Sunday, February 22, 2015

Supposed
Almost the entirety of this article is supposed data. It’s not even good supposed data. Most of the things he states is illogical. He has very little proof and makes a lot of assumptions off of other people works. Most of his article is based on a book which eventually was turned into a movie, because we all know that if a book was turned into a movie then it must be logical and true. Stupid…
Presumptions: the normal
Like stated above the author uses reference text to base his entire paper. Nothing is based off of facts that he found himself.
Quality
The author basically chose the royal conspiracy because he wanted it to be something special. Of course his idea must be right because it is so much better then everyone else’s idea. Also who better to have committed a crime then the royal family?
Aggregation
So in order to make his point the author, uses two movies, two books, and Masons in order to sound more logical. He thinks if he uses more sources then he will sound like he is right, BUT HE IS SO WRONG. He just sounds like a loon. You cannot base your argument off of a movie. Also he needs to take some lessons in grammar because this boy cannot write. He doesn’t even use complete sentences.
Inclusion
So his argument is that this group of strippers decided to blackmail the royal family. The main son got really mad and decided he was going to kill these chicks and be done with the problem. So this crazy dude goes on a mini killing spree and kills these chicks. Of course he was a free mason so he had to go all hardcore on these chicks. Also he had a bunch of people that know how to kill help him cover it up. Also since they were prostitutes they weren't smart enough to keep a backup of whatever they had on him so no one knew that he was to blame. This is the little cog in the entire conspiracy of evil rulers.

Perelman-Chapman-Breanna Reyes


Premises

Supposed
“The police authorities entertained a strong idea that some sinister connection existed...” This was all probable data they had no real evidence they just wanted you to think they did. Also, they wanted to put it at the beginning of the paper so by the time you got to the end you would forget all about that statement.


Presumptions
“Their actions based upon no foundations...”
“It is now proposed to present the case for supposing...”
These are assumptions because they have no foundation. They don’t have an argument.  


Abstract
“These declarations, as mere declarations without evidence to support them…” This sentence is by no means concrete. They are stating the facts that have no evidence to support the claim.
Argument types:
Quasi-logical arguments
Comparison
The timeline between JACK-THE-RIPPER and CHAPMAN. This is a timeline of when Jack-The-Ripper and Chapman were in the same area around the same time. These are arranged in columns. This helps establish that chapman was the killer.

Francis Thompson Fallacies- Emily Solis


Premise/Argument
Quote/Example
Interpretive Schemes
Premise Modifiers- Interpretation
“Thompson’s most famous poem ‘The Hound of Heaven” described as the pursuit of a human soul by God.
“One possible motive for The Ripper to have killed these five women, and sent letters to the press, was that he thought that he had been chosen be God, and that he thought that he was the voice of God. Perhaps by killing these five women he would be inflicting five wounds upon society’s church, goverment, science,literature, and people.”
Premise
Presumption



“It was at the very time of the ripper murders that it is claimed Thompson took to the streets to find her.”
Based on the Structure of Reality
Intention- Coexistence
“In all five murders the nearest landmark is Christ Church of Whitechapel. It was built in 1714 and completed in 1729. It still dominates the surrounding street-scape with its portico and spire.”
“In the middle ages, when the Roman Catholic Church dominated England, there were in existence areas of land, usually a church and surrounding sacred ground, known as sanctuaries. A sanctuary was a safe harbor for the accused.”
Quazi-Logical Argument
Formal Analysis
“Back then, if someone committed murder but reached a sanctuary then they could avoid arrest. It was reasoned that if a suspect was truly guilty then their fate was under the jurisdiction not of the sherrif, but of God. If a suspect could enter sacred ground without suffering a blight from heaven then it was reasoned that they must be innocent.”

Where We Are with Bury - Perelman Analysis by Mason Allenger


Perelman Concept
Quote
Analysis
Presumption (The normal)
“Had the Jack the Ripper murders taken place in 1988 and not 1888 then our response to them would have been markedly different. No one in 1988 would have doubted that the perpetrator was a sexual serial killer carrying out his own perverted agenda.”
The second sentence of this quote: the one beginning with “No one” is a bit reaching. Maybe a majority of people would not have doubted what Jack the Ripper was, but an all reaching statement like this based on what is really just speculation takes away from the author’s argument.
Succession
“His early childhood was horrendous…(elaboration on bad childhood)...
The childhood fashioned the adult. The William Bury whom we encounter in Wolverhampton in the 1870's and 80's was a thief, liar and a fantasist prone to sudden squalls of destructive rage.”
The author is saying that because Bury’s childhood was bad, he turned out to be a serial killer. It’s kind of grasping for straws because a lot of people have bad childhoods and turn out to be fine adults, but it’s an argument.
Reciprocity
“In their book Sexual Homicide, John Douglas and Robert Ressler, pioneers of psychological profiling and formerly heads of the FBI's Investigative Support unit, present the case of Warren (1), an Alabama multicide whom they use as a 'motivational model'. When Warren's history is compared with Bury's the similarities are uncanny. So too are the parallels between Bury and Fred West. But Bury was obviously not copying Warren or West; instead their lives imitate his.”
Here the author establishes that Bury’s psychological profile was a lot like those of two other notable serial killers. That is, he’s basically saying “B and C are bad. A is, in a way, like B and C. Therefore A is bad.”
Interpretation
“The police also discovered Bury had been a horse meat butcher, cutting the meat up for cats' food. Although not a necessity, possession of the sort of anatomical knowledge a man might gain from cutting up animals is certainly not a disadvantage in the Ripper stakes. John Douglas remarks that employment as a butcher would have nourished the Ripper's sadistic fantasies.”
The fact that Bury was a horse meat butcher isn’t relevant in many cases aside from the process of building an argument accusing him of being Jack the Ripper. More relevance is added through the mentioning of John Douglas’ analysis.

Szemeredy - Perelman Arguments

Perelman Argument
Article Connections
Facts/Truth – Supposed
By using newspaper articles and police reports, it is assumed that Scarsi believes these accounts to be the truth when in reality, they are assumptions of the actual events based on fabrications of the mind and excitement of the media.
Locus of Quantity
There are more incidents that allow the connection between Ripper and Szemeredy than those of quality which would suggest that there are too many coincidences.
Presence – Aggregation
The many different anecdotes all are to be assumed that they add up to make up the whole.
Analysis – Philosophical
All of the reasons behind why Szemeredy is the Ripper are based on the supposed facts of the media and the police reports.
Inclusion
Each report is a testament to the larger idea of Szemeredy's guilt.
Coexistence – Intention
Scarsi assumed that all the reports about Szemeredy make up his entire character as staed in the section “What have we got here?”

Facts/Truths
“Jacob’s occupation was noted as that of a butcher and the cause of his illness was mania”-Agreed upon reality
Presumptions
“Jacob finally died at the asylum from General Paralysis of the Insane brought on by the serious sexually transmitted disease syphilis, therefore indicating a possibility of liaisons with the Adelgate/Whitechapel prostitutes.”
Presumptions
“Jacob may have very well blamed prostitutes for the cause of his illness together with the impending failure of his once successful family butchering business, and he may have also believed, or assumed, that his children were now syphillic.”
Presumptions
“The opposite sides of Middlesex Street were divided by the boundaries of both the City of London and Metropolitan police jurisdictions and nestling within the City boundaries resided Jacob Levy, and moreover, some 100 metres away to the east and over in the Met's jurisdiction was located Goulston Street - and it was here that the Ripper, when on flight from Mitre Square, had discarded a cut away portion of Catharine Eddowes apron inside a doorway entrance to some tenement buildings. Now this may have been purposely contrived by Jacob in an attempt to deceive the authorities into assuming the direction as to which the Ripper was heading, seemingly deeper into the Met's jurisdiction, so therefore Jacob may very well have rapidly backtracked after employing this false trail the mere 100 metres across the border and into the City's jurisdiction, and the safety of his home, for he may very well have suspected that Joseph Hyam Levy had only minutes earlier recognised him in the company of a woman believed to be Catharine Eddowes loitering inside the covered entrance to Church Passage.”
Coexistence-Intentions
“…his wife had complained that he almost ruined her business: ‘he also feels that if he is not restrained he will do some violence to someone; he complains about hearing strange noises; cries for no reason; feels compelled to do acts that his conscience cannot stand; and has a conscience of feeling exaltation… he does not sleep at night and wanders aimlessly for hours.”- These various acts reveal a unified essence of Jacob Levy’s character and intentions, and he could be the type of person that could be Jack the Ripper.
Double Heirarchy
“Interestingly, three days prior to Catharine's death she had returned from a hop-picking excursion in Kent claiming her belief as to the identity of the Whitechapel murderer and was constantly seen in the Aidgate vicinity within the last hours of her life, in such a vicinity to where the diseased and insane Jewish butcher Jacob Levy lived and worked, and the year 1891 coinciding with Jacob's death saw the official police files on the case finally and inexplicably close.”-Catherine may have known that Jacob was the Ripper and because of this knowledge, Jacob killed her.

 

Szemeredy - Fallacies

Fallacy
Quote
Analysis
Appeal to Authority
The Buenos Aires Newspaper La Nacion reported on 27 July 1876...”


In hopes that the report from a famous newspaper would allow for a sense of credibility.


We find more information in police reports. The officer in charge of the investigation stated...” Just as the newspaper was to give a sense of credibility, the police reports are meant to increase the authors sense of credibility.
Quantifier Shift The newspaper does not say in so many words and only hints at it...” Assumptions are made in order to make all of the data work.


This narrative, which has taken us through some of the places where Szmeredy was up to his usual tricks, reveals some of his characteristics. Though some events are difficult to prove...” Talks about how Szmeredy's characteristics and personality make it more reasonable or more likely that he would be the Ripper.
Wishful Thinking In the aftermath of the murder... The following year...” References all of his travel times and how they make him guilty. (Not sure if this may be appeal to ignorance or wishful thinking on the part of the author, possibly both.)
Anecdotal Fallacy A contemporary newspaper reported that when he was arrested in Brazil...” The use of several reports to conclude how possible it is to have Szmeredy as the ripper because of the reports vivid details that are too similar to Ripper reports.

Samantha Lopez-Mary Jack the Ripper

Presumption 

Although there is no evidences showing that Jack the Ripper is a women, there are witness of the night showing how Ripper was running away from the crime scene with women’s clothing.
Presumption 

There are also the possibility that the suspect is Mary Pearcey because of her conviction of killing her lover’s wife after the Ripper murders and leaving the same MO at the crime scene.
Facts/Truth(Observed) 

DNA testing shows how testing an old hair particle can still obtain profiles from hair DNA and still find the results of which the DNA belongs to from 106 years ago.
Presumption 

There were multiple suspects of Jack the Ripper and the including a “phoney doctor, a real doctor, famous author, and articles and a royal family member.” Audience might want to consider all the possible that it could be any of this people.
Hierarchies 
Although Jack the Ripper got its name from publicity it was still gained and ordering value to it when it was the murders and the how people reacted to the murders, Then when the murders happen it was the newspaper that gave it the news cover that they gave to the public. Then it was the public that gave the name of bogey man.
Succession

Because all the murders are happening and witnesses seeing a person, wearing women is clothing leaving evidence in the crime scene shows how the suspect could possibly be a women.

Kosminski - Perelman - Arthur Munoz


Presumption    It is not a stretch to imagine that Aaron would have begun to develop a general resentment of adults and authority figures as a result of this.
Presumption    It is also important to consider that Aaron probably shared a bed with his sisters or even perhaps his mother when he was a child. It is possible that Aaron had developed sexualized and perhaps violent fantasies involving the female members of his family.
Presumption    Although we have no evidence for this, we must consider the possibility that Aaron even witnessed the rape of his mother or his sisters.
Presumption    Thus we must consider the possibility that Aaron was raised without a strong father figure in a family environment dominated by females.
Definition  Normative Canter describes two models of offender behaviour known as the "marauder" and "commuter" hypothesis, which were developed from the circle theory. The marauder model assumes that an offender will "strike out" from their home base in the commission of their crimes, whereas the commuter model assumes that an offender will travel a distance from their home base before engaging in criminal activity.
Succession   Living conditions in the Pale were extremely crowded, and it is almost certain that Aaron would have shared a bed with either his parents or his sisters when he was young
Double Hierarchy    The thing to remember about paranoid schizophrenics (and from what I've read, Kosminski more or less fits into this category) is that their IQs are typically above average and they become quite adept over the years at hiding their delusional system from others.

James Maybrick- Perelman Sarah Neill


Type
Example

Division
Rubinstein tries to prove that James Maybrick is the Ripper by breaking the murders into their separate components; the days of the week on which they took place, the days working men got paid, the location, the aspect of family life the killer would have had. By going through all of these aspects individually he is trying to make a bunch of little arguments that he thinks will build into a larger argument. Rubinstein tries to convince the reader of each individual fact, like Maybrick being able to travel on weekends, or Maybrick living alone in London, in hopes that it will amount to a larger argument.

Facts-Supposed
All of the “facts” Rubinstein provides are all supposed facts. He even states that it is “a good deal of indirect evidence that points to Maybrick” meaning that nothing is proven. He makes very general arguments with phrases like “might” “more likely” and only mentions Maybrick in parenthesis at the end of his argument.

Interpretations- Specific choices
In the majority of the post, Rubinstein chooses about five other suspects and explains why he doesn’t think it is those people, he then spends the last section talking about why it is Maybrick. In his defenses he only mentions specific aspects of the murders and ignores others. In denying that Mary Kelly was blackmailing anyone in the royal conspiracy, Rubinstein fails to mention Mary Kelly when convicting James Maybrick.