Science, ho!

Recently, I've been part of a number of discussions about scientific objectivity applied to the question of religious faith. In one of the forums science was repeatedly ridiculed for claiming to have a "monopoly" on truth. Objective analysis was the particular target of many comments. Here are some quotes on this issue for you all to ponder...

Why am I an atheist? The short answer is that I cannot accept any of the alternatives. I simply don't find them believable. As for the accusation of intellectual pride, surely the boot is on the other foot. Atheists don't claim to know anything with certainty—it's the believers who know it all.

- Barbara Smoker

I would, like any other scientist, willingly change my mind if the evidence led me to do so. So I care about what's true, I care about evidence, I care about evidence as the reason for knowing what is true. It is true that I come across rather passionate sometimes—and that's because I am passionate about the truth. … I do get very impatient with humbug, with cant, with fakery, with charlatans.

- Richard Dawkins

Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates.

- Thomas Jefferson

First Class

Just got official notification that I have completed my Honours program and have received a Class A grade (the highest possible).

"Are you sure this is a sci-fi convention? It's full of nerds!"

Thus spoke Homer. The relevance of that quote has to do with my new academic subject: science-fiction. I'm not giving up on Satanism, quite the opposite actually, it's going to become my main side-project. In the next few months I'll be preparing a number of different research papers derived from my thesis work. Some will be presented at conferences others submitted to journals.

While we're on the topic of Satanism there's something I'd like to point out; Anton LaVey has more than one book. If anyone is going to write something about him at least read his five major texts (Satanic Bible, Satanic Rituals, Satanic Witch, Devil's Notebook and Satan Speaks). You can learn a lot more about the man and his philosophy by looking at more than just the Satanic Bible.

Another note for prospective scholars and students: listing the Complete Idiots Guide to (random subject) or (random subject) For Dummies does not look good. This isn't a value judgment on the information these texts may contain, they are very good starting points when you don't know much about a certain topic. But when it comes time to write your essay you might consider what readers (or examiners) will think. You want to show you've done a good job on research and that won't happen if all you use is an introductory level book as a reference.

The same is usually said in regards to the use of encyclopedias and such. Yes, its easy to look up the Australian Dictionary of Biography and peruse a simple outline of Edmund Barton's life but that's something anyone can do. Being a scholar isn't always about convenience, it can be hard work finding those obscure sources and getting information beyond the basic details. At the end of it all you'll be happy that you put in that extra effort and acquired a solid understanding of the subject. It's no good claiming to have done extensive research if the proof isn't there.

Beware also of pseudo-histories and biased sources. Not everything you'll find will contain factual data. This is where you need to exercise a little source criticism; look for agendas, look for subjectivity, and try to find other reliable sources that corroborate its evidence. Sometimes books claiming to be historical records are at odds with other accounts. Again, look to see who's proven they've done their research and who is lacking in that area (or who has ulterior motives).

Happy Halloween

I was going to do a special Halloween post but I'm too busy with my thesis. Only three more days til its over.

Toowong Cemetery Tour

This weekend is the debut performance of my new heritage tour From the Temple to the Cauldron. Tales of the home front during WWI, the birth of Queensland, political dissidents and other digressions into the past...

Where: Toowong Cemetery (meet near office)

When: Sunday: 5 October, starts at 10:30am

Cost: gold coin donation to Friends of Toowong Cemetery

Back to Jack the Ripper: Serial killers and their M.O.

The Walter Porriott Ripper theories are still getting some media attention. The two main proponents of the theory have concluded that it is unlikely that he is the famed serial killer because "Porriott's modus operandi as a criminal conman, impersonator and fraudster is quite different from the modus operandi of Jack the Ripper." [quote from Paul Tully's blog on the topic]

This is a fair point to make and from what I know of Porriott's alleged actions it's quite correct. However, it should be noted that criminal conmen can be quite adaptive in terms of their manner of operation. The main case I'm thinking of is that of H. H. Holmes America's own first known serial killer. Homes (real name: Herman Mudgett) initially plied his trade at insurance fraud before building a hotel equipped with various means of killing unsuspecting residents. During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 an unknown number of victims died within its walls. He also had quite a knack for seducing ladies and finding various ways to get their money (after having done so he killed and dismembered them).

The specific episode in Holmes history that is pertinent to this discussion is his final arrest in Boston on November 17 1894. Initially the authorities were unaware that he had committed any offense worse than theft. When a search for three children who had been in his care resulted in the discovery of their bodies it became apparent that the charming suave man who had befriended his captors was not what he seemed. The subsequent discovery of Holmes now-legendary "murder castle" in Chicago demonstrated the methodical planning and extent of his infamous crimes.

The point of citing the case of Homes is thus: the modus operandi (M.O.) of a criminal is not always as simple as can be believed. Not every conman or sociopath sticks to a script. As one former FBI profiler put it, "criminal psychopaths are criminally versatile." Holmes seems to have been more of a pragmatist (using methods that had worked well on previous occasions and would avoid drawing suspicion) rather than an obsessive compulsive personality type. He also masked his true nature with a sane and respectable veneer. Something which Porriott may also have done.

While we're on the topic of Saucy Jack's M.O. there are a few other comments that should be made. Firstly, some doubt that Mary Kelly's murder (9 November 1888) was committed by the Ripper for the very fact that it is in many ways inconsistent with the other four. She was younger than the other victims being approximately 25 (the other four victims were in their 40s) and she was found not on the street but inside of her lodgings. Additionally, her murder was over a month after that of the previous victim, Catherine Eddowes (30 September 1888).

It seems odd that a killer who had committed murders with such regularity (31 August, 8 September, and the 'double event' of 30 September) would suddenly stop. One possible reason is that he was incarcerated during that period and was therefore unable to do anything until he was released. If this is the case then it may help to further explain the severity of the wounds he inflicted on Kelly's body. Coupled with the privacy of the occasion the killer may have had both the ability and inclination to be more extreme seeing as he had to wait so long for the opportunity.

Conversely, it is possible that the original killer (the true Jack the Ripper) had already stopped and that this was a crime that was influenced by his work. Perhaps someone else having heard about Jack's crimes in the media decided to commit a similar act or make it appear that Kelly was a Ripper victim so that they themselves would not be suspected. Tantalizingly, Kelly and her lover had recently split up because he objected to her allowing other prostitutes to stay in her room. They had separated in late August or early September but he had been visiting her on a daily basis after this. They were heard to argue on the evening of 30 October. This places both the lover and any potential boarders into suspicion as well.

Much of Porriott's candidacy rests on the fact he is supposed to have been in the area during all the crimes and left on the same day that Kelly's body was discovered. A man seen with Kelly on the night is described as being in his mid thirties and the rest of the witness statement seems at odds with the idea that 18 year old Porriott was the killer. The time of death was placed at around 4:00am as this was when others in the vicinity say they heard a cry of, "Murder!" (which wasn't an unusual occurrence for the time and place and thus wasn't reacted to). The time of Porriott's departure is not specified by the theories proponents so it is difficult to further speculate on whether it fits within a plausible time frame whereby he could have killed, cleaned up and boarded the vessel without being noticed (note here that the substantial and methodical mutilations imply that some time was spent with the body).

As I have said before Porriott was not the only person to have left the area following Kelly's death (remember, the killer need not of left the country or even remained alive after this time) and he certainly was not the only person around during the murder period. Nothing much seems to make him any more likely a suspect than everyone else who was there at the time. Even his supposed misogyny being a factor rests solely on assumptions that the Ripper killed because he hated women or prostitutes. Jeffrey Dahmer didn't hate men he just wanted a docile and obliging partner who could never leave him. Even so, he killed seventeen men. The choice of victims may be due more to pragmatic reasons, the victims were vulnerable women who would go alone to a secluded place on the streets with a client. Moreover, their deaths were unlikely to raise the same kind of attention as that of a more high profile victim. Similarly, Dahmer preyed on the vulnerable elements of society and that is why no one even suspected that a serial killer living among them.

One should also point out that we know about as much about the Ripper's motive as we do about the Ripper himself (I keep saying 'him' but I should point out that there are Jill the Ripper theories as well). Something which makes it harder to narrow down the list of suspects.

Just as Holmes' crimes went largely unnoticed due to the civil chaos of the World's Fair so too did the Ripper slip into the shadows of the zeitgeist.

...May all the victims of killers past and present rest in peace...

If people read things carefully...

A short section describing cult-related crime in Eric W. Hickey's book Serial Murderers and Their Victims briefly discusses the Church of Satan and Anton LaVey. In it, the author says that once members of the CoS reach a certain position in the Church they are "invited to participate in human and animal sacrifices (p.48)." He references a chapter in LaVey's Satanic Bible titled 'On the choice of a human sacrifice' as the evidence and guidelines for these sacrificial rituals.

An uniformed reader might take Hickey at his work and assume that LaVey not only condones but encourages blood sacrifices. As someone who is fairly well acquainted with the text my reaction was: how could someone be so far off the mark? The chapter in question is only four pages long so it's not like you could get lost in all the details and mistake what LaVey is saying. Initially he mocks "white" magicians for being unable to muster the vital life energies required for particular rituals without resorting to taking another's life. Then LaVey states:

"Under no circumstance would a Satanist sacrifice any animal or baby!...There are sound and logical reasons why the Satanist could not perform such sacrifices. Man, the animal, is the godhead to the Satanist. The purest form of carnal existence reposes in the bodies of animals and human children who have not grown old enough to deny themselves their natural desires. They can perceive things that the average adult human can never hope to. therefore, the satanist holds these being in a sacred regard, knowing he can learn much from these natural magicians of the world."

The rest of the chapter describes how even when it is deemed necessary to sacrifice someone, this is a symbolic and not a literal act. A curse is placed upon the chosen individual in the hope that negative consequences will befall them. The person chosen is not someone 'pure of heart' or any of those cliches, it is someone who has wronged you and deserves to be cursed as a consequence of their own actions.

Of course, this kind of understanding is certainly not representative of every Satanic philosophy but if you're going to be talking about LaVey this kind of distinction should be made.

More Ripping

Given the current popularity of the Porriott case I decided to listen to 4BC radio's classic crime last night to see what they had to say. For those that don't know, classic crime is a short segment of 4BC presenter Ian Maurice's show featuring local "historian" Jack sim. Each week a different crime or criminal is discussed.

Last night the focus was on Walter Porriott and the idea that he may have been Jack the Ripper. Cr Paul Tully also joined in to comment on the case and his research. A woman who had known Porriott and his last wife (she married Bessie Porriott's nephew) also called in. Her first-hand information provided a nice post-script to what's already appeared in the articles.

Sim didn't seem to add anything new to the debate and in usual fashion criticized police and eye witnesses as "untrained". While the forensic technologies of today were lacking in nineteenth century England, concepts such as deductive reasoning and scientific method were not unheard of. Perhaps the training that Victorian detectives received would have been different to that of their modern colleagues but they were not uneducated in investigative procedure.

One comment that he made which I found particularly interesting was that he is going to be holding a murder tour of Toowong Cemetery later this month. He claimed to have done these periodically in the past but I have my doubts. I've heard of sim running many tours but never seen anything about that one. This is unusual seeing as my longstanding interest in local history has prompted me to keep well-informed about such goings on.

Seems odd to me that someone would think of a commercial tour of this kind when the Friends of Toowong Cemetery do it for free. The FOTC conduct monthly public walks (each month is based around a different theme). In addition to this, we also produce small tour booklets of each topic so that people can conduct their own self-guided walks. The booklets are free and available on request.

Anyone interested in seeing the grave of Porriott or hearing more about claims that he was the Ripper should come along to the next Friends of Toowong Cemetery walk. It will take place on Sunday September 7 at 10:30am (meet under the flag pole just behind the gates). The main theme of the walk will be Maritime history but myself and others would be happy to answer any questions. No bookings required and no entry fee (gold coin donations are appreciated).

I will be conducting the October tour. It will be another first run new tour and will feature stories about the home front during World War I, political dissidents, the birth of Queensland, and other colourful characters.

For more info see the Friends of Toowong Cemetery page:
http://www.toowong.cemetery.org.au/default.asp?PageID=2

For a free copy of the Crime & Punishment tour booklet please contact us via:
FOTC@aussiemail.com.au

The Ripper in Toowong Cemetery?

For those who haven't heard about it, the decade old claim that a man buried in Toowong Cemetery is Jack the Ripper has resurfaced. Due to the 120th anniversary of Saucy Jack's first kill newspapers reported on the case.

In 1997 a man by the name of Steve Wilson proclaimed that his great-great-grandfather, buried under the assumed name 'Walter Thomas Porriott' was the legendary killer. Assumptions of 'Porriott's' guilt centered around the fact that he was in London during the murders and left just after the final killing. It was further bolstered by 'Porriott's' misogynistic views and reputation as a swindler.

Local councilor Paul Tully is presently writing a book on Australian connections to the Ripper case. According to Tully various markings that have 'recently' appeared on the grave depict a man holding up a dagger (a picture of which can be found on his blog). He was quoted in the articles and his blog contains the closest thing to an overview of these claims that can be found on the web:
http://ripper1888.blogspot.com/2008/08/mystery-image-of-jack-ripper-appears-in.html

What merit (if any) do these claims have? For the sake of this discussion the name Porriott will be used as this is what the cemetery records have him named as. Also, for argument's sake we will accept that this Porriott is the con artist relative of Steve Wilson.

Firstly, it's interesting to note that aside from this spate of articles and a mention in the Australian Ripper journal Ripperoo that Porriott seems to inspire no real conjecture. This may be because his life is so convoluted by his scamming, frauds, lies and aliases that little in the way of hard evidence can be procured to give an accurate account of his life. As it stands, the Porriott case is largely dismissable as will be explained here.

Going by what Wilson says, aside from the five murders in London and a case of manslaughter Porriott is not linked to any other murders. For someone who is supposed to have had such an enmity for women he married twenty of them and apparently managed not to kill anyone but the Whitechapel prostitutes.

Accepting that Porriott was in his 80s when he died (and not 59 as cemetery records say) then he would have been rather young at the time of the murders. While his youth does not discount him it is at odds with contemporary witness descriptions. These usually place the age at mid-twenties to late-thirties as do various modern profiles.

To have committed these crimes all in the space of seventy-one days and then never killed again raises its own questions. The concept of a traveling Ripper has been explored before so the idea that Porriott killed in a similar manner elsewhere in the world seems unlikely. A hatred of prostitutes and female immorality was not exactly an uncommon perspective for Victorian times and not everyone who spoke about these feelings went out to commit murder. No one knows exactly why the Ripper chose his victims but unless some non-abstract or generalized reason can be linked to Porriott it seems odd that he would stop so suddenly.

Simply being in the same city as a set of killings and departing there around the same time as they cease proves nothing. Porriott would not have been alone on the ship that left England and he certainly was not alone as a resident of London. Once again we see that his candidature is based on loose supposition rather than any hard evidence.

One final idea which is worth mentioning is the assertion that the Ripper was a Whitechapel native. By this I mean someone who was more than just a passing visitor from another city or even another country. The letter sent to George Lusk is used as supporting evidence for this. The fact that it was addressed to the head of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee has been cited as an indicator that the Ripper had local rather than national or international inclinations. This letter was accompanied by half a diseased kidney (possible from Katherine Eddows) which gives some credence to its authenticity.

Another interesting theory about the Ripper's local intentions pertained to his apparent attempts to implicate the Jewish population. An excellent article on this can be found at:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/jacob-the-ripper.html

I had heard about Porriott before I wrote my Crime & Punishment tour of the cemetery but decided to leave him out. The notion that he is Jack the Ripper is flawed at best and without relying on his links to that case I would only be talking about Porriott's own criminal history. Which is something that could not justify the exclusion of more important or interesting personalities.

I think that my tour more than proved that Toowong Cemetery contains enough criminal infamy of its own to not have to rely on such a big cliche as Saucy Jack. Undoubtedly, some people will boast and rave about the idea of Jack the Ripper being buried in Brisbane but I would suggest that they learn about some of our own unique history (some of which they might find more interesting than the Ripper's exploits).