Sam Flynn: He didn't SEE them, though, so how could he?
He PROBABLY didn´t see them, remember? But even if he didn´t, he may well have discussed the matter very thoroughly with one or more of the men who DID see them, and who were perfectly able to describe them in minute detail.
For instance, it would support his argument that it was the same torso killer if he could have demonstrated that the saw-marks were identical, assuming such a forensic technique was available back then, which I doubt.
If it could have been determined with certainty, it would have been done. It was not done, ergo, it could not be determined with certainty.
The torsos, however, were treated by the police as the work of the same man, telling us that there was nothing to nullify the idea that the same implements were used.
Then again, Gareth, where was it ruled that a dismemberer must use the same saw on every occasion?
The general idea is to look at the type of damage done, and if that damage corresponds, we should accept a common originator, more so the more peculiar the damage is.
Bearing that in mind, how could even the local police or doctors have passed definitive judgement as to the authorship of the crimes?
The same way we do - if the damage is very pecualiar and rare, it´s the same originator.
And, as we know, no saws were used at all in the non-torso murders, so how could anyone - then or now - be absolutely sure that the same hand was behind those murders, still less make grand pronouncements that, not only was it the same hand, but that it "must have been" the hand of a butcher?
Even the verdicts about the knife/knives used in the Ripper murders varied. But as I keep saying, killers are not called upon never to change weapons, are they. Look at what was DONE with the knives, not whether it was always the exact same knife.
The latter question is impossible to answer, the former is very easy to answer: yes, it was basically the same kind of damage in both series.
Tait is demonstrably speculating on what the wounds were like and who inflicted them, based on no direct involvement in the examinations at all.
No, he is not "demonstrably" doing that. You have tried to demonstrate it and failed. He may have known just about everything there was to know about the wounds.
He was evidently an avid follower of the cases, almost certainly from reading about them in the papers.
"Almost certainly". The national anthem of Gareth Williams.
However, when we consider that no empirical, qualitative data as to the appearance of the wounds appeared in any press reports*, Tait's speculations are pretty much useless.
Only if he DID get all his information from the papers - something you have no idea about whatsoever. So why act as if you did?
He PROBABLY didn´t see them, remember? But even if he didn´t, he may well have discussed the matter very thoroughly with one or more of the men who DID see them, and who were perfectly able to describe them in minute detail.
For instance, it would support his argument that it was the same torso killer if he could have demonstrated that the saw-marks were identical, assuming such a forensic technique was available back then, which I doubt.
If it could have been determined with certainty, it would have been done. It was not done, ergo, it could not be determined with certainty.
The torsos, however, were treated by the police as the work of the same man, telling us that there was nothing to nullify the idea that the same implements were used.
Then again, Gareth, where was it ruled that a dismemberer must use the same saw on every occasion?
The general idea is to look at the type of damage done, and if that damage corresponds, we should accept a common originator, more so the more peculiar the damage is.
Bearing that in mind, how could even the local police or doctors have passed definitive judgement as to the authorship of the crimes?
The same way we do - if the damage is very pecualiar and rare, it´s the same originator.
And, as we know, no saws were used at all in the non-torso murders, so how could anyone - then or now - be absolutely sure that the same hand was behind those murders, still less make grand pronouncements that, not only was it the same hand, but that it "must have been" the hand of a butcher?
Even the verdicts about the knife/knives used in the Ripper murders varied. But as I keep saying, killers are not called upon never to change weapons, are they. Look at what was DONE with the knives, not whether it was always the exact same knife.
The latter question is impossible to answer, the former is very easy to answer: yes, it was basically the same kind of damage in both series.
Tait is demonstrably speculating on what the wounds were like and who inflicted them, based on no direct involvement in the examinations at all.
No, he is not "demonstrably" doing that. You have tried to demonstrate it and failed. He may have known just about everything there was to know about the wounds.
He was evidently an avid follower of the cases, almost certainly from reading about them in the papers.
"Almost certainly". The national anthem of Gareth Williams.
However, when we consider that no empirical, qualitative data as to the appearance of the wounds appeared in any press reports*, Tait's speculations are pretty much useless.
Only if he DID get all his information from the papers - something you have no idea about whatsoever. So why act as if you did?
Comment