|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 12:17 pm: |       |
Diana,
Many of things which I tend to find to be compelling bits of evidence regarding any particular suspect, are the little fragments of information which it would be hard to factor into this type of survey. For example, I recently finished Martin Fido's book in which he puts forth the Nathan Kaminsky/David Cohen theory. And although I thought his theory was interesting, and I appreciated his following up on the idea that Swanson and Anderson seemed to think they has discovered JTR, I also found that there was almost no factual evidence against Kaminsky. It was mainly supposition. That being said, I still think he is a good suspect, and the one nugget which I found most interesting, if entirely inconclusive, was Nathan Kaminsky's address. The location of his residence was not only in the geographic center of the crimes, but it is also precisely in line with the direction JTR getaway route after the murder of Eddowes (ie. via Goulston Street). In addition, it is close to the murder site of Tabram... and part of JTR's profile was that his first murder would be close to his home. I have looked at this on the map and it all "fits". That said, I don't know if you would call this evidence... it certainly would have little value in a criminal trial. However, it is one of the main compelling fragments of evidence which makes me interested in Kaminsky as a suspect. Without that, there is next to nothing.
My question is: is this the type of thing that could be quantified in this type of quantitative survey? Figuring out where the suspect was living at the time, and determining whether his route home after the Eddowes murder would pass via Goulston Street..... (?)
I applaud you for trying to interpret the evidence in some sort of scientific or objective fashion, but I can understand your frustration in that it seems to be leading nowhere. I think one of the great challenges for ripperologists is to sort through and organize the enormous amount of data and evidence that is out there. If someone was able to take the mountain of evidence, facts, and thoughts presented on Casebook and sort and organize it all in an intelligent manner, I think that would be a great achievement. I am of the mind that that would be more productive than the type of argumentative bickering that surrounds so many issues related to the case.
And yes, I do agree with your Schwartz/ Lawende correlation. I think their descriptions match very closely, and that also is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to me... also the main reason I unhesitaingly include Stride in the list.
My main current suspects are LaBruckman, Kaminsky, Grainger, Chapman... and I am going to look into Cutbush now. Bye.
Rob H |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 695
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Rob H et al,
Who the heck is this Artie La Bruckman, really? Never heard of the fellow... I have the Ultimate Companion and can't find him, but than I on the other hand don't have the A--Z.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on November 18, 2003)
(Message edited by Glenna on November 18, 2003)
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 28
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 6:26 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
This is Mike Conlon's area of research.
La Bruckman was an Algerian slaughterman who worked on cattle boats that (supposedly) docked at London during the whitechapel murders. His age (27 in 1888) and description roughly matches the descriptions of some of the JTR witnesses. He was a strong suspect in the murder of a New York City prostitute who was strangled and who had extensive abdominal mutilations.
Read Mike Conlon's well-researched dissertations on him on the dissertations page:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/
Rob |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 29
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 6:32 pm: | |
Sorry, I think my wording may have been misleading.
LaBruckman worked on the National Line boats that docked in London in 1888. It is not yet determined whether or not he was on a boat that was actually docked in London during each of the murders.
Rob |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 698
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - 8:02 pm: | |
Thank you, Rob.
I also find it quite astonishing that I sometimes forget the most logical and ultimate approach when I can't find something in the literature: to search the web-site!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 142
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:13 am: | |
Robert -- we could add a criteria, something like "lived close to site of first killing, residence in geographic line with Mitre Square and Goulston Street" or should it be two criteria? |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 8:22 am: | |
Diana,
That would be an idea. Although with Nathan Kaminsky... he lived right around the corner from Tabram, who I personally believe was the first victim. So then you would have to determine who the first victim really was... and we all know there is going to be a debate there.
Rob |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 143
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 9:02 am: | |
We could just say "lived near first victim" and narrow the point range reflecting the fact that we don't know for sure who the first victim was. That is why very few of the criteria have a point range of 0-10. If a criteria itself is dubious and a candidate can be shown to definately fit or not fit I don't want to give him a 0 or a 10. With the most dubious criteria I have given a range of only 4-6. Suppose a candidate really was JTR but did not fit one or two of the criteria because the criteria itself was wrong. In order to minimize the effects of false criteria I have ranked all my criteria in order of validity (a subjective judgment on my part I admit but I think unavoidable). The one at the top has a range of 0-10 and the one at the bottom 4-6. Suppose the real JTR is being ranked, but he never paid them with liquor to get them drunk (#26) and we know that about him. Do we give a 0 then because we definately know he didn't do that? No. I already decided that the criteria itself is highly questionable and I don't want the result skewed. So the lowest score we can give him is a four and if he really is JTR that is a good thing because 4 is not going to pull his average down that much. So we don't specify who the first victim was. Anybody who lived near either Tabram or Nichols gets points but not 10 points. Since some of those points are going to be wrong we have to exert some damage control. If somebody definately did not live anywhere near either one of them and we know that I would maybe give that person no less than two because sometimes they don't kill their first victim near home. If the person lived very close to either Tabram or Nichols I might suggest 7.5 as a maximum possible score because if the person lived next door to the wrong "first victim" we want to minimize the damage to our final average. |
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 44
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 10:14 am: | |
Number 102 Houndsditch (between Cutler Street and St Mary Axe) was in line between Mitre Square and the site of the GSG in Goulston street. This was the address of the hairdresser Daniel Kosminski, from 1886 to 1889. Was he the suspect's brother? |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 10:53 am: | |
Its not about eliminating uncertainty. Its about quantifying it so as to minimize the damage it causes. Not a single criteria on our list is infallible so they are ranked and scored in order of probability. Whether candidate X fits a given criteria is often a matter of "maybe" "probably" or "almost certainly although some data suggests otherwise". On a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning innocent, 5 meaning we absolutely have no clue, and 10 meaning guilty as sin we can quantify a maybe as a 6, a probably as a 7.5, etc. If a criteria "maybe" applies to Jack then the highest score possible is 6 even if a given candidate fits the criteria perfectly. If it probably applies to Jack then a candidate who is known to fit can get a 9 and a candidate who is known not to fit would get a 1. The system attempts to quantify the ambiguity of the clues/criteria and the ambiguity of our information about the suspects. |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 11:32 am: | |
Diana,
I think the system is ok, when you are talking about the quantification of data. Where it worries me is that the criteria are mostly all in the nature of "profiling". It does not really take into account the "facts" or the more concrete clues of the case.
I am just trying to relate this system to the way my own mind works when I am analyzing any particular suspect. I try to match up the JTR clues with the suspect, then perhaps the profiling stuff can be considered additionally.
For example in your list you have "white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish" as one of the criteria. I assume this is a reflection of the idea that most serial killers are white males. But some of the evidence suggests that JTR was in fact Jewish or a foreigner... could that not be one of the criteria? Then you have "age in 20s or 30s".... why not give that a 3-7 scale, and then add "age between 26-33" and give that a 1-10 scale... or something like that. This would then be a reflection more of the primary witnesses testimony and not so much a reflection of profiling.
I am still trying to wrap my head around this... I may try to come up with my own list and you can tell me what you think of it. But it would not take much to convince me of the likelihood that a suspect is JTR... only 3 or 4 criteria being matched would do it.... if only they were the right ones. For example, say that we found a new suspect who was age 29, jewish and was known to have killed and tortured animals, and who lived around the corner from Tabram. This would be a very palusible suspect.
I might also add to the list "Was a contemporary police suspect". This is in fact 90% of the reason some suspects are in consideration at all.. Druit for example.
Sorry for the rambling style of this.
Rob H |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 9:54 am: | |
Why would we create all the controversy by using provocative terms such as "first murder"? Rather, why not use a proximity scale to a scene of a crime, 3 blocks = 5, etc.? Notice I said scene of a crime, not murder? Whether a victim was killed or not may be another criteria to be examined.
If nothing else, including the proximity to the scene of a murder would help it serve as a more impartial tool.
Just my two bits worth,
Billy |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 145
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 2:15 pm: | |
I think this is great. This is what I wanted to do when i started this thread. I don't think the criteria should be thought up by one person (me). I probably have biases that I'm not even aware of. By all means lets add some more criteria. We need to analyze the Schwartz/Lawende description to see what elements Jack couldn't easily change (complexion, height, apparent race, etc.) and make a criteria as you suggested. The reason I suggested a WASP or possibly a WASC as the perpetrator was (admittedly) the findings of the profilers that SKs usually pick on victims of their own race. But since I have read of instances where SKs sometimes go outside their racial group it got a range of 2.929-7.071. It was more or less a "probably". Mrs. Long said the man she saw was "Foriegn" ie Jewish looking but admitted she only saw him from the back. Was Hutchinson's dandy supposed to be Jewish looking? The Schwartz/Lawende correlation suggests a gentile. But maybe there's a hole somewhere in my reasoning that I haven't seen. I think your idea of including contemporary police suspects is great. A lot of evidence has been lost and in spite of the criticism of the police they were professionals and they probably knew things we will never know. It would be good to look at the eyewitness descriptions again to get an idea of age because there have been SKs well past middle age tho that is not the norm. However we need to be careful of point range because eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. However we could give more weight to Schwartz and Lawende's estimates because they tend to support each other. Billy's idea of a proximity score is good too. My only caveat is that we develop all our new criteria in one batch and not one by one, because every time you change the list all the math has to be redone! |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 1:20 pm: | |
Scott,
Very interesting, especially in view of the fact that both Aaron and Daniel Kosminski were hairdressers. Have you got a way to trace Kosminski family linneage for this item? If you could, for example, show that Daniel accompanied known relatives of Aaron on immigration, you'd really have something. May I ask why you posted this information here at this time?
Thank you,
David
|
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 45
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 6:52 pm: | |
Hi David,
I don't have any Aaron-Daniel link as of yet (and there may not be any), but the location of #102 Houndsditch, and the fact that they were both hairdressers is certainly interesting. If anyone is interested, I can post the census returns for Daniel and his family from 1881, 1891 and 1901. (Aaron arrived in London about 1882 and was locked away by the time of the April 1891 census). |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1297
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
Hi Scott
Yes indeed, if you could post that information please, that would be very interesting.
Robert |
Billy Markland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 20, 2003 - 10:32 am: | |
Diana, no matter how hard we try, subjective criteria will be included. For instance, I would include a parameter on the witness's reliability and that, for the most part, is all in the eye of the beholder. I know I am even starting to wonder about Lawende after reading Harris's comments in the A-Z.
As a matter of fact, did either Levy, Harris or Lawende state what they did after passing Kate and the man with her?
Best of wishes,
Billy |
Max Zavala
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 02, 2003 - 12:11 am: | |
dammit put the actual suspects not bs about your personal lives |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 07, 2003 - 7:40 pm: | |
"If anyone is interested, I can post the census returns for Daniel and his family from 1881, 1891 and 1901. (Aaron arrived in London about 1882 and was locked away by the time of the April 1891 census)."
>>Yessir, Scott, please do. I'm very interested! Who did each come in with?
By the way, has anyone noticed that Scott and I share many interests and perspectives? We are both alike and different, I think. Scott is more like Pat Summerall, who can say a great deal with only a few well-composed words. And I'm more like John Madden: florid, gesticulating, and crazy. But we both work together covering the same game. Get the picture, folks? 
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 162
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 08, 2003 - 3:49 pm: | |
You're right, the scale won't get rid of subjectivity just reduce it a bit. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page