Analysis of the Rippers MO

[Fiver]

Here is an analysis of the Rippers MO by Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.

They examine 11 murders and conclude C5+1

[Aethelwulf]

Here is an analysis of the Rippers MO by Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.

They examine 11 murders and conclude C5+1

"We've had enough of experts"

[DJA]

Especially the authors of that sadly flawed document.

[Fiver]

Especially the authors of that sadly flawed document.

Doesn't fit your theory, eh?

[DJA]

Doesn't fit your theory, eh?

Have you read it?

Rhetorical question

[Aethelwulf]

"We've had enough of experts"

I was, of course, taking the p***, in anticipation of post like those of DJA. Perhaps he should post his CV so we can see why his credentials are better than those of the authors.

[DJA]

I was, of course, taking the p***, in anticipation of post like those of DJA. Perhaps he should post his CV so we can see why his credentials are better than those of the authors.

Well,my IQ is in the half percentile and have worked with a criminologist who helped Scotland Yard at their request.
Taught at Australia's top school as a guest.Offered a staff position.
When my state decided to decentralize drug and alcohol services,I was asked to join the management board of the prototype.
Acted as an expert witness in court.

But enough about me ..... have you bothered to read the document?
Of course not.
You prefer to follow me around Casebook with your childish insults.

[Aethelwulf]

Well,my IQ is in the half percentile and have worked with a criminologist who helped Scotland Yard.
Taught at Australia's top school as a guest.
When my state decided to decentralize drug and alcohol services,I was asked to join the management board of the prototype.
Acted as an expert witness in court.

But enough about me ..... have you bothered to read the document?
Of course not.
You prefer to follow me around Casebook with your childish insults.

Sounds good, but could just be a pack lies - anyone can write anything on the internet don't you know. 'worked with a criminologist who helped Scotland Yard' sounds well, a bit desperate. Have you ever worked to track down serial killers?

I'll judge you by your theory if you don't mind....remind where is that list of evidence that would 'convict Henry Gawen Sutton'. Good joke that DJA.

[Admin]

We are tempted to close this thread, and put the entire thing in the Announcements forum as an example of the kind of BS we really would prefer not to see. A person proposes a thread topic, and within three posts, it's gone off the rails and descended into personal bickering, by quite literally everyone involved with absolutely nothing related to the original post at all. It is the equivalent of "You suck!" "No, you suck", "no YOU suck!".

You all suck. Quit it. Argue the topic, not the personality flaws of everyone involved.

[MrBarnett]

I have no personality flaws, so it should be safe for me to contribute.

Their list includes: Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly, and they say this about them:

“ Five of the six victims were stabbed repeatedly in the genital area.”

[MrBarnett]

They also say this about the Pinchin Street torso:

“The trunk was full of blood indicating that a hem-orrhage had not occurred.”

And yet Philips said:

“There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels.”

[MrBarnett]

They also say this about the Pinchin Street torso:

“The trunk was full of blood indicating that a hem-orrhage had not occurred.”

And yet Philips said:

“There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels.”

Actually that was Evans and Skinner’s error.

[Fiver]

And yet Philips said:

“There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels.”

Lets look at everything Philips said.

The CORONER. - I should like to ask Dr. Phillips whether there is any similarity in the cutting off of the legs in this case and the one that was severed from the woman in Dorset-street? Dr. Phillips. - I have not noticed any sufficient similarity to convince me it was the person who committed both mutilations, but the division of the neck and attempt to disarticulate the bones of the spine are very similar to that which was effected in this case. The savagery shown by the mutilated remains in the Dorset-street case far exceeded that shown in this case. The mutilations in the Dorset-street case were most wanton, whereas in this case it strikes me that they were made for the purpose of disposing of the body. I wish to say that these are mere points that strike me without any comparative study of the other case, except those afforded by partial notes that I have with me. I think in this case there has been greater knowledge shown in regard to the construction of the parts composing the spine, and on the whole there has been a greater knowledge shown of how to separate a joint."

Philips had previously examined the bodies of Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, Mary Jane Kelly, and Alice Mackenzie.

[erobitha]

"In spite of the apparent rampant crime in the area, there is some confusion about the prevalence of murder. The Annual Report of the Sanitary Conditions of Whitechapel listed no murders in the Whitechapel area in the years 1886 and 1887. The report listed only 71 cases of violent death in the Whitechapel area in 1887; 69 of those deaths were attributed to accidents and the remaining two were suicides. Only one murder was recorded for the entire Whitechapel area in 1889 and again in 1890 (Paley, 1996). This suggests that while the Whitechapel area was crime laden, the occurrence of murder was rare."

So if the above is true, murder by throat cutting was exceptionally rare. Yet some still believe Stride happened to be murdered by a different killer 45 minutes before Eddowes was murdered. How they died is precisely the same. What happened after is the only difference.

[DJA]

We are tempted to close this thread, and put the entire thing in the Announcements forum as an example of the kind of BS we really would prefer not to see. A person proposes a thread topic, and within three posts, it's gone off the rails and descended into personal bickering, by quite literally everyone involved with absolutely nothing related to the original post at all. It is the equivalent of "You suck!" "No, you suck", "no YOU suck!".

You all suck. Quit it. Argue the topic, not the personality flaws of everyone involved.

The following is part of the reason that I questioned the document ......

Details of the Annie Chapman case The murder of Annie Chapman occurred in the early morning hours of Saturday, 8 Sep-tember 1888. The time of death is not clear, because of conflicting accounts given by wit-nesses. In one of the police inspector’s reports, it is stated that a man was passing throughBucks Row on his way to work at about 3:40 a.m. on 8 September when he saw a womanlying on her back in the walkway leading to the stable yard. He called out to a passerby,both of whom went to find a constable. When the constable arrived at the scene, anotherone had already discovered the body. The first constable sent for Dr Llewellyn, who pro-nounced the woman dead and called for the removal of the body to the mortuary (Evans& Gainey, 1998; Evans & Skinner, 2000; Sugden, 2002). Unfortunately, this account doesnot indicate the times the constables arrived on the scene, nor the time the body was removed.

That was just plain sloppy!

Also much of the remainder of the document was one big "Chinese whisper" as was reflected by MrBarnett's posts.

Hence my friendly reply to Fiver's little dig.

There was only one person bickering.