Data Mining to locate the Ripper?

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

Bringing the thread back to where it's supposed to be:

I can't see Data Mining identifying the Ripper directly. Researching the lives of the personalities involved might get us somewhere indirectly though. The victims and some suspects have been subject to comprehensive research but, in some case anyway, the witnesses rather less so. There is new material out there still, so I think it's worthwhile continuing the dig.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Admin]

All posters are requested to heed the rule:

1. Don't hijack threads with theory bias or with other off topic commentary.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss whether data mining could help locate Jack the Ripper. Hijacking it to argue there never was a Ripper is against the stated intention of the thread and off-topic and therefore against the rules.

If you would like to argue that there never was a Ripper, you may begin a thread and debate it but please do not derail someone else's discussion because of your own theory bias.

In addition, keep the personal arguments and posturing off the boards.

Thank you.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bridewell,

At the instigation of Sir Charles Warren, Chief Inspector Swanson acted as a sort of clearing house for information on the Whitechapel murders. He also acted as liaison with the City Police. He was eventually relieved of this task in December 1888, but that's by the by.

So if we're going to invest Swanson with maximum credibility, all the top cops [to whom Swanson was reporting] should have been singing from the same charge sheet.

Swanson's list of victims spanned Emma Smith and Frances Coles, with Kelly coming in at victim No.7, so why did his evaluation of the situation finally end up at odds with those of his superiors?

Also by the by is Monro's old indigo-planting buddy, Melville Leslie Macnaghten, having been living in London throughout the Whitechapel murders.

I'm certain the Commissioner-in-waiting and the Assistant Chief Constable-in-waiting had much to discuss whilst the former was out of the way at the Home Office.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

True, but an expert witness can only give evidence of opinion within his or her field of expertise. Also such evidence can only be presented as what it is - evidence of opinion, not evidence of fact.

Regards, Bridewell.

No but evidence of opinion can corroborate fact

and I think a forensic pathologist a consulatnt gynecologist and an enviscetrator are expert witnesses when it comes to giving opinions with regards to the human body both dead and alive and the removal of organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I would agree but the issue was corroboration Anderson corrobotating Macnaghten who started all of this fiasco off. Macnaghtens memo unreliable to the point of being incorrect. Swanson allegedly corroboating Anderson in the questionable marginalia

Not a single scrap of corroboration to any of what they said or wrote in any police or official file.

Where is the credibilty in that ?

[Monty]

True, but an expert witness can only give evidence of opinion within his or her field of expertise. Also such evidence can only be presented as what it is - evidence of opinion, not evidence of fact.

Regards, Bridewell.

Thank you Colin,

For explaining it so much clearer to Trevor than I obviously can.

Monty

[Monty]

Hot chocolate Trevor?

That's a fatal combination, your speech and hot chocolate. I shall be snoozing after 60 seconds.

Sorry to disappoint you old son but I'm not actually going solely to hear you talk. As for you not loosing sleep, well, we both know that's not entirely true is it?

Not judging by the frantic Emails to some making enquiries of my attendence and my views.

You're doing your homework on me. That is very wise.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Evidence of Opinion

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

True, but an expert witness can only give evidence of opinion within his or her field of expertise. Also such evidence can only be presented as what it is - evidence of opinion, not evidence of fact.

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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 !

[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