Tweet
Found it.
I have found the item I was looking for. It is in the form of a letter I wrote to another theorist over whether or not the bodies were dumped in any particular pattern. For what it is worth, here it is.
Dear
Many thanks for your email.
You’re quite right in saying that I have a problem with those theorists who insist that there is a pattern to the body dumps. Ivor of course wasn’t the first to suggest this; it’s just that it has become a corner stone of his theory.
I think the best way to answer you is to do it in two parts. First of all I would like to tackle the positioning theory and then Ivor in particular.
Proponents of the positioning theory usually fall back on the idea that for the body dumps to be random would be such a coincidence as not to be entertained. They usually back this up by quoting some incredible multimillion figures to support this. I’m sure you’ve heard them ‘The odds of this happening are 15 billion to one against!’
This sounds very impressive until you start to investigate it a bit more closely. First off I am unaware of any statistical analysis method of calculating the odds of where a body can be dumped. Academically speaking if you are going to make statements like this you should always quote your sources. For example:
‘The odds, as determined by Dr Rubenstein using SASS statistical Analysis at Trinity College on the 24th February 2004, are ……’
If you notice this is never done. In any case the odds are a lot less than you may think. For example if you look at the street map of any town or city you can easily be fooled into thinking that a body can be dumped anywhere. This is not so. If you first of all take off all the places that a body cannot be dumped – in a wall for instance, and then take off all those places that a body is unlikely to be dumped, on a roof, in a secure building etc etc, you will find that your massive area has shrunk remarkably.
In fact it really comes down to those areas that are open and easily accessible, roads, alleyways, commons etc. If you then take off those areas that are subject to a lot of traffic, busy roads etc, you will find that the areas on any map that a body can be dumped with impunity are relatively few.
So first off don’t be fooled into thinking that bodies can be dumped anywhere – they can’t, and when you take that into account you will find that the odds of a body turning up in any particular place are dramatically shortened.
Next let us look at patterns. When we look at the Ripper body dumps, practically everybody looks at the positions and then tries to form patterns. This is bad science. In an experiment you try and achieve an objective – when you have achieved it you try and duplicate the process – thus proving the first time wasn’t a fluke.
What theorist should be doing if they wish to be taken seriously is showing us how the killer plotted the positions for dumping the bodies. They don’t – instead they start at the end – the finding of the bodies and construct their theories from that.
It’s quite difficult to actually plot a series of body dumps that actually conform to a fixed pattern. Try it yourself. Draw a pattern with at least four points on it, a square, a diamond, two triangles whatever takes your fancy. Cut this out in cardboard and lay it on a large-scale road map of a town. I guarantee that at least one of your dumps will be in a no go area, like halfway through a wall, a secure building, on a roof, whatever.
Now common sense states that if you wished to dump bodies so they conform to a set pattern then all you would do is to dump them in a wide-open space such as a moor or a common. This is relatively simple.
But to take the next step what are the odds of randomly dumped bodies forming discernible patterns?
To determine this I constructed my own experiment. I took sheets of graph paper and numbered off 1cm squares – 100 across the top and 100 down. I then gave each square across the top a number and each square down the side a number – just like the grid references in a map. Each one of the 10,000 squares could thus be individually identified.
Using a Random Number Generator (downloaded from the internet) to produce a series of numbers for the squares across the top, and the same for the squares down the sides. I then ended up with a number of positions on the paper that had been picked completely at random. I did this for five positions for 100 sheets.
The results were startling. In 63% of cases randomly picked positions did form recognisable shapes and patterns. This is hardly surprising since there are so many different shapes we can utilise.
For example if we take the Ripper body dumps (leave out Kelly) look at the vast number of patterns you can make with these first four positions.
Draw a line Nichols, (N) Chapman, (C) Eddowes, (E) Stride (S) and back to Nichols. You have a parallelogram.
Draw a line N to E, E to C, E to S; you now have an arrow pointing South West.
Draw a line E to N, N to C, N to S; you now have an arrow pointing North East.
And so on. Look at all the different patterns you can form just by using these four points. Is it any wonder that in the majority of cases recognisable patterns can be formed from taking just four random points?
The final point on patterns being formed by the body dumps is who is to say which of the victims were killed by Jack the Ripper? There is a good case to be made for leaving Stride out of the tally. What happens to your patterns then?
Now to take Ivor’s particular points, the problem he has is that he doesn’t take enough care to ensure that what he is saying is accurate. For example he states that the distances between the first four victims are the same, he even go so far as to say they are accurate to the yard. They aren’t.
First off since it is impossible to actually pinpoint the positions of the victims to the ‘yard’ his statement is nonsense.
Secondly I have calculated the distances using the largest scale map available, and the generally accepted positions of the bodies, and I can assure you the differences are up to 15% out.
His other main claim is the first four victims were dumped at the four cardinal points of the compass. North, South, East and West. Unfortunately he has made the amateurs mistake of assuming the points of the compass show position – they don’t they show direction.
So for his statement to make sense he would have to tell us where these bearings were taken from. He doesn’t do this so the only way to proceed is to join the four plots (C to S & N to E) and use the intersection of the two lines as your prime position. From this point it is quite clear that none of the victims lie North, South, East or West.
At the Brighton conference Ivor gave a talk and I challenged him on his assertion that Commercial Road ran West to East. It was quite clear from the map he was using that Commercial Road ran South West to North East, but he refused to accept that. The audience really couldn’t understand why he continued to assert something that clearly wasn’t so, but I’m afraid that does seem to his way.
Anyway I hope I’ve given you something to work on. If there’s anything else don’t hesitate to drop me a line.
Bob
I have found the item I was looking for. It is in the form of a letter I wrote to another theorist over whether or not the bodies were dumped in any particular pattern. For what it is worth, here it is.
Dear
Many thanks for your email.
You’re quite right in saying that I have a problem with those theorists who insist that there is a pattern to the body dumps. Ivor of course wasn’t the first to suggest this; it’s just that it has become a corner stone of his theory.
I think the best way to answer you is to do it in two parts. First of all I would like to tackle the positioning theory and then Ivor in particular.
Proponents of the positioning theory usually fall back on the idea that for the body dumps to be random would be such a coincidence as not to be entertained. They usually back this up by quoting some incredible multimillion figures to support this. I’m sure you’ve heard them ‘The odds of this happening are 15 billion to one against!’
This sounds very impressive until you start to investigate it a bit more closely. First off I am unaware of any statistical analysis method of calculating the odds of where a body can be dumped. Academically speaking if you are going to make statements like this you should always quote your sources. For example:
‘The odds, as determined by Dr Rubenstein using SASS statistical Analysis at Trinity College on the 24th February 2004, are ……’
If you notice this is never done. In any case the odds are a lot less than you may think. For example if you look at the street map of any town or city you can easily be fooled into thinking that a body can be dumped anywhere. This is not so. If you first of all take off all the places that a body cannot be dumped – in a wall for instance, and then take off all those places that a body is unlikely to be dumped, on a roof, in a secure building etc etc, you will find that your massive area has shrunk remarkably.
In fact it really comes down to those areas that are open and easily accessible, roads, alleyways, commons etc. If you then take off those areas that are subject to a lot of traffic, busy roads etc, you will find that the areas on any map that a body can be dumped with impunity are relatively few.
So first off don’t be fooled into thinking that bodies can be dumped anywhere – they can’t, and when you take that into account you will find that the odds of a body turning up in any particular place are dramatically shortened.
Next let us look at patterns. When we look at the Ripper body dumps, practically everybody looks at the positions and then tries to form patterns. This is bad science. In an experiment you try and achieve an objective – when you have achieved it you try and duplicate the process – thus proving the first time wasn’t a fluke.
What theorist should be doing if they wish to be taken seriously is showing us how the killer plotted the positions for dumping the bodies. They don’t – instead they start at the end – the finding of the bodies and construct their theories from that.
It’s quite difficult to actually plot a series of body dumps that actually conform to a fixed pattern. Try it yourself. Draw a pattern with at least four points on it, a square, a diamond, two triangles whatever takes your fancy. Cut this out in cardboard and lay it on a large-scale road map of a town. I guarantee that at least one of your dumps will be in a no go area, like halfway through a wall, a secure building, on a roof, whatever.
Now common sense states that if you wished to dump bodies so they conform to a set pattern then all you would do is to dump them in a wide-open space such as a moor or a common. This is relatively simple.
But to take the next step what are the odds of randomly dumped bodies forming discernible patterns?
To determine this I constructed my own experiment. I took sheets of graph paper and numbered off 1cm squares – 100 across the top and 100 down. I then gave each square across the top a number and each square down the side a number – just like the grid references in a map. Each one of the 10,000 squares could thus be individually identified.
Using a Random Number Generator (downloaded from the internet) to produce a series of numbers for the squares across the top, and the same for the squares down the sides. I then ended up with a number of positions on the paper that had been picked completely at random. I did this for five positions for 100 sheets.
The results were startling. In 63% of cases randomly picked positions did form recognisable shapes and patterns. This is hardly surprising since there are so many different shapes we can utilise.
For example if we take the Ripper body dumps (leave out Kelly) look at the vast number of patterns you can make with these first four positions.
Draw a line Nichols, (N) Chapman, (C) Eddowes, (E) Stride (S) and back to Nichols. You have a parallelogram.
Draw a line N to E, E to C, E to S; you now have an arrow pointing South West.
Draw a line E to N, N to C, N to S; you now have an arrow pointing North East.
And so on. Look at all the different patterns you can form just by using these four points. Is it any wonder that in the majority of cases recognisable patterns can be formed from taking just four random points?
The final point on patterns being formed by the body dumps is who is to say which of the victims were killed by Jack the Ripper? There is a good case to be made for leaving Stride out of the tally. What happens to your patterns then?
Now to take Ivor’s particular points, the problem he has is that he doesn’t take enough care to ensure that what he is saying is accurate. For example he states that the distances between the first four victims are the same, he even go so far as to say they are accurate to the yard. They aren’t.
First off since it is impossible to actually pinpoint the positions of the victims to the ‘yard’ his statement is nonsense.
Secondly I have calculated the distances using the largest scale map available, and the generally accepted positions of the bodies, and I can assure you the differences are up to 15% out.
His other main claim is the first four victims were dumped at the four cardinal points of the compass. North, South, East and West. Unfortunately he has made the amateurs mistake of assuming the points of the compass show position – they don’t they show direction.
So for his statement to make sense he would have to tell us where these bearings were taken from. He doesn’t do this so the only way to proceed is to join the four plots (C to S & N to E) and use the intersection of the two lines as your prime position. From this point it is quite clear that none of the victims lie North, South, East or West.
At the Brighton conference Ivor gave a talk and I challenged him on his assertion that Commercial Road ran West to East. It was quite clear from the map he was using that Commercial Road ran South West to North East, but he refused to accept that. The audience really couldn’t understand why he continued to assert something that clearly wasn’t so, but I’m afraid that does seem to his way.
Anyway I hope I’ve given you something to work on. If there’s anything else don’t hesitate to drop me a line.
Bob
).
Comment