Timing between Eddowes and Stride is bang on

[Batman]

Blotchy fits better than Astrakhan man.

[Wickerman]

Blotchy fits better than Astrakhan man.

That is avoiding the question.

[lynn cates]

fallacy

Hello All. Chanticleer crows and, fairly soon, the sun arises.

Temporal synchronicity trumps coincidence. (heh-heh)

Today's phrase is, "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc." Please memorise as questions will be asked later.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Original point NOT a causal chain despite one person's confusion

Hello All. Chanticleer crows and, fairly soon, the sun arises.

Temporal synchronicity trumps coincidence. (heh-heh)

Today's phrase is, "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc." Please memorise as questions will be asked later.

Cheers.
LC

If you want to play the philosopher you could at least demonstrate that you understand it because invoking your type of 'fallacy' has nothing to do with the original point being made. Absolutely nothing and I can easily demonstrate why.

There is no causal chain in the original point being made. So how can you invoke the claim its causal chain 'fallacy'?

The murder of Stride didn't cause Eddowes to get released from the drunk tank.
The murderer going West from Stride didn't cause Eddowes to go to Duke St.

I have used the word "convergence" throughout. Convergence doesn't require causation one little bit.

What we have are Independent and unrelated sources "converging" on the same point.

You seem to think the movement of all things that get closer to each other must be because of a causal chain.

Things can move and get closer together without there being a causal chain. That is the original point. Convergence of independant movement with near perfect timing.

Sorry Lynn but you are not demonstrating you understand the very philosophy you are invoking at all. Far from it. You seem to just be throwing out any old 'fallacy' in the hope you get one right.

[John G]

Can you give me more details on this please.

Hi Batman,

Yes, my post was a little obscure. For me, the big problem is the knife. I still believe that Stride was a Ripper victim, but the small-bladed knife seems manifestly unsuited to the purpose of mutilations, let alone organ removal.

That is why I have postulated that Stride was an impulsive kill, rather than pre-planned. However, the point that I was making here is whether it would have required a considrable amount of force, with a short-bladed knife, to cause Stride's injuries? In other words, if a knife more suitable to the purpose, i.e. a longer-bladed knife, was used would you have expected, with the degree of force the killer must have applied to Stride's neck, similar sort of injuries that are apparent in the Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes murders?

If so, I believe that it gives greater force to the argument that Stride was an impulsive kill.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Batman,

Yes, my post was a little obscure. For me, the big problem is the knife. I still believe that Stride was a Ripper victim, but the small-bladed knife seems manifestly unsuited to the purpose of mutilations, let alone organ removal.

That is why I have postulated that Stride was an impulsive kill, rather than pre-planned. However, the point that I was making here is whether it would have required a considrable amount of force, with a short-bladed knife, to cause Stride's injuries? In other words, if a knife more suitable to the purpose, i.e. a longer-bladed knife, was used would you have expected, with the degree of force the killer must have applied to Stride's neck, similar sort of injuries that are apparent in the Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes murders?

If so, I believe that it gives greater force to the argument that Stride was an impulsive kill.

Then that makes her murder different from the others suggesting a different killer !

Nothing to impulsive about the other murders was there? But of course the problem in being able to answer that question is which killer or killers killed which victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Hi Batman,

Yes, my post was a little obscure. For me, the big problem is the knife.

Sorry, what I am looking for is the source for the small knife claim. I have read some books in which authors talk about it, but I'm trying to find the source.

The thing about a long pointed blade is that it would be hard to determine this from a 'slice' wound alone. I think the additional mutilations demonstrated that the knife was pointed in the other canonical murders. These are absent from Stride so what we know about the knife may be more limited.

[Wickerman]

This issue of the knife is a bit of a misnomer, the doctors did not say what size the knife was.
Dr. Phillips suggested what type of knife "could" have made the cut..
"A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing."
That is not the same as saying it was this type of knife.

[Harry D]

http://youtu.be/01NHcTM5IA4

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello BM. Thanks.

The point involved temporal synchronicity. The fallacy shows WHY time is not always the most important factor. Of course, any one with reasoning skill would know that.

Incidentally, if I require logic lessons, it would NOT be from a would be scientist.

Now, about those Petrie dishes . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello BM. Thanks.

The point involved temporal synchronicity. The fallacy shows WHY time is not always the most important factor. Of course, any one with reasoning skill would know that.

Incidentally, if I require logic lessons, it would NOT be from a would be scientist.

Now, about those Petrie dishes . . .

Cheers.
LC

I know for a fact you don't have a clue what you are talking about here. Maybe you where hoping your guess at a fallacy would go over people's heads and not be recognized for the nonsense it is. You even used the wikipedia example it's that transparent.

You invoked a causation fallacy. The cockerel crows in the morning and the sun rises. The fallacy is in saying the cockerel CAUSED the sun to rise.

You don't even understand your own argument.

You can't even show how my premise involves said causation.

It never did. Its independent unrelated convergence.

The fact objects can move closer together and meet by just being on the same trajectory completely renders your argument as spurious as it can get.

Why not spin your fallacy wheel again and try another one. Eventually you might land on something semi valid given enough time and tries at it.

[lynn cates]

Wiedersehen

Hello BM. Thanks.

It has NOTHING to do with causation. The point was one about reasoning from synchronicity in time.

Last time I tried to reason with you, I had to abandon the enterprise. You lacked the maturity.

I thought that, by now, you might have matured. I was wrong.

Perhaps I'll see you in another 6 months, if you're lucky. Until then, keep on stamping your foot and yowling--perhaps someone will pay attention to you. I shan't.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello All. Chanticleer crows and, fairly soon, the sun arises.

Temporal synchronicity trumps coincidence. (heh-heh)

Today's phrase is, "Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc." Please memorise as questions will be asked later.

Cheers.
LC

You can keep digging your own hole as much as you like.

As anyone can see from the above you have outlined your case.

Now you claim Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc isn't about causation. It's a type of causal fallacy.

Anyone can Google it up and see every definition states so. You don't have 1 reference to the contrary.

[John G]

This issue of the knife is a bit of a misnomer, the doctors did not say what size the knife was.
Dr. Phillips suggested what type of knife "could" have made the cut..
"A short knife, such as a shoemaker's well-ground knife, would do the same thing."
That is not the same as saying it was this type of knife.

Hello Jon,

But surely if we speculate that the knife was of a similar size and type as the one used on the other C5 victims, that presents a problem for the argument that Stride was a Ripper victim. I mean, I accept what Batman is saying, that her throat was severely cut, but Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were virtually decapitated.

It also creates difficulties regarding the lack of abdominal mutilations, or even an attempt to mutilate. Of course, this can be explained, but it means complete reliance on the theory that the killer was disturbed, rather than the possibility that this was an impulse kill and he simply had a knife inadequate for the purpose.

[John G]

Then that makes her murder different from the others suggesting a different killer !

Nothing to impulsive about the other murders was there? But of course the problem in being able to answer that question is which killer or killers killed which victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, this is a problem which is why I am on the fence regarding Stride being a Ripper victim, although on the other side of the debate Lynn's cachous argument, which I find very persuasive, clearly makes it more likely, and at the very least a lot less likely that this was a common domestic murder.

Of course, as I said in reply to Jon, if you argue that the knife was in fact similar to the one used against the other C5 victims then that fails to explain the fact that, despite the severity of the throat cut, there were no extensive neck mutilations; unlike the other C5 victims where the neck mutilations were so severe it has been argued that the killer was attempting to decapitate his victims.

For me the arguments for or against Stride being a Ripper victim are finely balanced. I'm undecided.