A Human Tiger

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383230]

You are correct - I should have worded myself differently: He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region, and I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged.

Hi Fisherman,

Absence of X (in this case damage) is not historical evidence of presence of intent.

Let me give you some examples from the cases:

The killer of Polly Nichols did not do any damage to the eyelids of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the eyelids and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The killer of Annie Chapman did not do any damage to the nose of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the nose and that he had a motive for not doing so ?

The killer of Catherine Eddows did not do any damage to the legs of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the legs and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The principle is simple. For every undamaged part of the body of each victim, you can postulate an hypothesis that the killer intentionally abstained from damaging that specific body part. But you can not do it on NO SOURCE(S). Absence of x does not imply intent and intent from a motive.

Do you understand? You must go from absence of x to a source giving indication of intent and if you shall explain the intent you must use a source giving the motive for the intent.

Do you understand how difficult that is?

Do you understand that you need data from the life of the person on a micro level to do it?

And you have no such source, because if you did, you would very quickly have discussed it here in support for your hypothesis. You have already presented Lechmere as your suspect. There are no ethical aspects standing in the way for you. But still you can not produce one single scrap of data for the hypothesis that the eyeballs were intentionally undamaged because Lechmere had a motive to actively do so.

And another thing. If the killer cut away the eyelids, that may very well have been a result of making cuts in other parts of the face. What do you say about that?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383243]

Hi Fisherman,

Absence of X (in this case damage) is not historical evidence of presence of intent.

Let me give you some examples from the cases:

The killer of Polly Nichols did not do any damage to the eyelids of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the eyelids and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The killer of Annie Chapman did not do any damage to the nose of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the nose and that he had a motive for not doing so ?

The killer of Catherine Eddows did not do any damage to the legs of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the legs and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The principle is simple. For every undamaged part of the body of each victim, you can postulate an hypothesis that the killer intentionally abstained from damaging that specific body part. But you can not do it on NO SOURCE(S). Absence of x does not imply intent and intent from a motive.

Do you understand? You must go from absence of x to a source giving indication of intent and if you shall explain the intent you must use a source giving the motive for the intent.

Do you understand how difficult that is?

Do you understand that you need data from the life of the person on a micro level to do it?

And you have no such source, because if you did, you would very quickly have discussed it here in support for your hypothesis. You have already presented Lechmere as your suspect. There are no ethical aspects standing in the way for you. But still you can not produce one single scrap of data for the hypothesis that the eyeballs were intentionally undamaged because Lechmere had a motive to actively do so.

And another thing. If the killer cut away the eyelids, that may very well have been a result of making cuts in other parts of the face. What do you say about that?

Regards, Pierre

One thing only: That I wrote "I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged" for a reason.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383245]

One thing only: That I wrote "I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged" for a reason.

Hi Fisherman,

"I think" is an hypothesis, so thatīs OK. But it still needs data to support it.

You also write: "He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region...".

In what ways do you think that this picture of the face of Kelly shows that?

Also, I think that it looks as if the eyelids are cut off in the picture. Do you see the cut angles over the eyes?

What do others think?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383246]

Hi Fisherman,

"I think" is an hypothesis, so thatīs OK. But it still needs data to support it.

You also write: "He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region...".

In what ways do you think that this picture of the face of Kelly shows that?

Also, I think that it looks as if the eyelids are cut off in the picture. Do you see the cut angles over the eyes?

What do others think?

Regards, Pierre

That picture is not of a quality that allows for any certain conclusions. Nor am I saying that it supports what I say. Hebbert tells us that the killer cut off the eyelids, and that is normally rather a delicate operation. It also seems that the eyes were left more or less undamaged, supporting the idea that the eyelids were removed carefully.

If you have not understood it before, I am not doing my work so as to answer to your requirements for "data". I thought I may need to once again mention that.

Do you understand that, Pierre...?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383248]

That picture is not of a quality that allows for any certain conclusions. Nor am I saying that it supports what I say. Hebbert tells us that the killer cut off the eyelids, and that is normally rather a delicate operation. It also seems that the eyes were left more or less undamaged, supporting the idea that the eyelids were removed carefully.

If you have not understood it before, I am not doing my work so as to answer to your requirements for "data". I thought I may need to once again mention that.

Do you understand that, Pierre...?

Of course you donīt.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383250]

Of course you donīt.

Regards, Pierre

Of course I dont! And that is why you are left in your own playground, where you can wallow in "data", "historically correct methodology" and "principles" to your heartīs delight!

Iīm sure you will make all the progress your rules allow for.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383253]

Of course I dont! And that is why you are left in your own playground, where you can wallow in "data", "historically correct methodology" and "principles" to your heartīs delight!

Iīm sure you will make all the progress your rules allow for.

Yes, it seems there will always be space for journalists in the field of ripperology. It is good for the aspect of entertainment.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383257]

Yes, it seems there will always be space for journalists in the field of ripperology. It is good for the aspect of entertainment.

Regards, Pierre

Do you have any data for that?

Honestly, Pierre, you cannot wind me up, and you are not very good with sarcasm. Surely there must be wiser ways to spend your time...?

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre and Fisherman

The close up of MJK proves nothing, the quality is so low that even with photo manipulation software it is in my opinion impossible to tell what we are looking at.

Are we seeing a fully skinned faced?
Impossible to tell, the skin from the forehead could be pulled down and across the eyes. all we can see is a mess.
If we had the original plate it may be a different case, however we are looking at a copy of a copy or a copy and so on..

These comments are based on nothing to do with Ripperology but with having used photo software for almost 16 years.

The photo does not prove if the eyelids were removed or not, if it did this discussion would have stopped around post 2 or 3 surely!

regards

steve

[MsWeatherwax]

Impossible to tell, the skin from the forehead could be pulled down and across the eyes. all we can see is a mess.

I had always assumed that was what I was looking at (the skin flap, I mean).

Either way, I completely agree. Other than for a general feel for what happened to her, the picture is not of diagnostic quality.

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Pierre.

Might be reading into your thread, but are you under the impression that every one of his cuts were made with an intent in mind?

I keep going back to Polly Nicholls. Her abdominal wounds don,t indicate that he had any intent on cutting her abdominal wall into portions nor splitting her down the middle as in the case of Catherine Eddowes. For me, the 4 cuts on her right side seem more like perversions, or cuts with no general purpose. I would compare these with the cuts made on Mary Jane Kelly,s chin and arm, the cuts made under Mackenzie,s navel and possibly the oblique cuts made on Annie Chapman,s liver.

Robert

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre.

Might be reading into your thread, but are you under the impression that every one of his cuts were made with an intent in mind?

I keep going back to Polly Nicholls. Her abdominal wounds don,t indicate that he had any intent on cutting her abdominal wall into portions nor splitting her down the middle as in the case of Catherine Eddowes. For me, the 4 cuts on her right side seem more like perversions, or cuts with no general purpose. I would compare these with the cuts made on Mary Jane Kelly,s chin and arm, the cuts made under Mackenzie,s navel and possibly the oblique cuts made on Annie Chapman,s liver.

Robert

Hi Robert,

I havenīt studied the cuts on a micro level. I donīt think that is very important to do.

Regards, Pierre

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

It seems to me that organization and motives are two different things. We are not entitled to think, without any proof, that since the modalites of the MJK murder were apparently so precise, the murder has some kind of motive to pull them off exactly like that. A tiger may not be that picky about what she is going to hunt, but that does not mean that she is not going to hunt that properly to maximize her chances to eat.

[Fisherman]

We are not entitled to think, without any proof, that since the modalites of the MJK murder were apparently so precise, the murder has some kind of motive to pull them off exactly like that.

We are entitled to think exactly what we want to think. As long as we do not claim that it is a proven thing, we are free to entertain any theory or idea about the Kelly murder we wish to. So you got that wrong, as far as Iīm concerned.

As for me, I am convinced that the killer worked to an agenda, and that he was focused and precise about what he did. I am equally convinced that I know what that agenda looked like, to a large degree.

So I am in the clear either way.

I also think we should be careful when toying with the term "motive" in combonation with discussion serial murder. I would be less inclined to say that I think I know the motive behond the killings, and more inclined to speak of an inspiration ground. Overall, we will end up with the motive "wanting to kill" in many cases of serial murder, and the term as such is therefore not a very useful one.

[CommercialRoadWanderer]

I pointed out that, at least for me, organizational skills don't necessairly tell anything about motive. And when i use the word "motive" in the field of murders, i mean "i'm out to kill for this reason" not "i kill in this or that way because i care about not getting caught by the cops" or anything similar.

Maybe the killer had a precise motive for, as an example, wanting to murder MJK in her house, but without any proof of that, i would rather think that it's simply part of the the very little organizational skill required to understand that killing someone indoor in safer than in the streets.

You are of course free to convince yourself of whatever you want. I already told you in the recent past, however, that for my tastes you are in habit of stretch things a little to much to make them fit where simple logic would rather not consider possible.