It doesn't matter. What counts is where her feet were pointing when she was found. They were pointing the wrong direction for her to have been a Ripper victim.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Probability of Double Event
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by mariabI don't wanna say that you rush to conclusions, which is a horrible thing to say to a researcher and Ripperologist and it's totally not true in your case, but sometimes you “sell“ things as if they were already established, when clearly they're not.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by c.d.As far as I can see it, Liz might have been killed:
1. as she walked into the yard;
2. as she was talking with her killer;
3. as she was preparing for sex;
4. during sex;
5. after sex;
6. as she was leaving the yard
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Leave a comment:
-
The direction of her feet can only demonstrate how she fell to the ground, and, possibly, if she was strangled (as in the possibility to detect convulsions through the state of her feet).
Intercourse having taken place could totally be detected in the Victorian era, and I remember having read an article or dissertation on casebook (possibly by Wolf Vanderlinden on Martha Tabram?) discussing police reports reporting (covertly) about this, but I don't remember if it was about the existence or the lack of trace/evidence. Kind of crucial to remember whichever it was, but I really don't.
Actually I'm still checking the second, short German proposal (for a conference) for typos and stuff, as I was completely exhausted when I concocted it yesterday (in a few minutes, and I had to keep shortening it, since it was too long.) I've just sent over the first, long one (for the job).
Leave a comment:
-
As far as I can see it, Liz might have been killed:
1. as she walked into the yard;
2. as she was talking with her killer;
3. as she was preparing for sex;
4. during sex;
5. after sex;
6. as she was leaving the yard
She might have been spun around during the attack or changed direction after being cut. It is also possible that her killer moved her body when she was on the ground.
Taking all of the above into account, I don't see how we can possibly deduce anything from the direction of her feet.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Wescott wrote:
Fish and Lynn think I oversimplify things. Personally, I think they overcomplicate things.
Wow, this sounds like a quote by Oscar Wilde or something. Personally I don't think that you oversimplify things, Tom, but sometimes you tend to...well, I don't wanna say that you rush to conclusions, which is a horrible thing to say to a researcher and Ripperologist and it's totally not true in your case, but sometimes you “sell“ things as if they were already established, when clearly they're not. As in the recent usage of “busted“ for Best. But it doesn't happen often.
And Lynn definitely tends to overcomplicate things, but, for a philosophy professor, it would rather surprise me if he didn't.
Leave a comment:
-
C.D. wrote:
I don't understand the malt liquor thing. Wouldn't they have tested for alcohol in general?
I've been told that doctors during autopsies even today initially detect alcohol and other substances through smell, before moving to a more sophisticated (chemical) way of detection, by blood analysis. As doctors are required to have an experienced nose in certain smells, for detecting medicinal/chemical substances. I have NO idea if Victorian doctors used any chemical tests or blood analysis for detecting alcohol or poison in the blood during autopsies. I have no idea even if blood type had been already discovered in the Victorian era, but I doubt it, since I've heard that blood type was used in World War II, but NOT World War I in blood transfusions. I know for certain that X-ray was first used during World War I (introduced by Marie Curie), but blood type? Somehow I suspect that Victorian doctors only used their sense of smell to detect substances in autopsies. At any rate, alcohol is pretty easy to detect, as is arsenic (smells like almonds), and I've been told that the mouth/breath a of person attained by tuberculosis smells “like dead leaves“, whatever that's supposed to mean exactly.
Leave a comment:
-
C.D. wrote:
As to the direction of the feet, that goes by me completely.
The direction of the bodies in action is a favorite query in Lynn Cates' thought process. It was not wrong at all to call it a Lynnism – or a LynnCatism? I've unsuccessfully tried to convince Lynn Cates that a reconstruction of body positions during an attack is possible ONLY for the very LAST part of the attack, thanks to the body/bodies found in situ. All else is conjecture.
Obviously, I'm not claiming that a reconstruction of the way an attack occurred is not possible (as in weapons, their usage, and which usage of which weapon or which blow corresponding with which injury came first). I am ONLY referring to the “geographic“ positions of the people involved in an attack. These cannot be reconstructed but for the very last part of the attack, resulting in and according to how the body was found.
And, Lynn, it's quite obvious you haven't ever been in a street fight before. Or even, in a fight at school, as a teenager. Otherwise you'd have noticed that, when fighting, people tend to turn all around the compass. And I sincerely hope that your teaching job has never required separating college students involved physically in a fight, although it would have certainly been a fitting preparation for the casebook forums.
(By the by, this is the 5th time I'm posting the exact same post in this exact same discussion. I remember that the first time it was in July.)
Leave a comment:
-
TomW:
"Personally, I think they overcomplicate things."
Sometimes we do, sometimes we don´t.
It´s not that simple, Wescott.
The best,
Fisherman
Leave a comment:
-
Fish and Lynn think I oversimplify things. Personally, I think they overcomplicate things.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Leave a comment:
-
I don't understand the malt liquor thing. Wouldn't they have tested for alcohol in general?
As to the direction of the feet, that goes by me completely.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Lynn CatesA. Gardner/Best. Read the testimony and I think you’ll discover the ring of the apocryphal here. In particular, the talk about “mind that it’s not Leather Apron getting his arms round you” I find less than inspiring.
Originally posted by Lynn CatesB. Brown. It has been suggested, passim, that this sighting was of another couple. Note also that, if his account is true, then Schwartz’s account is probably not since they were supposed to be roughly synchronous.
Originally posted by Lynn CatesC. Marshall. This is far and away the most credible sighting (save Smith’s—of course). Yet, notice, Liz has no flower. For this to be a “Liz sighting,” one must find a natural account for whence the flower and at that hour (Oops! I rhymed.).
Originally posted by Lynn CatesThird, recall that Liz’s stomach was examined and no trace of malt liquor was found. (One could argue that she had gin or whisky. Indeed. But that would be a mark of disingenuousness on the medical examiner.)
Originally posted by Lynn CatesLast, if Liz is taking a chap into the yard just prior to being cut, surely her feet would be pointing West, not East.
Originally posted by Lynn CatesCould Liz have been soliciting? Well, it’s possible. But I think the evidence against is at least as strong as the evidence for.
Originally posted by macknncisn't it more or less accepted, meaning for the purposes of this post at least, "known for a fact" (as much as anything is about this case) that all the victims were at least part-time/occasional/when it was needed prostitutes?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
Leave a comment:
-
I am entirely unfamiliar with British autumns. My one experience with one really only caused confusion, because how on EARTH could it be that cold and still raining. That being said....
Doesn't a fair amount of the flower's significance in the mind of a witness depend on the rarity of it? Roses are not at all uncommon in London, but they typically die at the first frost. Any roses to be had after the first frost would be hothouse flowers. Something typical impoverished flower vendors didn't have access to. They sold seasonal flowers. So if it was well after first frost, a rose would be remarkable. Before, unremarkable.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by lynn cates View PostHello Ruby. Actually, Marshall was asked point blank about the flower. He denied it was there. Hence, either:
1. It was not Liz
or
2. The flower was subsequent
A violet from a buttonhole? No problem. A floral arrangement with fern? Doubtful--unless one has exceptional buttons.
"it seems incredible that she'd be in a pub without a drink."
PRECISELY! And that was my whole point--she was NOT in a pub. The "sightings" were mistaken.
They could have been ..or not.
As for the reconstruction, we CAN know where Liz was standing due to the unspilled cachous. At some point, a clever "Jack killed Liz" theorist will rise to the occasion and do a decent forensic reconstruction (maybe). Until then, my grave (poor choice of words?) doubts will remain
The cachous prove nothing beyond that Liz was so suprised by the fatal attack that she clutched the cachous in a 'death grip' (so she wasn't wary of her killer -as she surely would have been with BSM).
considering how very pitch black the yard was, it must have been upmost in Liz's mind not to drop the cachous as she woud never be able to find them, rolled all over the place, in the dark -and she was poor..she didn't want to buy more.
Cheers.
LC
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: