Timing between Eddowes and Stride is bang on

[Trevor Marriott]

Killers, plural, surely, Trevor?

Regards,

Mark

Yes you are right, I keep forgetting that we are not all singing from the same song sheet when it comes to the question of one or more killers, and which victims were killed by which killer or killers.

[lynn cates]

lesson

Hello Trevor. Beware--he'll try to give you information about handling publishers. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[GUT]

Hello GUT. Thanks.

Quite true. I suppose it's just immaturity. One needs to ascertain facts BEFORE making a pronouncement. He'll grow up some day.

(You piqued my curiosity. PM me your specialty? Just now I crave an intelligent conversation.)

Cheers.
LC

Done and dusted

[Batman]

"Because" is "Causation" here obviously

Hello All. Just to keep the record straight:

Regarding the fallacy, "Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc" (after this, therefore, because of this) is a form of "Non Csusa Pro Causa" (non cause for a cause), or, as we logic teachers put it, "False Cause."

Our friend "BM" made a remark about temporal synchronicity. I adduced an example of temporal synchronicity which showed its irrelevance. Then he kept going on about my argument and causation. When I pointed out that it (my argument) had nothing to do with causation, he assumed that was a reference to a fallacy I have been demonstrating to classes for a quarter century.

So today's fallacy is, "Ignoratio Elenchi."

Cheers.
LC

You are all smoke and mirrors to avoid the fact you can't explain the convergence in my first post without recourse to yet another 'coincidence'. That's all this is about.

Do you know what the word "because" means? I highlighted it in your own words above. What you are writing is very confused.

Let's reference it:

Because : for the reason that; due to the fact that:

That's called 'causation'. X caused Y. Y because of X.

The word "Because" is a conjunction in English grammar. It connects words. In this case the connection is 'causation'. Yet you deny making the claim of a 'causal' type of fallacy.

Just look at what you are writing. Read your own stuff. ->> (after this, therefore, because of this)

You didn't invent "Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc". It's not yours to customize or define in your own way. It is used properly to mean a 'cause' has been incorrectly inferred.

Now apart from the fact you even cemented this causal view by raising a point about the Cockerel crowing causing the sun to come up (as found on wikipedia), you are going on about a 'temporal synchronicity' which is just two words you have thrown together without any attempt to explain this even after claiming to be keeping the record straight.

There is nothing strait about anything you said. After loads of posts here you still haven't explained your criticism because you are likely in the thrawls of trying to get out of a spot you have been forcing yourself into.

The synchronizing of Eddowes meeting JtR is not causal but simply timing and direction where paths will cross. That's it. Two objects on a trajectory that come closer together. Physics.

Why don't you just shout 'coincidence' and get it over and done with instead of all your redefining of words and fallacies and what you said and didn't say.

Even better. Why not just accept Stride is likely a victim of JtR and everything I have already discussed was well understood by the investigators at the time... not this modern view that Stride isn't a victim because a pet Jewish suspect can't be seen to shouting 'Lipski' at anyone.

[Batman]

This issue of arterial spray was discussed on a thread not so long ago where a forensic pathologist offered the following input

"Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally"

The only one confused here is you with your illogical ramblings

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is very misleading. Reading what you wrote I am led to believe that a forensic pathologist wrote this on the boards. That is not the case is it Trevor? You made the post quoting a mystery source. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=284

Your own personal research doesn't count as anything more than your own personal research. What you need to show is a paper in a journal confirming what you have said. That means going back to that mystery source and asking them to cite their sources.

[Abby Normal]

But these are subjective coincidences, meaning, it depends on how you view the evidence. Another person may, and likely can, see an alternate interpretation.

Peaked caps were common among the working class, and most men wore dark clothing. Schwartz's man was broad shouldered, full face and 5ft 5in, whereas Lawende's man was 5ft 9in with no stated build but a red neckerchief.

There are similarities yes, but also differences, though even if they are the same, this man was not seen with the other victims, Chapman or Kelly.

Talking of which, does the above sound like Blotchy? - a short, stout man, billycock hat, full carroty moustache, shabbily dressed?
Not exactly "sailor" looking.

If we are still interested in one killer, the suspect must be compatible with suspect sightings at the other murders.

Yes it does sound like blotchy. The only difference is the discrepancy in hair color.

Blotchy is described as having carrotty mustache-which I take it means orange/red hair. Marshall and Schwartz described as brown haired man. Lawendes suspect described as fair haired.

But I know for a fact that hair color can look different depending on lighting conditions, time of day, distance etc. a friend of mine has brownish/reddish hair, kind of wiry and it can look totally different color depending on the circumstances. In the sun it looks downright red, at night or low lighting it looks brown.

Blotchy and the peaked cap man seen by Marshall, Schwartz and Lawende are IMHO probably the same man.

[Scott Nelson]

Just look at what you are writing. Read your own stuff. ->> (after this, therefore, because of this)...

You didn't invent "Post Hoc Ergo Proper Hoc". It's not yours to customize or define in your own way. It is used properly to mean a 'cause' has been incorrectly inferred....

Why don't you just shout 'coincidence' and get it over and done with instead of all your redefining of words and fallacies and what you said and didn't say....

This from a biologist attempting to upsurge a philosophy professor and historian. Really pathetic.

We need to hear from Robin. Or "Batman" needs to use his real name when he posts. What are you afraid of?

[Batman]

Seems the anti-stride ringleaders are going into full meltdown with this one.

What's your rebuttal again?

None of you can explain what his temporal synchronicity even is, yet you support it, without even knowing what he is talking about.

Philosophers define their terms. Anything less is ambiguous fluff to avoid saying... "Coincidence"

You can have infinite pages of ad hominems but not one quatumn of your energy spent hitting the keys doing that will refute the position in the OP which was accepted by the contemporary investigators.

That's all the matters.

[Batman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFELLK8htKM

Reminds me of this. "Don't know what she said, but I am sure she is right".

[Trevor Marriott]

This is very misleading. Reading what you wrote I am led to believe that a forensic pathologist wrote this on the boards. That is not the case is it Trevor? You made the post quoting a mystery source. http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...&postcount=284

Your own personal research doesn't count as anything more than your own personal research. What you need to show is a paper in a journal confirming what you have said. That means going back to that mystery source and asking them to cite their sources.

How can a forensic pathologist cite a source when he is that primary source?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Hello John.
Because the blade of a shoemaker's knife is typically short, for arguments sake lets say 3-4 inch long, it reads to me that the depth of the slice into Stride's neck was approx. 3-4 inch. This can also be achieved with a blade of 6-8 inch long, so Phillips could not say for certain how long the blade was, only what the minimum length had to be.

As you know, Stride's throat bore only one cut. The wounds to Nichols & Chapman show evidence of two sweeps of the knife, with Eddowes the number of cuts are not stated.
Once the neck is opened with the first cut, a second sweep of the knife in an already open wound can give the impression of a longer blade, but the knife can only penetrate as deep as the spine, so there is no reliable way to determine how long the knife was which was used on the neck of any of the victims.

The blade length is therefore estimated by looking at the various abdominal organs (kidney, liver, etc.) to see if they were stabbed and then measure the depth of the stab into the organ, from the surface of the abdomen - much like is done today.
I guess what I am saying in a long-winded manner is, the actual length of the blade used on Stride is undetermined.




This is the crux though isn't it, was he or was he not interrupted?
In all fairness either are possible and I think we all acknowledge this, arguments in support of either preference are likely to remain unresolved.

At one time I was a firm believer that Stride was not a Ripper victim, these days I am 50/50, as I said, on the fence.
I can see the problem from either side but I do have two niggling problems with this murder that are pushing me to accept her as a Ripper victim, I'm trying to fight them off

Hi Jon,

Okay, now I'd always assumed, possibly wrongly, that what was fundamental in determining the depth of cut was the size of knife used. However, if I've understood you correctly, your argument is that it is effectively the number of cuts that is determinative. For example, in the case of Nichols and Chapman there is evidence of two sweeps of the knife, ergo a deeper neck cut than Stride, where there seems to have been one sweep of the knife.

Now if this is the case that raises what I feel is an important issue: what was fundamental to, say, Nichols and Chapman's killer applying two sweeps of the knife, resulting in the deeper wound? Of course, some authors have postulated that the deeper neck wounds observed in Nichols and Chapman is evidence of a goal-orientated motive, i.e. attempted decapitation. However, other authors, such as Trevor Marriott, disagree. And I have to say that I'm not really convinced myself.

But if the deeper neck wounds observed in Nichols and Chapman were not motivated by some ultimate goal, i.e. it was just an impulsive thing for the killer to do, a whim if you like, then I don't see any fundamental reason why, in the case of Stride, the same killer wouldn't just decide, capriciously, to apply one sweep of the knife, resulting in a less deep neck wound. After all, remove the motive of achieving a goal, such as decapitation, then, in respect of one sweep or two sweeps of the knife, why would the killer be fundamentally concerned either way?

As I said, I may have misunderstood your argument, and I'm sorry if I've been a bit convoluted, but I would be grateful for your comments.

Best wishes,

John

[lynn cates]

parallel

Hello John. Actually, both Polly and Annie had PARALLEL cuts--in one case, an inch apart, in the other, 1/2 inch. And ALL these individual cuts were deeper than Stride's.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Hello John. Actually, both Polly and Annie had PARALLEL cuts--in one case, an inch apart, in the other, 1/2 inch. And ALL these individual cuts were deeper than Stride's.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Thanks for that information, Of course, that does change things somewhat, especially regarding the killer's motivation; the deeper individual cuts, and parallel cuts, observed in the case of Nichols and Chapman, but not Stride, are clearly more difficult to simply write-off as incidental to the killer's purpose. It does seem likely that this level of similarity is more indicative of the killer carrying out a fantasy, or working towards a pre-conceived goal.

[Batman]

How can a forensic pathologist cite a source when he is that primary source?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Forensics is a science. In forensic science there are journals. Pathologists back up their claims with references to journals. What is known about forensics will exist in them because the competition to publish is massive. That's what you need to show. The reason for this is because the bigger the claim the more evidence you need to support it.

[lynn cates]

butchery

Hello John. Thanks.

Indeed. Looks like a butcher using a shorter cut to bleed an animal.

By the way, intestines were removed--without rupture--by the competent butcher. See this:

http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Sheep/Sheep.htm

Cheers.
LC