Data Mining to locate the Ripper?

[Trevor Marriott]

So you wish us to accept the new baseless theories over the old ones Trevor?

Interesting.

Monty


I doubt there's a cap that would fit your head.

Thats ok with all the flak you get I can use the tin one you wear on your head !

[Simon Wood]

Hi Rob,

How does it differ from the state of old Ripperology?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

The state of modern Ripperology has truly sunk to an unprecedented nadir. It's quite disturbing.

Its disturbing to see some trying to prop up suspects viabilty when clearly those suspects are dead in the water.

I look forward to your new revelation on Kosminski !

[Monty]

Thats ok with all the flak you get I can use the tin one you wear on your head !

Sure, I've never needed it.

Rob,

Its a conclusion I came to many months ago, during a discussion with Rob Clack and Don Souden.

It seems that its the fashion to either dismiss or twist beyond reason by those who hold no experience in the field and 120 odd years later.

I've never known it this bad.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Sure, I've never needed it.

Rob,

Its a conclusion I came to many months ago, during a discussion with Rob Clack and Don Souden.

It seems that its the fashion to either dismiss or twist beyond reason by those who hold no experience in the field and 120 odd years later.

I've never known it this bad.

Monty

Dismiss yes I am and many others are all in favour of dismissing the old outdated theories especialy when it is plainy clear that they do not stand up to close scrutiny 124 years later.

Twist, well you cant twist irrefutable facts

As to those who hold experience many of these are still living on past glories still trying to convince themselves and the masses that they are right and that what they say and have written is gospel and should not be challenged.

Over the past few years more new people have come into this mystery and are now prepared to challenge the "exeperinced" Ripperologists and the truth is that these "experienced" Ripperologists cant accept it and therefore resort to constantly making the exact kind of statement you made in the last para of your post.

You constantly sit here arguing against new suggestions. new theories etc I am interested to know where do you actually stand with this mystery perhaps you would be kind enough to answer the questions below.

Was JTR responsible for the the following murders Tabram,Nichols,Chapman, Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?

Did the killer cut/tear the apron piece from Eddowes?

Did the killer deposit the apron piece in Goulston St?

Did the killer remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes?

Did the killer write the graffiti?

Is the marginalia totally authentic?

Do you beleive that an ID parade ever took place with regards to Kosminski?

Who is your preferred suspect and why ?

Thanking you in anticipation

[Monty]

Dismiss yes I am and many others are all in favour of dismissing the old outdated theories especialy when it is plainy clear that they do not stand up to close scrutiny 124 years later.

Twist, well you cant twist irrefutable facts

As to those who hold experience many of these are still living on past glories still trying to convince themselves and the masses that they are right and that what they say and have written is gospel and should not be challenged.

Over the past few years more new people have come into this mystery and are now prepared to challenge the "exeperinced" Ripperologists and the truth is that these "experienced" Ripperologists cant accept it and therefore resort to constantly making the exact kind of statement you made in the last para of your post.

You see, that’s one of the many differences between you and I Trevor,

You refer to ‘past glories’ and treat the subject as a competition. It isn’t, its about development and truth. As Ive stated many times, there is an onus of responsibility in what we do and should be approached in such away. There is no ‘glory’ in this field.

I am not stating the old ideas should not be questioned, I am stating that if you are going to question them then at least present your facts as to why these old fangled theories do not hold as opposed to personal opinion and ill considered conclusions based loaded experiments.

It humours me that you consider yourself one of the new guard. You aren’t. Trawl the message board archives since its conception over 10 years ago, and you will see your views aren’t unique nor fresh. Simons idea that Jack is a myth is one I first read in the early 90s thanks to AP Wolf (as Im sure Simon is aware and will acknowledge – and this is not intended to take anything away from his/that argument).

There is no ‘old’ or ‘new’ guard, we are all in it together. There is, however, experienced and inexperienced Ripperologists. Those that hold knowledge of the basics and those who do not. Your position, to me, is clear in that regard.

Contrary to the myth you perpetuate about me, I do not argue against new theories (not that they are new). I place them against the facts and weigh up the probability. The issue you have is that someone dares to challenge you, something that seems to grate with you. And when they do so successfully out come the bold text….its your give away.

Now, Im surprised you’ve asked me those questions as you have already approached those who know me with the very same. Didn’t get the answers you need? I hold no theory nor suspect, therefore I have no agenda on new ideas. I judge them on their merit.

Was JTR responsible for the the (sic) following murders Tabram,Nichols,Chapman, Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?
All of them? I would say no.


Did the killer cut/tear the apron piece from Eddowes?
Witness testimony indicates this was so.


Did the killer deposit the apron piece in Goulston St?
If he cut the apron piece from Eddowes then the probability is that the Killer did deposit the apron piece in Goulston street.


Did the killer remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes?
Witness testimony, medical evidence, indicates this was so. Certainly in the case of Mitre Square.


Did the killer write the graffiti?
I cannot provide evidence indicating he didn’t, however I am of the belief he did not write the wall writing.


Is the marginalia totally authentic?
What do you mean by ‘authentic’? Are there parts you believe is and is not?


Do you believe (sic) that an ID parade ever took place with regards to Kosminski?
The witness evidence suggests it did. However procedure indicates that if it did then it was grossly against what should have occurred. That doesn’t sit right with me.


Who is your preferred suspect and why ?
As stated, I do not have a preferred suspect. There is no evidence, in my opinion, which helps form an opinion on that.


As for sitting around, you seriously suggest thats all I do. I just sit around?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I dont propose to argue or back bite with you but I will finally comment on you post.

You see, that’s one of the many differences between you and I Trevor,

You refer to ‘past glories’ and treat the subject as a competition. It isn’t, its about development and truth. As Ive stated many times, there is an onus of responsibility in what we do and should be approached in such away. There is no ‘glory’ in this field.

No one is looking for glory but many of those "experienced"researchers have nailed their colours to the mast way back in the 70`s and 80` Now in later years all they wrote and have stated in books articles etc is now questionable and they wont accept that they may have been wrong and to that end do their utmost to squash anything that goes against their beleifs.

I am not stating the old ideas should not be questioned, I am stating that if you are going to question them then at least present your facts as to why these old fangled theories do not hold as opposed to personal opinion and ill considered conclusions based loaded experiments.

The trouble is that when new facts are presented the old guard and for that matter some of the new guard who are so fixated with their own individual theories cant and wont even consider new theories.

It humours me that you consider yourself one of the new guard. You aren’t. Trawl the message board archives since its conception over 10 years ago, and you will see your views aren’t unique nor fresh. Simons idea that Jack is a myth is one I first read in the early 90s thanks to AP Wolf (as Im sure Simon is aware and will acknowledge – and this is not intended to take anything away from his/that argument).

As far as my view are concerned I would disagree and I am not putting myself on a pedestal here I am merely stating a fact. I was the first to suggest the organs from the victims were not removed by the killer from the crime scenes. I have provided visual and verbal evidence as well to prove this fact. Yet there are still a handful of people who beleive that this killer in 5 mins in almost total darkness removed a uterus and a kidney with some medical precision and mutilated a body in almost total darkness. The same people who beleive that the same killer removed a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached in almost total darkness from Chapman.

Why I have to ask ? I will even answer that. Its because that the organ removal issue has become and integral part of this ripper mystery, take it away and it waters down these murders, remove the suggestion that one man killed all the victims and what are you left with. A series of similar unsolved murders that had it not been for the myth of JTR and the organ removal would have drifted into obscurity many year ago and we would not be here today discussing them.

There is no ‘old’ or ‘new’ guard, we are all in it together. There is, however, experienced and inexperienced Ripperologists. Those that hold knowledge of the basics and those who do not. Your position, to me, is clear in that regard.

Yes and of those that are experineced they are still living with the past as far as ripperology is concerned trying to fit sqare pegs into round holes. They wil continue to do so simply because they have their own agendas for doing so FACT.

Now, Im surprised you’ve asked me those questions as you have already approached those who know me with the very same. Didn’t get the answers you need? I hold no theory nor suspect, therefore I have no agenda on new ideas. I judge them on their merit.

Well I would suggest that in your old age your judgment has become clouded

Was JTR responsible for the the (sic) following murders Tabram,Nichols,Chapman, Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?
All of them? I would say no.


Did the killer cut/tear the apron piece from Eddowes?
Witness testimony indicates this was so.

The witness testimony is unreliable -FACT

Did the killer deposit the apron piece in Goulston St?
If he cut the apron piece from Eddowes then the probability is that the Killer did deposit the apron piece in Goulston street.

Inconclusive then ?


Did the killer remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes?
Witness testimony, medical evidence, indicates this was so. Certainly in the case of Mitre Square.

Medical evidence doesnt, medical evidence shows that when the doctors carried out the post mortems the organs were found to be missing.


Did the killer write the graffiti?
I cannot provide evidence indicating he didn’t, however I am of the belief he did not write the wall writing.

On that we agree

Is the marginalia totally authentic?
What do you mean by ‘authentic’? Are there parts you believe is and is not?

Yes

Do you believe (sic) that an ID parade ever took place with regards to Kosminski?
The witness evidence suggests it did. However procedure indicates that if it did then it was grossly against what should have occurred. That doesn’t sit right with me.

The witness evidence is questionable and isnt fully corrobotated and what corroboartion their is also questionable

Who is your preferred suspect and why ?
As stated, I do not have a preferred suspect. There is no evidence, in my opinion, which helps form an opinion on that.


As for sitting around, you seriously suggest thats all I do. I just sit around?

Well you always seem to be very quick in replying to posts you must be sitting somewhere have you got a power point fixed to the bed then ?

Monty

[Monty]

My replies are in red.

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

You see, that’s one of the many differences between you and I Trevor,

You refer to ‘past glories’ and treat the subject as a competition. It isn’t, its about development and truth. As Ive stated many times, there is an onus of responsibility in what we do and should be approached in such away. There is no ‘glory’ in this field.

No one is looking for glory but many of those "experienced"researchers have nailed their colours to the mast way back in the 70`s and 80` Now in later years all they wrote and have stated in books articles etc is now questionable and they wont accept that they may have been wrong and to that end do their utmost to squash anything that goes against their beleifs.

I have experinced Old stagers who have altered their views on certain matters. This when presented with fact or plausible evidence than being bellowed at with personal opinion.

I am not stating the old ideas should not be questioned, I am stating that if you are going to question them then at least present your facts as to why these old fangled theories do not hold as opposed to personal opinion and ill considered conclusions based loaded experiments.

The trouble is that when new facts are presented the old guard and for that matter some of the new guard who are so fixated with their own individual theories cant and wont even consider new theories.

Do you not see the irony in that statement?

It humours me that you consider yourself one of the new guard. You aren’t. Trawl the message board archives since its conception over 10 years ago, and you will see your views aren’t unique nor fresh. Simons idea that Jack is a myth is one I first read in the early 90s thanks to AP Wolf (as Im sure Simon is aware and will acknowledge – and this is not intended to take anything away from his/that argument).

As far as my view are concerned I would disagree and I am not putting myself on a pedestal here I am merely stating a fact. I was the first to suggest the organs from the victims were not removed by the killer from the crime scenes. I have provided visual and verbal evidence as well to prove this fact. Yet there are still a handful of people who beleive that this killer in 5 mins in almost total darkness removed a uterus and a kidney with some medical precision and mutilated a body in almost total darkness. The same people who beleive that the same killer removed a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached in almost total darkness from Chapman.

No, you have not presented fact. You organised experiments based on your interpretation of statement, testimony and evidence. and came to flawed conclusions.

For example, you assume the woman Lewande saw was Eddowes, and therefore conclude that the killer had 5 minutes to conduct the act. You assume the killer was unable to see clearly what he was doing in the square. You then present that as fact.

Its opinion, not fact. If you can create all the factors then we may have something. However, as most of the factors are unknown you have to assume. And its that assumption that turns you fact into mere suggestions.

Whilst I admire your attempts, Im afraid you have proven nothing in this regard.

Why I have to ask ? I will even answer that. Its because that the organ removal issue has become and integral part of this ripper mystery, take it away and it waters down these murders, remove the suggestion that one man killed all the victims and what are you left with. A series of similar unsolved murders that had it not been for the myth of JTR and the organ removal would have drifted into obscurity many year ago and we would not be here today discussing them.

There is no ‘old’ or ‘new’ guard, we are all in it together. There is, however, experienced and inexperienced Ripperologists. Those that hold knowledge of the basics and those who do not. Your position, to me, is clear in that regard.

Yes and of those that are experineced they are still living with the past as far as ripperology is concerned trying to fit sqare pegs into round holes. They wil continue to do so simply because they have their own agendas for doing so FACT.

Again, irony.

Now, Im surprised you’ve asked me those questions as you have already approached those who know me with the very same. Didn’t get the answers you need? I hold no theory nor suspect, therefore I have no agenda on new ideas. I judge them on their merit.

Well I would suggest that in your old age your judgment has become clouded

You can suggest as you wish, however given your track record in concluding.....

Was JTR responsible for the the (sic) following murders Tabram,Nichols,Chapman, Stride,Eddowes,Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?
All of them? I would say no.


Did the killer cut/tear the apron piece from Eddowes?
Witness testimony indicates this was so.

The witness testimony is unreliable -FACT

When 5 people are stating the same then testimony must be given credence.

Did the killer deposit the apron piece in Goulston St?
If he cut the apron piece from Eddowes then the probability is that the Killer did deposit the apron piece in Goulston street.

Inconclusive then ?

Like most things in this case. However, its the most likely scenario.

Did the killer remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes?
Witness testimony, medical evidence, indicates this was so. Certainly in the case of Mitre Square.

Medical evidence doesnt, medical evidence shows that when the doctors carried out the post mortems the organs were found to be missing.

Erm, yes, it does. Read the SOC report. Faecal matter.

Did the killer write the graffiti?
I cannot provide evidence indicating he didn’t, however I am of the belief he did not write the wall writing.

On that we agree

We do.

Is the marginalia totally authentic?
What do you mean by ‘authentic’? Are there parts you believe is and is not?

Yes

Thats a hefty accusation. I hope you have the evidence to back that up.

Do you believe (sic) that an ID parade ever took place with regards to Kosminski?
The witness evidence suggests it did. However procedure indicates that if it did then it was grossly against what should have occurred. That doesn’t sit right with me.

The witness evidence is questionable and isnt fully corrobotated and what corroboartion their is also questionable

Yet corroboration there is, its independant also.

Who is your preferred suspect and why ?
As stated, I do not have a preferred suspect. There is no evidence, in my opinion, which helps form an opinion on that.


As for sitting around, you seriously suggest thats all I do. I just sit around?

Well you always seem to be very quick in replying to posts you must be sitting somewhere have you got a power point fixed to the bed then ?

Wonders of modern technology Trevor. I could be mailing this from Mitre Square....you do know where Mitre Square is dont you?

Cheers
Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Yes, I fully acknowledge A.P. Wolf's 1993 "Jack the Myth". I agree with it in essence, but not with A.P.'s conclusions.

Don't get cold sitting in Mitre Square.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty

I have run out of colours

My replies are in darker shades of black


I have experinced Old stagers who have altered their views on certain matters. This when presented with fact or plausible evidence than being bellowed at with personal opinion.

But the facts and plauisible evidence you refer to is based mainly on opinions in any event.

No, you have not presented fact. You organised experiments based on your interpretation of statement, testimony and evidence. and came to flawed conclusions.

Flawed you really have lost the plot. !:sad2:

For example, you assume the woman Lewande saw was Eddowes, and therefore conclude that the killer had 5 minutes to conduct the act. You assume the killer was unable to see clearly what he was doing in the square. You then present that as fact.

Come on get real whether the killer had 5 or 15 mins there is no way anyone could remove those organs at the crime scene given the condition of the mutilated abdomen, the blood that would have filled the abdomen and the degree of difficulty in trying to locate the organs get a grip on them and remove the with precision using a 6in bladed knife.

Its opinion, not fact. If you can create all the factors then we may have something. However, as most of the factors are unknown you have to assume. And its that assumption that turns you fact into mere suggestions.

And you full well know that evidence of opinion is admissable if given by experts.

When 5 people are stating the same then testimony must be given credence.

But they are not all saying the same. Come September I will show just how much credence they should be given I take it you are still going to be there

Yet corroboration there is, its independant also.

Hmmmmmm Hans Christians book entry supported by the questionable marginalia. Hardly concrete corroboration.

Wonders of modern technology Trevor. I could be mailing this from Mitre Square....you do know where Mitre Square is dont you?

If you are there I bet its a cold and lonely place you being there all on your own !

[Monty]

Simon,

Point taken, and agreed.

Trevor,

Your concern is touching, however not required.

Yes, flawed. You do not hold all the facts regarding the events in Mitre Square when Eddowes was murdered. Therefore your re creation cannot be passed as exact.

Experts huh? On whose say so?

I'm not lonely here. The majority stand with me, they just don't see the need to harp on as you do as the situation is clear.

Yeah, I shall be at York. Listening, analysing and waiting to pounce.

Monty

[Bridewell]

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.

Extensive abdominal mutilation - previously absent?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;225118]Simon,

Point taken, and agreed.

Trevor,

Your concern is touching, however not required.

Yes, flawed. You do not hold all the facts regarding the events in Mitre Square when Eddowes was murdered. Therefore your re creation cannot be passed as exact.

Experts huh? On whose say so?

Their credentials speak for them !

I'm not lonely here. The majority stand with me, they just don't see the need to harp on as you do as the situation is clear.

Majority you have to be joking there are none so blind as they that cannot see

Yeah, I shall be at York. Listening, analysing and waiting to pounce.

Well I wont lose any sleep worrying about it !

Dont forget to take your hot chocolate and your medication !

By September I will be like a coiled spring

[Bridewell]

Credibility

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
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.

Hi Trevor,

As you know, MacNaghten wasn't even a police officer in 1888. Anderson took nominal charge on 31st August, but was out of the country for most of the Autumn of Terror and was in London only for the Kelly murder. Weigh their credibility as police officers against that of Swanson who, at Warren's insistence, had sight of every single document (except perhaps those relating solely to Eddowes). Forget rank. Who has credibility on this? Swanson.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

The List

Would there in fact even be a list ?

Hi Trevor,

There'd be a list of descriptions: BS Man, Pipeman, Astrakhan Man, Blotchy Face etc, but I'm not sure there'd be a list of suspects, not much of one anyway!

Regards, Bridewell.