Specific

[Pierre]

I'll repeat the question that the above purports to answer:

How can you be sure that he could read? You are the one making the assertion. What sources? Back it up with something.

Hi Bridewell,

I think that I have made it clear that historical facts must be established with high validity and reliability. Donīt you agree that this is important?

Or do you think it would be meaningful if anyone just published his research before it was finished?

Isnīt ripperology already full of problematic assumptions?

Regards, Pierre

[Bridewell]

"How can we be sure" you ask. We can be sure in this way (=how): when we have sources showing that he could read.

I'll repeat the question that the above purports to answer:

How can you be sure that he could read? You are the one making the assertion. What sources? Back it up with something.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;392275]

How can we be sure he could read?

The level of skill shown depended on who you were listen to.

Hi Steve,

"How can we be sure" you ask. We can be sure in this way (=how): when we have sources showing that he could read.

Actually Pierre, that is your interpretation of the 1889 date, it is not an accepted historic fact as you like to say.

All historical facts are based on sources and interpretation of sources. If you say that something is an historical fact, you have established it as such using sources and interpretation.

Therefore, just saying that something is not an "accepted historical fact" just means that there is a discussion about the source(s) and interpretation(s) of sources.

So it is nothing radical, Steve.

Did he really? (Read the newspapers).

Would you care to illuminate us all on what gives you this information or insight?

If you use the sparse material in the newspapers from 1888 and 1889 and your hypothesis is that the Whitehall case was based on a murder by the Whitechapel killer, you can say that your hypothesis is that he could read the newspapers since he left the remains together with some newspaper material. On the other hand you can also say that just because he did so, did not mean he could read the papers he had used. You can also hypothesize that the GSG was written by the killer and therefore he could read, since he could write. If you do not think he did write it, that source is not your data. You can also hypothesize that he sent one or more letters to the police or the press, and if that is your hypothesis he could write.

If, on the other hand, you believe that some specific person was the killer and you know that he could write, that knowledge is based on good historical sources. And if you do not know that he was the killer, you know that a person in the past could write.

And whatever your hypothesis is, it will always be established on sources and constitute an historical fact. This historical fact has itīs own problems with validity and reliability and is a social construction like any other historical fact.

As you see, Steve, I am being very clear with my answer to you. I hope you appreciate that.

Pierre, what you have posted would indeed make the staring point for an hypothesis worth debating.

However there appears to be little to support the argument, apart from the finding of the Pinchin street Torso on the 10th September 1889, with the comments it could have been 1 or 2 days old.

Steve, I think the support is good enough. The day, be it the 8th or the 9th, is a year from the murder of Chapman. The place (Whitechapel) is also very significant. It is just a couple of minutes from Leman Street Police Station.

Everything else is pure speculation, nothing wrong with that of course.
Can one ask however where is the historic data to back up the hypotheses.

With "pure speculation" one assumes that there are zero data sources. Since that is hardly ever the case, I would prefer if you avoid such an expression, since it is not correct.

It is better to speak about validity and reliability, since it enables us to have a serious scientifically based discussion instead of a discussion that do not lead the knowledge about the case forward.

Your opening gambit on this thread was:

"What can we observe in the case of Annie Chapman that we can not in all or some of the others?

Yes, I thought it might be an interesting question, which can work as a tool to make visible certain traits in that particular case. But we can do the same for the others as well.

What specific historical facts can we establish for the signature, victimology and/or modus operandi regarding the murder of Chapman?

In what way(s) was this murder specific?"

Yes. Maybe I should go back to the article by Keppel et al (The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature analysis of the 1888–1891 Whitechapel murders) but I was more interested in hearing other peoples views, since I think it may generate new interesting questions for us all.

So far you have produced nothing which would give any answers to those questions.

We are all waiting.

Yes, I am actually waiting too. So we have that in common.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

So, if the doctors thought the mutilations on Chapman were skillful, that was something for the killer to be proud of when he read about it in the newspapers.

How can we be sure he could read?

The level of skill shown depended on who you were listen to.

Chapman is also the only victim where there was another victim killed on the same day, on the one-year anniversary of Annie Chapman's death.

Actually Pierre, that is your interpretation of the 1889 date, it is not an accepted historic fact as you like to say.

One must understand that the killer read the newspapers, where he learned a lot about the victims as well as about what people thought about the murders.

Did he really?

Would you care to illuminate us all on what gives you this information or insight?


Pierre, what you have posted would indeed make the staring point for an hypothesis worth debating.
However there appears to be little to support the argument, apart from the finding of the Pinchin street Torso on the 10th September 1889, with the comments it could have been 1 or 2 days old.
Everything else is pure speculation, nothing wrong with that of course.
Can one ask however where is the historic data to back up the hypotheses.

Your opening gambit on this thread was:

"What can we observe in the case of Annie Chapman that we can not in all or some of the others?

What specific historical facts can we establish for the signature, victimology and/or modus operandi regarding the murder of Chapman?

In what way(s) was this murder specific?"



So far you have produced nothing which would give any answers to those questions.

We are all waiting.



Steve

[MysterySinger]

Would it be fair to say that we only "know" of one person who read the papers since Joseph Barnett said he read them to Kelly.?

[barnflatwyngarde]

"One must understand that the killer read the newspapers, where he learned a lot about the victims as well as about what people thought about the murders."

Proof???????

[Damaso Marte]

I think one unique quirk in the murder of Annie Chapman was it being the only murder that didn't take place in the darkness of night.

Before BST, sunrise on the 8th sept 1888 would have been about 5:30 with a relatively bright twilight from about 5:00.

This is hotly disputed on this forum. Many believe Chapman was killed around 3:00 AM when it would have been dark.

I personally take the orthodox view that she was killed while it was light out, but you can't cite that as a fact around these parts. (To me, the daylight would explain why her mutilations were much more sophisticated than, say, those of Eddowes who was indisputably killed in great darkness).

[Yabs]

I think one unique quirk in the murder of Annie Chapman was it being the only murder that didn't take place in the darkness of night.

Before BST, sunrise on the 8th sept 1888 would have been about 5:30 with a relatively bright twilight from about 5:00.

[David Orsam]

Chapman is also the only victim where there was another victim killed on the same day, on the one-year anniversary of Annie Chapman's death.

How are you in a position to make such a categoric statement Pierre?

The body of an unknown woman was found in the early hours of Tuesday 10 September 1889.

According to Monro, in a report dated 11 September 1889, 'the state of the body itself showed that death took place about 36 hours or more previously. This, then enables me to say that the woman was made away with probably on Sunday night, the 8th September.' (bold added).

So Monro could not be certain of the day that the victim was killed.

Nor could Dr Phillips because in his report dated 12 September 1889, he said that 'Death probably occurred within 24 to 36 hours before remains were found.'

This means that death probably occurred on either Sunday 8 September OR Monday 9 September.

When it came to the inquest on 24 September 1889, Dr Phillips' assistant narrowed down the time of death even further by saying that on his examination of the body at 6am on 10 September, 'I should think the body had been dead about 24 hours'.

If he was correct, then the murder was committed in the early hours of Monday 9 September 1889.

[Damaso Marte]

While it's tempting to think about what the killer thought of the press coverage, we have no way of knowing that.

If the Ripper had medical training, he might have been alarmed when the press and police spoke of his mutilations as "skillful" - afraid that now the police might come barking down the right path.

[Pierre]

What's different about the Chapman murder?

- Arguably the most skillful mutilations. I am not one of those Casebook posters who hangs onto every word choice made by a doctor in 1888, but to the extent that doctors who examined the victims were impressed by the mutilations, they were most impressed by the Chapman mutilations.

- An attempt was apparently made to remove the head. I'm not 100% convinced of this, but people make the claim.

Those are the two big ones I could think of: and IMO the first one is likely tied to the fact that Chapman may have been murdered in daylight. Everything else I can think of about the Chapman murder is non-unique.

She is not the only victim to lose a uterus (Eddowes also)
She is not the only victim to have two throat cuts (Nichols also)
She is not the only victim to have her intestine thrown over her shoulder (Eddowes also)
She is not the only victim where we have witnesses potentially seeing the killer with the victim, or potentially hearing the start of the attack

Not sure what Pierre was going for - but this was my attempt to play it straight and answer the question he was literally asking.

Hi,

So, if the doctors thought the mutilations on Chapman were skillful, that was something for the killer to be proud of when he read about it in the newspapers.

Chapman is also the only victim where there was another victim killed on the same day, on the one-year anniversary of Annie Chapman's death.

One must understand that the killer read the newspapers, where he learned a lot about the victims as well as about what people thought about the murders.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Now its the the 9th I will make some comments.

This obviously is not a new idea for Pierre, which actual reinforces the point I made yesterday.

You see in April Pierre posted the below, it seems as long ago as that he was suggesting that Annie's murder had supplied him with some important information.
Fortunately no one responded, it must have been frustrating

This is not the Memorial Day of Annie Chapman.

But this day I really think of her and I say:

Thank you for everything, Annie Chapman.

Regards, Pierre

There can be only a few reasons for this post, including possibly a personal connect, or more probably a belief there is evidence at the site which has been missed or misinterpreted by all by himself.


I would suggest we all wait to see what the Pierre says and not feed him views.


respectfully


Steve

[IchabodCrane]

Hi,

When we compare signature, victimology and modus operandi we often tend to try and find similarities between the victims.

But if we try and find specific traits of the murders instead, what would we see?

Today is 8 September. Letīs try with the murder of Annie Chapman.

What can we observe in the case of Annie Chapman that we can not in all or some of the others?

What specific historical facts can we establish for the signature, victimology and/or modus operandi regarding the murder of Chapman?

In what way(s) was this murder specific?

Regards, Pierre

No no Pierre. Please try again. We are not pupils and you are not the teacher.

[DJA]

"- An attempt was apparently made to remove the head. I'm not 100% convinced of this, but people make the claim."

Her TB had spread to her head.
Dr Phillips commented that an uncommon instrument,like a post mortem knife,may have been used.
Um....who would want her head and used a post mortem knife?
Perhaps someone who walked home along Hanbury street during the week....right past Dr Phillips residence in Spital Square.
Someone he knew even.

[Damaso Marte]

What's different about the Chapman murder?

- Arguably the most skillful mutilations. I am not one of those Casebook posters who hangs onto every word choice made by a doctor in 1888, but to the extent that doctors who examined the victims were impressed by the mutilations, they were most impressed by the Chapman mutilations.

- An attempt was apparently made to remove the head. I'm not 100% convinced of this, but people make the claim.

Those are the two big ones I could think of: and IMO the first one is likely tied to the fact that Chapman may have been murdered in daylight. Everything else I can think of about the Chapman murder is non-unique.

She is not the only victim to lose a uterus (Eddowes also)
She is not the only victim to have two throat cuts (Nichols also)
She is not the only victim to have her intestine thrown over her shoulder (Eddowes also)
She is not the only victim where we have witnesses potentially seeing the killer with the victim, or potentially hearing the start of the attack

Not sure what Pierre was going for - but this was my attempt to play it straight and answer the question he was literally asking.