Rating The Suspects.

[FISHY1118]

I agree. It's a shame Herlock. I have nothing against The Baron or Fishy mind. Ive found some of there comments about the non suspect Lechmere amusing in the past.

Its a shame you feel that way john , I dont mind anyone finding my post amusing ,just dont insult my opinions or intelligents or the right to respond with evidence that backs up my findings . I said it before, when the evidence contradicts a posters theory, thats when people get nasty . Some more so than others.

[FISHY1118]

I started this thread for one reason only. To assess suspect-types in line with certain criteria. That’s all. But it’s been derailed by two people who cannot get past their own biases and personal dislikes.

Thread ruined. Well done Fishy and The Baron.

So now you play the '' hard done by card ' ? gimmi a break herlock , if youd let baron and myself have a genuine opinion without going off the deep end because you dont agree it, them perhaps your threads wouldnt turn to shite like they do . It is you who should take the blame for that .

[FISHY1118]

No. You have produced nothing. Ever.

Richardson and JfK threads say otherwise ....... Another Herlock misconception [ there adding up ]

[FISHY1118]

You are accusing Fiver of using a tactic that you’ve regularly employed on here Fishy.

I dont use tactics and or word games herlock ,your the expert there .

[FISHY1118]

Prove it.

Why ? You only deny it .

[FISHY1118]

Try reading Fishy. His son-in-law…..never wholly recovered.

or….. “he had the attack in Scotland mentioned here and from which TD Acland said that he never wholly recovered (10 months before the murders remember) and then he had 2 more resulting in his death in 1890.“

1 + 2 = 3.

Again, Your accepting on piece of evidence as factual over another that you cant say is not! . This is where your problem is Herlock, you simply ignore evidence that makes your argument less effective and most times contradictory, yet you believe it to be tru . You do it all the time .

Try Reading again.

'While enjoying himself in Scotland he was seized with ''SLIGHT'' paralysis the right side in october 1887. He recovered in ''Great Measure'' and returned to London''.

[FISHY1118]

Simply untrue. I spent post after post asking for responses and explanations which I wouldn’t have had to do if you had answered questions.

True . Which you got , you just ignored them when they didtn fit your narrative .

[Trevor Marriott]

Apologies for the very slight detour, can I ask your opinion here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ctims-injuries from what you have found out.. thank you kindly.

Sorry back to the...

I have replied to you on your original thread

[Geddy2112]

On another note I sought the opinion of a master butcher/slaughterman his statement is set out below

Apologies for the very slight detour, can I ask your opinion here https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ctims-injuries from what you have found out.. thank you kindly.

Sorry back to the...

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, good to see you're back.

That's nice to know as my inclination is that suspects with anatomical knowledge are probably better matches, particularly if JtR was searching for specific organs at the time. If, however, he had no particular organ in mind and just took what he found, then the "time to search" consideration doesn't enter into it because he just took what he happened across. As unlikely as it may be to just "happen across a kidney", given it's behind a membrane, under the circumstances JtR wouldn't be exploring through sight but through touch, and feeling something "hard and firm" like a kidney wouldn't be prevented just because visually it is concealed by a membrane.

These are, of course, just lines of thought and certainly not definitive ideas. And regardless of whether or not JtR had the specific intensions of taking any particular organ before the murders, I would be highly surprised if it turned out that JtR did not have some practical experience, however gained, of opening up and exploring the insides of at least animals. And that would provide him with sufficient anatomical knowledge and "skill" (experience) to perform the mutilations as they presented at the crime scene.

I think some "practical skill" but not professionally trained could suggest an explanation for why the medical opinion at the time was so all over the place - some saw the skilled while others saw the amateur aspects of his "ability." But again, that's just one of many possibilities, as with so much JtR.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

On another note I sought the opinion of a master butcher/slaughterman his statement is set out below

I would probably be able to facilitate the removal of the organs but I would need there to be sufficient light and it would need to be a controlled situation and time would be needed to complete the removal. In removing a uterus from a human body I would not need to take out the intestines, as I know the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove the kidney.

I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen.
This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were with where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand.

I was trying to be subjective in my post, but that doesn't detract from my long-standing belief that JTR did not remove any organs from the victims at the crime scenes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

If you want to rate the Royal Conspiracy it gets complicated. You have both Sickert and Gull not London, so that should make the location rating for the Conspiracy even worse than for Gull or Sickert separately. And if your theory has Netley doing the killing, it still requires a lot of effort out of an elderly stroke victim.

And, one would probably want to include a negative value for "retracted by source", given Gorman (Knight's primary source for the Royal Conspiracy Theory) admitted it was something he just made up.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

With regard to Gull, my understanding of the theory as presented is that Netley did the killing and Gull did the mutilations after the victim was dead....no heavy lifting required by the latter. Perhaps the listing should be Gull/Netley, with the rating adjusted accordingly?

Cheers, George

If you want to rate the Royal Conspiracy it gets complicated. You have both Sickert and Gull not London, so that should make the location rating for the Conspiracy even worse than for Gull or Sickert separately. And if your theory has Netley doing the killing, it still requires a lot of effort out of an elderly stroke victim.

[JeffHamm]

A modern day medical expert states that "In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney he says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. He also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor, good to see you're back.

That's nice to know as my inclination is that suspects with anatomical knowledge are probably better matches, particularly if JtR was searching for specific organs at the time. If, however, he had no particular organ in mind and just took what he found, then the "time to search" consideration doesn't enter into it because he just took what he happened across. As unlikely as it may be to just "happen across a kidney", given it's behind a membrane, under the circumstances JtR wouldn't be exploring through sight but through touch, and feeling something "hard and firm" like a kidney wouldn't be prevented just because visually it is concealed by a membrane.

These are, of course, just lines of thought and certainly not definitive ideas. And regardless of whether or not JtR had the specific intensions of taking any particular organ before the murders, I would be highly surprised if it turned out that JtR did not have some practical experience, however gained, of opening up and exploring the insides of at least animals. And that would provide him with sufficient anatomical knowledge and "skill" (experience) to perform the mutilations as they presented at the crime scene.

I think some "practical skill" but not professionally trained could suggest an explanation for why the medical opinion at the time was so all over the place - some saw the skilled while others saw the amateur aspects of his "ability." But again, that's just one of many possibilities, as with so much JtR.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lewis C,

That's a good way of putting it too. A bit of it depends on how one interprets the medical statements at the "no knowledge/skill" end. If the doctors at the time who expressed the "no skill/knowledge" simply meant nothing in the crime behaviour requires either, that means the killer need not have either, but also, having it isn't a deal breaker. However, if they intended it to mean "the killer clearly does not have the skill/knowledge", then having those things reduces the fit with their opinions (though increases the fit with other doctors).

In some ways, because it is so unclear whether or not JtR needs to have either, this item is probably a bit suspect as to its information value. But, given that mutilator killers tend to have a history of mutilating animals (even if they are not specifically trained, they gain their own practical experience), I think suspects who can be shown to have such knowledge/skill probably are better than those form whom as far as we know would cut themselves at the dinner table if they didn't take care.

I'm trying to think of a single medically trained serial killer who was also a mutilator, and at the moment I can't think of one. Most medically trained serial killers that come to mind (as in doctor's or nurses) tend to kill patients through overdoses, basically medical poisoners. Even Dr. Cream was a poisoner, although his victims weren't his "patients" per se, he was tricking his London victims into taking his pills by telling them it was medicine, and had killed patients in Canada and the US. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I may just be overlooking someone, but none come to mind. Note, I'm not considering doctors/nurses who kill a spouse and may dismember them in order to dispose of the body as that's a very different thing to a serial killer who mutilates strangers as their victims.

I may have overlooked someone, or simply be unaware of them, but is anyone aware of any medically trained serial killers who killed strangers and (call this category A) performed mutilations? What about "category B": killed with knife, blunt force trauma, manual strangulation - meaning up close and personal type killings and not guns, poison, etc?

- Jeff

A modern day medical expert states that "In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney he says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. He also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The way I look at it, The Ripper may or may not have needed some degree of anatomical skill/knowledge. Therefore, all else being equal, if a suspect had that, he would be a stronger suspect than one that didn't have that, because if that was necessary, that would mean that someone who didn't have it couldn't have been the Ripper. However, if someone did have that knowledge/skill, he could have been the Ripper whether he needed to have that skill or not.

Hi Lewis C,

That's a good way of putting it too. A bit of it depends on how one interprets the medical statements at the "no knowledge/skill" end. If the doctors at the time who expressed the "no skill/knowledge" simply meant nothing in the crime behaviour requires either, that means the killer need not have either, but also, having it isn't a deal breaker. However, if they intended it to mean "the killer clearly does not have the skill/knowledge", then having those things reduces the fit with their opinions (though increases the fit with other doctors).

In some ways, because it is so unclear whether or not JtR needs to have either, this item is probably a bit suspect as to its information value. But, given that mutilator killers tend to have a history of mutilating animals (even if they are not specifically trained, they gain their own practical experience), I think suspects who can be shown to have such knowledge/skill probably are better than those form whom as far as we know would cut themselves at the dinner table if they didn't take care.

I'm trying to think of a single medically trained serial killer who was also a mutilator, and at the moment I can't think of one. Most medically trained serial killers that come to mind (as in doctor's or nurses) tend to kill patients through overdoses, basically medical poisoners. Even Dr. Cream was a poisoner, although his victims weren't his "patients" per se, he was tricking his London victims into taking his pills by telling them it was medicine, and had killed patients in Canada and the US. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I may just be overlooking someone, but none come to mind. Note, I'm not considering doctors/nurses who kill a spouse and may dismember them in order to dispose of the body as that's a very different thing to a serial killer who mutilates strangers as their victims.

I may have overlooked someone, or simply be unaware of them, but is anyone aware of any medically trained serial killers who killed strangers and (call this category A) performed mutilations? What about "category B": killed with knife, blunt force trauma, manual strangulation - meaning up close and personal type killings and not guns, poison, etc?

- Jeff