Coincidences, possibilities and probabilities

[Ausgirl]

I have never claimed any overlap. What gave you that idea? You are the one who is saying that the C-5 could be a result of more than one killer. So it is up to you to defend that claim.

Regards, Pierre

I never mentioned the C-5, lol. You did!

I think you've lost track - try going back & reading the posts again,

[caz]

Well I've just caught up with this thread and my impression was that Pierre was merely challenging Michael's argument for multiple killers within the C5, by pointing to the tiny geographical area involved and tiny time frame from August to November 1888.

Michael mentions espionage and anarchists in relation to the murders of five Spitalfields unfortunates and nobody raises as much as a bemused eyebrow. Yet Pierre's simple challenge is immediately pounced on with knee-jerk reactions which completely miss the context and invent a new one, and we get comparisons with serial killers in California and Texas?

Ye Gods, y'all need to come on down to li'l ol' Spitalfields one day and see just how close the C5 plus Smith and Tabram sites really are.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I never mentioned the C-5, lol. You did!

I think you've lost track - try going back & reading the posts again,

Yes, Pierre was talking about the C5 murder sites and dates and somehow this invoked angry comparisons with the states of California and Texas!

Talk about lost in translation.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Here we are:

I believe that some circumstantial evidence exists which provides for a motive for the 4th Canonical murder, which would make it coincidence that she was killed during a period when a madman was believed to be ruling the streets, and the "coincidental" factors regarding Kates choice of an alias when juxtaposed with the subsequent alledged Ripper murder seem to suggest that Kate perhaps had some knowledge of the next victim in the "series". Perhaps this indicates a link by motive.

The main arguments for a Jack the Ripper series of Five has always been based on statistics, the alledged series itself was created by just that kind of thinking, which does not allow for any coincidental occurances. Ive maintained that there were ample reasons, or motives, for people to have wanted to kill others during this particular place in time, self preservation high among them. I believe in the study of the Ripper crimes there is an absence of recognition of the extremely dangerous, and lucrative, espionage business, that was "coincidentally" being exposed before packed crowds that same Fall.

If people restricted the likely list of single killer victims to women whose attacks and injuries were very, very similar, we would have only a 2, perhaps 3, person series.

Here's John G, responding sensibly to Michael:

The C5 and Tabram can be linked by a number of factors, entirely unrelated to "statistics", as demonstrated by Keppel et al 2005, in their signature analysis.

What, however, is remarkable in my opinion is the plethora of fanciful theories that have been proposed as an alternative to the single killer argument: grand conspiracies; Chapman murdered by an army officer disguised as the pensioner Ted Stanley...

And here is Pierre's equally sensible offering:

Hi John,

I agree with you on your comment on the signature analysis by Keppel et al.

And I would like to add that the probability for multiple murderers not knowing each other is low given the limited geographical area of the murders and the short period of time.

Regards, Pierre

I took Pierre to mean the probability was low for multiple 'unconnected' murderers responsible for the C5, given the context in Michael's original post. I don't think he meant the probability was high for multiple murderers who knew each other, but no doubt he can clarify that.

So I don't really know how or why California and Texas came into it:

Are you being serious, with this?

If so, then you're very wrong, because California.

For a start.

You think that's scary, look at Texas sometime.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

Well I've just caught up with this thread and my impression was that Pierre was merely challenging Michael's argument for multiple killers within the C5, by pointing to the tiny geographical area involved and tiny time frame from August to November 1888.

Exactly.

Michael mentions espionage and anarchists in relation to the murders of five Spitalfields unfortunates and nobody raises as much as a bemused eyebrow. Yet Pierre's simple challenge is immediately pounced on with knee-jerk reactions which completely miss the context and invent a new one, and we get comparisons with serial killers in California and Texas?

Yes. As often happens here.

Ye Gods, y'all need to come on down to li'l ol' Spitalfields one day and see just how close the C5 plus Smith and Tabram sites really are.

Good idea. And one could also look at the map. And after that, one could go to Texas and California. Or look at another map.

Love,

Caz
X

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Here we are:

Here's John G, responding sensibly to Michael:

And here is Pierre's equally sensible offering:

I took Pierre to mean the probability was low for multiple 'unconnected' murderers responsible for the C5, given the context in Michael's original post. I don't think he meant the probability was high for multiple murderers who knew each other, but no doubt he can clarify that.

Yes. The probability for multiple murderers - knowing or not knowing each other - is low. In the first case, there is no evidence for multiple murderers, and in the second case, the area was small and the time period short. Also, referring to Keppel et al now, the signature point to the same murderer.

So I don't really know how or why California and Texas came into it:

Love,

Caz
X

Regards, Pierre

[caz]

There's a lesson here for some: read and react to the post, not just the name above it, and you might actually get somewhere.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ausgirl]

Oh good grief.

I was originally responding to the (in my opinion baseless) *statement* made by a poster (and not his name, for the record, which I couldn't care less about) that mere proximity means the killers must "know" each other.

A point against which is that there have been plenty of serial killers *elsewhere* (ie, in California for example) who have shared territory and have not "known" each other.

Pierre asked me for a list. I don't want to give him one, Google is full of that info, it isn't hard to find.

So that makes me a big ol' side trackin meanie, apparently.

[Ausgirl]

In areas as small as the area for the C-5?

And at the same time in a time frame as small as 4 months?

Do you you have some example(s)?


I have never claimed any overlap. What gave you that idea? You are the one who is saying that the C-5 could be a result of more than one killer. So it is up to you to defend that claim.

Regards, Pierre

I think we have totally crossed wires here. You said the "killers" must have "known" each other, implying to me that you think there were killers, plural, who knew each other.

I'm saying -- based on that sentence you posted -- that "it's very possible (that if there were multiple killers) that they did not in fact "know" each other".

Because (deep breath) there's been other examples of killers in the same time and area who were not connected. For example -- Spokane, Washington and Baton Rouge, Lousiana both are verily plagued with the buggers, and certain sections of the 1-5 Highway on the west coast of the US are too, so much so that police struggle to identify which victim belongs to which killer.

As for California.. well, there's the first three months of 1978 in Sacramento, for example. There was the Gallegos, whoever killed the Maggiores (thought to be EAR/ONS), Richard Chase.. Basically it was throw a rock, hit a serial killer.

Some areas just seem to offer killers the perfect environment to cluster in. Doesn't mean they're chums. Was my point.

If I've misunderstood what you meant by "killers" and "know each other" please do explain? Or I can just like, merrily move along.

PS: Thank you for the courtesy of foregoing all-bolded text, by the way.

[Ausgirl]

I see now that that you meant plural killers in the same area were UNlikely.

Well, clearly they're not that either.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=GUT;374952]

Something I have tried to explain to his proponents many times, and I am somewhat surprised the learned QC didn't refer to.

Spare your time, Gut - we have always said that there may be innocent explanations to each of the accusation elements. But that is something we never hear - we instead hear that we should not present it as a fact that Lechmere was the killer.
It is a fact that based on the amount of evidence, he is the best suspect there is - not that he must be guilty. He probably is, though.

Now Iīll leave you to it - we donīt want to turn the thread into a Lechmere one, do we?

[miss marple]

What is the amount of evidence for Lechmere?

Miss Marple

[Fisherman]

What is the amount of evidence for Lechmere?

Miss Marple

It is:

-Something you have never liked.
-Circumstantial.
-Listed on http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9056

Since the listing, other things have been added, pointing to how the carman seems to be linked to other killings. This material, however, I have decided not to go into as of now. All I can say is that there are very clear links between the Ripper series and a number of other murders. If Lechmere was the Ripper, we can be fairly certain that he was responsible for a significant number of other murders too.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Ausgirl;375097]

I think we have totally crossed wires here. You said the "killers" must have "known" each other, implying to me that you think there were killers, plural, who knew each other.

No. I didnīt.

Because (deep breath) there's been other examples of killers in the same time and area who were not connected. For example -- Spokane, Washington and Baton Rouge, Lousiana both are verily plagued with the buggers, and certain sections of the 1-5 Highway on the west coast of the US are too, so much so that police struggle to identify which victim belongs to which killer.

OK, so I guess people who are interested in that would have to look up the sizes of those areas by themselves.

If I've misunderstood what you meant by "killers" and "know each other" please do explain? Or I can just like, merrily move along.

Again, then: To small an area and to short time period for having multiple killers committing the C-5. Thatīs all.

Regards, Pierre

[miss marple]

I have read that,Fisherman , a lot of theory and presumption, not evidence. I will never agree with your theory. I am not going to waste time discussing it. Other fish to fry.

Miss Marple