Data Mining to locate the Ripper?

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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 All,

What convinces you that Jack is there to be found?

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[Cogidubnus]

Disappearing

Hi Colin/Steely

My Whitechapel-based great great grandfather seems to have pulled that stunt and the name-change repeatedly, (for whatever reason), alternating between McCarthy and Carty, and frequently changing address. According to my uncle, who finally put all the genealogical links together, he was a bugger to track down even with todays resources...

Dave

[Bridewell]

And then it would be easy enough for a person to "disappear" if they wanted to - find a new name and a new identity.

They didn't even need to do that, Steely. In some cases they just moved, without anyone ever making the connection.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

Van Helsing

Hello Tel. "For one who hasn't yet lived a single lifetime, you're a wise man."

Now, if I can convince you about Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[Tel]

Hi Lynn

Of course the idea of one killer comes to us partly from the newspapers. The notion of there being just one blood-thirsty killer sold newspapers. Nonetheless there are, as Dr. Bond pointed out and authorities such as Melville Macnaghten accepted, a number of similarities between the majority of the canonical crimes, e.g., the deep neck cut in all five murders and the removal of the intestines and uterus, that do argue for one killer rather than different killers.

Best regards

Chris

Even so, I am inclined (and becoming more so) to exclude Kelly and Stride from the tally.

[Steelysama]

I am new to Ripper Research so I am possibly being naïve when I suggest data mining must offer tools not previously available so as to identify the Ripper.

The one fact that is almost universally true of serial killers is they do not stop their killing spree until some outside factor intervenes.

The Ripper’s killing spree was very intense, geographically very localised and stopped without obvious reason.

So the question is; why did the killings so abruptly stop?

Either the Ripper died, or he was arrested and imprisoned for some other offence, or he had some form of epiphany (e.g. got religion) or he was being controlled by some third party who ceased to have control over him.

My question is: in seeking to identify the killer my question is; has any research been done to identify a man probably residing in the Spitalfields area, who during the month of December 1888 either, died, or was imprisoned for a lengthy period? The epiphany option would be much harder to identify but it would form the basis for further enquiry if no obvious candidate fitting the other alternatives could be found. The controlling hand of another also leads itself to an enquiry as to whether the controller died, was imprisoned etc.

The tools are there to do this research.

There is no doubt that the use of databases can be extremely powerful in solving crimes. It is used today, certainly.

However, I am not at all certain that "data mining" techniques would be very helpful in identifying Jack the Ripper.

Even with the incredible amount of data that law enforcement has at their disposal today - DNA, fingerprints, DMV records, criminal records, and more - some criminals are still able to go avoid identification, especially when they have no prior record.

Now consider the situation of London at the time of the Ripper Murders. Let us put aside the fact that forensic science was primitive at best during that period. The simple problem that faces an investigator is that, unlike today when we are constantly tied to an identity, it was very easy in the late 19th century for a person to move through life relatively unknown. It is doubtful that there is a solid record of who actually lived in London - especially the East End - at any given time. And then it would be easy enough for a person to "disappear" if they wanted to - find a new name and a new identity.

It comes down the the simple problem that for databases to work for you, they need to contain the right information. That information is scarce in this case. And even the information we do have can easily be incorrect for a variety of reasons.

It is a good question that you have. I hope that I have offered some food for thought on the idea.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello TQ. It could be that "Jack the Ripper" is a way for human minds to link disparate things. Just an idea.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Of course the idea of one killer comes to us partly from the newspapers. The notion of there being just one blood-thirsty killer sold newspapers. Nonetheless there are, as Dr. Bond pointed out and authorities such as Melville Macnaghten accepted, a number of similarities between the majority of the canonical crimes, e.g., the deep neck cut in all five murders and the removal of the intestines and uterus, that do argue for one killer rather than different killers.

Best regards

Chris

[lynn cates]

items

Hello Robert. That's true enough.

Of course,

1. Some pathological preferences thrive on those items.

2. There was a canonical killing after the one with the maximum exposure to faeces.

3. If blood is a problem, that likely began with Polly.

Cheers.
LC