FBI pulls the plug on Colin Wilson

[Sam Flynn]

You talk out of your hat...

...that'd be "neck region", surely, AP?

[Cap'n Jack]

Out of his scarf, then, Sam?

I found this belter of a case; it turns this discussion and many others helter skelter. I'd urge all to read the full trial transcript, but 'ere is a taste...
what price a groin now?

'JOHN BUBBERS MATHER . I am a divisional surgeon of police—on the afternoon of 28th November, I was sent for to a house in King's-head-court, between 4 and 5 o'clock; when I came in the basin with the head was standing on the table; that was the first thing I examined—the eyes were not open at that moment—I found three bruises on the head, there was no fracture of

See original
the scull; I think they were such wounds as might have been inflicted with a blunt instrument, such as a pair of tongs or a poker—I then felt the body of the woman that was lying in the room; it was still warm—I can't say exactly how long the woman had been dead, but I should think about six or eight hours—the head was completely severed from the body—it was a clean cut with a sharp instrument—it was not done with one cut—there were no wounds at the side of the neck—there was a circle round; the integuments were cut all round first—I have no doubt that the body must have been quite still at the time, in order to have been cut as I found it—the blows given on the head must have stunned the woman, and I think the head must have been cut off almost immediately afterwards—I am led to that conclusion by the dilated state of the pupils of the eyes, and coagulation of the blood, and the sheets of the arteries having retracted—there was also a wound on the lower part of the abdomen, and the bowels were, partially protruding—the wound commenced in the left groin, and was carried across the abdomen to the right groin—I do not think that wound would cause immediate death—I think it was done after death; it might ultimately have caused death—I think that death was immediately caused by the severing the arteries—I have seen a razor that has been produced—the head might have been severed with such an instrument as that—there was a small portion of steel found imbedded in the muscles of the neck, and close to the bone—this is it (producing it)—it is a small speculse of steel—there are several small notches in the razor—the bones were not violently severed—the incision was made right through the articulations of the bones—I have seen the trousers that the prisoner had on that morning—there was blood on them—I afterwards saw a poker, and a pair of tongs; one leg of the tongs was besmeared with blood—I was at the police-court on the following day, the 29th—the prisoner said something to me there; that was before the witnesses had been examined, before the case had been introduced to the court at all—he stated that he wished to have a private conversation with me—he hesitated to speak because the inspector was there—I said, "Oh, you may consider the inspector nobody, of course, as he must be here," and then he spoke, and in a very familiar manner he said "I suppose you are quite aware, Sir, of what is going on in my inside; I have had some substance there for a long time, and have been examined by several doctors"—I said, "Does it affect you much now? he said, "No, not just now, but it does sometimes affect my liver a good deal"—he could not think what it was; it was like a ball or a tumour full of wind—he said something else about steam, but I did not catch what it was—I examined him at the station with reference to the state of his mind; I led him as it were, into a conversation—I did not wish him to know that it was an examination; that was on the evening of the 28th—I did not come to any conclusion as to the state of his mind—he was perfectly rational—there was no difference whatever in his manner the next day, the 29th.

Cross-examined. Q. Apparently perfectly rational, you mean, I suppose? A. Apparently, certainly—I know that the most insane persons sometimes have the appearance of perfect sanity, so as almost to deceive medical men—the prisoner told me himself during the conversation, that he had been in a lunatic asylum for some months—a person who has been insane at one time is very liable to a sudden recurrence of insanity, especially if there be any exciting cause—the period of a lucid interval varies in duration from hours to weeks, and months and years—there is no doubt that the notion of a tumour, or something full of wind, was a delusion; but I was not aware

See original
when he told me that, that that had been one of his illusions in the asylum, and therefore I did not think much of the conversation until I heard Dr. Dixon's statement—it is generally stated to be one of the peculiar features of homocidal mania, that the person afflicted with it, commits violence on his nearest and dearest relations.'

[Ashkenaz]

Here ya go the definition that is actually used in all cases when people aren't trying to puff their numbers.

I'm not puffing numbers. The given definition is perfectly clear. A few, can be several. You simply refuse to accept it for whatever reason.

Several:

1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it..

This is rather selective dont you think ? What about the usage for nouns. You selectively avoided that of course.

But you are another one who thinks they can pick and choose which dictionary definition they want to use, then use a synonym for that definition, then use an interpretation of that synonym to come up with the answer you want..

The dictionary I used considered the word more fully than did your choice. Your choice gives no usage for nouns. I would say it was an inferior choice, chosen precisely because of its inferiority.

So 'several', universally accepted as more than two, becomes a few, which is also defined as more than two but in off interpretations can be said well sometimes it can mean two so you can rearrange reality to get from several to two. .

It is not a rearrangement of reality. It is a valid choice for noun usage.

According to your definition it is based on a number of nouns. So if you said you had "several" people showed up for a party you were throwing, and in fact you only had two people show up, people would think you were grossly exaggerating would they not?

We are not arguing here of what your party friends think of the choice of word. We are discussing the validity of the word in usage.From the dictionary, it is a valid choice

Selective interpretation isn't a valid interpretation.

If the dictionary says it is correct, then it is correct.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Ashkenaz;59291]

I'm not puffing numbers. The given definition is perfectly clear. A few, can be several. You simply refuse to accept it for whatever reason.

As I said, you are trying to use a synonym of several to come to an interpretation. You said several. The number is actually 2. Not a few. Not several, two. The definition of a "few" is irrelevant. The question is: does several mean two. The answer is no.

This is rather selective dont you think ? What about the usage for nouns. You selectively avoided that of course.

Because you didn't use it as a noun. You used it as an adjective. Therefore, the definition that applies is that for an adjective, not for a noun. Here are your exact words.

""I have read that one victim was stabbed several times in the genital area."

This, my dear, is an adjective. So noun definitions are irrelevant and once again, representative of deceitful and shoddy argument.

The dictionary I used considered the word more fully than did your choice. Your choice gives no usage for nouns. I would say it was an inferior choice, chosen precisely because of its inferiority.

You mean it's the correct choice, chosen because of it's correctness. Once again: adjective definition for adjective usage.

It is not a rearrangement of reality. It is a valid choice for noun usage.

You don't actually know the difference between a noun and an adjective do you?

[Supe]

Ally is quite right, both as to dictionary use and conversational use, but let us get more exact all round. That is, refrence to the "groin area" is pro-wrestling speak. The groin is not a specific organ, but is simply a word used to describe a certain area and thus it's a redundancy to speak of the "groin area." Conversely, the vagina is a specific, internal, organ and stabs to the vagina were inflicted on Annie Millwood but were probably incidental wounds with any of the other victims.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

It is not a theory of mine. It is an opinion of mine. And I fully accept my opinion may be wrong.

It's neither a matter of theory or opinion, Ash - it's a matter of fact, and the fact of the matter was that there was one stab-wound to the groin. Not "several", nor a "few" - not even a "couple"; just ONE.

The fact that there was a cut of some three inches just below this stab-wound seems to signify an intent to cut, rather than to stab. If he'd wanted to, Jack could easily have inflicted more stabs in that area, but he didn't. He instead cut into the flesh of the thighs... on both legs.

This seems to suggest that the solitary stab-wound could have been incidental, as if he had suffered a "false-start" in slicing into the groin and thigh. Indeed, the three-inch cut just below the stab could also have been another aborted attempt at carving from groin to thigh.

It is quite all right for me to have this opinion, as it is quite all right for you to disagree.

It's not a matter of opinion, Ash - it's a simple matter of sticking with the evidence. Heaven knows, we have little enough of it at our disposal, without overlooking what few facts remain.

[Natalie Severn]

the prisoner"s mask of sanity

Out of his scarf, then, Sam?

I found this belter of a case; it turns this discussion and many others helter skelter. I'd urge all to read the full trial transcript, but 'ere is a taste...
what price a groin now?

'JOHN BUBBERS MATHER . I am a divisional surgeon of police—on the afternoon of 28th November, I was sent for to a house in King's-head-court, between 4 and 5 o'clock; when I came in the basin with the head was standing on the table; that was the first thing I examined—the eyes were not open at that moment—I found three bruises on the head, there was no fracture of

See original
the scull; I think they were such wounds as might have been inflicted with a blunt instrument, such as a pair of tongs or a poker—I then felt the body of the woman that was lying in the room; it was still warm—I can't say exactly how long the woman had been dead, but I should think about six or eight hours—the head was completely severed from the body—it was a clean cut with a sharp instrument—it was not done with one cut—there were no wounds at the side of the neck—there was a circle round; the integuments were cut all round first—I have no doubt that the body must have been quite still at the time, in order to have been cut as I found it—the blows given on the head must have stunned the woman, and I think the head must have been cut off almost immediately afterwards—I am led to that conclusion by the dilated state of the pupils of the eyes, and coagulation of the blood, and the sheets of the arteries having retracted—there was also a wound on the lower part of the abdomen, and the bowels were, partially protruding—the wound commenced in the left groin, and was carried across the abdomen to the right groin—I do not think that wound would cause immediate death—I think it was done after death; it might ultimately have caused death—I think that death was immediately caused by the severing the arteries—I have seen a razor that has been produced—the head might have been severed with such an instrument as that—there was a small portion of steel found imbedded in the muscles of the neck, and close to the bone—this is it (producing it)—it is a small speculse of steel—there are several small notches in the razor—the bones were not violently severed—the incision was made right through the articulations of the bones—I have seen the trousers that the prisoner had on that morning—there was blood on them—I afterwards saw a poker, and a pair of tongs; one leg of the tongs was besmeared with blood—I was at the police-court on the following day, the 29th—the prisoner said something to me there; that was before the witnesses had been examined, before the case had been introduced to the court at all—he stated that he wished to have a private conversation with me—he hesitated to speak because the inspector was there—I said, "Oh, you may consider the inspector nobody, of course, as he must be here," and then he spoke, and in a very familiar manner he said "I suppose you are quite aware, Sir, of what is going on in my inside; I have had some substance there for a long time, and have been examined by several doctors"—I said, "Does it affect you much now? he said, "No, not just now, but it does sometimes affect my liver a good deal"—he could not think what it was; it was like a ball or a tumour full of wind—he said something else about steam, but I did not catch what it was—I examined him at the station with reference to the state of his mind; I led him as it were, into a conversation—I did not wish him to know that it was an examination; that was on the evening of the 28th—I did not come to any conclusion as to the state of his mind—he was perfectly rational—there was no difference whatever in his manner the next day, the 29th.

Cross-examined. Q. Apparently perfectly rational, you mean, I suppose? A. Apparently, certainly—I know that the most insane persons sometimes have the appearance of perfect sanity, so as almost to deceive medical men—the prisoner told me himself during the conversation, that he had been in a lunatic asylum for some months—a person who has been insane at one time is very liable to a sudden recurrence of insanity, especially if there be any exciting cause—the period of a lucid interval varies in duration from hours to weeks, and months and years—there is no doubt that the notion of a tumour, or something full of wind, was a delusion; but I was not aware

See original
when he told me that, that that had been one of his illusions in the asylum, and therefore I did not think much of the conversation until I heard Dr. Dixon's statement—it is generally stated to be one of the peculiar features of homocidal mania, that the person afflicted with it, commits violence on his nearest and dearest relations.'

I noticed nobody has commented on this really brilliant example Ap has provided of how a person in the throes of an episode of insanity can appear,even to an examining doctor,as being perfectly rational and even normal .
This I believe is what may have been the case with regard to the Ripper.In the above case we have a man presenting a perfectly cool ,calm and collected demeanour and engaging -from prison - with the interviewing doctor in such a cool ,detached ,dispassionate tone about a headless corpse he has only recently dismembered -possibly that of his wife or mother,and yet showing not the slightest remorse or emotional involvement in what has happened.
He had clearly slashed at the groin,abdomen and bowels in his attack,but it would be inconceivable that he had gained any "sexual" satisfaction from these knifings, although a peculiar and prurient curiosity could have driven the opening up of the bowel and abdomen of the victim in that way.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Nats
as I said the case is a belter and well worth a long study:

JAMES MOORE, Killing > murder, 12th December 1859.


Reference Number: t18591212-120
Offence: Killing > murder
Verdict: Not Guilty > non compos mentis
Punishment: Imprisonment > insanity

They were husband and wife.
Moore had been released a week before from a lunatic asylum as 'cured'.

[Cap'n Jack]

I've been looking in more detail at James Moore, and he is proving to be a most instructive lesson in regard to what we discuss here, and elsewhere.
Moore had a previous conviction for a very serious assault on a woman with a knife, in 1857 he attacked and injured Helen Sullivan, but only served 3 months of his prison term, in Holloway, before being transferred to a lunatic asylum, being discharged as 'perfectly sane' on the 23rd February 1859... just a few days before he murdered his wife in the most horrible circumstances.
Amongst other delusions he suffered from was that he had a steam engine in his body, and that electricity was being guided into his body through the walls of his prison cell.
He was 29 on the first attack, and 32 on the second.
He believed himself to be perfectly sane and conducted his own defence, arguing some extremely fine points with the prosecution, such as he had recently bought the clothing with the bloodstains on them and that they could have been there at the time of purchase; and that the various doctors could not quite say why he was insane... apart from the fact that he had butchered his wife and cut off her head.
All in all it shows how dreadfully wrong it is to imagine that a man capable of such hideous deeds must be an obvious lunatic, for here we have a man who did such a thing and then sauntered off with his mates for a few pints, to come back and ask who had done this dreadful thing to his wife.

[Ashkenaz]

If Jack stabbed people in the groin area it was a sexual attack. End of.

I agree.

Here another writes : The autopsy found she sustained stab wounds to the vagina (Howells & Skinner, 1987). This report, a little more specific than - the groin area.

[Bob Hinton]

Very interesting,

This is I believe the first time I've actually read this thread, but it does seem to back up something I have been saying for years and that is all the information used in profiling has been gleaned from captured serial killers, ie the failures.

The uncaptured,successful serial killer may be completely different from what we have been led to believe in the past.