Observable Victim Groupings

[protohistorian]

I have sttled on my next project. This is an undertaking to estblish clarity on the various victim groupings, particularky with an eye to the observable criteria for each group.As far as I can discern there are three victim pools to be mindful of. There is considerable overlap in groups, but three distict sets of boundary conditions for each group.

The Macro list is all victims either linked in the contemporary press or linked to a suspect by later reseachers. This list is the one found here.

http://www.casebook.org/victims/

The next group is the WMF list of victims. This is the list in the Whitechapel Murder File and can be found here.

http://pediaview.com/openpedia/Whitechapel_murders

The last group is our favorite historically speaking, the Macnaghten List. This list is differentiated on the first link in this post and it is a linear subset of the WMF.

Here is what I have come with. Questions are welcome.Dave

[protohistorian]

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

[lynn cates]

thereby hangs a tale

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

Cheers.
LC

[babybird67]

no even for me?

come on...pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee .

x

[protohistorian]

nope, I will not do it, never! Dave

[babybird67]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[lynn cates]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[protohistorian]

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

[protohistorian]

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