6d. Did Liz spend it, or die for it?

[caz]

I wish everybody would start with the presumtption that they are studying 5 unsolved murders that occurred in a small section of London in 1888 over approx 2 months and to ONLY consider the most rare of all killers if it is warranted based on the evidence.

Er, Mike, that's the presumption that everybody does start with - because it's a fact that 5 women had their throats cut by unknown hands in a tiny area of London in 1888 between the last day of August and November 9. Most of us end up considering that based on the evidence alone, by far the likeliest scenario is that a serial killer was active there during this period. Rare as they may be, it would seem to be a darn sight rarer to have had four killers all suddenly motivated to do in an unfortunate and risk the gallows.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,

You cannot retrofit the behaviourial patterns of subsequent serial killers onto an alleged prototype.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

In that case, Lynn cannot say that if Stride's killer made a mistake he can be ruled out as one who plans, stalks his victims, sends letters, writes messages or taunts. How does he get to define the behavioural patterns of an unknown killer who had the same flaws that all human flesh is heir to?

I was merely pointing out that even the most meticulous planner will not avoid human error on every occasion. Did the Challenger not blow up before it got into space? I don't think that was the plan, do you? Or perhaps you do, considering your penchant for conspiracy theories.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

invalid

Hello CD. Thanks.

"If you ain't seen that one Lynn you ain't been lookin'."

Very well. Can you direct me to the post/s in question?

"But by stopping aren't you implying that that argument carries no weight?"

You mean the leap from "no evidence" to "can't happen"? That's an "ab no esse, ad no posse." It is invalid.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

If you ain't seen that one Lynn you ain't been lookin'. But by stopping aren't you implying that that argument carries no weight?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

back Berner

Hello CD. Thanks.

"For example. Some on here argue that there is no evidence for the interruption theory so therefore it could not have happened."

Not seen that one. Personally, I would say: "There is no evidence for an interruption." Then, I'd stop.

It's like the "Dear Boss." It COULD have been sent by the killer. But I see no evidence for it. Hence, I place it firmly on the back burner (Berner? heh-heh).

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

How about something a little more specific? Take Liz Stride for example. Some on here argue that there is no evidence for the interruption theory so therefore it could not have happened. But yet we know that Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, was interrupted I believe it was seven times if I am not mistaken causing him to abandon his attempt at securing a victim. Some of those attempts were called off not by any actual physical interruption but by paranoia generated by his own mind. Therefore, no evidence for an interruption. So here we have a known serial killer behaving in a certain manner. Now that does not mean Jack acted in the same way but we have concrete evidence that such things do happen.

I don't want to speak for Caz but I believe that was the point she was making.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

theatre

Hello CD. Thanks.

Permit a simple analogy?

If I wish to know about Shakespeare and his motivation for producing a certain play, I might well look to Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, or Aristophanes. But it would be iffy at best.

However, I doubt reading Tennessee Williams would be helpful.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ur-Nammu

Hello Colin.

"It would be wonderful, though, to see these authors have to put what they call evidence before a court of law."

Indeed. Interesting would be something like the Law code of Ur-Nammu. If you bring suit and you fail to prove your case, YOU get the penalty.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I don't understand why we should not look at the actions of contemporary serial killers. Who should we be looking at? Opera stars, accountants, mountain climbers? Now I agree that just because a modern day serial killer behaves in a certain manner or displays a certain pattern that we can't assume therefore that Jack would have done the same. But by the same token, I see people turning that argument around and saying Jack would never do X when we have clear evidence that a present day serial killer has done exactly that.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

oops!

Hello Simon. Just read your post. Sorry.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

backward

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Not sure how adducing a modern day serial killer allows one to extrapolate backwards to "Jack"?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

I'm not sure if its possible, but that would be fantastic to see a slander trial and have the author prove beyond a reasonable doubt, his claim. In every case, with every "suspect", the outcome would be the same I would think.

Sadly it's not possible, Michael, because the law, in its less than infinite wisdom, says that you cannot libel or slander the dead. Morally that's nonsense, in my view, but that's the way it is, hence the likes of Van Gogh, Sickert, Toulouse Lautrec etc being maligned, on no evidence whatsoever, and with total impunity. It would be wonderful, though, to see these authors have to put what they call evidence before a court of law.

[Michael W Richards]

Unfortunately Simon Caz is determined to search for the answers in the revelations uncovered in the analysis of serial killer interviews and investigations. I wish everybody would start with the presumtption that they are studying 5 unsolved murders that occurred in a small section of London in 1888 over approx 2 months and to ONLY consider the most rare of all killers if it is warranted based on the evidence.

But we all know that data doesnt exist in the known materials, its not indicated clearly or even opaquely...... and that to embrace the Canonical Group requires a huge leap of faith. One that I wont make without evidence.

Lets say you are lost in the wild....and you meet another traveler who tells you that he just came from a town a few miles East of where you are. Do you...assume he knows which way is East and heard the way he pointed? That he is being sincere and honest? Do you in fact know based solely on his saying so that such a place even exists? Could this be a ruse to send you to bandits?

Because someone says something doesnt make it true...and sadly the minute these contemporary officials started offering their own take on what they were dealing with, they doomed many, many, students. They had no right and zero factual grounds for stating that the murders of the five women in question were done by the same deranged killer. Irresponsible to say the least. Its accusing someone specific...(we dont know who that specific person is the peoples choice yet ).. of a serious crime without any evidence.

Ive often wondered what would happen if a direct descendant of one of the so-called suspects decided to challenge in court some authors book about their long lost relative, one the author specifically names as Jack the Ripper.

Im not sure if its possible, but that would be fantastic to see a slander trial and have the author prove beyond a reasonable doubt, his claim. In every case, with every "suspect", the outcome would be the same I would think.

Its the reason that Ripperology has the hedge market cornered.

Cheers Simon

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

You cannot retrofit the behaviourial patterns of subsequent serial killers onto an alleged prototype.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

"I think that Jack acted on the spur of the moment. He realized that he had made a mistake by killing Liz in such close proximity to other people."

Actually, I can live with this. Of course, it would preclude all nonsense about planning, stalking, letters, graffiti, taunting and so on.

Hi Lynn,

You were quoting c.d. above. But what nonsense is this about nonsense?

Could I just remind you that Dennis Rader, or "BTK", planned, stalked, sent letters and taunted, all to the nth degree, yet he still made mistakes, like on one occasion when he burst into his selected victim's home and found her brother was there with her, but because he had failed to bring along his full 'murder kit', he had all sorts of trouble putting the brother out of action so he could concentrate on acting out his violent sexual fantasies with the sister.

Love,

Caz
X