|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 87
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 11:03 am: |       |
I have been fiddling with this some more. I might be able to set it where each person can choose the point range for each test item (thus indicating how valid they think that item is as a criteria -- if you don't like it at all make the range 4-6 and choose 5.) Then the upper number in each range is totalled and averaged. If your upper levels of ranges for questions 1-28 add up to 260, then divide by 28 to get an average possible score of 9.2. Then add up your suspects scores. If you come out with 190 then divide by 28 to get average suspect score of 6.0. In order to be able to compare meaningfully with what other people came up with divide 6.0 by 9.2 giving a final score of 6.5. I might be able to get it where the math is done automatically. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 22
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 1:30 pm: | |
hi
how about now appointing a score to each of your points above out of five eg you could say white, was v. likely indeed and give it a high score
this is just as to dif. between people when we get down to scoring them
eg we may give walter sickert points under py. ab. or for being wqhite but would he get more points than others etc.
just a thought
jennifer |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 88
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 3:37 pm: | |
Well, I made an eleven point range instead of a five point range so we could make finer distinctions. Sickert would get points under physical abnormality. We base this criteria on what some profilers have said and it isn't always true so our range might be possibly 3-7. Since our evidence is pretty good that he had a physical abnormality he would get a seven on that question. He would also get points for being white. That is also based on the belief that SKs usually prey on their own race. Since that isn't absolute, just more likely we might give a range of 3 to 7 again. Sickert would get a 7 on this one, but Arbie La Bruckman would get a 3. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 89
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 3:48 pm: | |
After scanning the 28 points again I think there are only two that have a chance of having the full range of 0-10 points. #1 and possibly #17. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 91
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 10:49 pm: | |
Just to keep this thread alive for a couple more days. If nobody has any more ideas I will start designing the ballots with the 28 ideas above. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 92
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 8:39 pm: | |
Here's the ranking. Once I started I realized that #16 and 22 of the original list said the same thing so we are pared down to 27. They are ranked according to their likelihood of being valid. Of course the ranking reflects my judgment, my biases, my reasoning faults and I almost changed it one more time, but decided you would probably change it anyway. Once the ranking is final we can assign point ranges to the criteria, making the biggest ranges at the top.
1physically strong
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic.
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?)
8. risk taker
9.knowledge of local geography
10. control freak
11. age in 20s or 30s.
12. anatomical knowledge
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father?
14. History of lesser crimes.
15. was employed
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money
17. precrime stressor
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders
19. lower socioeconomic group
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish
21. physical abnormality?
22. hated women
23. hated reproductive function
24. mutilated animals
25. self injury
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations)
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk?
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 93
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 26, 2003 - 12:14 am: | |
1physically strong (0-10 points)
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points)
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points)
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points)
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points)
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points)
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points)
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points)
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points)
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points)
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points)
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points)
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points)
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points)
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points)
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points)
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points)
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points)
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points)
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points)
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points)
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points)
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points)
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points)
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points)
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points)
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points)
The highest possible score would be 215.725. The lowest would be 54.298 giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 94
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 7:34 am: | |
I have decided to start with Barnett. I have read Paley's book but it was some time back, so my scores could be revised if anybody has more info.
1physically strong (0-10 points) Hefted things in the fish market, so 10.
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points) Dont know -- echolalia suggests possible autism, Ill give him 6.5 on this one.
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points) No evidence either way -- 5
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points) no evidence -- 5
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points) no evidence -- 5
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points) As far as we know, yes. I'll give him 8.
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points) not known -- 5
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points) relationship with MJK was certainly risky. I'll give him 8.
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points) Lived in Whitechapel. 8.754
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points) Couldn't stand Mary's new roommates. Left when she went out on the street again. 7.5
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points) 8.448
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points) 5
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points) 8.142
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points) 5
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points) 2.164
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points) 5
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points) 7.530
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points) 5
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points) 7.224
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points) 7.071
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points) 6.918 (echolalia)
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points) 5
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points) 5
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points) 5
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points) 5
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points) 6.153
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points) 5
The highest possible score would be 215.725 (Avg. 7.9) The lowest would be 54.298 (Avg.2.011) giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
Barnett comes out with 167.404 or an average of 6.2 out of a possible 7.9. These numbers will be pretty meaningless until we rate other suspects and compare scores. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 8:29 am: | |
Cutbush's Rating Mr. Wolf is more knowledgeable about this one than me. He may want to suggest amendments.
1physically strong (0-10 points) 10 -- we are told he overpowered several men in escaping a mental institution.
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points) 9.825
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points) 5
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points) 9.519
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points) 5
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points) 5
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points) 5
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points) 7.5
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points) 8.754
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points) 5
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points) 8.448
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points) 7
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points)8.142
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points) 7.989
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points) 7.836
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points) 5
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points) 5
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points) 5
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points)3.5
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points) 7.071
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points) 3.082
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points) 5
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points) 5
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points) 5
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points) 5
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points) 5
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points) 5
The highest possible score would be 215.725. The lowest would be 54.298 giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
Cutbush gets a 168.666 giving an average of 6.246 |
AP Wolf
Inspector
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 156
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 8:49 am: | |
Diana
Yes, I'd go along with most of that happily.
Perhaps only a higher score might be awarded in the 'known to be in Whitechapel at times of murders' should be upgraded as we do have the written testimony of the highest ranking police officer of his day that Cutbush was indeed in the area at the time of the murders, mentioning that his movements could not be accounted for on the nights of the murders but he was known to have 'rambled' the streets of Whitechapel at night and coming home covered in mud, during that exact time period.
I could also see the 'hated women' scoring higher as he did attempt to slit both his aunts and a servant girl's throat, plus all of us 'armchair murderers' assume that he stabbed the two women in the buttocks for 'pornographic' reasons when he may actually have been motivated by loathing.
Up to you, Maria, |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 99
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 11:09 am: | |
Cutbush's Rating -- Amended per Ms. Wolf's suggestions
1physically strong (0-10 points) 10 -- we are told he overpowered several men in escaping a mental institution.
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points) 9.825
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points) 5
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points) 9.519
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points) 5
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points) 8
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points) 5
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points) 7.5
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points) 8.754
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points) 5
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points) 8.448
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points) 7
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points)8.142
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points) 7.989
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points) 7.836
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points) 5
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points) 5
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points) 5
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points)3.5
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points) 7.071
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points) 3.082
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points) 6.2
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points) 5
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points) 5
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points) 5
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points) 5
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points) 5
The highest possible score would be 215.725. The lowest would be 54.298 giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
Cutbush gets a revised 172.866 giving an average of 6.4 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Sergeant
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 24
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 1:04 pm: | |
hi,
diana,
when you have compliled all this data i will be interested to see who comes out on top
jennifer |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 27, 2003 - 1:14 pm: | |
Arbie La Bruckman's Rating
1physically strong (0-10 points) 8
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points) 5
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points) 5
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points) 5
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points) 5
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points) 8.7
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points) 9.060
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points) 5
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points) 7
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points) 5
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points) 8.448
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points) 7.5
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points) 5
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points) 7
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points) 7.836
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points) 5
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points) 5
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points) 7.377
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points) 6.5
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points) 2.929
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points) 5
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points) 5
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points) 5
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points) 6.459
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points) 5
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points) 5
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points) 5
The highest possible score would be 215.725. The lowest would be 54.298 giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
La Bruckman's total score is 156.81 or an average of 5.81. Not out of the running but not enough info to make any kind of a case -- and he was one of my favorites! |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 22, 2003 - 9:26 pm: | |
Well, school is out and this teacher has had time to recover from the May madness so here I am again. This time I'll do Sickert. I just finished Cornwell's book.
1physically strong (0-10 points) 3
2. schizoid (disorganized, motive was personal) or sociopath (organized, motive was lust)or mixed or religious-obsessive or autistic. (.175-9.825 points) 8
3. Neurologically adept with spatial relationships (.328-9.672points) 9.672 (artist)
4. nocturnal at least on weekends and holidays (.481-9.519 points) 9.519 (his sister wrote that he was)
5. con man or popped out of gates and grabbed them, or chose the extremely desperate (.634-9.366 points) 8 (Cornwell says he was a ladies man)
6. present in Whitechapel on relevant dates (.787-9.213 points) 7.5
7. some experience in killing (slaughterhouse? military?) (.940-9.060 points) .940
8. risk taker (1.093-8.907 points) 8
9.knowledge of local geography (1.246-8.754 points) 8
10. control freak (1.399-8.601 points) 5
11. age in 20s or 30s. (1.552-8.448 points) 8
12. anatomical knowledge (1.705-8.295 points)7.5 artist
13. dysfunctional family -- alcoholism? abuse?absent father? (1.858-8.142 points) 6.5
14. History of lesser crimes. (2.011-7.989 points)3
15. was employed (2.164-7.836 points)2.5
16. Robbed victims -- no victim found with money (2.317 -7.683 points) 2.3
17. precrime stressor (2.470-7.530 points)5
18. sick, incarcerated, dead or moved away subsequent to the murders (2.623-7.377 points)2.6
19. lower socioeconomic group (2.776-7.224 points)2.7
20. ethnic -- white, Anglo-Saxon or Irish (2.929-7.071 points) 7.071
21. physical abnormality? (3.082-6.918 points) 6
22. hated women (3.235-6.765 points) 6.7
23. hated reproductive function (3.388-6.612 points) 5
24. mutilated animals (3.541-6.459 points) 3.541
25. self injury (3.694-6.306 points)3.694
26. Personally knew Eddowes and/or Kelly? (facial mutilations) (3.847-6.153 points) 5
27. Paid them with liquor to get them drunk? (4-6 points)5
The highest possible score would be 215.725. The lowest would be 54.298 giving a range of 161.427. Anything in the neighborhood of 135 would reflect maximum uncertainty. Moving upward from 135 would give a greater indication of guilt and downward, innocence.
Sickert's score is 156.81. That gives an average score of 5.3. Since 5 reflects maximum uncertainty we aren't much forrader!
|
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 7:51 pm: | |
Barnett 6.2
Cutbush 6.246
La Bruckman 5.81
Sickert 5.3
You know what I think's gonna happen? I'm going to prove a rather unpalatable truth numerically. Because all of the assumptions we can make about Jack are questionable in varying degrees, and because the state of our knowledge about the various suspects is unlikely to increase greatly after 100+ years we ain't gonna get nowhere folks. Maybe I'm just depressed tonite? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 179
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 05, 2003 - 3:54 pm: | |
I just have to react on the following: when I accidently peeked at the "Suspects" ratings, I found that Maybrick was leading. I can understand the fact that he has just a valid place among the suspects as anyone and that his actuality may be a result of the discussions concerning the Diary -- but leading!!!???
But even more strange... Stephen Knight's Royal Conspiracy come as nr 4!!!! Why? This fairy-tale should have been put to rest long ago, or is it influences from the movie "From Hell" that has reopened this Pandoras' box of hoaxes? Totally unbelievable!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 825
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 11:51 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
A lot of people are shocked at that scale, which is accessible to the general public. It reflects the general opinion of the gullable public, not just of those who have studied the case. So the Ripper becomes a character in the latest book they've read.
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 610
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 10:12 am: | |
G'day Leanne,
Yes, I assumed that those were the appearent reasons. But nevertheless...
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 827
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 3:15 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
I just look at that scale every now and then out of curiosity. When Patricia Cornwell's book first came out, Walter Sickert was right up near the top, then I watched him fall down. It's interesting!
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
Notice how the 'Royal Conspiracy' is number 2. The public love scandal!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 615
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
G'day Leanne,
Oh yes, I see it, I see it. 
Well, I've always though that high society scandals and conspiracy theories are quite boring and uninteresting, but that I suppose is a matter of taste. Since it has been quite some time now since the late Mr Knight's book hit the stands, may I deduct that we partly have the movie "From Hell" to "thank" for that this ridiculous theory still is vital and seems to lead a life of its own...?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Robert W. House
Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 26
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 3:16 pm: | |
Dianne,
One quick question and an observation... First off, for La Bruckman, how did you come up with a score of 8.7 for "present in Whitechapel on relevant dates"? Is it known that he was present on those dates?
Second, it seems that the ratings might be skewed by giving a "5" rating for when certain information is not known about a suspect. For example if a suspect is known to be of moderate strength, it would seem that this should get a different score than if the suspect's strength is unknown.... (?)
Also, I was wondering if it would make sense to add to the list something about if the description of the suspect matches that given by Schwartz or Lawende... that is always at the top of my list when I am assessing a suspect. It is the main reason I personally tend to dismiss Tumblety for example.
Rob House |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 896
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
G'day Glenn,
'From Hell' never claimed to be anything but fiction, and for that reason I applaud it!
LEANNE |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 692
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:08 pm: | |
G'day Leanne
It doesen't matter if it is fiction or not, it's still ridiculous. And I do think, that if one is to make a movie based on actual events -- regardless of how little we know about the real facts -- one doesn't have to choose the LEAST likely theory of them all. I really don't see any reason to applaud it -- not even as fiction.
I don't think any movie based on real characters or stories can claim to be just fiction or indulge in too many artistic freedom. That film is absolute crap, and a bad movie even for a for a real non-fiction story. But that is a matter of taste, I guess. I just wish, the characters in it and the plot had just as much credibility as the historical details and accuracy.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 140
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 17, 2003 - 8:33 pm: | |
Robert -- I confess that I had kind of lost interest in this thread because I was proving numerically what we already knew: that it is hard to nail anybody as JTR because so little is known. I probably gave ALB that score because it is thought his ship was in port at the time. If I had been absolutely sure I would have given him the maximum possible which is more than 9. If a suspect is known to have only moderate strength that should count against him. He should get less than 5 for that because we know something, even though it is something that points toward innocence. The only way somebody should get 5 on strength is if we have no information at all about how strong he is. I'm delighted that somebody finally agrees with me about the Schwartz/Lawende correlation. I'll consider adding that criteria, but we can't include dress which he could change. We could include overall physical characteristics. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
