Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Observable Victim Groupings

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • protohistorian
    replied
    Yes Lynn! Between the wound type negation and the undefined rear of the MS, there is ample observed reason for rejecting the validity of his grouping as a basis for inferring who 'Jack' was. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    thereby hangs a tale

    Hello Dave. There is an entire story in your posts #10 & #11. Wish all could grasp it.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • babybird67
    replied
    no even for me?

    come on...pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .

    x

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    nope, I will not do it, never! Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • babybird67
    replied
    Dave

    this is really interesting stuff. Could I impose on you to write your findings up in an article? I for one would be most excited to read it.

    Jen x

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    Just to be clear at the end of the MS the only wound criteria that is constant is cut throat, which is then negated by the Mackenzie exclusion. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    It should also be noted that the rear of the MS is very sketchily defined, as Mackenzie is remitted despite her fitting the observable criterion and Kelly is included despite her truly deviant wound morphology.Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    There is no observable reason. I do not know. In my mind their are two considerations to be mindful of: 1. The pre existing cultural dichotomy of east and west London and 2: a desire to disavow the Whitehall victim as a 'Jack' product. I suspect some of both. Considering the timing of the Whitehall crime, which is within the WMF temporal grouping, there was a definite reason for her exclusion. Either no west end victim was ever going to be admitted as a conscious choice, or the desire to remit Whitehall, cast the die for future victims. It is obvious from other victim recovery locations that being in Whitechapel was not actually a consideration. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    what

    Hello Dave. Good work.

    "Why was the WMF restricted to the east end?"

    This was likely ONLY because Whitechapel was in the east. As you say, many assumptions were made. Once we establish what was happening in Whitechapel in the autumn of 1888, many assumptions, I think, can be put to rest.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    Just by happenstance the MS footprint contains the majority of WMF crimes? Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    Why was the WMF restricted to the east end? There is no observable reason for this and it likely results from an extant cultural dichotomy between east and west. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    According to the MS the only wound criteria for the MS is throat cut ( Liz Stride) and it has tremendous allowance for other wounds ( Mary Kelly). There is no other MS wound criteria. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    Why was Mackenzie remitted? She is in the geographical footprint of the MS and she has the wound morphology? Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    It is also worth noting that since no murders outside the east end occur in the WMF and since there are no MS (macnaghten sequence) victims after 249 post M5, that it is potentially possible no torso victim ever recieved serious contemporary consideration. Dave

    Leave a comment:


  • protohistorian
    replied
    There is an operational assumption that once a new level of violence has been achieved it becomes the new goal. Dave

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X