Data Mining to locate the Ripper?

[Steelysama]

Dave and Bridewell,
Thanks for the insightful comments.

Dave - your testimony on this reminds me of my own mother's work on genealogy in my family. There were some threads which were difficult to follow from the beginning and anything before the 20th century was extremely hard to track.

Another factor to keep in mind is that some old records have, sadly, disappeared from a variety of causes - including theft and fire.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

What convinces you that Jack is there to be found?

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi All,

What convinces you that Jack is there to be found?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

You keep hinting about this, but what is your point? Are you suggesting that there was no serial killer? If you refuse to clarify, I do not see the point in your posting this over and over again.

Rob H

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

My point is, I do not believe for one single moment that in 1888 somebody known colloquially as Jack the Ripper was bumping off unfortunates on the streets of Whitechapel and environs.

What have we all got to go on?

The world's first viral urban myth, plus unreliable witness statements, incurious coroners, a set of desultory police reports, an array of contradictory press articles and the reminiscences of top Scotland Yard cops who disagreed with one another.

Not much, is it?

But if you want to believe it, that's okay with me.

The show must go on.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

It seems to me that there is a veritable tsunami of documentation confirming that there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888. Are you suggesting that the various police reports and coroners reports were fabricated wholecloth? That seems utterly absurd. If you accept that the canonical 5 (to keep the discussion limited) were actually murdered, which seems patently obvious, then the only question is, were they killed by the same person? An examination of the autopsy records makes it very clear to just about everyone who ever studied or investigated the case that the majority of the C5 (give or take minor debate) were killed by the same hand. There are undeniable similarities between the victims' wounds and other aspects of their respective murders.

I have no idea what you are going on about. I assume you are just being a contrarian to get attention or to appear to be a deeper thinker than the rest of us.

Rob H

[Tel]

Well I have never really been able to accept the Jacky boy could kill Stride, travel to Mitre Square, locate another victim and kill again in the time available.

Long Liz was atypical of the series in any number of ways and Kelly's case was so far removed from the 'normal' course of events to be connected.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

Your assumptions are woefully wrong.

Of course the C5 were murdered. Even to a contrarian like me that is patently obvious. But there is no evidence to suggest that a serial killer [done one, done 'em all] was loose in Whitechapel. That is merely something which time and repetition have convinced us is true.

There was opinion at the time, certainly, but no evidence.

As an exercise, please explain to me what evidence led to Polly Nichols, originally the third victim of a lone maniac fleetingly identified as Leather Apron, being identified as the first victim of Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

[robhouse]

Hi Rob,

Your assumptions are woefully wrong.

Of course the C5 were murdered. Even to a contrarian like me that is patently obvious. But there is no evidence to suggest that a serial killer [done one, done 'em all] was loose in Whitechapel. That is merely something which time and repetition have convinced us is true.

There was opinion at the time, certainly, but no evidence.

As an exercise, please explain to me what evidence led to Polly Nichols, originally the third victim of a lone maniac fleetingly identified as Leather Apron, being identified as the first victim of Jack the Ripper.

Regards,

Simon

I would assume the answer to your "exercise" is that the earlier murders were originally linked primarily by the press, and that Polly Nichols became widely regarded as the first victim of the Whitechapel murderer as a result of the general consensus of the police and doctors who examined the crime scenes and victims... ie. crime linkage, which is the same method used today to link crimes performed by one perpetrator.

As I am sure you are aware, there is now, and was then, disagreement over which victims were killed by the same hand. It is absolutely beyond me to see how anyone could think that Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different killers. Those three crimes at a minimum are clearly linked, as even a brief examination of the autopsy reports makes clear.

Your "done one, done em all" sounds to me like a straw man argument, as what is meant by "all" is debatable. Were there 11 victims of one killer - unlikely. Were there minimum of 3 victims killed by one serial killer? Clearly the answer is yes. Were the C5 all killed by the same serial killer. Almost certainly yes.

What exactly is your evidence that contradicts any of what has been largely accepted by everyone who has ever studied or investigated the case?

Again, I think you are just craving attention here.

RH

[lynn cates]

Aquatics R Us

Hello Rob.

"It seems to me that there is a veritable tsunami of documentation confirming that there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888."

Personally, I'd settle for a rivulet. Haven't seen one yet.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

Lynn,

Am I to take it that you are in the same asylum Simon is in?

RH

[Scott Nelson]

I think the professor means there wasn't a "single" killer at large, not that there weren't killings in Whitechapel in 1888.

[Monty]

Hello Rob.

"It seems to me that there is a veritable tsunami of documentation confirming that there was a serial killer active in Whitechapel in 1888."

Personally, I'd settle for a rivulet. Haven't seen one yet.

Cheers.
LC

Remove your goggles Lynn,

Its positively flowing.


Rob,

Either we have numerous killers murdering in similar fashion, or we have one. Those who believe in the former will pick up on the most minor of discrpencies and make them into a major. This whilst ignoring the issues concerning such a theory.

Its questioning for the sake, and actually contradicts there goal of obtaining the truth, the irony.

However, there's no need to tell you this.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I would assume the answer to your "exercise" is that the earlier murders were originally linked primarily by the press, and that Polly Nichols became widely regarded as the first victim of the Whitechapel murderer as a result of the general consensus of the police and doctors who examined the crime scenes and victims... ie. crime linkage, which is the same method used today to link crimes performed by one perpetrator.

As I am sure you are aware, there is now, and was then, disagreement over which victims were killed by the same hand. It is absolutely beyond me to see how anyone could think that Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different killers. Those three crimes at a minimum are clearly linked, as even a brief examination of the autopsy reports makes clear.

Your "done one, done em all" sounds to me like a straw man argument, as what is meant by "all" is debatable. Were there 11 victims of one killer - unlikely. Were there minimum of 3 victims killed by one serial killer? Clearly the answer is yes. Were the C5 all killed by the same serial killer. Almost certainly yes.

What exactly is your evidence that contradicts any of what has been largely accepted by everyone who has ever studied or investigated the case?

Again, I think you are just craving attention here.

RH

I am afraid to say that as far as the C5 are concerned from a professional perspective there are major doubts surrounding both Stride and Kelly being killed by the same hand as the other three,

It appears that the police were all at sea with not only the five but some of the others as well. You have Macnagtnen and Hans Cristina Anderson suggesting five and five only.

Swanson includes Tabram and Coles as likley Ripper victims in his list.

So if they couldnt agree then why should you and others now be adamant that the C5 were the work of the same killer.

Is it because its what you want to beleive because they fit nice and snuggly into a theory.

After all it wouldnt do for you to accept that Coles was a likley victim because up in smoke goes your Aaron Kosminski.

[lynn cates]

omnia sunt

Hello Rob. You mean "ripper studies"?

We all are.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Scott. Quite.

Cheers.
LC