Ripperologist 129: December 2012

[Colin Roberts]

... The only percentage figures that entered my mind was the fact that George Dickel is 50% alcohol. I realize it more this morning than I did last night...LOL.

All kiddin' aside. I for one, appreciate all you've done. Your emphasis on the importance of the layout of the boroughs, parishes and hamlets is spot on in understanding some of the jurisdiction problems that cropped up during that time... not to mention the stark reality in a mathematical sense of how unique these murders truly were.

Thanks for the reality checks, Colin... even if some don't want to sober up to the facts.

Thanks Cris,

I have embibed in more than my fair share of George Dickel.

I dun my schoolin' at Sewanee, which is within spittin' distance of the Dickel distillery. It was there that I developed a preference for Tennessee sour mash, over Kentucky Bourbon. But, these days, I rarely embibe in anything.

Sewanee, by the way, is the proud owner of eight bells that were cast at the Whitechapel Bell Foundry:


Breslin Tower, The University of the South; Sewanee, Tennessee; 2007 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)



"2003 Whitechapel": Breslin Tower, The University of the South; Sewanee, Tennessee; 2007 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

[lynn cates]

poll, but not Pearly

Hello Mike.

"Asking the question "Who among the Canonical Five were killed by one man referred to as Jack the Ripper", and "Which murders among all the unsolved murders within the Police file on the Whitechapel Murders were most likely committed by this Jack fellow" are 2 different questions. My bet is the answer to the first one for most people studying these crimes would be all of them."

Hmm, the answer is obvious. Create a poll.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

It seems the posts are off synch a bit, but on your statistical analysis of historical polling on whom should be included for consideration contains victims of crimes that no serious Ripperologist would include in a list by one killer. I havent heard or read anyone make a serious case for the Torso killer being Jack, since the Torsos pre-date the Ripper crimes, nor have I seen any credible argument for Rose Mylett's inclusion, or Coles or Emma for that matter. I think youve diminished the final figures by incorporating victims that no serious student would include on their own list, as your second matrix shows us.

Your first group of statistics presumes that a cumulative review of prior polls in this regard show us that the murder of Elizabeth Stride is considered the least probable inclusion of the 5 "Canonics", or women who were assumed murdered by JtR. But it also shows us that no less than 80% of those responding to the question believe she should be included in the series. People believe that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes are almost 100% Ripper victims, by that poll summary.

Asking the question "Who among the Canonical Five were killed by one man referred to as Jack the Ripper", and "Which murders among all the unsolved murders within the Police file on the Whitechapel Murders were most likely committed by this Jack fellow" are 2 different questions. My bet is the answer to the first one for most people studying these crimes would be all of them.

On your analogy about the planes, you have the same weapon, the same kind of target, and similar timing....without knowing anything more you have good reason to surmise the attacks were either co-ordinated or organized by the same person or persons.

In East London in the Fall of 1888, using only the Canonics, you have homeless women murdered on the most dangerous streets in London within a 2 1/2 month span, with no consensus on a single weapon, you have targets ranging from 46 to 26, killings both indoors and outdoors, and you have only a segment of them with similar wounds and injuries. Of the witness accounts from the nights the women were murdered, you have differing descriptions about the last person seen with them while they lived. Different coloring and builds, heights, manner of dress, probable economic status..you have medical opinions that are inconclusive because they conflict.

Its easy to suggest that since these murders were particularly horrible, and since they all occurred within a square mile over 2 1/2 months, and since most of the women were homeless, and since knives were used, they are likely connected to one killer. Thats all well and good IF the physical evidence in each case shows a pattern of consistent behaviour, methodology, victimology, skill and knowledge. But it doesnt.

My best to you Colin

[Hunter]

Darn Colin... that's what you did on New Year's Eve night?... Crunch numbers?

I have to tip my old worn out St. Louis Cardinals baseball cap to you ( despite what she sez, Ally really likes Southern dudes with baseball caps.) Personally, I cracked open a bottle of Tennessee sour mash and put on some old Hank Williams records. The only percentage figures that entered my mind was the fact that George Dickel is 50% alcohol. I realize it more this morning than I did last night...LOL.

All kiddin' aside. I for one, appreciate all you've done. Your emphasis on the importance of the layout of the boroughs, parishes and hamlets is spot on in understanding some of the jurisdiction problems that cropped up during that time... not to mention the stark reality in a mathematical sense of how unique these murders truly were.

Thanks for the reality checks, Colin... even if some don't want to sober up to the facts.

Happy New Year everyone.

[Colin Roberts]

... I concede that I would indeed ask the whereabouts of the confessed killer about the other murder nights, but that alone does not insinuate I am elevating his status to a "suspect" for them. I need as an investigator to cover those bases and either rule him out or make him a viable Suspect for those as well. If for example he tells me he lives in George Yard I would consider him for the unsolved murders that occurred near there. But ultimately what makes someone a Suspect, vs a Person of Interest, is evidence that connects the person with the crime, the victim, the murder weapon or the methodology.

That's fair enough, Mike.

Thanks!

[Michael W Richards]

So as a contemporary investigator that had just exacted a confession for ... let's say ... the murder of Elizabeth Stride - 'Liz' to those of you that have somehow come to be on a first-name basis of acquaintance with these women - it wouldn't occur to you to ask the suspect: Oh, by the way, can you verify your whereabouts on the mornings of 6 and 31 August, 8 September, 30 September following your assault of Ms. Stride, 9 November, etc.?

On a sidetrack, Mike:

You seem to be fixated on the notion that there really is a 'Canon' as regards the victims of 'Jack the Ripper': More so than anyone else that posts to these boards.

There is no 'Canon', Mike. None!

The fact that some author fashioned the term 'Canonical' as a reference to the 'Macnaghten-Five' does not in any way, shape, or form constitute the actual existence of a 'Canon'.

How can there be a 'Canon' when there is no semblance of a consensus of opinion, regarding the women that were felled by the same hand? And mark my word, there is no such consensus, Mike! None whatsoever!

Hi Colin,

Long time no speak with. Happy New Year.

Let me address one point Bridewell made before I respond to the above...Bridewell, are you aware what percentage within a given group can be considered truly ambidextrous? Around 1%. If the killer actually was an "ambi", testing each suspect for their ability to use either hand equally effectively might have been a great Ripper litmus test. The odds are though that none of the 5 women killed were killed by someone within that small population segment.

Colin....in your first paragraph I concede that I would indeed ask the whereabouts of the confessed killer about the other murder nights, but that alone does not insinuate I am elevating his status to a "suspect" for them. I need as an investigator to cover those bases and either rule him out or make him a viable Suspect for those as well. If for example he tells me he lives in George Yard I would consider him for the unsolved murders that occurred near there. But ultimately what makes someone a Suspect, vs a Person of Interest, is evidence that connects the person with the crime, the victim, the murder weapon or the methodology. And on a side note, a confession in and of itself is meaningless. People falsely confess to crimes all the time, and many did for the Ripper crimes.

On my consistent categorization of the "Canonicals" Colin, I believe that almost all the published literature of the crimes, and a large amount of the comments made here on the boards are based on that assumptive. That a single serial killer was responsible for these 5 murders. Macnaughten aside, surely that number could be higher and have different types of crimes associated, but the baseline premise is that we are investigating a streak of serial killing here.

When I see someone make an argument for one murder then automatically attempt to extrapolate that data to all 5 to address the "series", I often step in with reminders that we do not, as you say, have a Canonical Group of murders here. We have 5 unsolved murders, some of which may be linked with a single killer. No confirmed "series". No confirmed single weapon, no confirmed motives, ....we have no confirmed killer profile.

When you see me making that statement again you will now be able to understand why I felt the need to do so.

My thinking is that if we can find Pollys killer it may lead to Annies, and if we find Strides then we can rule her out as a "Canonical" and wipe a Double Event off the chalkboard, if we find Catharine's killer we may find ties that indirectly lead to Mary, or, be able to eliminate her from the group. If we find Marys killer we will know whether she fell to a man who killed strangers.

Im obviously in this for the long haul, Ive been here off and on since 2005 I believe, Ive read dozens of books, articles and related documentation, I have a hard drive with a few hundred meg of images, notes, photos, maps, articles, magazines, bio's, historically relevant tangential data, .....and as a result I have reached the point in Ripperology that most long time researchers have already, like yourself....that nothing about these cases, any of them, is solved.

Its my opinion that the knowledge and talents and instinctive intelligence of the many members here would be better served if we set aside any discussion that reaches a conclusion about an outcome before a single element has been resolved.

Its really 5 ladies murdered and a pervasive and long lasting myth.

My best regards Colin, Bridewell.
Happy New Year all.

[Colin Roberts]

So as a contemporary investigator that had just exacted a confession for ... let's say ... the murder of Elizabeth Stride, it wouldn't occur to you to ask the suspect: Oh, by the way, can you verify your whereabouts on the mornings of 6 and 31 August, 8 September, 30 September following your assault of Ms. Stride, 9 November, etc.?

"6 and 31 August" should of course read 7 and 31 August.

All of my rambling with regard to a supposed 'Canon' notwithstanding, Mike, I am hoping for an answer to this question, since you seem to think that we should have no suspicions regarding the possibility of a single killer of the 'Macnaghten-Five'.

Did you know:

- that the North Tower of the World Trade Center was struck on 9/11 on its north side, between the 93rd and 99th floors, by an American Airlines Boeing 767 that was travelling at a speed of approximately 404 knots?

- that the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck on 9/11 on its south side, between the 77th and 85th floors, by a United Airlines Boeing 767 that was travelling at a speed of approximately 513 knots?

Those are some significant differences; would you not agree?

But shouldn't the FBI have had suspicions regarding the possibility that the two incidents were related; even in light of the fact that there was "no hard evidence" -as you like to say - at either scene, that might have connected the two atrocities?

[Colin Roberts]

The means, by which we would compute the percentage of respondents that actually voted for the so-called 'Canonic-Five', and just the so-called 'Canonic-Five' would be to multiply through each of the following figures:

- Not Smith: 97%
- Not Tabram: 55%
- Nichols: 95%
- Chapman: 98%
- Stride: 81%
- Eddowes: 95%
- Kelly: 86%
- Not Mylett: 95%
- Not McKenzie: 82%
- Not Pinchin Torso: 97%
- Not Coles: 86%

= 'Canonic-Five' Only: 21.36%

So what percentage of respondents actually voted for each of the so-called 'Canonic-Five', regardless of whether they also voted for one or more of the non-'Canonic' victims?

Well the percentage clearly represents a majority of respondents, but it is not the 81% figure (i.e. the lowest individual so-called 'Canonic' figure: Elizabeth Stride) that many would probably believe it to be.

The answer is 61.61%.

It is derived by multiplying through each of the individual so-called 'Canonic' figures:

- Nichols: 95%
- Chapman: 98%
- Stride: 81%
- Eddowes: 95%
- Kelly: 86%

= 'Canonic-Five': 61.61%

---

Either way, I believe that the chosen Stride and Kelly figures are each too high, and that the chosen Tabram figure is too low.

If, for example, I were to reduce the Stride and Kelly figures to 75% and 80%, respectively, whilst increasing the Tabram figure to 55%, my computed results would be as follows:

- Not Smith: 97%
- Not Tabram: 45%
- Nichols: 95%
- Chapman: 98%
- Stride: 75%
- Eddowes: 95%
- Kelly: 80%
- Not Mylett: 95%
- Not McKenzie: 82%
- Not Pinchin Torso: 97%
- Not Coles: 86%

= 'Canonic-Five' Only: 15.05%

And ...

- Nichols: 95%
- Chapman: 98%
- Stride: 75%
- Eddowes: 95%
- Kelly: 80%

= 'Canonic-Five': 53.07%

[Colin Roberts]

There is no 'Canon', Mike. None!

The fact that some author fashioned the term 'Canonical' as a reference to the 'Macnaghten-Five' does not in any way, shape, or form constitute the actual existence of a 'Canon'.

How can there be a 'Canon' when there is no semblance of a consensus of opinion, regarding the women that were felled by the same hand? And mark my word, there is no such consensus, Mike! None whatsoever!

Again: "mark my word, there is no such consensus, Mike!"

Mark my word!

---

Let me expound, if I may.

Suppose we take a survey and get the following results:

Percentage of Respondents that Believe the Respective Victim Fell at the Hands of 'Jack the Ripper':

- Smith: 3%
- Tabram: 45%
- Nichols: 95%
- Chapman: 98%
- Stride: 81%
- Eddowes: 95%
- Kelly: 86%
- Mylett: 5%
- McKenzie: 18%
- Pinchin Torso: 3%
- Coles: 14%

We've seen dozens of these polls over the years, and these figures are fairly consistent with those that have actually appeared.

The so-called 'Canonic-Five'¹ appear to be doing rather well, and with their lowest figure (Stride) being 81% it looks as if we certainly have a consensus of opinion. Right?

WRONG!

The means, by which we would compute the percentage of respondents that actually voted for the so-called 'Canonic-Five', and just the so-called 'Canonic-Five' would be to multiply through each of the following figures:

- Not Smith: 97%
- Not Tabram: 55%
- Nichols: 95%
- Chapman: 98%
- Stride: 81%
- Eddowes: 95%
- Kelly: 86%
- Not Mylett: 95%
- Not McKenzie: 82%
- Not Pinchin Torso: 97%
- Not Coles: 86%

= 'Canonic-Five' Only: 21.36%

21.36%!

Twenty one percent does not a consensus of opinion make!

And if there is no consensus then there is plainly and simply no 'Canon': Period!

No if's; no and's; no but's.

In fact, poll results such as these don't even bring us anywhere close to having a consensus of opinion. Again, 21.36%!

---

¹ 'Canonic' is the appropriate term, in this context; not 'Canonical'.

An old house is historic, whereas a written account of that house's history is historical.

Likewise, ...

A victim that is part of the supposed 'canon' would be canonic, whereas the rationale behind that victim's inclusion would be canonical.

[Colin Roberts]

The very first thing my Macdonald great-aunts said when they learned of my birth:

"But Colin is a Campbell name!"

We are, of course, supposed to be sworn enemies.

[Bridewell]

Macdonalds & Campbells

Great name - Colin - isn't it?

I was christened Colin Campbell, and my surname is, of course, Roberts.

The very first thing my Macdonald great-aunts said when they learned of my birth:

"But Colin is a Campbell name!"

Regards, Bridewell.

[Colin Roberts]

One of the few statements which no-one can really argue with. I bet someone will try though!

I'm sure someone will, Colin.

Great name - Colin - isn't it?

I was christened Colin Campbell, and my surname is, of course, Roberts.

My maternal grandfather's ancestry consisted mostly of Campbells that settled in Lexington, Virginia by way of Belfast.

He was the skipper of the USS Herndon (a Destroyer) when it sailed from Belfast to Normandy to spear-head the invasion of Utah Beach. Being the good Virginian that he was, he flew the Confederate Battle Flag on the stern of the ship.

Anyway, I HATED my name when I was growing up, because I invariably had to repeat it and/or spell it whenever being introduced to someone else. I also invariably had to convince all of my teachers on the first day of school that my name really was Colin Roberts, not Robert Collins.

Needless to say, the name was virtually unheard of in the U.S., in the sixties and seventies.

I spent the better part of the '78, '79, '80 timeframe in England, and my accent precluded my being able to easily introduce myself there, as well.

Very few people were able to decipher my pronunciation of my name. I always had difficulty ordering Cod & Chips. No one knew what caaahd was. And no one had ever heard the name caaahlin.

[Bridewell]

How can there be a 'Canon' when there is no semblance of a consensus of opinion, regarding the women that were felled by the same hand? And mark my word, there is no such consensus, Mike! None whatsoever!

Hi, Colin,

One of the few statements which no-one can really argue with. I bet someone will try though!

Regards, Bridewell (aka another Colin).

[Colin Roberts]

The argument that "suspected for one, suspected for all" isnt really supported by the known evidence ...

So as a contemporary investigator that had just exacted a confession for ... let's say ... the murder of Elizabeth Stride - 'Liz' to those of you that have somehow come to be on a first-name basis of acquaintance with these women - it wouldn't occur to you to ask the suspect: Oh, by the way, can you verify your whereabouts on the mornings of 6 and 31 August, 8 September, 30 September following your assault of Ms. Stride, 9 November, etc.?

On a sidetrack, Mike:

You seem to be fixated on the notion that there really is a 'Canon' as regards the victims of 'Jack the Ripper': More so than anyone else that posts to these boards.

There is no 'Canon', Mike. None!

The fact that some author fashioned the term 'Canonical' as a reference to the 'Macnaghten-Five' does not in any way, shape, or form constitute the actual existence of a 'Canon'.

How can there be a 'Canon' when there is no semblance of a consensus of opinion, regarding the women that were felled by the same hand? And mark my word, there is no such consensus, Mike! None whatsoever!

[Bridewell]

Ambidextrous?

The argument that "suspected for one, suspected for all" isn't really supported by the known evidence Bridewell.

Hi Michael,

I'm aware of the contemporary opinions and of the differences between them. However, we do not know that these murders were not by the same person. They may have been or they may not. I am not claiming that the detection of one crime would mean the detection of all but, if one offender was proven beyond doubt to have committed a particular offence he would, of necessity, be considered suspect of the others; no more than suspect, but definitely that.

The left-handed/right-handed argument has one obvious flaw, inasmuch as it doesn't take account of the possibility of an ambidextrous killer. Some butchers (for example) pride themselves on being equally skilled with either hand:

http://tilia.changedigital.co.uk/shop/vendor/52/randalls-butchers

Regards, Bridewell.