Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    "Here we have the issue which comes up over and over again, that of expert opinion."

    Was it "expert" opinion or simply the opinion of the doctors at the time?

    Did they take any courses or receive any special training in wound analysis?

    How many cases were they involved in where they were asked to opine on a knife wound?

    How much time did they spend on the autopsy? Was that the usual time spent?

    Did any other doctor or medical assistant assist them in the autopsy? Did that person hold the same opinion as they did?

    What factors went into their analysis and opinion? Did they consider X? How much weight did they give to (fill in the blank)?

    The list can go on and on. I think we would need to know a lot more before we credit them with an "expert" opinion.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • #47
      Hello Lynn,

      Nice to see you back and posting again. Where have you been? I hope you haven't been seeing other Ripper boards behind our backs.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • #48
        contention

        Hello John. Thanks.

        Indeed. My contention is that:

        1. IF Dr. Phillips (and whomever agreed with him immediately after Kate's death) were mistaken about "skillful mutilations" (cuts), then my theory could be a mistake.

        But,

        2. If Dr. Phillips were right, then perhaps we have concentrated our resources in the wrong place for all these years.

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #49
          blunting an argument

          Hello (again) John. A blunt knife MIGHT suggest a different killer. Why not use your original sharp knife?

          Cheers.
          LC

          Comment


          • #50
            logic tutorial

            Hello Christer.

            "Anybody with a sound argument against that is welcome to disagree."

            Umm, a sound argument is a valid argument with ALL true premises. But "validity"
            is defined ONLY on deductive arguments. But empirical considerations fall under induction. Hence, "sound" argument is a non-starter.

            Just clarifying.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #51
              work

              Hello CD. Thanks.

              These days I have little time for such nonsense. Currently I am about to become engaged in writing up lectures for my new occupation--teaching history. And US History is not exactly my strong point.

              Moreover, I am improving my facility with foreign languages. A most interesting study.

              Hope you are well and occupied.

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                Hello Christer.

                "Anybody with a sound argument against that is welcome to disagree."

                Umm, a sound argument is a valid argument with ALL true premises. But "validity"
                is defined ONLY on deductive arguments. But empirical considerations fall under induction. Hence, "sound" argument is a non-starter.

                Just clarifying.

                Cheers.
                LC
                More like clouding, I´d say. It was always so, of course - Ripperology is too often 99 per cent about matters like these and a single per cent about the case.

                Comment


                • #53
                  A word to the wise for messieurs Richards & Cates:

                  "...investigators must look for progressive changes in a killer's method of operation from one murder to the next, instead of only looking for those characteristics that were exactly the same." (Keppel)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                    "Here we have the issue which comes up over and over again, that of expert opinion."

                    Was it "expert" opinion or simply the opinion of the doctors at the time?

                    Did they take any courses or receive any special training in wound analysis?

                    How many cases were they involved in where they were asked to opine on a knife wound?

                    How much time did they spend on the autopsy? Was that the usual time spent?

                    Did any other doctor or medical assistant assist them in the autopsy? Did that person hold the same opinion as they did?

                    What factors went into their analysis and opinion? Did they consider X? How much weight did they give to (fill in the blank)?

                    The list can go on and on. I think we would need to know a lot more before we credit them with an "expert" opinion.

                    c.d.
                    Dear c.d.

                    I agree with all of that, and used the term "expert" when referencing the 1888 medics to simply differentiate them from the police officers or indeed the "common" man.


                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.

                      Hello Harry. Thanks.

                      I see. We must look for a serious deterioration in skills?

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                        Hello (again) John. A blunt knife MIGHT suggest a different killer. Why not use your original sharp knife?

                        Cheers.
                        LC
                        Hello Lynn,

                        Good question. However, we can't assume that JtR, or if you prefer Eddowes killer, was wandering the streets of Whitechapel with a murder kit. For instance, it's possible that Eddowes' killer wasn't intending to kill that night, and therefore was equipped with a weapon that wasn't entirely fit for purpose.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                          Hello John. Thanks.

                          Indeed. My contention is that:

                          1. IF Dr. Phillips (and whomever agreed with him immediately after Kate's death) were mistaken about "skillful mutilations" (cuts), then my theory could be a mistake.

                          But,

                          2. If Dr. Phillips were right, then perhaps we have concentrated our resources in the wrong place for all these years.

                          Cheers.
                          LC
                          Hello Lynn,

                          Yes, I would absolutely agree with this assessment.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                            Good Points John

                            The thing Trevor did was to use more than a single expert, on this particular issue. That is something I always ask for.

                            Has you say there is some disagreement in their views, however what that says to me is what should be obvious to all that while all are experts they all have different degrees of skill, and what is difficult or impossible for one may not be for another person.

                            I see the same issues possibly at work in 1888 over the opinions of the medics.


                            Steve
                            Hello Steve,

                            Thanks. Of course, Dr Bond took a diametrically opposed view to Dr Phillips as to the level of skill demonstrated by Chapman's killer. And who's to say he was wrong?

                            Of course, you could argue that Dr Phillips had the advantage that he at least examined the body. However, you could equally argue that he's undermined by the "one sweep of the knife" comment, which suggests that, at the very least, he overestimated the skill of the perpetrator.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              tough

                              Hello John. Thanks.

                              I think Kate's killer had selected her some time before AND for a specific reason.

                              And he may very well have been the tough character that Tom Wescott hypothesises. Put another way, he may have done Emily, Emma and Martha. But NOT the kind of serial killer that one imagines.

                              So if one wants a series . . .

                              Cheers.
                              LC

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                                Dear c.d.

                                I agree with all of that, and used the term "expert" when referencing the 1888 medics to simply differentiate them from the police officers or indeed the "common" man.


                                Steve
                                Hello Steve,

                                Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

                                c.d.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X