Greetings from the past

[Mayerling]

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

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.

Regards, Pierre

Yes, it is interesting to see they all use "I" and "me". It suggests they are all egomaniacs, or at least egoists, who have contempt for everyone else (since the police is supposed to protect society from predators, and their communications are sneering at or daring the police - although I will make an exception for William Heirens who wrote the first message as the "Lipstick killer": he was genuinely frightened about his propensity for evil violence - it is not in the same category as "Catch me if you can Mr. Lusk", if that was written by the real Ripper). Yes quite interesting, but also it leads us nowhere - except perhaps wishing to see most of them with their heads beaten to pulps by the families of their victims!!

While I can see the point about considering alternative theories per clue, and do see SOME merit in it (regarding analysis) it is rather time consuming. Particularly as you have to do it with every piece of "communication" from the past evidence that you have to think about. In fact you may never be able to settle anything. All you may end up doing is putting off explaining what you think you found.

On another point, in 1888 phonographs (still wax cylinders - in fact Edison had worked for 72 hours straight that year perfecting a better needle for his favorite invention - there is a classic photo of Edison with bloodshot eyes over one of his phonographs after finishing his work), were rare and considered a toy for affluent people. Most people never had one at the time. In 1888 a recording of the voices of Sir Arthur Sullivan and some friend (including the writer Edmund Yates) was made at a house party (it was in October of that year - it's on "You Tube") and the party included the recordings as a highlight. The people involved are discussing music and art for the most part. None actually stop and say, "Terrible thing those two murders the other night, one in Mitre Square. Heard the victims were vivisected like the earlier ones." It was a Victorian dinner party, and they wouldn't talk about such matters as they were enjoying the evening. The general recordings of the period were of three types: entertainment (music, vaudeville/music hall acts, scenes of plays); political or public speeches; historical voice recordings. The idea of recording for retyping material was not thought of in 1888 - Edison would eventually create (for businesses) the recording machine - a variant of his phonograph, but not at that time. Moreover it was usually going to be used by management for it's first few decades of use, not by lower level people (like news reporters). The reporters relied on their memories and their shorthand. Of course this would lead to errors in their final product, but it does not reduce the value of that final product.

Jeff

[Robert St Devil]

This thread is a lecture. What are your suggested artifacts of communication, Pierre?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;379614][QUOTE=Pierre;379608]

Hello Pierre,

But the "unwritten" evidence you refer to is capable of being subjected to an insurmountable number of alternative interpretations. Therefore, what value can such "evidence" possibly have?

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.

How can it possibly be ascertained, in any reasonable sense, whether such abstract "evidence" represents attempts by the killer to communicate or not? What examples can you give of other killers who have attempted to communicate in such abstract forms?

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

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;379608]

Yes. For example, the piece of apron left in Goulston Street can be hypothesized as having been a communication from the killer, or not.

And those who think that the killer dropped the piece pf apron randomly, perhaps after having wiped his hands or/and knife on it, do not think that the piece of apron was a communication from the killer.

Others think that the killer left the piece of apron intentionally in Goulston Street, perhaps after having already wiped his hands and/or knife at the murder site, and they hypothesize that the killer brought the piece of apron with him with the intention to write a message on a wall and leave the piece of apron beneath it to get the attention of the police. In this case it was a communication. But this part of communication was not in written form. The writing on the wall was.

But the key to understanding the killer is to decide upon which type of killer he was: Was he a type X serial killer who murdered five women without the intention to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or anyone else? Or was he a type Y serial killer who wanted to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or with someone else?

If you hypothesize that he was a type X serial killer, you have a serial killer who did not communicate in any way, who did not produce any sources, who was silent.

If you hypothesize that he was a type Y serial killer, you have a serial killer who did communicate in one or more ways, who did produce sources, who was not silent but was communicating.

So the first and second hypothesis give very different consequences. When I am researching the past, I like to take the hypotheses to their final points, I like to be consequent. And this will help me disprove any hypothesis I have.


When you say "recorded sound" it helps our understanding of how problematical newspaper articles with spoken words are, since they were generated not as recordings, but through other peoples writing and interpretation of what they heard or had heard.



That could be described as a type of unwritten communication and it is left to us in different sources. On the other hand, saying that it was "unwritten" is a problematical statement, since we could claim that it was a symbol or letter written with a knife in the face of the victim. The consequence of such a description would be that he was a type Y killer, but it would also be that he used different forms of writing methods.

So the problem for us is to A) decide what type of killer he was, B) decide what type of communication he produced and C) decide what type of sources describing his communication would have the highest validity and reliability.

Of course, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, will not think that the sources containing descriptions of the cuts on Eddowes face are of any interest or importance. They will not hypothesize that the cuts could have been made as an intentional form of communication.

They will instead hypothesize a killer who was not communicating, who did not have anything to say to the police/press/other people. And the sources containing descriptions of possible communications will be ignored and will disappear into oblivion. The type Y killer will be erased from history and the greetings from the past, if there are such greetings, will be lost.

The problem with such a position is that it ignores what can be the most important material from the past. The problem with the opposing position is that it may give significance to sources without significance.

So how could we know if the sources are significant or if they are not?

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.

Naturally, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, ignore such sets of sources and their correspondence with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer.

But since sources is all we have, we must use sources that hypothesize both a type X and a type Y killer. The question is which method will be the most fruitful.

Kind regards, Pierre

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

But the "unwritten" evidence you refer to is capable of being subjected to an insurmountable number of alternative interpretations. Therefore, what value can such "evidence" possibly have? How can it possibly be ascertained, in any reasonable sense, whether such abstract "evidence" represents attempts by the killer to communicate or not? What examples can you give of other killers who have attempted to communicate in such abstract forms?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Kattrup;379509]

For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

Yes. For example, the piece of apron left in Goulston Street can be hypothesized as having been a communication from the killer, or not.

And those who think that the killer dropped the piece pf apron randomly, perhaps after having wiped his hands or/and knife on it, do not think that the piece of apron was a communication from the killer.

Others think that the killer left the piece of apron intentionally in Goulston Street, perhaps after having already wiped his hands and/or knife at the murder site, and they hypothesize that the killer brought the piece of apron with him with the intention to write a message on a wall and leave the piece of apron beneath it to get the attention of the police. In this case it was a communication. But this part of communication was not in written form. The writing on the wall was.

But the key to understanding the killer is to decide upon which type of killer he was: Was he a type X serial killer who murdered five women without the intention to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or anyone else? Or was he a type Y serial killer who wanted to communicate with the police and/or the press and/or with someone else?

If you hypothesize that he was a type X serial killer, you have a serial killer who did not communicate in any way, who did not produce any sources, who was silent.

If you hypothesize that he was a type Y serial killer, you have a serial killer who did communicate in one or more ways, who did produce sources, who was not silent but was communicating.

So the first and second hypothesis give very different consequences. When I am researching the past, I like to take the hypotheses to their final points, I like to be consequent. And this will help me disprove any hypothesis I have.

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

When you say "recorded sound" it helps our understanding of how problematical newspaper articles with spoken words are, since they were generated not as recordings, but through other peoples writing and interpretation of what they heard or had heard.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?

That could be described as a type of unwritten communication and it is left to us in different sources. On the other hand, saying that it was "unwritten" is a problematical statement, since we could claim that it was a symbol or letter written with a knife in the face of the victim. The consequence of such a description would be that he was a type Y killer, but it would also be that he used different forms of writing methods.

So the problem for us is to A) decide what type of killer he was, B) decide what type of communication he produced and C) decide what type of sources describing his communication would have the highest validity and reliability.

Of course, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, will not think that the sources containing descriptions of the cuts on Eddowes face are of any interest or importance. They will not hypothesize that the cuts could have been made as an intentional form of communication.

They will instead hypothesize a killer who was not communicating, who did not have anything to say to the police/press/other people. And the sources containing descriptions of possible communications will be ignored and will disappear into oblivion. The type Y killer will be erased from history and the greetings from the past, if there are such greetings, will be lost.

The problem with such a position is that it ignores what can be the most important material from the past. The problem with the opposing position is that it may give significance to sources without significance.

So how could we know if the sources are significant or if they are not?

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.

Naturally, those who do not think that the killer was a type Y killer, ignore such sets of sources and their correspondence with the motive(s) of the hypothesized killer.

But since sources is all we have, we must use sources that hypothesize both a type X and a type Y killer. The question is which method will be the most fruitful.

Kind regards, Pierre

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

So it continues...



Indeed, it's like when they identify unknown people from their dental records. If they do not know who someone is how do they know their dentist?

All dental records are good for is to confirm (or clear) a person suspect yo be the deceased.

[Geddy2112]

So it continues...

And how oh great historian do we know a source was written by the ripper (if there was one) if we don't know who the ripper was, circular argument it seems to me.

Indeed, it's like when they identify unknown people from their dental records. If they do not know who someone is how do they know their dentist?

[John G]

Hi Jeff

Yes .... Good point !

I remember reading somewhere that the victims were all found or seen with something new .... Nichols with her new bonnet, Eddowes with the redcigarette case, MJK with the red handkerchief.

From memory, the article was suggesting JTR gave gifts to victims to gain their favour.

I'm wondering if Pierre is suggesting these were done deliberately to leave a message .....

Craig

Well, in another thread he discussed the cachous found in the hand of Liz Stride and opined that the words "cachous" and "cautious" are almost homophones. His conclusion was that this might represent a communication from the killer, i.e. he didn't mutilate Stride because he was being cautious and therefore "avoiding risk." See:http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=367224

[Craig H]

Hi Jeff

Yes .... Good point !

I remember reading somewhere that the victims were all found or seen with something new .... Nichols with her new bonnet, Eddowes with the redcigarette case, MJK with the red handkerchief.

From memory, the article was suggesting JTR gave gifts to victims to gain their favour.

I'm wondering if Pierre is suggesting these were done deliberately to leave a message .....

Craig

[Mayerling]

Hi Pierre

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

Craig

Interesting Craig. But how do you know if these items were given or left by the same person with those victims?

Now if it was tea leaves....

Jeff

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre

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

Craig

[Robert St Devil]

What time is it where you're at, Pierre? four:20 or beer:30

[Kattrup]

But he wrote "must not be in written form." That's an absolute requirement, and the statement is therefore clearly unequivocal in this respect.

I agree, that's why I asked, since it seems unintended.

[John G]

For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?

But he wrote "must not be in written form." That's an absolute requirement, and the statement is therefore clearly unequivocal in this respect.

[Kattrup]

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

For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?