Will Scotland Yards HOLMES 2 and AI solve Jack the Ripper?

[Fiver]

I think what Fiver is saying is that witness reports are notoriously unreliable and any A.I. relying on witness reports heavily will therefore not be reliable. Also it's worth noting that we don't know which or if any witnesses actually saw Jack. Also I don't know of any evidence that either Kosminski or Levy killed anyone or are we supposed to rely on unsound evidence or even supposition that they were violent?

Exactly.

"of shabby appearance, about 30 years of age and 5ft. 9in. in height, of fair complexion, having a small fair moustache, and wearing a red neckerchief and a cap with a peak." - Joseph Lawende, 2 October 1888 Times

"age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair fair moustache, medium built, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor." - Joseph Lawende, 19 October 1888 Police Report

"Age 30 to 35. Height 5ft. 7in., with brown hair and big moustache, dressed respectably. Wore a pea jacket, muffler and a cloth cap with a peak of the same material." - Joseph Lawende, 1889 Police Report

[Coroner] What height was the man?
[Levy] I should think he was three inches taller than the woman, who was, perhaps, 5ft high. I cannot give any further description of them.

"Mr. Henry Harris, of the two gentlemen our representative interviewed, is the more communicative. He is of opinion that neither Mr. Levander nor Mr. Levy saw anything more than he did, and that was only the back of the man." - Evening News, 9 October 1888

The Levy account contradicts Lawende. The Harris account contradicts Lawende. The Lawende accounts contradict each other.

Lawende thought the woman was Eddowes. He could be wrong. Church Passage was not the only route into and out of Mitre Square.

[Patrick Differ]

Technology advances and data surfaces all the time or there would be no exhausted efforts regarding the Maybrick diary or the DNA test of the supposed Eddowes shawl. Neither of which would be considered objective as a data source.

HOLMES2 is much more than AI. That is just one capability in a System like this. What I found interesting in the Platform was the use of Serial killer data sets and the Geospatial aspect of it. The conclusions reached based on Scotland Yards definition that there are only 2 types of Serial killers in terms of location. Marauder or Commuter. They either live in the boundary or outside of it. What would be the third?

Here again the analysis was based on the location of the murders. Fact. Objective.

I personally do not know what SY used for data sets but I would no casually discount their access ( vs. Our access?) To more data sources.

From my own perspective I found their outcomes useful because it raised more questions. Its not clear they have used any medical evidence to determine what skill may have been needed, if any which is also a possible outcome, in this case.

To say there are no facts is categorically false. No one can predict the future. And you are entitled to your opinions.

[Geddy2112]

No one can predict the future.

But they can the past...

[Patrick Differ]

But they can the past...

Yes it's called objective data. Facts. Cheers

[John Wheat]

But they can the past...

I think the conclusions of this A.I. study are flawed.

[Patrick Differ]

I think the conclusions of this A.I. study are flawed.

This was not an AI study. HOLMES2 can use AI, Machine Learning, Behavior Analytics, and other Application Tools to evaluate data, test theories, test gaps in analysis, play what if scenarios and many other things. HOLMES is an integrated Platform.

I Respectfully disagree that it was flawed since it used Objective data ( broken record).
The Location of the murders.
The victims bodies.
The method of kill.
Eyewitness testimony ( did they see someone)
Distance from George Yard to other murders.

These are facts. With HOLMES they would have the datasets of literally hundreds of serial killers which would not be available to any of us on this Forum.

I am personally pro technology since that is the World I come from. Every analysis has flaws but facts are just that...facts. What else is there in any case?

I'm not sure what was flawed especially without a specific example. If you mean whether the killer did or did not live there ( Marauder) then as I asked politely in a challenge who the Commuters are and how they might have succeeded?

Hundreds of serial killer patterns should not be easily dismissed. Why would you not use it if you have it? It also makes sense to keep turning over rocks.

In fairness to everyone we all see things differently. The facts in this case are not many but objective data is there. It would be nice to discover whether Scotland Yard has taken a deeper dive into the mutilations.

Could any lunatic have pulled any of these mutilations off in the apparent timeframes? The post mortem would.be objective data and likely have some definitive outcomes to narrow the focus?

[John Wheat]

This was not an AI study. HOLMES2 can use AI, Machine Learning, Behavior Analytics, and other Application Tools to evaluate data, test theories, test gaps in analysis, play what if scenarios and many other things. HOLMES is an integrated Platform.

I Respectfully disagree that it was flawed since it used Objective data ( broken record).
The Location of the murders.
The victims bodies.
The method of kill.
Eyewitness testimony ( did they see someone)
Distance from George Yard to other murders.

These are facts. With HOLMES they would have the datasets of literally hundreds of serial killers which would not be available to any of us on this Forum.

I am personally pro technology since that is the World I come from. Every analysis has flaws but facts are just that...facts. What else is there in any case?

I'm not sure what was flawed especially without a specific example. If you mean whether the killer did or did not live there ( Marauder) then as I asked politely in a challenge who the Commuters are and how they might have succeeded?

Hundreds of serial killer patterns should not be easily dismissed. Why would you not use it if you have it? It also makes sense to keep turning over rocks.

In fairness to everyone we all see things differently. The facts in this case are not many but objective data is there. It would be nice to discover whether Scotland Yard has taken a deeper dive into the mutilations.

Could any lunatic have pulled any of these mutilations off in the apparent timeframes? The post mortem would.be objective data and likely have some definitive outcomes to narrow the focus?

It's just my opinion that the study is flawed you are of course free to disagree but in my defence any study is only as good as the info available to it. I suggest the data we have for the Ripper case is not as good as we would all like. As I have previously stated as regards witnesses. Witness statements are notoriously unreliable and we don't know who did and didn't see the Ripper. We're not even sure if any witness even saw the Ripper. So that part of the study is therefore going to be flawed.

[Fiver]

I Respectfully disagree that it was flawed since it used Objective data ( broken record).
The Location of the murders.
The victims bodies.
The method of kill.
Eyewitness testimony ( did they see someone)
Distance from George Yard to other murders.

The eyewitness statements are still not objective data. Accounts conflict and are frequently second hand. We have no idea which, if any, of the witnesses saw the Ripper.

[Patrick Differ]

The eyewitness statements are still not objective data. Accounts conflict and are frequently second hand. We have no idea which, if any, of the witnesses saw the Ripper.

Fiver you are aware that perjury was a punishable crime in 1888 London? Imprisonment.

I doubt any of these witnesses would have taken that risk. You can debate whether they saw the actual killer but it strikes me as odd that in each case, with the exception of Kelly, that the victims were found murdered between 10 and 30 minutes later.

That seems to be a damn good reason to come forward and risk perjury as the risk was obviously deemed worth it for the sake of the victims. Grant it that the Eddowes witnesses were found but they still testified at inquest.

As far as the witnesses go it was more fact than fiction. Why make up a story and risk getting caught? Makes no sense.

[John Wheat]

Fiver you are aware that perjury was a punishable crime in 1888 London? Imprisonment.

I doubt any of these witnesses would have taken that risk. You can debate whether they saw the actual killer but it strikes me as odd that in each case, with the exception of Kelly, that the victims were found murdered between 10 and 30 minutes later.

That seems to be a damn good reason to come forward and risk perjury as the risk was obviously deemed worth it for the sake of the victims. Grant it that the Eddowes witnesses were found but they still testified at inquest.

As far as the witnesses go it was more fact than fiction. Why make up a story and risk getting caught? Makes no sense.

Regardless of perjury we don't know which witnesses actually saw Jack or indeed if any witnes saw Jack.

[Lewis C]

Fiver you are aware that perjury was a punishable crime in 1888 London? Imprisonment.

I doubt any of these witnesses would have taken that risk. You can debate whether they saw the actual killer but it strikes me as odd that in each case, with the exception of Kelly, that the victims were found murdered between 10 and 30 minutes later.

That seems to be a damn good reason to come forward and risk perjury as the risk was obviously deemed worth it for the sake of the victims. Grant it that the Eddowes witnesses were found but they still testified at inquest.

As far as the witnesses go it was more fact than fiction. Why make up a story and risk getting caught? Makes no sense.

You make it sound like there are only 2 possibilities: either a witness is 100% right, or the witness committed perjury. Often what happens is that a witness tells the truth to the best of his ability, but makes mistakes. Also, I don't think any witness even claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper. Witnesses say what they saw, and then we draw fallible conclusions about whether or not they saw Jack.

[Patrick Differ]

Regardless of perjury we don't know which witnesses actually saw Jack or indeed if any witnes saw Jack.

So the man seen with Catherine Eddowes at 1:35 am by 3 men was not the man who in 10 minutes time lured her quietly into Mitre Square, brutally mutilated her and escaped as Eddowes was found by PC Watkins at 1:45 am +/- 1 minute?

Is it therefore a low or high probability it was the killer? Or was the killer waiting in Mitre Square as the other man moved on? Or were all 3 men ( not 1) mistaken?

Same story with Stride and about the same duration. Was a killer waiting in Dutfield Yard? Someone saw her thrown to the ground but that might not have happened or have been the killer.

Did Elizabeth Long really see 2 people against the shutters at 29 Hanbury Street just 30 minutes prior to her body found mutilated in the back yard. Perhaps JtR was waiting in the back yard just as he did in Mitre Square and Dutfields Yard?

Is this the logic? All of the witnesses in this case are totally unreliable and therefore any description is also unreliable.

That would certainly open the door to the killer being practically anyone. A non Jew, a Jew, a woman, more than one killer.

I'm sorry but it's hard for me to believe that all 6 witnesses could see and identify the victim, see a man with the victim just before they were murdered, and all 6 not be credible to some degree. Especially in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman.

I believe they were all where they said they were and that is fact. I guess if you want to believe that the next 10 to 30 minutes of the victims life happened some other way -then the man taking the victim to the spot they were found and murdered...then I have to say I have not heard that.

It's ok to have opinions regarding what is a fact. Or conclude that the witnesses were too unreliable. I would like to see evidence that the police thought that. People who were actually there.

[Patrick Differ]

You make it sound like there are only 2 possibilities: either a witness is 100% right, or the witness committed perjury. Often what happens is that a witness tells the truth to the best of his ability, but makes mistakes. Also, I don't think any witness even claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper. Witnesses say what they saw, and then we draw fallible conclusions about whether or not they saw Jack.

Hi Lewis.

I understand based on what is known and testified to that perhaps only Schwartz and Hutchinson may have seen a man's actual face. And the man may or may not have been JtR. But it is a fact they came forward and testified and gave descriptions. That happened so that would be a fact. They have recorded testimony and were interviewed by Police. What part of that is fiction? Its not an opinion.

I'm not claiming that any witness saw JtR. The only thing I'm saying is there were factually 6 witnesses who saw the victims with a man just before the murders and 2 within 10 minutes of the body being discovered. What part of that is fiction? Again it did happened.

If 3 witnesses suddenly came forward or were found and all said they saw the victim and a man and gave even a partial description of the man, as a Detective, you might likely find it useful. Especially since it's more than 1 witness. Even if the descriptions are slightly off from one another, the fact remains a man was seen with the victim and 10 minutes later she is found dead. I dont see fiction here. Fallible no doubt but fact none the Less.

plenty of objective data or facts in the case.

[John Wheat]

So the man seen with Catherine Eddowes at 1:35 am by 3 men was not the man who in 10 minutes time lured her quietly into Mitre Square, brutally mutilated her and escaped as Eddowes was found by PC Watkins at 1:45 am +/- 1 minute?

Is it therefore a low or high probability it was the killer? Or was the killer waiting in Mitre Square as the other man moved on? Or were all 3 men ( not 1) mistaken?

Same story with Stride and about the same duration. Was a killer waiting in Dutfield Yard? Someone saw her thrown to the ground but that might not have happened or have been the killer.

Did Elizabeth Long really see 2 people against the shutters at 29 Hanbury Street just 30 minutes prior to her body found mutilated in the back yard. Perhaps JtR was waiting in the back yard just as he did in Mitre Square and Dutfields Yard?

Is this the logic? All of the witnesses in this case are totally unreliable and therefore any description is also unreliable.

That would certainly open the door to the killer being practically anyone. A non Jew, a Jew, a woman, more than one killer.

I'm sorry but it's hard for me to believe that all 6 witnesses could see and identify the victim, see a man with the victim just before they were murdered, and all 6 not be credible to some degree. Especially in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman.

I believe they were all where they said they were and that is fact. I guess if you want to believe that the next 10 to 30 minutes of the victims life happened some other way -then the man taking the victim to the spot they were found and murdered...then I have to say I have not heard that.

It's ok to have opinions regarding what is a fact. Or conclude that the witnesses were too unreliable. I would like to see evidence that the police thought that. People who were actually there.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we don't know which witnesses did or didn't see the Ripper. I'd have thought the women involved may have had clients in quick succession.

[John Wheat]

You make it sound like there are only 2 possibilities: either a witness is 100% right, or the witness committed perjury. Often what happens is that a witness tells the truth to the best of his ability, but makes mistakes. Also, I don't think any witness even claimed to have seen Jack the Ripper. Witnesses say what they saw, and then we draw fallible conclusions about whether or not they saw Jack.

I couldn't agree more Lewis.