The "Suspects": Current Opinion

[lynn cates]

lunatic

Hello (again) Patrick.

" I think it's reasonable to entertain the idea that there was more than one killer and it would be foolish to absolve a suspect because he he had an alibi for one killing."

Remarkable. So perhaps I'm not the ONLY lunatic posting on these boards?(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hello (again) Patrick.

" I think it's reasonable to entertain the idea that there was more than one killer and it would be foolish to absolve a suspect because he he had an alibi for one killing."

Remarkable. So perhaps I'm not the ONLY lunatic posting on these boards?(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

We should both be locked up, it seems. I hope that you do not believe that modern forensic science may have been useful in answering the quesion. Apparenly that's an absurd idea, as well.

[lynn cates]

crazy

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

Oops, guilty. Put me in a strait waistcoat.

Yes, modern forensics might be most enlightening; social scientific profiling, considerably less so. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Ah, Patrick, so what you meant when you said:
3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.

Was this:
3. I think some of the crimes may have been committed by several people acting together, while others may not have been connected and may just be copy-cat killings. As forensic science was in its infancy the police would have been less able to determine whether the crimes were linked compared to today.

But then you spoil it by saying:
I'm not of the opinion that the crimes were committed by more than one killer.

I take this to mean that you think there was one killer?
Your writing style has similarities to the Goulston Street graffiti artist. I wonder what modern forensics would have made of that!
You seem a bit jumpy about Lechmere. Not everything is about Lechmere you know. I was just trying to work out what you have been trying to say, and it seems I am not alone.

[Patrick S]

Ah, Patrick, so what you meant when you said:
3. Due that fact that forensic science was in its infancy, I am beginning to believe more strongly that these crimes were the work of several killers, working independently of one another, perhaps copying previous killings.

Was this:
3. I think some of the crimes may have been committed by several people acting together, while others may not have been connected and may just be copy-cat killings. As forensic science was in its infancy the police would have been less able to determine whether the crimes were linked compared to today.

But then you spoil it by saying:
I'm not of the opinion that the crimes were committed by more than one killer.

I take this to mean that you think there was one killer?
Your writing style has similarities to the Goulston Street graffiti artist. I wonder what modern forensics would have made of that!
You seem a bit jumpy about Lechmere. Not everything is about Lechmere you know. I was just trying to work out what you have been trying to say, and it seems I am not alone.

Ah. But everything IS about Lechmere! Right, LECHMERE?

What I actually said was this: "Due to the fact that forensic science was not advanced, it's possible that murders which were committed by multiple killers were attributed to one, "Jack the Ripper". "

And then I said this:

"I'm not of the opinion that the crimes were committed by more than one killer. It's naive to think that the science existed to even determine such a thing. I think it's reasonable to entertain the idea that there was more than one killer and it would be foolish to absolve a suspect because he he had an alibi for one killing."

I do hope you can count footsteps more accurately than you paraphrase.

The facts of the matter are simple: I am not foolish enough to state a firm opinion when it comes to WHO the Ripper was (be it one killer or more). I'll leave that people like you. There is not enough information now because too much was missed then.

It IS your opinion that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper. You've made that clear. In my view, it's absurd, and it seems I'm not alone.

I'll be in London this fall. Let's arrange to meet and discuss this topic.

[Observer]

I wonder if you understand that in 1888 crimes labs did not exist. Not in London. Not on planet Earth. Dr. Edmond Locard established the first in Lyon, in 1910. Did you think that advanced forensic techniques were being applied in East End mortuary sheds?

Nooo. Really? I thought every serving officer including Inspectors and above had one in their spare room. Well I'll be!

Still, I'll give a few examples:

First would be in the area of analyzing the wounds. Modern knife wound analysis can more accurately identify relative details regarding the knife used in the death and the infliction of the wound. Modern pathologists can identify the track marks the knife leaves when it is thrust into the body.

Err what would happen if the perpetrator in a series of murders changed his, or her weapon?

From the Foresic Panel, Michael Welner, M.D., Chairman:

"Even if an exact match cannot be made, it is always possible to determine whether a particular knife is compatible with a distinct stab-wound. Wound analysis allows a pathologist to determine the location, size, borders and pattern of the injury; the orientation on the skin’s surface; the thrust of the perpetrator; and whether the wounds are consistent with defensive actions."

Obviously these details can help investigators identify the position of both the killer and victim and if it fits the MO, pattern, etc. of similar crimes. Also, this science has obviously evolved since 1888, I 'reckon'.

Again, what if the perp changed his weapon mid series, as in the case of Peter Sutcliffe? Several assaults on women were ruled out as having been committed by Sutcliffe when in actual fact he had most decidedly committed them. Changing weapons alters thrust, and all the other accompanying phenomena you have provide, or should I say googled. The West Yorkshire Police and their forensic experts got it wrong, and this in the late 1970's early 80's. By the way, Google is a wondrous tool, it doesn't compensate for common sense unfortunately.

Toolmark analysis. Heard of it? It wasn't applied in 1888

No never heard of it, and neither had you until half an hour ago. As I said Google is a wondrous tool.

"Tool mark analysis is a method of matching a weapon with the injury it caused. In a homicidal stabbing using a serrated knife, a stab wound that involves a cartilage may leave striations from the serration points on the blade edge. Assessing tissue striations is a means of identifying the weapon as having a serrated blade. This prospective study examines the possibility that similar striations may be produced in human soft tissues. Using tissues taken at the time of hospital-consented autopsies, stab wound tracks were assessed in a variety of human tissues (aorta, skin, liver, kidney, and cardiac and skeletal muscle). Stab wounds were produced postmortem with similar serrated and smooth-edged blades. The walls of the stab wounds were exposed, documented by photography and cast with dental impression material. Striations were identified by naked-eye examination in the skin and aorta. Photodocumentation of fresh tissue was best achieved in the aorta. Striations were not identified in wound tracks produced by the smooth-edged blade. Three blinded forensic pathologists were assessed for their ability to detect striations in photographs of wound tracks and had substantial interobserver agreement (κ = 0.76) identifying striations. This study demonstrates that tool mark striations can be present in some noncartilaginous human tissues."

Again, What if the perp changes weapon?

I could literally post examples all day. I'd rather not.

Whew, what a relief. You would be no more convincing however should you change your mind.

[Patrick S]

It's primarily a business trip, mind you. But, I hope I can find time for your little walking tour! I love a good farce!

[Patrick S]

Nooo. Really? I thought every serving officer including Inspectors and above had one in their spare room. Well I'll be!



Err what would happen if the perpetrator in a series of murders changed his, or her weapon?



Again, what if the perp changed his weapon mid series, as in the case of Peter Sutcliffe? Several assaults on women were ruled out as having been committed by Sutcliffe when in actual fact he had most decidedly committed them. Changing weapons alters thrust, and all the other accompanying phenomena you have provide, or should I say googled. The West Yorkshire Police and their forensic experts got it wrong, and this in the late 1970's early 80's. By the way, Google is a wondrous tool, it doesn't compensate for common sense unfortunately.





No never heard of it, and neither did you until half an hour ago. As I said Google is a wondrous tool.




Again, What if the perp changes weapon?



Whew, what a relief. You would be no more convincing however should you change your mind.

This is the best you can do? Utterly brilliant. What if....what if...... There's so much of that going aroud.

Common sense is a wonderful thing, we agree. I tend to not borrow mine from Fisherman and Lechmere.

[Patrick S]

You are entertaining! I'll give you that. Is saying that I 'Googled' something intended to be an insullt? I added quotations and cited my sources. Great detective work.

Oh, and Observer? Please use the term 'perp' more. It is, after all, what all the really tough cops on TV say.

[Lechmere]

Fall?
Don't you mean Autumn?

Patrick I cut and pasted - then when it didn't seem to make sense I reworded.
I take it that you are at a loss to decide whether it was one killer, multiple killers and you are undecided whether the killer or killers worked alone.

That covers all eventualities.

I would plump for nearly all of the killings being by one person acting alone and living fairly local. That is how these things tend to pan out and you don't need a lab to suss that out.

[Ben]

Please use the term 'perp' more. It is, after all, what all the really tough cops on TV say.

I prefer "Unsub". Now that's big boy $hit.

[Observer]

This is the best you can do? Utterly brilliant. What if....what if...... There's so much of that going aroud.

Common sense is a wonderful thing, we agree. I tend to not borrow mine from Fisherman and Lechmere.

Is this the best you can do? What if's don't come into it. I provided a true life example in Sutcliffe where forensic science overruled common sense. Sutcliffe used more than one weapon. You still haven't answered my question. What if a killer changes weapon mid series? a procedure that has been adopted by serial killers. What good would tool mark analysis provide in this instance?

[Fisherman]

Common sense is a wonderful thing, we agree. I tend to not borrow mine from Fisherman and Lechmere.

That´s why we´ve still have our common sense intact, Edward and I, I take it - we did not let you borrow it. God only knows what it would have looked like when (and if) you returned it...!

Fisherman

[Observer]

You are entertaining! I'll give you that. Is saying that I 'Googled' something intended to be an insullt? I added quotations and cited my sources. Great detective work.

Oh, and Observer? Please use the term 'perp' more. It is, after all, what all the really tough cops on TV say.

An insult? Not at all. I was merely pointing out that it's all very well googling a subject, but it does pay dividends if you apply a certain amount of common sense before using said information.

You like the term "perp"? In truth I can't be arsed to spell out perpetrator.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

I prefer "Unsub". Now that's big boy $hit.

Stalker at one o clock