thought experiment

[protohistorian]

or perhaps the accent was not pronounced enough fo witnessess to comment on. There are two considerations to this. The first is the speed of aquisition of English by Severin. The second is given the massive density of immigrants in the area, how much accent is notable. Respectfully Dave

[Spitalfields Wanderer]

Accent

Hi Proto - new member here so please be gentle!

I was thinking about Chapman's/Klosowski's accent. Assuming for the point of this argument that he was the Ripper, he was overhead speaking (albeit just a few words) to Annie Chapman, Liz Stride and Mary Kelly on the nights they were murdered and yet not one of the witnesses to these titbits of conversation considered him to have a foreign accent. As Ch/Klos had arrived in England barely a year before the first canonical murder took place wouldn't he have had a quite discernible 'foreign' accent. A counter argument would be of course that the witnesses didn't hear enough to say definitively or perhaps they had little knowledge of what an eastern european accent would sound like.

What does anyone think?

[caz]

Well thanks for not even addressing my point and just repeating your own argument.

Can you not even bring yourself to acknowledge that the serial killers who make the most or biggest mistakes are also the most likely to get caught eventually, while those who succeed in leaving only the faintest traces of anything that can connect them with their crimes are the most likely to remain unidentified?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I'm afraid I have a real problem with your simplistic comparison between rabbits and serial killers.

If a rabbit ends up in your stew instead of dying of old age it's because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Correct - but that doesn't make him a "special" rabbit, just a rabbit that got caught. Up until that point, we have no reason to suppose that it behaved differently than any other rabbit. Ditto with criminals. There's no reason to suppose that criminals at large (i.e. those who haven't yet been caught) are any different to those who have been caught and banged up.

[caz]

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?

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.

Hi Sam,

I'm afraid I have a real problem with your simplistic comparison between rabbits and serial killers.

If a rabbit ends up in your stew instead of dying of old age it's because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time and wasn't alert enough to outrun or hide from the man with the gun, skill and luck to track him down.

Active serial killers very often come unstuck, sooner or later, by their own doing. They know they are hunted men and they also know that the hunter needs to find something that can connect them with one or more of their crimes. Unless a killer leaves that something himself, by word or deed, or carelessly allows himself to be caught in the act, the hunter's skill or luck won't get any chance to show itself.

Roger rabbit doesn't end up in your stew because he foolishly drops his military issued gas mask in the field where he has just been mating with Jessica. Equally, a serial killer who keeps his wits - and gas mask - about him after offending might well go on to offend another day, when he will once again risk leaving that vital clue behind that may or may not take the hunter's skill or luck to unearth.

Obviously in Chapman's case, his fatal mistake was to murder women directly connected to him, taking possession of whatever money or other valuables they left behind. It seems that Jack also took the opportunity to retrieve any coins his victims may have died with. So you could say that while murder did not pay much in his case, it certainly paid him to stick with strangers in anonymous surroundings, leaving them where he killed them and leaving no clue to his possible identity or home address. We just don't know how long he could have carried on doing the same without making a fatal error, as Chapman did when he thought he could 'work' from home. In his case, crime really didn't pay.

So I can't agree that unidentified killers are largely going to behave just like the ones we know about who all allowed themselves to get buckled in the end, one way or another.

Love,

Caz
X

[protohistorian]

Dave - I started a new thread (this one's getting too general!) specifically about Klosowski's surgical experience. I've posted some info in answer to your question over there.

Thank you very much

[Sam Flynn]

Do we know much about his mentoring relationships?

Dave - I started a new thread (this one's getting too general!) specifically about Klosowski's surgical experience. I've posted some info in answer to your question over there.

[protohistorian]

I'm thinking to myself, C.Eddows was cut up a lot; the autopsy report said he would have spent about five minutes cutting up the face before moving on to the rest of the body.

The cut running down between the breast and down to the groin area seems peculiar why would he cut the breast bone if he wanted the kidney and parts that were easily accessible from the back, it is like taking the engine apart through the tail pipe. Jack was not only killing Eddows but he was killing time as well. He was a great risk taker he was aware of the number of people that frequented that area. He was seen talking to Eddows earliar that evening.

Maybe he wanted to get caught.

BW

IMO he was experimenting

[BLUE WIZZARD]

I'm thinking to myself, C.Eddows was cut up a lot; the autopsy report said he would have spent about five minutes cutting up the face before moving on to the rest of the body.

The cut running down between the breast and down to the groin area seems peculiar why would he cut the breast bone if he wanted the kidney and parts that were easily accessible from the back, it is like taking the engine apart through the tail pipe. Jack was not only killing Eddows but he was killing time as well. He was a great risk taker he was aware of the number of people that frequented that area. He was seen talking to Eddows earliar that evening.

Maybe he wanted to get caught.

BW

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Hi Dave,

A lot of serial killers, used there own homes for killing and dismembering the bodies, the black dahlia was not killed in the park in which they found her, she was sectioned for easy concealment and transportation to the park. To name a couple more, J.Dahmer and J. Gacy. killed them in their own homes.

They were very good at what they did.

BW

[amarti9]

We are talking about removing human organs, at night. Where exactly would one practice that?

Yes where would one learn something like that......as darkly lit as those times were at nite?

All Im saying is, even if you took a failed medical student, put them in a pitch black room, blindfold them with a body in front of then and have them remove the kidney and ovaries............they could pull it off.

Now exactly how long and how efficiently is debatable. In the end I think they could pull it off.

[protohistorian]

Ben,

I agree with the skill part, just because he removed a kidney or uterus does not make him a skilled surgeon.

Just because a butcher slaughters a chicken, guts and cuts the bird for cooking does not make him a vet.

You do something enough times, and you become good at it.

BW

We are talking about removing human organs, at night. Where exactly would one practice that?

[BLUE WIZZARD]

Ben,

I agree with the skill part, just because he removed a kidney or uterus does not make him a skilled surgeon.

Just because a butcher slaughters a chicken, guts and cuts the bird for cooking does not make him a vet.

You do something enough times, and you become good at it.

BW

[protohistorian]

Agreed, looks alot like a junior surgeon with delusions of granduer to me.

Do we know much about his mentoring relationships? I have as a child apprenticed to Mosho Rappaport and not much else. Have requested a copy of H.L.Adams through the school, not here yet. Thank you for enduring my questions.

[protohistorian]

It looks like just about anyone having a go with a sharp knife to me.

indeed it could be, but I believe the pathology fits better than others. At least the ones I have looked at. Thanks for all the help.