Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victim's simularities

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

  • Addy
    replied
    Besides, Liz is one of the canonical five

    Greetings,

    Addy

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    "8 or 9. Can't be more."

    Why can't it? 5 canonicals, Martha and Emma, Liz and Alice, 3 torsos. A few more?

    LC
    Hi Lynn, be serious and leave these torsos alone, it has nothing to do with the one we call JtR.
    So 9 murders at best (worst) in my book :
    Millwood, Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, McKenzie.

    Leave a comment:


  • Addy
    replied
    Or perhaps a slightly darker skin which was mistaken for sunburn?

    Greetings,

    Addy

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by The Grave Maurice View Post
    The sunburn description has always troubled me. I suspect that getting a sunburn in the latter part of 1888 in the East End would, for most people, be difficult. I read somewhere that sunburn might mean what we would now call a suntan and that makes more sense. Then it might describe anyone who worked outdoors most of the time, and could well include a sailor. Of course, if it simply means "flushed" then it might be used to describe a drinker, or someone with high blood pressure, or someone who was simply excited.
    Any number of causes, but this description came from Rose Bierman, presumably familiar enough with the appearance of outside workers, streetsweepers, hole diggers, and heavy drinkers, afterall this was March not August - perhaps windburn?
    High blood pressure is a possibility, Rosacea, any number of skin afflictions.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Grave Maurice
    replied
    The sunburn description has always troubled me. I suspect that getting a sunburn in the latter part of 1888 in the East End would, for most people, be difficult. I read somewhere that sunburn might mean what we would now call a suntan and that makes more sense. Then it might describe anyone who worked outdoors most of the time, and could well include a sailor. Of course, if it simply means "flushed" then it might be used to describe a drinker, or someone with high blood pressure, or someone who was simply excited.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    Sugden?

    Hello Malcolm.

    "I don't think everyone thinks that JTR killed EXACTLY 5, because there are a few others that look a bit dodgy as well, maybe even Tabram too... not sure."

    Malcolm, is that you or Phillip Sugden speaking?

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    proliferation

    Hello David.

    "8 or 9. Can't be more."

    Why can't it? 5 canonicals, Martha and Emma, Liz and Alice, 3 torsos. A few more?

    "One can also treat each case individually and come to the conclusion that there was a serial killer in the East End 1888."

    I believe that possible. But do you know of any researcher who has actually done this? Honestly, I always ASSUMED one hand did it all.

    "You're right, Lynn. "Exactly 5" is a bias (a documented bias, I mean, ie : Macnaghten), it has to be well understood."

    I think I understand it; can't say I agree with it.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    it might not be sunburn, but it could be wind and chill, especially if he's working outside all day long, digging the roads, or tiling a roof etc.
    Last edited by Malcolm X; 01-30-2012, 03:35 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Only the Jackson 5 are more famous than the Canonical 5.

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
    Hello Malcolm. Why must I accept that? I believed it for many years. It doesn't work.

    I understand the blokes who have one lad killing 10-12 women; I also understand those who say treat each case individually. But hard to understand those who, on account of Bond and MacNaughten, see EXACTLY 5 ladies killed by one hand. It's VERY artificial.

    Cheers.
    LC
    i dont think everyone thinks that JTR killed EXACTLY 5, because there are a few others that look a bit dodgy as well, maybe even Tabram too... not sure

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Could be single malt as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    Nor would I, Wickerman. I hadn't really looked at this before. "Not a world away from" later descriptions? It's pretty much bang on apart from the "face sunburnt" aspect, but sunburn would have faded by the time of the later murders.

    Very interesting.
    The idea of sunburn in March itself is suspicious, a red face giving the appearance of sunburn?

    Sure, you can't rule out a sailor recently arrived from overseas, but there has always been a traditional rumor connected with the Whitechapel Murders that the killer had contracted syphilis.

    This patient presented with a dermatologic condition, which proved to be a manifestation of a secondary syphilitic infection.



    Secondary syphilis is the most contagious of all stages this disease, and is characterized by the spread of the Treponema pallidum bacteria throughout the body, causing systemic symptoms including cutaneous rashes such as the one depicted in this photograph.


    This type of rash gives the skin a red hue similar to sunburn.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    I understand the blokes who have one lad killing 10-12 women
    8 or 9. Can't be more.

    I also understand those who say treat each case individually
    Fair enough. One can also treat each case individually and come to the conclusion that there was a serial killer in the East End 1888.

    But hard to understand those who, on account of Bond and MacNaughten, see EXACTLY 5 ladies killed by one hand. It's VERY artificial.
    You're right, Lynn. "Exactly 5" is a bias (a documented bias, I mean, ie : Macnaghten), it has to be well understood.

    Leave a comment:


  • lynn cates
    replied
    views

    Hello Malcolm. Why must I accept that? I believed it for many years. It doesn't work.

    I understand the blokes who have one lad killing 10-12 women; I also understand those who say treat each case individually. But hard to understand those who, on account of Bond and MacNaughten, see EXACTLY 5 ladies killed by one hand. It's VERY artificial.

    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    Originally posted by DVV View Post
    It's all in Thomas Aquinas, mate.
    uum you what, oh yes ok i've just Googled it, that goes over my head too.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X