Data Mining to locate the Ripper?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor.

"suspects who have no evidence against them . . . should be removed from the list"

That would make a MIGHTY short list.

Cheers.
LC

Would there in fact even be a list ?

[Trevor Marriott]

By the way Trevor, I thought you had some new evidence that was going to put Kozminski to bed once and for all. What ever happened to that?

RH

Oh I have it dont worry, but I am burying another suspect first!.

I see you and Martin Fido are also appearing at York perhaps you should team up and do a double act beween you both you might be able to come up with the right Kosminski.

Thats of course if in fact there ever was a viable suspect named Kosminski ?

[lynn cates]

short list

Hello Trevor.

"suspects who have no evidence against them . . . should be removed from the list"

That would make a MIGHTY short list.

Cheers.
LC

[Supe]

Trev,

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

And do you flog your own theories because you are simply a public-minded citizen eager to explain away misconceptions about the Ripper murders or because you have books and lectures (and likely yet another book on the horizon) to foist upon the public? No shame in the latter position, but do be up front about your reasons for posting.

No question that Rob House has an investment in the Kosminski-as-Ripper theory, but then so do you have an investment in trying to tear down Kosminski or any other suspect other than your own.

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Everyone strives for the truth but in reality and due to the passage of time the real truth may never be known. However factual evidence will point us towards what the real truth may have been.

But sadly there are those that still think they know the real truth and will not accept that the ripper mystery has moved on in leaps and bounds over the past few years leaving many out on a limb to languish in old outdated theories which do not now stand up to close scrutiny, In addittion they to cling to suspects who have no evidence against them to warrant them being classed as a suspect and should be removed from the list.

[robhouse]

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

By the way Trevor, I thought you had some new evidence that was going to put Kozminski to bed once and for all. What ever happened to that?

RH

[lynn cates]

drought

Hello Neil. Goggles? Flow? Hmph, can't get my feet wet.

Cheers.
LC

[robhouse]

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.

The flaw in your logic here is so amusing that I think I will hold back from pointing it out to you. Good luck with your 20th century investigation.

RH

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Scott. Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

omnia sunt

Hello Rob. You mean "ripper studies"?

We all are.

Cheers.
LC

[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.

[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

[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.

[robhouse]

Lynn,

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

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