thought experiment

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[Sam Flynn]

I am no expert but I think you would have to know where and how deep to cut to avoid damaging the cervix uteri. c.f. Annie Chapman

Unfortunately, Jack also cut through Annie Chapman's colon - something that's often overlooked, or perhaps more accurately "eclipsed", in favour of more sensational sound-bites from Dr Phillips et al.

(Heaven knows what havoc he inflicted on Nichols' innards, by the way. What descriptions we have are pretty ropy even in terms of her more superficial wounds.)

[protohistorian]

Unfortunately, Jack also cut through Annie Chapman's colon - something that's often overlooked, or perhaps more accurately "eclipsed", in favour of more sensational sound-bites from Dr Phillips et al.

(Heaven knows what havoc he inflicted on Nichols' innards, by the way. What descriptions we have are pretty ropy even in terms of her more superficial wounds.)

looking at the wound patterns as described, I get the impression he is experimenting in a method that he feels is informative.

[Sam Flynn]

... his "technique" seem to vary from murder to murder, Dave, that's for sure. This strongly suggests, not a learned skill, but a rookie experimenting with different approaches.

[protohistorian]

Unfortunately, Jack also cut through Annie Chapman's colon - something that's often overlooked, or perhaps more accurately "eclipsed", in favour of more sensational sound-bites from Dr Phillips et al.

(Heaven knows what havoc he inflicted on Nichols' innards, by the way. What descriptions we have are pretty ropy even in terms of her more superficial wounds.)

O.K. here's the thing, I am NOT a fan of Gordon, but I do believe the pathology of Chapman fits. I believe that after his apprenticeship, Chapman felt deep disappointment (possibly by the realization he was never going to be a Dr. ) and began in his own mind to see himself as wronged because he felt himself capable of being a surgeon. This belief, with the realization that he could kill and get away with it, lead him to experiment as best he could and "practice" on easy prey. It's a thought anyhow

[protohistorian]

... his "technique" seem to vary from murder to murder, Dave, that's for sure. This strongly suggests, not a learned skill, but a rookie experimenting with different approaches.

Agreed not a learned skill, but I think he knew enough to formulate a methodology he thought would work. I can see chapman thinking, " how hard can it be"

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Dave,

I believe that after his apprenticeship, Chapman felt deep disappointment - possibly by the realization he was never going to be a Dr.

This didn't stop Klosowski from announcing himself as a mere "feldscher" to friends and family - this, despite his evident propensity to be something of a "Captain Bull$hit" in so many other ways. He seems to have had a good enough time in being a hairdresser and publican anyway: the womanizing, the boat, the American memorabilia, the la-di-da clothes, the self-confidence...