Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Sam Flynn 1 hour and 11 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 3 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (15 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (14 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
Visual Media: "Mysteries at the Museum" features JtR Museum - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Dennis Nilsen - (1 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3141  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:21 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
But when the "one-offs" start mounting up, there's an increasing likelihood that they are not one-offs.
That doesn't necessarily follow, Harry: a one-off is, by definition, an isolated happening. It is eminently possible that Tabram, Mylett, Coles (etc) fell victim, whether by murder or manslaughter, to different perpetrators. Knife crimes were by no means unprecedented, nor were they peculiar to the East End, and many areas of London had their fair share of "vicious, semi-criminal" streets. The fact that the East End arguably had more "vicious, semi-criminal" people per unit area should make it somewhat less surprising if a spate of independent knife-crimes suddenly arose. This is a factor that still applies today, with a greater prevalence of all sorts of crime in the more deprived, crowded populations of our towns and cities.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3142  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:22 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Insignificance subjectivity and over generalization??

Actually just facts, facts and facts. And simple ones at that.
No, Abby.

When we allow the fact that the Pinchin Street torso had her arms intact to tell us that she was killed by another man, then is objectivity.
When we say that the 1874 torso had a leg attached, then it is subjectivity and insignificant.

Surely you can see that?

And when we allow the fact that the Pinchin Street torso was dumped out in the east to tell us that she was killed by another man, then it´s onjectivity.

When we the note that parts of the Rainham torso were dumped as far from Whitehall as Pinchin Street is distanced therefrom, it´s instead subjectivity and over generalization.

The worst thing about all of this is that it seems that Gareth does not even understand what he is doing.
Quick reply to this message
  #3143  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:28 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Thanks Jerry and Debs

I'd only observe that there were plenty of people who had some experience of jointing meat in London at the time, and not necessarily in a professional capacity.
And how many of them do you think had killing women and dismembering them as a sideline?

Is this more of your "objectivity"? Hebbert clearly recognizes very large similarities inbetween the torso victims, based on the specific cutting technique, identifying the same sort of cuts made in the same style, neat and unhesitating all of them, he says VERY clearly that he believes the same man is responsible in all four cases - and you are going for the age-old "there are only so many ways one can cut up a body" again? Don´t you think Hebbert knew all about the ways a body can be cut up in, Gareth?

And along this sad path, YOU call ME subjective...?!

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-16-2018 at 04:32 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3144  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:30 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

I´ll try my luck with the questions from yesterday again, still unanswered. Here you go, Gareth:

1. Which is the likelier thing to you if a series of dismemberment murders is performed in a smallish geographical area over a period of a year or two - that three was one, two or numerous killers?

2. If a forensic expert medico examined all the victims of this theoretical series of dismemberment murders and said that it is highly likely that the same man killed all of the victims in the series, on account of how the cutting technique and the mutilations are very similar within the series, why would we reason that he is likely to have been wrong, based on differences we know that he was fully aware of but didn´t see as any viable reason to alter his verdict?
Quick reply to this message
  #3145  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:33 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
That doesn't necessarily follow, Harry: a one-off is, by definition, an isolated happening. It is eminently possible that Tabram, Mylett, Coles (etc) fell victim, whether by murder or manslaughter, to different perpetrators. Knife crimes were by no means unprecedented, nor were they peculiar to the East End, and many areas of London had their fair share of "vicious, semi-criminal" streets. The fact that the East End arguably had more "vicious, semi-criminal" people per unit area should make it somewhat less surprising if a spate of independent knife-crimes suddenly arose. This is a factor that still applies today, with a greater prevalence of all sorts of crime in the more deprived, crowded populations of our towns and cities.
But those are interpreted "one-offs" that you're speaking about. You don't know that they weren't committed by the same perpetrator, just because the MOs were dissimilar. And don't the records show that murder in London, let alone Whitechapel, was staggeringly low before the sudden surge in 1888?
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message
  #3146  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:46 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
I´ll try my luck with the questions from yesterday again, still unanswered. Here you go, Gareth
Sorry, Fish, but I don't follow all your posts. Life's too short, my nerves and blood pressure are too bad, and I find that your tone sometimes makes it feel like my head's exploding. I wouldn't want people to think that I'm ducking your questions - it's simply that I deliberately don't read every post you make. To answer your questions in this specific instance:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
1. Which is the likelier thing to you if a series of dismemberment murders is performed in a smallish geographical area over a period of a year or two - that three was one, two or numerous killers?
In the smallish geographical area that was South West London, I'd agree that there's a good possibility that the same perpetrator(s) was responsible. However, Pinchin Street was in the smallish geographical area of Whitechapel, quite far removed from Chelsea/Battersea, both in social and geographical terms. On that basis alone, never mind other factors, I'd say that it was more likely that the Pinchin Street case involved a different perpetrator(s).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
2. If a forensic expert medico examined all the victims of this theoretical series of dismemberment murders and said that it is highly likely that the same man killed all of the victims in the series, on account of how the cutting technique and the mutilations are very similar within the series, why would we reason that he is likely to have been wrong, based on differences we know that he was fully aware of but didn´t see as any viable reason to alter his verdict?
Firstly, experts are not infallible, and even the best of them - as Hebbert assuredly was - are only offering opinions, and opinions are not facts. Secondly, there are only so many ways in which one can joint a piece of meat.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 04-16-2018 at 04:52 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3147  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:54 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
But those are interpreted "one-offs" that you're speaking about. You don't know that they weren't committed by the same perpetrator, just because the MOs were dissimilar. And don't the records show that murder in London, let alone Whitechapel, was staggeringly low before the sudden surge in 1888?
Albeit there wil be a grey-zone, the numbers were indeed very small.

And that regards murders - affairs that in just about every case has a motive: money, jealousy etcetera. Common enough matters.

Mutilation and evisceration is something radically different. How many dismemberment murders - practical and offensive such ones alike, are there in Britain today in a normal year? With a very much larger population than that of the late 1800:s? Are there even such murders represented each year?
Quick reply to this message
  #3148  
Old 04-16-2018, 04:57 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Thanks Jerry and Debs

I'd only observe that there were plenty of people who had some experience of jointing meat in London at the time, and not necessarily in a professional capacity.
Sam, I think it is also worth considering that Hebbert lived in those times and would probably be well aware of the skills of the general population. I wonder why he would comment on it as a significant point linking the dismemberment of these four bodies if he knew a great number of people were capable of doing this. He also concluded that the person who dismembered the bodies had knowledge of the speediest mode of cutting up animals.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

I am not DJA. He's called Dave.
Quick reply to this message
  #3149  
Old 04-16-2018, 05:02 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,024
Default

Indeed, Debs, but my previous point still applies.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3150  
Old 04-16-2018, 05:06 AM
Debra A Debra A is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Yorkshire England
Posts: 3,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Hi Debs
Another comment from Dr Biggs relative to this issue on who could have dismembered these torsos and the doctors of the days opinions

"I think it is worth noting that comments relating to ‘anatomical knowledge’ or ‘surgical skill’ should be taken with a pinch of salt in these sorts of cases. I have seen surgeons and pathologists make a right mess of human anatomy, and I have seen ‘amateurs making a pretty good job of chopping up a body at their first attempt. Generalizations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regularly as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Thanks Trevor
I appreciate what Dr Biggs has to say but I would also remind you of what G N Rutty wrote:


"Anatomical Sites of Dismemberment

From the authors' experience, it is unusual for the body's limbs to be removed through the joints. Pathologists will know from experience that that to remove an arm or leg through the shoulder or hip joints is not easy. If such a case is encountered, then it is reasonable to consider that the perpetrator has a degree of knowledge of anatomy and/or butchery skills.."


Essentials of Autopsy Practice Advances, Updates and Emerging Technologies
Editors: Rutty, Guy N. (Ed.) 2014
Chapter 4
The Dismembered Body
Guy N. Rutty and Sarah V. Hainsworth

Even experts have a difference of opinion sometimes.
__________________
,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸, Debs ,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,

I am not DJA. He's called Dave.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.