Thread: Lipski
View Single Post
  #137  
Old 03-10-2017, 12:24 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
I didn't say Phillips said Annies Killer was a medical professional John, and I really detest when posters inaccurately synopsize what is being said... I said that after Annies murder and based on Phillips statements....some of which I posted,...the authorities chose to look for medically trained suspects in September. They did not continue that pattern after the Double Event, because clearly those kills did not fit that profile. Instead, like so many of our treasured serial killer advocates do, they just assumed that the lesser skilled subsequent kills and mutilations were poorly executed but explainable....like Lizs killer was interrupted, Kates killer was in too dark an environment and was acting too hastily, or Marys killer took a long time taking her apart because he was indoors. They forget, or ignore, that Liz Strides murder shows no evidence at all of being interrupted, that the lack of skill evident on Kate might just be a lack of skills...which contrasts Annies killer,... or that Marys murder while in bed had nothing at all to do with a killer who killed and mutilated middle aged women while they actively solicited outdoors..

Whatever Trevors modern day experts believe they see in notes taken is of interest to them I'm sure, but as I said earlier, Phillips saw 4 Canonicals in the morgue...he inspected the wounds with his eyes and hands, not with his aptitude for interpreting more than century old doctors notes. He didn't see the skills with Liz, and when asked later if he thought Kate should be included in the list that contemporary investigators created for kills they wanted to attribute to a single maniac, he stated he didn't see that Kates wounds were the same as the earlier 2 women he examined.

Its simply the reality that matters to me, fictional ideas about why the subsequent murders didn't look anything like the first 2 are entertaining but hardly convincing.
I'm sorry to have to press you on this, Michael, but what is the source for Dr Phillips' supposedly asserting that he didn't think Eddowes' wounds were similar to Chapman's. You refer to "the earlier 2 women he examined". When did he examine Nichols? Source please. When did Dr Phillips say that he believed Eddowes' perpetrator to be less skilled than Chapman's? Source please.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote