Cononical SIX?

[lynn cates]

bibliophile

Hello (again) Patrick. Yes, I have those books and read them multiple times.

Love to see evidence.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

nada

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

"I'm interested in evidence that they were, though. What have you got?"

Nothing, actually. Of course, neither do I believe in Jack the Ripper.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

I am entirely on the fence about Stride. If you ask me on Monday I might be leaning towards her being a victim, law of probability regarding a throat cutting killer of prostitutes in a smallish area, etc. If you ask me on Thursday I might be leaning away, lack of mutilation, how long does it take to stab a stomach if that's what he really NEEDED to do, even if he was interrupted, a single stab before he bolted was doable, etc.

So I cannot say I have any opinion, whatsoever, on her inclusion.

I think we are in agreement here. I can be pushed either way, I think. Although, as I said in another reply, I am more inclined to include her due to the Mitre Square murder that same night. If one believes that the killer was compelled to mutilate his victims in order to feel 'satisfied' or to gain a 'release' (to choose two euphemisms I've heard used) then it makes perfect sense - if JTR was interrupted with Stride. Then again, the world is full of strange coincidence. And I wasn't there.

[Patrick S]

Very well, there was a miscommunication, back on track.

I don't believe the issues under discussion were peripheral issues. We are talking about a study that attempts to include a non-canonical in the victim category (which I am not opposed to as I consider Martha to be a likely possible addition). But the authors are attempting to use "signature" for her inclusion and the items I was discussing were key components to the core of their argument.

This study ignores reality by focusing on facts and drawing conclusions that show no understanding of the time period (the bodies not being hidden), creates assumptions or outright inventions of things that are not founded in actual facts (the bodies being posed, being on display, etc) and patterns that are not evident in all their samples (Stride's lack of mutilation).

These are not peripheral, inconsequential matters. These are elements that made up the bulk of their "case" and they did a very bad job of presenting it. It is, in short, bad science.

I'm not sure I'd rate it as an example of excellent science myself. I did find it interesting, however. I was surprised by the number of murders in the area around that time (lower than I'd expected). As well, I value any kind of statistical comparison over no statistical comparison at all. Although, I won't discount that this may very well be a case of bad data in (invalid sample comparison, etc.), bad data out. Studies of this kind, if nothing else, provide a useful platform on which to apply analysis, criticism, and fresh thinking.

As I said, I read it years ago and it caused me to include Tabram into the group that I personally considered JTR victims. I'm not convinced with Stride, although, I do feel that the fact another murder was committed that night is more reason to include her than to not include her.

[Ally]

I am entirely on the fence about Stride. If you ask me on Monday I might be leaning towards her being a victim, law of probability regarding a throat cutting killer of prostitutes in a smallish area, etc. If you ask me on Thursday I might be leaning away, lack of mutilation, how long does it take to stab a stomach if that's what he really NEEDED to do, even if he was interrupted, a single stab before he bolted was doable, etc.

So I cannot say I have any opinion, whatsoever, on her inclusion.

[Patrick S]

Very well, there was a miscommunication, back on track.

I don't believe the issues under discussion were peripheral issues. We are talking about a study that attempts to include a non-canonical in the victim category (which I am not opposed to as I consider Martha to be a likely possible addition). But the authors are attempting to use "signature" for her inclusion and the items I was discussing were key components to the core of their argument.

This study ignores reality by focusing on facts and drawing conclusions that show no understanding of the time period (the bodies not being hidden), creates assumptions or outright inventions of things that are not founded in actual facts (the bodies being posed, being on display, etc) and patterns that are not evident in all their samples (Stride's lack of mutilation).

These are not peripheral, inconsequential matters. These are elements that made up the bulk of their "case" and they did a very bad job of presenting it. It is, in short, bad science.

You think that Tabram is a likely JTR victim. What about Stride?

[Ally]

Very well, there was a miscommunication, back on track.

I don't believe the issues under discussion were peripheral issues. We are talking about a study that attempts to include a non-canonical in the victim category (which I am not opposed to as I consider Martha to be a likely possible addition). But the authors are attempting to use "signature" for her inclusion and the items I was discussing were key components to the core of their argument.

This study ignores reality by focusing on facts and drawing conclusions that show no understanding of the time period (the bodies not being hidden), creates assumptions or outright inventions of things that are not founded in actual facts (the bodies being posed, being on display, etc) and patterns that are not evident in all their samples (Stride's lack of mutilation).

These are not peripheral, inconsequential matters. These are elements that made up the bulk of their "case" and they did a very bad job of presenting it. It is, in short, bad science.

[Patrick S]

Oh I am sorry, so you posted a link and invited discussion, but you apparently only wanted that discussion to be praise for the research.

And you didn't expect anything you said in support to be analyzed or challenged or dissected.

So you did not want any actual discussion then, just wholesale agreement to your views. My mistake.

I'm not sure what that's about, but I'll chalk it up to miscommunication. I'm just of the view that our discussion devolved into one less about the study and more about dissection of peripheral issues and examples that you may have found inappropriate. I am sorry you feel that I was looking for praise. In fact, you made very sound arguments and, although I've re-read this study many times, I now view it more skeptically than I did yesterday. Which is precisely why I posted the link. It's not something I discuss with friends at dinner parties, if you know what I mean. I value opposing views. Thanks.

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. What precisely is the evidence for interruption in the Stride case? I must have missed it.

Cheers.
LC

I'm not sure evidence is presented in the study. It references Sugdnen, Evans and Skinner, and Begg in it's presentation that the killer was interrupted. Later in the article it states "Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly were all victims of the same killer and showed characteristics unique to this killer’s signature, as well as to his MO." They base this upon the computer comparison matching the six murders to one killer based upon MO and signature.

[Ally]

I could throw out a hundred scenarios and each can be ridiculed and used as ammunition for insults. I was simply attempting to highlight deviations from what DID happen by giving examples of things that DID NOT happen. I wasn't trying to argue their plausibility. I didn't intend for the examples to be dissected and used to imply that I'm a neophyte in need of education with respect to the socioeconomic conditions of the late 19th century East End.

And it's Nichols.

Oh I am sorry, so you posted a link and invited discussion, but you apparently only wanted that discussion to be praise for the research.

And you didn't expect anything you said in support to be analyzed or challenged or dissected.

So you did not want any actual discussion then, just wholesale agreement to your views. My mistake.

[lynn cates]

interruption

Hello Patrick. What precisely is the evidence for interruption in the Stride case? I must have missed it.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. Welcome to the boards.

Disappeared forever? What, no Alice and no Frances?

Cheers.
LC

According to the study. McKenzie and Coles may have been Ripper victims, as well. The authors of the study didn't see them as such. I'm interested in evidence that they were, though. What have you got?

Thanks for the welcome.

[lynn cates]

bingo

Hello Ally. Concerning post #2, it cannot be said any better.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Carriage? People living in Whitechapel. Lousy with carriages they were.



And moving them ten feet hides them ...how??



Possibly because you are just throwing out scenarios that show no understanding of the time period, the socio-economic status of the people living there or a familiarity with the streets. If the idea was that "he made no attempt to hide them" has any sort of merit, what possible merit does your suggesting he could have dragged them ten feet offer??? Why would he waste the time to drag them ten feet?




But the point was, your study, which you linked to, attempted to make a big whoopting do out of the fact that they were not moved. When there is no surprise whatsoever that they would not be moved. It is the expected, logical, and probable scenario. So there is absolutely nothing that can be read into the fact that they were not moved.




Might. Or it might count as he moved them out of the way to get to something else. And still, that was one body. The other "five"?




An assumption not based on evidence. They weren't on full display except in two instances. Eddowes and Kelly. If he'd wanted them on "full display, he'd have rent the dress down the middle so anyone finding them could readily see what had been done. I can't remember if it was Chapman or Nicols, but with one of them no on

I could throw out a hundred scenarios and each can be ridiculed and used as ammunition for insults. I was simply attempting to highlight deviations from what DID happen by giving examples of things that DID NOT happen. I wasn't trying to argue their plausibility. I didn't intend for the examples to be dissected and used to imply that I'm a neophyte in need of education with respect to the socioeconomic conditions of the late 19th century East End.

And it's Nichols.

[lynn cates]

In donde estan?

Hello Patrick. Welcome to the boards.

Disappeared forever? What, no Alice and no Frances?

Cheers.
LC