experimental killing?

[corey123]

Yes, but when did any doctor say "we know it was a short blunt tiped knife"??? Because I sure dont remember them saying so. If they have please inform me of it for I am surly missing out. I know theres no evidence suggesting either the knife was dull or short or long or sharp or pointed or rounded, no evidence, so we can not say either of it.

yours truly

[lynn cates]

experiment

Hello Corey.

"Yes, but when did any doctor say "we know it was a short blunt tip[p]ed knife"? Because I sure don[']t remember the[ir] saying so. If they have please inform me of it for I am surl[e]y missing out."

Um, did you read the testimony?

"I know there[']s no evidence suggesting either the knife was dull or short or long or sharp or pointed or rounded, no evidence, so we can not say either of it."

Corey, I don't think it was a dull knife. The cut is the evidence for that.

Is the doctor's testimony not evidence? Would not a different knife go along with your notion that C3 was one big experiment?

The best
LC

[corey123]

Yes I read the testimony, But Im guessing you didnt get what he ment by "Unlikely" did you???

Im just saying theres no reason to suppose what we have no way of doing.

yours truly

ps. Yes it would however my experiment theory says that him "Blitz" attacking her was the experiment, not the knife

[lynn cates]

inductive probabilities

Hello Corey.

"Yes I read the testimony, But I[']m guessing you didn[']t get what he me[a]nt by "Unlikely" did you?"

By "unlikely" I'm presuming he meant probability less than 50%. If the forecast says, "Rain unlikely" I do not worry about an umbrella. Can it rain? Of course.

But now I'm baffled. I thought you LIKED inductive probabilities?

Finally, if "Jack" wished to do an "experimental style of killing" as you suppose, why not a different knife? After all, he seems to be "experimenting" with a location outside Whitechapel and Spitalfields--St. George-in-the-east.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

well I never said its not possible, I do like to possibility of a experimenting killer, but theres no evidence pointing to a killer with another knife.

[lynn cates]

jurisprudence

Hello corey.

"there[']s no evidence pointing to a killer with another knife."

I thought expert testimony counted as evidence? Hmm. I guess there has been a change in jurisprudence?

The best.
LC

[corey123]

No physical.

Anyways I have wroten something, maybe you can read it??

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3714

Its about my theory, I dont want to hijack you thread just thought you might want to read it.

Not set in stone yet though

[lynn cates]

OK

Hello Corey. I can give it a go.

The best.
LC

[corey123]

thanks,

I am also interested in read your theory, along with mikes and Joels.

I believe they are very bizzar though not impossible and worht the read. Who knows you may be right but so may I.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

I would be interested to know what you think of Sugden's discussion of the knife business and his conclusion that it was the same type of knife that killed Polly Nichols.

As for expert testimony, I am sure that you are aware that it is quite common for each side in a case to introduce an expert's opinion to bolster their argument. Even though they are all experts, their opinions reach completely different conclusions.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

books

Hello CD.

"I would be interested to know what you think of Sugden's discussion of the knife business and his conclusion that it was the same type of knife that killed Polly Nichols."

I have read Sugden's book (more than once) and, along with Begg's "Definitive History," find the scholarship quite good.

To say that 2 things are of the same type is quite ambiguous, so permit me to be generous and say "the same knife." If Sugden were to draw that conclusion, based on the expert testimony, I'd have no problem with his doing so. You see, I find that historians writing on the case tend to preserve the received account. That is as it should be. There is a long and distinguished tradition, going all the way back to Herodotus, that dictates such. On the other hand, police officers tend away from that and look to forensics. And this is, too, as it should be. They are doing what THEY do best.

(Incidentally, I have received counsel NOT to read beyond the official documents--[do not read the various author's opinions]. But, mental deficient that I am, I shall likely continue reading excellent books--like Sugden's--and weighing one opinion against another, as you rightly have.)

"As for expert testimony, I am sure that you are aware that it is quite common for each side in a case to introduce an expert's opinion to bolster their argument. Even though they are all experts, their opinions reach completely different conclusions."

Indeed. Quite aware. And perhaps that explains, in part, why this case has dragged on for well over a century.

To sum up, if these doctors are mistaken and there is one knife involved, then there is no problem. But, if there are two knives, there is STILL no problem for the canonist. For consider:

1. "Jack" could carry 2 knives.

2. He could go home and exchange knives before proceeding to Mitre Square.

And don't forget:

"Jack wasn't a robot, was he?"

and

"Jack didn't have to get a pre-arranged result, did he?"

The best.
LC