Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[c.d.]

"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.

[c.d.]

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.

[lynn cates]

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

[lynn cates]

blunting an argument

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

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

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

[lynn cates]

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

[Fisherman]

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.

[Harry D]

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)

[Elamarna]

"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

[lynn cates]

Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor.

Hello Harry. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

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.

[John G]

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.

[John G]

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.

[lynn cates]

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

[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

Hello Steve,

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

c.d.