thought experiment

[protohistorian]

Hi Dave,

We don't know if that was due to luck or design. He only managed to extract a portion of the bladder, which can't have been a product of design. Bear in mind that he botched the uterus extraction at the Eddowes murder.

Regards,
Ben

Agreed we cannot know. Thank You

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

We don't know if that was due to luck or design. He only managed to extract a portion of the bladder, which can't have been a product of design. Bear in mind that he botched the uterus extraction at the Eddowes murder.

Regards,
Ben

[protohistorian]

I doesn't mean he had medical trainig, it means if the killer had some experience with a particular weapon, it means that in future crimes, you should expect skill in the area of the crime....I. E. exactly what the physical data reflects.

I am no expert but I think you would have to know where and how deep to cut to avoid damaging the cervix uteri. It doesn't make you an expert as much as it clearly says I am familiar with this. c.f. Annie Chapman

[protohistorian]

no it doesn't but

Hi Dave,



But Glenn's point was that JTR didn't exhibit such behaviour.

It's one thing to observe that the killer was "no stranger to the knife", but by the Hanbury Street murderer, he wouldn't have been - he had practice in attacking, killing and mutilating women with it. That doesn't mean he had professional training.

Best regards,
Ben

I doesn't mean he had medical trainig, it means if the killer had some experience with a particular weapon, it means that in future crimes, you should expect skill in the area of the crime....I. E. exactly what the physical data reflects.

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

Therefore, Chapman has a demonstrated training in medical knife wielding, JtR exhibits such behavior

But Glenn's point was that JTR didn't exhibit such behaviour.

It's one thing to observe that the killer was "no stranger to the knife", but by the Hanbury Street murderer, he wouldn't have been - he had practice in attacking, killing and mutilating women with it. That doesn't mean he had professional training.

Best regards,
Ben

[protohistorian]

There is no evidence whatsoever of that the Ripper should have had any medical/anatomical knowledge or skill beyond that of a slaughterer/butcher, if even that.

All the best

There is a suggestion that he wields a knife as someone with rudimentary knowledge. The underlying premise is thst Chapman is JtR, Therefore, Chapman has a demonstrated training in medical knife wielding, JtR exhibits such behavior, and IF Chapman were JtR, at this time in his life we should no loger expect JtR type crimes because of fantasy evolution. The killer has not forsaken release, he has however progressed into other areas of behavior to achieve it, I am postulating that one such area would be low medicine.

[protohistorian]

a happy concession of point

It is true,and the authorities at the time acknowledged,there were no suspects by name.Lewis Carroll,and so too Chapman,are suspect only by misuse of the word.There never was evidence of an incriminating nature against either,in any of the ripper crimes.Still I stand to be corrected.

your absolutely correct, it is a poor use of the word suspect on our part. We will always be suspectless by the definition given. B ecause someone is of interest to our understanding, he is not a suspect. That position would be the oft sided and infinately vague "person of interest". Well reasoned and delivered. Regards.

[harry]

It is true,and the authorities at the time acknowledged,there were no suspects by name.Lewis Carroll,and so too Chapman,are suspect only by misuse of the word.There never was evidence of an incriminating nature against either,in any of the ripper crimes.Still I stand to be corrected.

[protohistorian]

All rabbit stews comprise of caught rabbits. Some of today's non-caught rabbits may eventually end up in a stew, whilst others will live to a ripe old age. It largely depends on the skill (and luck) of the person hunting them as to which category they'll end up in.Why should such a perception exist? I'm sure there are plenty of criminals, with or without delusional personality decay, who simply "get away with it"; just as there are a certain percentage of criminals, again with or without such "personality decay", who'll get caught.

I suspect you are correct, there are undoubtably many serials who will never be caught. My point is we have a serial x is custody, serial x describes personality decay characteristics (or exhibits them) and researchers in the past have taken that to mean that personality decay is the precipatational factor in the arrest of x. A causal assumption is being made,and I am unfamiliar with the data in regards to what the state of evidence was to make that assertion.

[Sam Flynn]

The data set is comprised entirely of caught individuals

All rabbit stews comprise of caught rabbits. Some of today's non-caught rabbits may eventually end up in a stew, whilst others will live to a ripe old age. It largely depends on the skill (and luck) of the person hunting them as to which category they'll end up in.

a certain portion of which suffered from delusional personality decay, hence tthe perception that personality decay has a correspondance with beeing caught.

Why should such a perception exist? I'm sure there are plenty of criminals, with or without delusional personality decay, who simply "get away with it"; just as there are a certain percentage of criminals, again with or without such "personality decay", who'll get caught.

[protohistorian]

Indeed, Frank. To be honest, I can't see why "un-caught" serial killers would behave differently from those who were caught. Why should I suppose that the rabbit in my stock-pot once behaved any differently to the rabbit who got away?

It is not a matter of a difference in behavior. The data set is comprised entirely of caught individuals, a certain portion of which suffered from delusional personality decay, hence tthe perception that personality decay has a correspondance with beeing caught.

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't necessarily follow that it's biased, we just don't know if it is or isn't.

Indeed, Frank. To be honest, I can't see why "un-caught" serial killers would behave differently from those who were caught. Why should I suppose that the rabbit in my stock-pot once behaved any differently to the rabbit who got away?

[FrankO]

Do not mistake the change and stability of the poisoning as the assumption of organized behavior.

Hi Dave,

The poisoning would involve conscious thinking and behaviour, so a lot more realising of the consequences, which is really what organised behaviour is a result of.

Bear in mind, our modern data sets on serials are comprised ENTIRELY of serials that have been caught, and is there fore biased in that direction.

It doesn't necessarily follow that it's biased, we just don't know if it is or isn't.

All the best,
Frank

[protohistorian]

Excellently put, menges. This is exactly how it is.

Besides, it's nonsense to claim that Klosowski may have turned more organized as time goes along - that is to truly underestimate the pshychological driving forces that drive each serial killer.
And if there is any developing at all, it is usually the other way around, that the organized killer with time turns more and more disorganized and out of control (see people like Bundy).

In all honesty, Klosowski was an idiot for killing victims that could be personally linked to him and for choosing the same modus operandi each time but he was a calculating poisoner where the crimes involved a certain amount of planning, self-control and manipulation.
The Ripper, on the other hand, was so screwed up and his crimes appear to have been unnecessarily risky and triggered by pure predator instinct.
That a person like the Ripper (although he does display some organized traits) - already so messed up as he was - would develop into such a controlled, organized schemer like Klosowski is quite unlikely and actually quite ridiculous.

All the best

Do not mistake the change and stability of the poisoning as the assumption of organized behavior. Not all or even the majority of serials lose it and betray themselves. Bear in mind, our modern data sets on serials are comprised ENTIRELY of serials that have been caught, and is there fore biased in that direction.

[protohistorian]

To become a suspect in a crime,it must be shown,by evidence, that the suspect did involve him/herself physically in the commision of that crime.There has never been any evidence,to my knowledge,that links Chapman,in a physical way,to any of the ripper murders.In this regard,it can be claimed,there were never any suspects,by name, in any of those murders.There was,however, heaps of information of a suspicious nature.

then why is Lewis Carrol in the suspect section?