Hi,

These three dimension are often mentioned and sometimes discussed when ripperologists hypothesize and theorize about some suspect.

For example, Fisherman presents a barrister in his documentary who says that "when the coincidences add up, mount up...they become one coincidence to many" and then the court has a powerful material.

On what grounds?

Does is

And also, a possibility is only a

As far as I am concerned,

And

Finally, probabilities are more interesting and should be given some substantial significance, I think, since you can count the event as one out of x possible events and thereby get the simplest form of probability (not doing controls and not giving likelyhood).

The probability that the event would happen at the same time as it is clearly relevant for the serial killerīs life

But also, I would like to know the probability that

BTW, this is NOT a thread about Lechmere. He is just one possible example.

These three dimension are often mentioned and sometimes discussed when ripperologists hypothesize and theorize about some suspect.

**But are they applicable in the case of Jack the Ripper?****And if they are, why are they applicable, when and how?**For example, Fisherman presents a barrister in his documentary who says that "when the coincidences add up, mount up...they become one coincidence to many" and then the court has a powerful material.

**Does this mean that the possibility OR the probability (which one, or both?) for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper increases?****Can you actually**__add coincidences__and claim that the__possibility__of X being a serial killer increases, due to the coincidences?On what grounds?

**So how would you elaborate on such a probability?**

And could you actually speak of an "increasing

And could you actually speak of an "increasing

__probability__"? Because then you must do at least some simple mathematics, donīt you?**For example, if event y happens - and this event is considered by the theorist to be an important dimension of the serial killerīs existence - and**

__the event is only possible one time out of 365,__could you say that__the probability is less than 3 per thousand for the event to happen and therefore, the probability that X is a serial killer increases.____And what are the hypothetical connections of such a probability to the concept of "coincidence"?__Does is

*influence our interpretation of the probability*, so that we would be prone to think that,*given the very small probability of the event to happen*and the fact that the event did happen, it is a "coincidence" which can not exist without having__some connection__to the serial killer? Does it become "one coincidence to many" if there are several - or does it become THE coincidence, on which you build the whole theory?And also, a possibility is only a

**potential event**that gives no evidence for a person being a serial killer.**But it gives him a sort of "frame" as a theoretical construction,**

__in which he is put as a "possible" suspect.__

But how does this possibility of being a suspect connect to a row of "add-ups" consisting of coincidences or even probabilities?But how does this possibility of being a suspect connect to a row of "add-ups" consisting of coincidences or even probabilities?

As far as I am concerned,

**for a person to become a potential suspect. But they do not INDICATE guilt,**__possibilities must be in place__**they only INDICATE potentiality.**

And

*coincidences, if they pile up*, should be understood as a reason to**investigate the person**,__but not a reason to call him a serial killer__.Finally, probabilities are more interesting and should be given some substantial significance, I think, since you can count the event as one out of x possible events and thereby get the simplest form of probability (not doing controls and not giving likelyhood).

The probability that the event would happen at the same time as it is clearly relevant for the serial killerīs life

**must be very low**and it must be__of explanatory nature.__

But also, I would like to know the probability that

*a finder of a victim*murdered by a serial killer*at the same time would be the killer*.__How many times in the past has a victim of a serial killer been found by the serial killer himself?__

Because the probability for this must be very low.Because the probability for this must be very low.

BTW, this is NOT a thread about Lechmere. He is just one possible example.

**Kind regards, Pierre**
## Comment