the behaviour of modern serial killers.

Yes. I don´t like it. We have no such data from the relevant time period.

Your hypothesis about the possibility of a Type X serial killer might be a result of modern bias?

No. And it is a type Y. It is a result of empirical work exclusively. Data collecting and analysis. Not very exiting. No "grand theory" to start off with. Not even any serial killer "knowledge" or ripperology or knowledge about "Jack the Ripper". Just plain simple empirical source work.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Mayerling;379629][QUOTE=Pierre;379620][QUOTE=John G;379614]

Of course this would lead to errors in their final product,

!

but it does not reduce the value of that final product.

?

[Kattrup]

Clues From Killers: Serial Murder and Crime Scene Messages
By Dirk C. Gibson. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004

And also, here are some examples of other serial killers communications with the police. And it could hypothetically give you a picture of what sort of communications I would expect from Jack the Ripper:

The book you refer to, and the examples you give, all reference cases after WWII, with the exception of JtR.

The idea that serial killers like to insert themselves in police investigations, either by participating as a witness/bystander etc. or by communicating with the press/the police, is very prevalent in these discussions.

It is often stated as fact.

However, I would like to ask your opinion about basing a hypothesis about Jack the Ripper's behaviour on sources about the behaviour of modern serial killers.

Your hypothesis about the possibility of a Type X serial killer might be a result of modern bias?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379620][QUOTE=John G;379614]

Hi John,

If there is a common theme in a set of sources hypothesized as containing descriptions of communications of a serial killer and these different sources of communication is corresponding with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer, there is significance. But since significance can be illusory, one must research the sources properly.

An example is the theory about Lechmere. The sources that Fisherman has found can be used to establish a significance in the relation between sources and theory. But the risk that the significance is illusory is high, since the sources are not researched properly, i.e. Fisherman uses sources with low reliability. This must not be a problem per se for the significance, but since he also uses a small set of sources for a wide theory, i.e. the murderer of Polly Nichols was the murderer of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, he uses the significance to postulate a theory that has nothing more to stand on than one tiny leg (sources with low reliability for only one murder).

So what we must have is a set of sources, connected to more than one murder site and preferably to all of them, which all correspond with the motive(s) of one specific person. In that way, we avoid making a billion possible interpretations randomly or by our own bias. If the sources are corresponding with the motive(s) and also with the life of someone on a micro level, the significance increases and the risk of low validity and reliability decreases.

What we get then is coherence, and this is something very valuable for writing history. For example, in the case of Lechmere, Fisherman is trying to establish coherence on a micro level. But it is impossible to do so for the rest of the victims, which means that there is almost NO coherence in the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper. Just one tiny part of the theory can stand by itself with the help or newspaper articles who are not reliable. This is how historians establish facts, but in the case of Lechmere, they are poorly established.



Clues From Killers: Serial Murder and Crime Scene Messages
By Dirk C. Gibson. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004

And also, here are some examples of other serial killers communications with the police. And it could hypothetically give you a picture of what sort of communications I would expect from Jack the Ripper:

The Lipstick Killer of Chicago:

"For heaven’s sake, catch me before I kill more; I cannot control myself"

(http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol9is2/guillen.html)

The Zodiac Killer of San Francisco:

"Dear Editor, This is the Zodiac speaking I am back with you."

(ibid.)

The BTK killer:

"...How about some name for me, its time: 7 down and many more to go. I like the following. How about you? 'THE B.T.K. STRANGLER', 'WICHITA STRANGLER', 'POETIC STRANGLER'"

(ibid.)

The Weepy-voice killer of Minnesota

called the police to say the newspaper accounts of some of the murders were inaccurate.

(ibid).

Happy Face Killer of Oregon:

A message was found scrawled on a wall at the Greyhound Bus Depot in Livingston, Montana: "I killed Tanya Bennett Jan. 21, 1990 in Portland, Oregon. I beat her to death, raped her and loved it. Yes, I’m sick, but I enjoy myself too. People took the blame and I’m free".

(ibid.)

The Zodiac Killer of New York:

To The New York Post August 4th 1994: "Hi, I’m back".

(ibid.)

By the way, do you see how most of them, in these examples, write about "I" or "me". I find this very, very interesting. You have killers who are making statements about themselves through communications.

Also, the BTK-killer was found through his communication with the police.

"Dennis Rader, otherwise known as the BTK killer, thought he had some sort of understanding with Wichita, Kan., police Lt. Ken Landwehr, head of the multiagency task force that was trying to catch him.

In the weeks before his arrest, Rader had asked po*lice whether he could communicate with them via a floppy disk without being traced to a particular computer.

Police responded by taking out an ad in the classified section of the local newspaper, as Rader had instructed, saying “Rex, it will be OK” to communicate via floppy disk.

A few weeks later, such a disk from BTK was sent to a local television station. The disk was quickly traced to Rader through a computer at his church." http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/a...ps_caught_btk/

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Yes, I agree killers may attempt to communicate in written form-such as to the police or newspapers-but at the start of this thread you were emphatic that such source material is not valid. And where's the evidence the killer communicated to the authorities, or newspapers, in verbal form?