|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 1:28 pm: |       |
hello everyone,
after reading something on a thread just now i was wondering what place people felt assumption had in an investigating of this kind. it strikes me the case is riddled with assuption, the assumption that a certain person was refering to a certain other although they nver named them for example. the assumption of meidcal knowledge in some cases. the assumption of which hand was used etc.
what do you think?
jp |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Inspector
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 281
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 2:27 pm: | |
Jennifer,
As I've said before, assumption is not a bad thing, and is - of course - necessary in the case.
However, that being said, there must be a distinction between good assumption and bad assumption.
Creating a logical assumption (or conclusion, if you want to call them that) based on conclusive, hard evidence is okay. For instance, assuming that the killer is male based on the victimology (all female), and the wounds (some severe and requiring significant physical strength), is a good assumption.
Likewise, assuming that the killer was female based on the idea that she could hate prostitutes (maybe her husband slept with one), she was a prostitute and wanted to scare others off, etc. are bad assumptions because while they could be true they are not based in anything factual.
Some people claim that we have very little evidence that is indisputable in this case. I disagree. We have the victims, we have photographs, we have non-biased reports from medical examiners, and we have direct police reports about what the police said and did in the case. This is a veritable mountain of evidence that can be used to make deductions, assumptions and conclusions about the case.
And its also important that when you make a claim, you explain what assumptions went into your analysis. I always try and frame my analysis based on my assumption that killer was a sexually motivated serial killer. People disagree, but they recognize the basis upon which my opinions are formed.
I know others disagree with me, as we've had it out before, but that's my take on the issue. We have a responsibility to be responsible in our theorizing.
B |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 5:41 pm: | |
Hi, Jennifer and Brian:
I agree with Brian's assessment that while assumption is necessary in the case, there is such a thing as good and bad assumption. On another board, I mentioned my review in the latest issue of Ripper Notes of R. Michael Gordon's book The Thames Torso Murders which follows on his book Alias Jack the Ripper naming Severin Klosowski aka George Chapman as the Ripper. Now Gordon is assuming that since Chapman was responsible for the poisoning deaths of his three common-law wives, the death of one of them, Maude Marsh, for which he was executed in 1903, he was also the savage murderer and mutilator in London and region in 1887-1902.
Chapman was certainly a callous man, to dispose of one woman after another by poison with seemingly no care at all for their suffering. But it is a huge and untoward assumption to believe that he departed from this secretive, cunning, and callous method of murder to the savage and bloody crimes that constituted the Ripper and torso series.
It is not enough to know that the man presumably had some surgical training in Poland -- though he never became a fully fledged surgeon -- and we have no information that he ever misapplied his knowledge of anatomy and murdered and mutilated. Moreover, Gordon makes the mistake and leap of faith that just because Chapman was living in London at the time, he had to be the killer. Mere geographic proximity is not enough to "prove" that a suspect was the murderer.
If we add the shakiness of Gordon's theory to some faulty information that he repeats, i.e., that Chapman was living in George Yard in 1888 at the time of Martha Tabram's murder (he didn't move there until 1890) and that Abberline was investigating Chapman in 1888 (based on information in McCormick supposedly from the Dutton diaries) and we can see that Gordon's theory is based on far too much assumption and faulty thinking.
Best regards
Chris George |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 8:40 pm: | |
Investigations are a form of theory testing. Any conclusion that is drawn from the evidence is a theoretical statement, meaning the conclusion itself is an assumption.
For example, if one "concludes" that the same person was responsible for the murders of Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly then really what one is doing is arguing for the validity of making the "assumption" that one person was responsible for these 4 (or 5 if you include Stride as well). The validity of that assumption, however, is evaluated by examining the evidence that led to the conclusion.
The errors in logic, however, come from then taking a "conclusion" and using them as "facts" to support the validity of other assumptions. For example, Cornwall assumes Sickert is the Ripper, which means Sickert is assumed to be in London on certain dates. Despite there being no evidence to place Sickert in London on those dates, we can't use the assumption that Sickert is the Ripper as evidence to place him there. Same thing for Maybrick, Druitt, and other suspects.
This is a fairly straight forward example, but the same principle applies to other less "big" conclusions.
In summary, every "conclusion" is just an assmuption. That assumption is either well supported by the data, or it is not well supported by the data. In the later case, we often refer to the statement as a "speculation" rather than a conclusion. Conclusion is just a term used to indicate a "well supported" assumption.
- Jeff |
Candy Morgan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:09 pm: | |
Brian said: "I always try and frame my analysis based on my assumption that killer was a sexually motivated serial killer. People disagree, but they recognize the basis upon which my opinions are formed."
I think some of the disagreement stems from the fact that most generally lump sexual motiviation along with the sex act itself, and of course we have Dr. Phillips' observation that there was no recent connection for some of the girls.
But - IN THEORY - we are probably dealing with someone who's psyche was so twisted that the killings themselves TOOK THE PLACE of sexual activity. A case of substitution, if you will.
Of course, that's just my .02 worth. |
Martin Fido
Police Constable
Username: Fido
Post Number: 5
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 8:00 am: | |
In addition to assumptions made on the basic factual evidence - (all or some of the murders were connected; all/some of the letters were/were not from the murderer; the mutilations evince a sexual/sadistic personality; no they don't, they evince a Freemason carrying out his oaths; no they don't, they are the manifest work of a black magician who picked his sites; no they don't, they are the work of a wronged woman taking appropriate revenge on the profession that infected her husband) - there are important gaps and contradictions in the historical record which have to be explained by hypothesis. To take one: Swanson, who saw all the documents in the case and prepared the reports for the Home Secretary, made a note to himself after he retired that the killer was Kosminski, and he died shortly after his transfer to Colney Hatch Asylum. in fact, that transfer took place in 1894. Swanson made his note in about 1910. Kosminski actually died in 1917.
Swanson's error is in itself an important historical fact. One of the police officers close to the very summit of the investigation indubitably believed something demonstrably untrue about it. And somehow our thnking about the case MUST factor in this detail.
It is too little recognized that however this is done, it entails hypothesis, and this all too often becomes assumption - (hypothesis accepted as so likely that the assumer ceases to scrutinize it sceptically as it is applied to further developments of his/her argument). The commonest assumption made about Swanson's bloomer is that it means he can be disregarded altogether, and the historian can plough merrily on in loony Cornwellian or interesting Barnettian directions, absolutely ignoring the fact that Swanson confirms that Anderson, i/c the case, had a suspect of the kind he named, but for some reason Swanson at least simply did not know certain essential facts about him. Actually the historian is only justified in ploughing on in such a way if they have first seriously examined Kosminsky (which, if done properly will lead them also to examine Cohen) and decided that in any case, Anderson and Swanson were wrong. It is hopelessly unhistorical to say that because Swanson was wrong about a central fact, his entire notes can be assumed to be worthless. Such an assumption can only be made if a careful and comparative assessment leads the thinker to a legitimate conclusion - that Swanson can be shown to be frequently reckless, inaccurate or mendacious; that his testimony is inferior to that of Littlechild or Macnaghten or (if you can really persuade yourself of such a thing) Le Queux or Joe Sickert; or, equally legitimate, that the totality of his story is so extraordinary that an experienced policeman could only have recorded it if there really was a suspect identified by a witness who was released back to his family because the witness refused to play ball.
There is obvious reason to dismiss as worthless anything that emerges from a habitual and self-confessed liar like Joe Sickert. There is justification for saying that anyone who makes a bloomer like Swanson's can only be accepted where his testimony is corroborated by other, preferably more reliable evidence. There is no justification for assuming that because he was wrong on a central point his testimony can be dismissed and called "not evidence".
But this is the sort of assumption all too frequently made by theorists who start with a suspect, amass evidence in support of him, and cavalierly assume that they can disregard and dismiss other pieces of the patchy historical record which conflict with their ideas.
All the best,
Martin F |
JeffHamm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 9:31 pm: | |
Martin,
Very good points. We have to remember that statements made by police and others, especially well after the events, will contain some errors of fact. But that doesn't mean all facts presented are errors just because some are. Rejection of a piece of existing data (i.e. a statement of fact) is warrented
1) if that statement is directly shown to be false
2) if by accepting the statement as true, one must reject without cause a larger set of statements.
The first is direct evidence falsification and is to be preferred. The second is a logical resolution to a paradox that minimises the number of statements rejected without direct evidence, and so the chosen resolution may be in error.
For example, if given a set of 3 statements, A, B, and C. If A and B can both be true provided C is false, and C can only be true if both A and B are false, one should consider C to be the "error".
Just remember that rejecting evidence based on this reasoning, is not as strong as when there is direct evidence that falsifies a statement. Moreover, this kind of rejection should be built apon very cautiously and certainly should not be a foundation stone of a given theory. It does get stronger as the ratio between Keep:reject gets larger; i.e. keep statements A-Y by rejecting only Z rather than Keep Z by rejecting A-Y, but it is never as strong as direct proof. In this situation, be prepared to change you views in light of new evidence.
Finally, and this is easy to do, one must resist the temptation to explain away falsifying evidence. For example, let's pretend we have a theory that "Mr. X is the Ripper" and for some reason it is necessary to this theory that Mr. X was at the 10 Bells at a certain time. We have no evidence to prove he was, but we have nothing that proves he wasn't. Now, along comes some new evidence that details that the police were in the 10 Bells looking for Mr. X, and they report he wasn't there. We cannot claim that the police simply missed him (explain away the evidence) without finding some counter evidence to show that he actually was there.
And this is the most important point, always remember that just because out theory requires Mr. X to be at the 10 Bells, that doesn't constitute counter-evidence that indicates he was actually there.
- Jeff |
John Malcolm
Police Constable
Username: Johnm
Post Number: 2
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 6:29 pm: | |
I'd rather not have anyone assume that I'm making an assumption here, but there's an interesting bit I pulled from Chaim Bermant's "London's East End-Point of Arrival" (the last year referenced was 1887):
"A Whitechapel sanitary inspector had found a house in Goulston Street in which twenty people lived.
"'In a back room, inhabited by a foreigner named Cohen...'" |
Martin Fido
Sergeant
Username: Fido
Post Number: 17
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 7:46 pm: | |
Unfortunately, Cohen was and is a very common name.
All the best,
Martin F |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 9:38 am: | |
would never assume anyone was making an assumption unless they siad something, eg random name, was JTR and then something else and a paroniod scizophrenic, for eg, without offering proof of either the former or the later,
chow
jennifer |
Robert Charles Linford
Inspector
Username: Robert
Post Number: 300
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 20, 2003 - 5:45 pm: | |
Hi John
Re profusion of Cohens : Chris found four(!) Cohen households living in Goulston St in 1881. They're on the Cohen/Kaminsky/Kosminski thread.
Robert |
Tommy Simpson
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 19, 2003 - 1:10 pm: | |
Could Swanson have been purposely misled by his Peers about the early death of Kosminski? Don't know why they would do this. That way when he wrote his notes in 1910 he wasn't exactly making a boob. By the way this is only a hypothesis, or is it a theory, could even be a statement. |
Michael Raney
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
In my many years working in law enforcement ALL of my training has taught me to be very careful when making an assumption. I agree there are "good assumptions" and "bad assumptions". I worked with an investigator early in my career who always started with an assumption, based on what he immediately knew to be fact and worked from there. The assumption then changed or was strengthened as each new peice of evidence came into play. All the facts have to fit or the "assumption" is bad. He would never discard a fact to "fit" the assumption. He retired last year after 37 years with the Department. He has 2 "cold cases" left unsolved after his retirement, one of which he inherited.
I have applied what he taught me, as well as everything else I have learned over the years, and........I still have no idea whodunnit! There are just not enough hard facts (at this time)to prove a theory all the way out.
Mikey |
Lesley A. Burdett
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:35 pm: | |
The thought of JtR being someone other that the first 41 suspects is really unthinkable. But what if the killer was really an artist who drew the crims before they happened. The artist Walter Richard Sickert who might have killed his father. The mothers death is unknown. } |
Neale Carter
Sergeant
Username: Ncarter
Post Number: 33
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 8:30 pm: | |
Michael,
You are quite correct in stating "I agree there are "good assumptions" and "bad assumptions" but the problem is recognising the bad assumptions made by ourselves and others. Very often we will include an apparent fact in our theory when it is in reality an unproven element. This can arise from any number of factors such as using "common knowledge" or accepted wisdom through to transcription errors in evidence to deliberate concealment by others. By definition, no one makes a bad assumption.
Regards
Neale |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 11:40 pm: | |
"By definition, no one makes a bad assumption."
Here is a very brief history of assumptions made by intelligent people involved with Ripperology:
1. Purchasing the Littlechild letter means that Francis Tumblety is the suspect to disprove. (Stewart P. Evans.)
2. Hearing about Walter Sickert from John Grieve means that Walter Sickert is the suspect to disprove. (Patricia Cornwell.)
3. Because he killed himself right after the Miller's Court affair and because his family thought him capable, Montague John Druitt is the suspect to disprove. (Donald Rumbelow.)
4. Because a diary turns up, James Maybrick is the suspect to disprove. (Paul Feldman.)
5. Because of what two Lesbians who knew him are reported to have gossipped to one another about, Roslyn D'Onston is the suspect to disprove. (Melvin Harris.)
etc. Hence what we need, I think, is assumption control.
Saddam
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 9:30 am: | |
And your own assumption is that the half-jumble whispers of suspicious family members, the crazy stories by dotty lesbians, and the eccentric suspects unearthed by serious collectors don't ever point to a truth that escaped the hazy eye of a paper-pushing Millenarian.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
1. Serious, schmerious. A serious collector? Better a playful thinker, I'd say.
2. "...the eccentric suspects unearthed by serious collectors don't ever point to a truth..."
>>Not for them, anyway. Because, as I've said before, they don't know what they have.
Saddam
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 218
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 9:24 pm: | |
Dave--Because I'm a decent guy, I've down-loaded your posts over the past few months on 100% organic, acid-free stock, using a non-toxic ink. Thus, when the time comes, you shouldn't experience any undue distress. All the best, RP |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 219
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 10:40 pm: | |
For the ten or twelve people who might actually read the above posts, I'd like to make something clear. Unlike Mr. Radka, I have high esteem for collectors, archivalists, genealogists-- in my opinion, they are the corner-stone of all historic research. Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans are two historians of the case who have saved archival material from oblivion. And oblivion is an awful thing. But, of course, they are also much more than that, and I thought that went without saying. So, what was meant to be a compliment on my part ('serious collector') was turned into into a sneer by Mr. Radka ("Better a playful thinker, I'd say." ) This won't do. It simply won't do. For those familiar with Mr. Radka's baseless boasts over the past three or four years --yes it's been that long-- one hardly needs to take these on-going antics seriously, though, as a strictly psychological study, they do, perhaps, give some insight into his odd hero-worship of a certain Scotland Yard Official. A man who, not unlike Mr. R. himself , was known also for endless bravado never accompanied by fact or evidence. Thereby hangs a tale, methinks. It would be nice to see Mr. Harris take the tongs to Radka's school-boy behind, but that, I suppose, can wait for another day. As for Paul Feldman and Patricia Cornwell, all I can say is they made their efforts public before we had to endure their claims of having "solved the case." In Mr. Radka's case, his promotional efforts have preceded his solution for a number of years now.
I now off my apologies for the above. I will not infringe on the peace here again. "The rest is silence". I remain yours &tc, RJP |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 713
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 9:33 am: | |
With specific reference to the Kominski/Cohen aspect of the case, one thing has always intrigued me. In the case of the other major documents that have come to light over the years (the Macnaghton memo, the Littlechild letter etc)it is reasonably clear from the context why and for whom these documents were written. Macnaghton stated specifically that he was placing his thoughts on file as a respons to the reports and speculation about Cutbush, Littlechild was writing as a follow up to a previous conversation and query.
In the case of the swanson "marginalia", I cannot be clear in my own mind for whom these marginal notes were written. Were they a kind of private Aide memoire for swanson himself? This seems unlikely as they were written so long after the evenets, in the margins of a book that was not published until 1910. Were they a kind of message in a bottle, Swanson hoping that some unknown viewer would come across them in generations to come? Another, and to me more likely possibility, is that at some stage between the writing of the notes (i.e. post 1910) and his death in 1924, Swanson privately lent the book to some unknown person and these notes are his comments on the case for this unidentified borrower.
Regards
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1260
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 10:37 am: | |
Hi Chris
I find it baffling. I did wonder whether Swanson wrote the notes to preserve information that he had only just been given by someone. But if that is what happened, he'd probably have been given the info by someone other than Anderson, as the two men's accounts differ.
His lending the book to a friend would tie in with the way he so carefully wrote "Continuing from page 138". But then why sign it "DSS"?
I wish we knew whether Swanson was in the habit of annotating his books, and whether any other annotations were also signed "DSS".
Of course, Swanson may simply have been extremely methodical.
Robert
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 424
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:41 am: | |
Hi, Robert:
A look through Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate JtR Companion or at the PRO documents themselves shows that Swanson was in the habit of initialing documents "DSS" so he might have unconsciously continued the practice in annotating the book, just like he would initial a report. The following be a stretch but he could have known that later people, his family and descendents or others, would read the book and wonder who had made the notes, so his initialing of the notes would make it clear it was him.
All the best
Chris |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
Mr. Palmer, in my opinion, makes an extremely immature attempt at Ripperlogical sychophantism above at my expense. Such behavior has been well known on these boards for a number of years, on the part of those relatively less able to be responsible for themselves. The notion that I am taking a shot against anyone, as formulated by Mr. Palmer above, is specious. What I'm doing above is the same as I've done for some time here--pointing out the absence of an epistemological center in Ripperology for those who may be able to suggest one for themselves. I'm basically sharing my perspectives on Ripperology; in no way am I "boasting," "baseless," "sneering," "promoting myself," or "turning something Mr. Palmer said into a sneer." Mrs. Evans, Begg, Harris and Fido are well aware of my admiration of them and their work--the evidence of this is found throughout my posts on these message boards. My position on this matter has been consistent since I began posting here in 1996.
The notion that I "hero-worship Robert Anderson" is utterly fallacious, and without evidence in any of my posts. I have never, here or anywhere, made indication of what my position on Anderson entails. The person I'm closest to in Ripperology, Mr. Scott Nelson, himself does not know my position on Anderson and the identification at Hove. In virtue of exactly what that I've written here can I be said to hero-worship Anderson? I'd like to invite Mr. Palmer to provide specific evidence of my adopting such a position right here, right now. And if he cannot, I'd like to ask him to apologise to me for ambushing me just to get himself off in front of others whose opinions I value.
Mr. Palmer strikes me a a frightened man, afraid of what he doesn't know, afraid of what someone better than him might know.
This is my final comment on this matter.
David Radka
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 6:20 pm: | |
Most of us have got notes in our papers and files. I've got plenty myself. Why should it seem unusual to find marginalia by Swanson in a book that discusses a case on which he was personally involved?
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
