Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[caz]

And clearly there *were* several other murders of women around that time, in that general area, which must have contributed to this spike but are not numbered among the canonical victims -- and therefore probably help the bald statistics along, but certainly not the question of whether the C5 or indeed the whole lot of them were all killed by "Jack the Ripper".

Hi Ausgirl,

If I recall Colin Roberts's posts on the subject, the spike in question consisted of precisely six more unsolved murders of adult women in the whole of England in 1888 than in either 1887 or 1889. Since the 1888 tally necessarily includes the six unsolved murders of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, all in one tiny area of the country's capital, over just a quarter of that year between early August and early November, it's easy enough for anyone to 'do the math'.

But as my original point was pretty much what you say above about it being 'just common sense to consider the presence of a serial killer' (as opposed to rejecting common sense in favour of proposing three or more independent murderers, which was Pierre's original point that got lost in all the panty bunching that follows his posts around ), I don't think anyone else's undies need 'bunch'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ausgirl]

Hi Ausgirl,

While it's a fact that the murders of Fred West and Peter Sutcliffe within the relatively tiny country of England overlapped one another, there was never any real doubt about which victims were killed by which serial killer.



Has anyone, Piere included, claimed it's not *possible* that some of the C5 were committed by 'another' (as in one other) killer? I might be wrong, but the context was Michael's argument for 'multiple' killers for the C5, and by that he meant upwards of two killers. Many people query Stride's inclusion, for instance, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's this idea of three or more murderers going round the area, independently picking on a local poverty-stricken unfortunate to do in, for no immediately obvious motive, and within just a few short weeks of one another, which gets Pierre and I, among many others, reacting fairly robustly. No more than that really.

And have you actually read some of Colin Roberts's very useful posts on the murder stats for the period? Murders of adult women in the whole of England were extremely rare, as crimes go, hence the very pronounced and infamous spike of 1888, accounted for by the handful of Whitechapel unfortunates, whose killer(s) evaded justice. To suggest that area was a veritable breeding ground for men who'd murder a prostitute as soon as look at them would be to vastly overstate the case.

Love,

Caz
X

A/ There are killers whose territories have overlapped --which makes their common ground considerably less than the whole of freakin England. But I suspect you do actually know this.

2/ I was contesting one particular statement which I think is pretty clearly incorrect. I don't know why this is causing undies to bunch.

But as you've mentioned statistics, I want to say that the problem with looking at raw numbers (of the kind you've mentioned) is that they only tell us how many, and not why.

So, okay, there's a spike in murdered women. What we don't know and can't tell by staring at that spike is whether one person caused it, or a number of separate people, all operating under an unknown number and variety of variables. Like, maybe a concurrent spike in gang violence in the area, and/or an increased number of mentally unstable people wandering about, due to the closure of some facility or other, for sheer example. There's a kind of ecology to consider, anyway, in which very possibly a coincidental or marginally related set of circumstances, anything from a rise or fall in the price of lodgings or a glass of gin, to an influx of returned soldiers, or a sudden shift in the balance of power among street thugs, might have set in motion the events which caused an increase in murders for that period. Though that said, several murders in a small area, in just a few weeks, and crimes that have a great deal in common... I do think it's just common sense to consider the presence of a serial killer. What I am saying, though, is statistics alone obviously can't prove the C5 were all killed by the same person. Or, for that matter, that they weren't.


And clearly there *were* several other murders of women around that time, in that general area, which must have contributed to this spike but are not numbered among the canonical victims -- and therefore probably help the bald statistics along, but certainly not the question of whether the C5 or indeed the whole lot of them were all killed by "Jack the Ripper".


Personally speaking, I vacillate on whether Stride and/or Kelly ought to be among them. Tabram, also. But then, I'm not yet welded to a single theory.

[Errata]

I agree. It rather leaves your argument in ruins, Christer, if you want Lechmere to have known what time he left home and to have known he was late.

Would he not have left early, if he was hoping to find a willing victim, accompany her to a suitably quiet spot where he might overpower and kill her, mutilating her if the circumstances allow, and make it past any troublesome witnesses or coppers so as to arrive at work in time to clean his knife and check for any fresh blood on himself or his clothes and still avoid starting late and having to explain himself?

Love,

Caz
X

Umm... the only way I ever know if I'm late is if I know the time. It usually sounds a little like "Oh ****! It's 7:30! I'm ******* late!"

Others may swear less. Their choice.

I mean, I don't think it was Lechmere, but this part of the argument doesn't bother me.

[caz]

Abby Normal: If he knows hes late, he knows what time he left, right?

That is one very simple way of laying some people´s arguments in ruins, Abby.

I agree. It rather leaves your argument in ruins, Christer, if you want Lechmere to have known what time he left home and to have known he was late.

Would he not have left early, if he was hoping to find a willing victim, accompany her to a suitably quiet spot where he might overpower and kill her, mutilating her if the circumstances allow, and make it past any troublesome witnesses or coppers so as to arrive at work in time to clean his knife and check for any fresh blood on himself or his clothes and still avoid starting late and having to explain himself?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

You must take the time to list what you think they would have been deprived of, so we can see your argument in detail, Caz.

No, Christer. If you are arguing that all the material they left out of the documentary is no less incriminating than what they showed (which, frankly, amounted to the fact that because Lechmere was in Buck's Row and saw Nichols before Paul arrived, he could have been the killer), you would have to produce that material.

However, as it makes no sense in the real world to leave out material that would have helped buoy up the case one is seeking to present, I don't really expect you to produce any. As usual, you leave me to conclude that all you have, above and beyond the limits of the documentary, is sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Columbo]

I think you need to re visit the facts surrounding Feigenbaum you seem to be another who is quick to put pen to paper without first engaging their brain.

If there was no singular Jack the Ripper then you cannot eliminate Feigenbaum from perhaps having involvement in one some or perhaps all of the murders including Carrie Brown.

The following article from The National Police Gazette date 1896 may be of interest

http://policegazette.us/FromTheMorgue_5-16-1896_Feigenbaum.html

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The story's good but again is not proof. We know he killed Hoffman. But that doesn't make him JTR.

Carrie Brown was mutilated but not as severely as MJK even though the situation was the same (alone in a room with no interruption). Besides people only consider her a JTR victim because american headlines proposed so.

I don't discount your suspect as plausible I merely point out you are the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to comparing how one documentary treats a suspect as compared to another.

I'd be very careful with the insults ex-constable. I didn't insult you personally and if that's gonna be the case it's gonna get very nasty on this board.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to keep this ridiculous argument going, but could the same not be said about any documentary that named a specific suspect? Did you not do a documentary about Carl Feigenbaum that basically put him in JTR's shoes? There was really no defense for him in that one as well. What about James Kelly, Frederick Deeming, James Maybrick etc? All documentaries that focus on a single suspect of course present it in an accusatory light towards the subject in question. The interesting thing about the Cross documentary is that, unlike Carl Feigenbaum, Cross was seen with the body of a victim moments after she was attacked. If I remember correctly two of the other suspects (Feigenbaum and Kelly) are accused because they had violent tendencies and may have been mentally ill and were supposedly in America for Carrie Brown's murder(who was not a ripper victim IMO). Your documentary made Feigenbaum to be a raving lunatic running around the streets of New York. I saw no alternate theory in your documentary that showed the evidence against him being JTR. Just food for thought.

I think you need to re visit the facts surrounding Feigenbaum you seem to be another who is quick to put pen to paper without first engaging their brain.

If there was no singular Jack the Ripper then you cannot eliminate Feigenbaum from perhaps having involvement in one some or perhaps all of the murders including Carrie Brown.

The following article from The National Police Gazette date 1896 may be of interest

http://policegazette.us/FromTheMorgue_5-16-1896_Feigenbaum.html

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

The reality is that not even you and Edward no what Blink provided them with. You keep saying they were provided with all the facts. But what were all the facts as you define them?

As Caz says no facts appertaining to a defence were provided for a start. The program was heavily loaded with facts that would make the public believe Lechmere was the killer and was JTR which is what Blinks remit was.

Why dont you settle this once and for all and contact your friends at Blink and ask them to provide you with what they provided Scobie and Griffiths and ask them for the set of questions they gave to Jason Payne or better still the bits they edited out of all the experts.

With regards to Blink If I recall the producer/director was an avid ripperologist, and he must have know the program would be controversial but we havent heard or seen anything from him.

At least Jeff Leahy came on here and was happy to take the flak or the accolades after his Saturday night at Dixie ripper program.

On another point what Griffiths says it not in line with what Scobie says, your interpretation of Scobies input is that there would be enough evidence to put before a jury. Griffiths only says that based on what was before him Lechmere is a person of interest. Thats a long way off your prime suspect statement, so a massive conflict eh ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not to keep this ridiculous argument going, but could the same not be said about any documentary that named a specific suspect? Did you not do a documentary about Carl Feigenbaum that basically put him in JTR's shoes? There was really no defense for him in that one as well. What about James Kelly, Frederick Deeming, James Maybrick etc? All documentaries that focus on a single suspect of course present it in an accusatory light towards the subject in question. The interesting thing about the Cross documentary is that, unlike Carl Feigenbaum, Cross was seen with the body of a victim moments after she was attacked. If I remember correctly two of the other suspects (Feigenbaum and Kelly) are accused because they had violent tendencies and may have been mentally ill and were supposedly in America for Carrie Brown's murder(who was not a ripper victim IMO). Your documentary made Feigenbaum to be a raving lunatic running around the streets of New York. I saw no alternate theory in your documentary that showed the evidence against him being JTR. Just food for thought.

[lynn cates]

spike

Hello Abby. But, percentage wise, there was a much LARGER spike some time before. Of course, we CONVENIENTLY forget that. Too damaging to our pet theory.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: If he knows hes late, he knows what time he left, right?

That is one very simple way of laying some people´s arguments in ruins, Abby.

[Fisherman]

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.


Love,

Caz
X

You must take the time to list what you think they would have been deprived of, so we can see your argument in detail, Caz.

[caz]

Hi Caz
Your last sentence made me think. He knew he was late for work-so how could he have left home later than he thought? If he knows hes late, he knows what time he left, right?

which then begs the question-how can there be any missing time here? Ie.-how can he have apparently arrived at Bucks row sooner than he should have (in terms of walking distance/time).

its a subtle point (or two) but you are master of subtleties (serious-its a compliment!). whats your thoughts?

Thanks Abby!

I suppose it depends on how truthful - or accurate - Lechmere was about his own timing. And that I think is the crux of the problem here. If he was late leaving for work and knew it, he'd have been even later after finding and killing Nichols, then hanging around examining her with Paul and informing Mizen before hurrying off to avoid losing pay or brownie points at Pickfords. But then again he could have meant he had left on time but the discovery and its aftermath had caused him to run late.

Or he could have lied about being late, to excuse the fact that he told Mizen in passing, gave few details and didn't offer further assistance.

If he left early enough to do the deed and still make it to work without repercussions, he couldn't have been late. The police must have known how long it would reasonable have taken him to get from home to Buck's Row, so he'd have been a bit foolish to claim a time for leaving home that gave him more time than he could possibly have needed for a straight A to B, but also claim to have been running late! And I don't buy that he couldn't have lied about the time then made some plausible excuse in the unlikely event that his wife knew exactly when he had set off that morning (ie early enough to kill on the way and bluff his way out of it) and would unhesitatingly have said so to the police if asked.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Blimey, Christer, I've just read this post again and I must say it would appear to amount to this: that the documentary makers would naturally have focused on anything that could be used to incriminate your man, while playing down - if not totally omitting - all the innocent alternative explanations. Now I don't think most of us have a problem with this being 'how the real world looks'. We know that, and we can usually work out for ourselves how much every suspect-based ripper documentary ever made has over-egged the 'guilty' pudding. Objectivity has no place here, right?

The problem stems from your strenuous denials that this natural focus would have affected which bits of the various experts's input were included or excluded, assuming there were time and viewer attention span constraints making it impossible to include every word, every opinion, every caveat.

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.

All we can say for sure is that the documentary did its level best with what it had, but ultimately failed to deliver a killer punch. The most emphasis was seemingly placed on the [questionable] question mark over several 'missing' minutes, during which Lechmere could have done the deed, unless his own timing was out and he had left home later than he thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Excellent points, caz. I don't think that anyone expects 'Blink' films to present a hypothesis, only to argue against it. The goal, after all, is to present something that people will find interesting enough to watch, allowing advertisers the opportunity to, in the parlance of a bygone time, "sell soap". That's not meant as disparagement. That is, simply, "how the real world looks", isn't it?

Now, that doesn't not mean that all material presented in productions such as this are untrue and without merit or value. I'm sure that many such films have presented quite convincing arguments against long held beliefs. For instance, I'm sure that "Blink" succeeded brilliantly in proving that Bobby Kennedy killed Marilyn Monroe and that Big...uh....Big...FEET (?)...have been living amongst us, undetected, for millennia. And to those uneducated in Jack the Ripper fact and fiction this little film may have seemed intriguing, if not convincing. However, that is not the make up of this group. Thus, "Fisherman's" frustration.

I know that "Fisherman" babbles the names, "Scobie.... Griffiths.... Scobie.... Griffiths" much as a failed dieter runs to the market muttering, "Chips Ahoy......M and M's......." I don't fault these men as I'm uncertain if they know that "Fisherman" is invoking their names and reputations to sell his "theory". But, my question is this: What are they saying? In that they have had a hand in "solving" the greatest mystery, the most sensational, famous, notorious crimes of the past 200 years, I'd expect they are speaking publicly about it. Are they? Or is it, still, just "Fisherman" and the incomparable Eddie Stow?

[Abby Normal]

Blimey, Christer, I've just read this post again and I must say it would appear to amount to this: that the documentary makers would naturally have focused on anything that could be used to incriminate your man, while playing down - if not totally omitting - all the innocent alternative explanations. Now I don't think most of us have a problem with this being 'how the real world looks'. We know that, and we can usually work out for ourselves how much every suspect-based ripper documentary ever made has over-egged the 'guilty' pudding. Objectivity has no place here, right?

The problem stems from your strenuous denials that this natural focus would have affected which bits of the various experts's input were included or excluded, assuming there were time and viewer attention span constraints making it impossible to include every word, every opinion, every caveat.

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.

All we can say for sure is that the documentary did its level best with what it had, but ultimately failed to deliver a killer punch. The most emphasis was seemingly placed on the [questionable] question mark over several 'missing' minutes, during which Lechmere could have done the deed, unless his own timing was out and he had left home later than he thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Your last sentence made me think. He knew he was late for work-so how could he have left home later than he thought? If he knows hes late, he knows what time he left, right?

which then begs the question-how can there be any missing time here? Ie.-how can he have apparently arrived at Bucks row sooner than he should have (in terms of walking distance/time).

its a subtle point (or two) but you are master of subtleties (serious-its a compliment!). whats your thoughts?

[caz]

If you think that a film company presenting a suspect in the Ripper case will primarily - or even partly - focus on the parts that speak for innocence, you are uninformed of how the real world looks...

Blimey, Christer, I've just read this post again and I must say it would appear to amount to this: that the documentary makers would naturally have focused on anything that could be used to incriminate your man, while playing down - if not totally omitting - all the innocent alternative explanations. Now I don't think most of us have a problem with this being 'how the real world looks'. We know that, and we can usually work out for ourselves how much every suspect-based ripper documentary ever made has over-egged the 'guilty' pudding. Objectivity has no place here, right?

The problem stems from your strenuous denials that this natural focus would have affected which bits of the various experts's input were included or excluded, assuming there were time and viewer attention span constraints making it impossible to include every word, every opinion, every caveat.

Since you pretty much admit the most incriminating bits would naturally take priority - if those suggestive of innocence featured at all - it surely must be obvious to you that Scobie and Griffiths, through no fault of their own, had their very best goods - for making the strongest possible case against Lechmere - put in the shop window by the documentary makers, while anything less helpful, or unhelpful, to the cause was left on the cutting room floor.

All we can say for sure is that the documentary did its level best with what it had, but ultimately failed to deliver a killer punch. The most emphasis was seemingly placed on the [questionable] question mark over several 'missing' minutes, during which Lechmere could have done the deed, unless his own timing was out and he had left home later than he thought.

Love,

Caz
X