wounds compared to M1

[protohistorian]

Since the Macnaghten sequence is typified by experimentation in neck wound type, and since Ada precedes the sequence, I thought I would float this idea. Below is a diagram (the one in red), that shows a "no-fly" list for Ada's injuries. Since she lived and communicated orally, these structures cannot have been significantly harmed. There is another diagram of the M1 wounds, the area on the right being wound 1 (the higher wound) and the combined areas being wound 2 (the lower wound). Given our boy's penchant for experimenting and his inability to hold a wound typology, is Ada not more likely to be an M1 precursor than Tabram? Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

I think the throat wound is rather a easier type of submission rather than a solid part of his M.O. This can change and I believe Tabram is almost 100% worthy of Ripper candidacy.

[Errata]

I think that if he in fact strangled these women first, we may need to look at the cut throats as part of the mutilation sequence, instead of as the method of killing. Or at least both.

[protohistorian]

Corey, thats what I mean. Wound site selection and wound type are fluid characteristics no doubt, but is not so fluid as to jump from stabbings on the torso to slicing the throat. Isn't more likely that he went from stabbing a neck to slicing a neck? Dave

[protohistorian]

Errata, signs of strangulation first appear in M1, what if it is a learned behavior? We know he learned between M1 and M2 and radically changed wound character as a result. Given his fluidity, are we solid that trangulation is a fixed characteristic? Dave

[protohistorian]

We have to careful about assigning class characteristics here because so much fluctuates. My line of thinking is if he went from no trophy to trophy between M1 and M2,in the span of 9 days, he is capable of some change regarding wound type and he is showing fluctuation in goals as well. He is not however, changing area focus, moving from chest to neck, he is still fixed on the abdomen. Since the neck wounds vary throughout the series, is it not more reasonable that a precursor event would vary in neck wound but not vary in area targeted? Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

This simple fluctuation is a natural evolution.

[protohistorian]

I agree Corey, which shite cans any thought of holding a sacrosanct definition of the ripper. The best we can do is keep track of plastic and rigid features in Macnaghten sequence. We do not have data to expand the grouping, and we have at least some conception that it was excepted at the time by someone who should have had some ideaof relevancy. I do not believe the Macnaghten sequence is holy, but neither do we have a chance to redefine with any more accuracy. So we can only really define the ripper by features present in a questionable grouping, therefore we should make considerations regarding victim inclusion or exclusion on these criteria, which fluctuate with some predictability.A static definition of "ripperlike" is 100 percent wrong unless the foremost trait is change. Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

Laitly I have found that it might benefit us more to look rather that what only seems ripperlike but what is ripperlike that fits in perfectly(meaning you can produce a logical explenation for the senerio)with the sequence of events.

[protohistorian]

Oh, buddy please do not start ignoring evidence, it only ends poorly. Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

Why would I do that?

[protohistorian]

Your a good man Corey! We have enough evidence ignoring, idea floating with no evidence, and refusal to consider that the evidence kills there position types already. Thank You for not being one. Dave

[corey123]

Hello Dave,

And thank you as well! However, I have discovered that evidence to one may be nonsense to others.

[protohistorian]

I agree, however more often than saying we differ on interpretation they fall back on that most trusted of lazy scholar caveats " you prove it wrong". If it was my hair brained idea I would submit some damn evidence, and when challenged submit more evidence or say we differ. This lazy scholar crap of telling someone else to the leg work, or worse, saying that because some jackass minute possibility exists but it cannot be proven because it is untestable is a guarantee to get yourself flamed. Consider this fair warning viewers. It does not apply to you Corey, but I am about to put some lazy,hair brained ripperologists on the barby. It is not out of meanness, nor out of respect, it is a matter of keeping some academic protocols in the effort to facilitate forward motion. Dave