John Richardson

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I suspect you are another person looking for a binary answer, either yes or no.


Did you invent it?

I did not invent anything, am amazed that you should ask me whether I did, and surprised that you think that there is anything unusual about a person expecting to receive a binary answer when his honesty has been questioned.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Ummm, really? So, modern serial killers, with access to cars, abducting rather than killing isn't good enough? Ok. There won't be many, since, you know, cars have been around for quite some time, and detetecing and apprehending serial killers wasn't all that good for many years (a few were caught, but many more got away with it - hopefully we're getting better).

Anyway, nice play. Either I have to limit myself to time periods when serial killers were unlike to get caught (and those who did were generally poisoners), or we look at time periods when serial killers had access to things JtR did not (i.e. cars), which changes the context.

But, it doesn't matter. Whether or not JtR is "like" other serial killers, either generally or limited to "disembowelers", he's still an individual. We can use group statistics when we have no other information, but when we have information about his actions, we use that. The information we have points to JtR choosing to kill around 5:25ish in the backyard of #29 - and while my personal view is that since Wickerman's post that resulted in the "orange spot" theory (see earlier in this thread) I think we can safely conclude she was killed at least afer 5:00, and so in all probability around 5:25ish (I am still of 2 minds about Long's sighting though). Are you obliged to agree? Of course not.

But if we have to limit our examples, then I would like to see your collection of serial killers who killed victims in open public places and mutilated them. Think about it, if there is only 2 that match that criterion, out of 1000 serial killers, but it turns out both of them committed daylight murders then ... see where I'm going?

Be careful about how you generalise.

- Jeff

This doesn't address the point put in front of you.

Experience tells us that it is unusual for a serial killer to commit a murder outdoors in daylight, and when the community is active nearby.

It is entirely valid to employ statistics, providing the statistics are accurate and the premise reflects the statistics. This is widely accepted.

In order to refute my argument, you need to demonstrate that the statistics or the premise is false.

You did briefly attempt to do that with your list of serial killers, but that was very quickly refuted because in no way did it counter the statistics mentioned. As I said to you, for every serial killer you can find murdering in those circumstances, there are an awful lot more murdering in the dark, behind four walls or in a secluded area such as the woods.

You are incorrect also when you state: 'we can use group statistics when we have no other information'.

Firstly, we do have other information in that the evidence we have at our disposal tells us that the other murders in this series were committed when it was dark or behind four walls or both.

Secondly, as I said to you, it is an entirely valid argument to employ statistics providing the statistics are accurate and the premise follows from the statistics.

Thirdly, your 'other information' is subject to your bias and your thought process. As I said to you in the last post, your theorising and subjectivity does not compete with empirical data.

Finally, I have no idea where you're going with your 'serial killers who mutilated in public places'. Your point isn't well explained, at least to me anyway, and in no way refutes my point. You're free to add some more details to what you're attempting to say here.

[Paul Sutton]

If you use one sentence of a five sentence statement - have you used it, or not?
Yes or no?
To make the selection easier, if you used one sentence, but say you did not use it, would that be lying?

Whether whole or part has no bearing on the fact you either used it, or you didn't.
It's a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer, which is binary.

My mistake, I can see now that you understood binary. Though your wording obscured it - you said:

'Because you choose to use it, or you don't.
You can use any of it, or all of it, or you use none of it.'

I misinterpreted your 'or you use none of it' for 'or you can use none of it'.

But I don't think your rule - you either use it (incl. any part) or none of it - is a sensible/logical rule.

Given the known problems, it's quite possible parts are to be extracted and others rejected, or reject the whole thing. But in rejecting the whole thing, there's a distinction to be made: 1) One could simply ignore it in a discussion, pretending it doesn't exist; 2) one could acknowledge its existence but say nothing in it is reliable. The latter is very different from the former. I think the former is more something to be frowned on, for laying down rules against - though I'm sure it can be justified.

Incidentally, I'm in my late 50s, and would plead not to have smiley faces in anything directed at me! They're for teenagers on tik-tok.

[Herlock Sholmes]

'Look back through the last 10 pages on this thread, and the answer is a unanimous yes: they do tell some people here something they didn't know.

You're saying you know all about these studies, based on empirical data.

What do these studies suggest in relation to the accuracy of Albert's recollection of events?

I’m forced to ask myself if your lack of perception on these issues is simply error or whether it’s entirely intentional. I tend to favour the latter. Two very simple points:

1. No one on here, as far as I’m aware, has ever denied or doubted the fact that witnesses can be mistaken. Can you really have so poor an understanding that you think that some do?

2. That witnesses can be mistaken doesn’t mean that they should be considered as mistaken. (This is Trevor’s approach - which you seem to adhere to)

Your ‘what are the chances of’ point about the location at that time of day is bizarrely treated as some kind of killer point. So I’ll add some ‘what are the chances of’ of my own.

1. What are the chances, in a case when there are only three witnesses pertinent to a ToD, that all three of them were mistaken or lying?

2. What are the chances that John Richardson (for some strange reason apparently desperate to prove that the body wasn’t there) denies going into the yard when that would have been the exact thing that would have proved the point that he was trying to prove in th first place?

3. What are the chances that at the inquest Richardson appears to say something that means ‘I cut leather from my boot but I couldn’t cut leather from my boot,’ and not a single person (whether experienced coroner or jury) notices this obvious gibberish?

4. What are the chances of John Richardson deliberately lying to Chandler about sitting on the step and repairing his boot and yet less that 48 hours later he’s blabbing to the Press that he’d done exactly that?

5. What are the chances of a man standing pretty much next to fence hears a sound from elsewhere and mistakes it for something hitting against that very fence….and is absolutely confident that he’s right?

6. What are the chances of all clocks being accurate and synchronised to at least 5 minutes?

7. What are the chances of a noise coming from number 29 (allegedly when there was a corpse lying there) could have been entirely unconnected to the crime?

8. What are the chances of every single authority on the subject of Forensics is wrong but you are right?

9. What are the chances of a dirt-poor, malnourished woman who didn’t know where here next meal was coming from, turning down the chance of a bit of food if the situation presented itself?

10. What are the chances of a police officer who knew nothing of the boot repair, would have felt that a small piece of leather was of the slightest significance?



If you do respond, I suspect that it will be a case of Maximus Drivellus.

[JeffHamm]

...
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Jack committed that murder at that time. As I said previously, there are many factors governing their actions, such as impulse.
....

I agree.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I think this is the only example you provide of a murder in broad daylight when the community was active nearby.

I can think of two British serial killers who did that also.

As said, it is extremely unlikely for a serial killer to do that.

For every example of that happening, we could provide at least a hundred of serial killers who either killed in the dark, or behind four walls or in a secluded area such as the woods.

The conclusion is that it is unusual and unlikely that a serial killer would commit a murder in such a location, in daylight with the community active nearby.

Ummm, really? So, modern serial killers, with access to cars, abducting rather than killing isn't good enough? Ok. There won't be many, since, you know, cars have been around for quite some time, and detetecing and apprehending serial killers wasn't all that good for many years (a few were caught, but many more got away with it - hopefully we're getting better).

Anyway, nice play. Either I have to limit myself to time periods when serial killers were unlike to get caught (and those who did were generally poisoners), or we look at time periods when serial killers had access to things JtR did not (i.e. cars), which changes the context.

But, it doesn't matter. Whether or not JtR is "like" other serial killers, either generally or limited to "disembowelers", he's still an individual. We can use group statistics when we have no other information, but when we have information about his actions, we use that. The information we have points to JtR choosing to kill around 5:25ish in the backyard of #29 - and while my personal view is that since Wickerman's post that resulted in the "orange spot" theory (see earlier in this thread) I think we can safely conclude she was killed at least afer 5:00, and so in all probability around 5:25ish (I am still of 2 minds about Long's sighting though). Are you obliged to agree? Of course not.

But if we have to limit our examples, then I would like to see your collection of serial killers who killed victims in open public places and mutilated them. Think about it, if there is only 2 that match that criterion, out of 1000 serial killers, but it turns out both of them committed daylight murders then ... see where I'm going?

Be careful about how you generalise.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Like speculating that a dirt poor woman who never knew where her next meal was coming from and who was poorly nourished couldn’t have eaten something at some point after she left the lodging house and before her death.

Ad Ignorantiam fallacy.

This argument offers lack of evidence as if it were evidence to the contrary.

This fallacy attempts to shift the burden of proof away from the person making the claim, that person being you.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you’re hoping that a repeated use of Latin or a regular quote from a list of Logical Fallacies is going to increase the validity of your posts then you’re hoping in vain especially when your latest pearl of wisdom is that clocks couldn’t possibly have been 5 minutes out.

Its a case of Talkem Fro Arsus.

In one sentence you have achieved:

Ad lapidem, straw man, ad hominem, ad nauseam, ad absurdum, ag ignorantiam.

A new world record for logical fallacies in relation to printing space.

[Herlock Sholmes]

the same Jewish suspect shouting what was a well-known anti-Jewish insult as a person of pronouncedly Jewish appearance passed by,.

Many of these totally ludicrous suggestions have been made, not only as if they are perfectly sensible, but as if they are evidently more sensible than any made by me!

An example, found originally by Debra Arif, of a Jewish person insulting another Jewish person by calling him Lipski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a general point, empirical data is held in high esteem because it is evidential and not open to bias and subjectivity. Your theorising, on the other hand, does not fall under that umbrella; and it does not compete with empirical data.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Jack committed that murder at that time. As I said previously, there are many factors governing their actions, such as impulse.

We do know, however, that the same types of people, governed by similar emotions and instincts; do not usually choose to commit a murder at the time you are suggesting in that location.

By all means, speculate, but let's put it in its proper place and call it what it is.

Like speculating that a dirt poor woman who never knew where her next meal was coming from and who was poorly nourished couldn’t have eaten something at some point after she left the lodging house and before her death.

A case of Muchus Bollockum I’d suggest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Argumentum ad Lapidem: dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Your response that 'the clocks were not perfectly synchronised' does not begin to explain the discrepancy.

You are the master of logical fallacies.

If you’re hoping that a repeated use of Latin or a regular quote from a list of Logical Fallacies is going to increase the validity of your posts then you’re hoping in vain especially when your latest pearl of wisdom is that clocks couldn’t possibly have been 5 minutes out.

Its a case of Talkem Fro Arsus.

[Fleetwood Mac]

when it comes to evaluating their choices about when, where, and who, it is best to set aside our ideas of what makes sense and try and figure out what apparently made sense to them.

As a general point, empirical data is held in high esteem because it is evidential and not open to bias and subjectivity. Your theorising, on the other hand, does not fall under that umbrella; and it does not compete with empirical data.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that Jack committed that murder at that time. As I said previously, there are many factors governing their actions, such as impulse.

We do know, however, that the same types of people, governed by similar emotions and instincts; do not usually choose to commit a murder at the time you are suggesting in that location.

By all means, speculate, but let's put it in its proper place and call it what it is.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Carl Watts, who committed a number of murders, but this one seems most relevant to the current point: "Jeanne Clyne, a 44-year-old reporter for Detroit News, walked home after a doctor's appointment, and was attacked. She was approached in broad daylight next to her Grosse Point Farms home on a major suburban road. Eleven stab wounds resulted in her death. Insufficient evidence was discovered by the police to identify a suspect. Detectives initially suspected Jeanne's husband, but once Coral admitted to her murder, they ruled him out." ; Again, daylight, and murdered right out in the open. ...

I think this is the only example you provide of a murder in broad daylight when the community was active nearby.

I can think of two British serial killers who did that also.

As said, it is extremely unlikely for a serial killer to do that.

For every example of that happening, we could provide at least a hundred of serial killers who either killed in the dark, or behind four walls or in a secluded area such as the woods.

The conclusion is that it is unusual and unlikely that a serial killer would commit a murder in such a location, in daylight with the community active nearby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

She sent one of the lodgers for a pint of beer

(Testimony of John Evans)

So the lodger brought beer into the lodging house.

[JeffHamm]

Actually Jon,

An investigation into the association between cannibalism and serial killers - PMC (nih.gov)

A significant number of serial killers demonstrate post-mortem manipulation, mutilation and, in some cases, cannibalism of their victims (Ressler & Shactman, 1997; Wiest, 2016).

Regardless, you're presenting a straw man argument.

You and Herlock are going right through the gears: non sequitur, bandwagon fallacy, reductio ad absurdum and now straw man.

A spot of self-reflection should tell you that between you, you cannot offer a sensible reply to two points:

1) It is highly unlikely that a serial killer would murder in that location at that time of the day.
2) Witnesses such as Albert Cadosche, are prone to recollecting events that did not actually happen that way in their entirety.

Hmmm,

Ted Bundy abducted 2 women, in broad daylight, from a crowded beach, and his last victim, he abducted from her school (also daytime).

Dennis Radar committed his first murders (the Otero Family), in the morning, around breakfast time.

Ed Kemper abducted women on the university campus, and drove them out past security guards (explaining they were asleep).

Richard Chase committed a few of his crimes in the day time, and after he left the crimes scenes was spotted in bloody clothing and such, yet wasn't arrested etc. His case isn't exactly a highlight in effective policing. As an aside, in at least one case he removed a woman's kidneys, cut them in half, then placed them back in the body - he was psychotic, so don't ask why, his general explanation for his crimes had to do with his blood turning to dust, or something like that, and he needed to replace it - oh, and no, he had no medical training by the way, yet he used to cut up animals, so had "anatomical knowledge" but not "medical knowledge".

Carl Watts, who committed a number of murders, but this one seems most relevant to the current point: "Jeanne Clyne, a 44-year-old reporter for Detroit News, walked home after a doctor's appointment, and was attacked. She was approached in broad daylight next to her Grosse Point Farms home on a major suburban road. Eleven stab wounds resulted in her death. Insufficient evidence was discovered by the police to identify a suspect. Detectives initially suspected Jeanne's husband, but once Coral admitted to her murder, they ruled him out." ; Again, daylight, and murdered right out in the open. ...

I'm sure we could find more cases, where a serial killer committed a crime (or initiated it), during daylight hours, in a location where we, as sensible people, will go "well, that doesn't make sense, nobody would do that". They do, they have, they will do again. Serial killers, while sometimes completely bat **** crazy (i.e. see Chase), can in many ways be almost normal in their thinking but when it comes to the decisions around committing their crimes - they do make weird choices (but then, the very fact they chose to kill some random stranger is, after all, well along the road of weird choices).

Basically, I'm not saying I disagree that a dawn murder in the backyard of #29 is unwise - what I'm saying is that when it comes to serial murderers, when it comes to evaluating their choices about when, where, and who, it is best to set aside our ideas of what makes sense and try and figure out what apparently made sense to them. If JtR thought killing at dawn in the backyard of #29 was ok, even though Cadosche had just recently gone to the loo next door, then that tells us about JtR. We can't use our sense of improbability to assess the probability of the events. If it appears they happened at dawn, then we need to take that into account - is JtR the "Richard Chase" of London, is he the "Ted Bundy", etc. (and, as I've said before, I'm not a fan of Behavioural Profiling of that sort, and I've illustrated two contrasting examples to make a point, though I could be called on it as such arguments are admittedly weak; i.e. if 99.9% are of type A, but I fortunately have that 0.1% case to present as B, I make it look more like 50/50 - it's a bit of sophistry on my part, so I should own up to that).

- Jeff