|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2799
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 9:09 pm: | 
|
Lyn,
"My thoughts are all in circles.."
In that case, welcome to the club.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Well, do you... punk?"
Dirty Harry, 1971
|
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 17
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:04 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Lynn, you wrote: Just why, I wonder, did the police at the time consider Stride to be a victim of the Ripper? It seems to me that the MO is so different from the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders.
One possible explanation stems from the conversation Morris Eagle had with PC Lamb when he encountered Lamb, in Commercial Road, and another constable fresh from a fixed point duty.
Inquiring as to what was the matter, Eagle said to PC Lamb, "Come on. There has been another murder."
The fact that Eagle said 'another' when refering to this murder would indicate that he believed this murder to have been perpetrated by the same person who had previously murdered Nichols, Chapman, and possibly Tabram. Surely, if this was not the case, he would have said: "Come on. There has been 'a' murder".
Thought transfer did the rest, and almost straight away the police linked the murder of Stride to the previous murders. The only thing they may have found a problem with at first is the lack of mutilation, but this was answered for them, maybe a hour later, by the discovery of another victim. Natural conclusion, the arrival of Diemschultz disturbed the killer in this instance, so he went in search of another.
It would seem at no point did they ever consider Stride was not a victim of Jack. Why bother, when all the so-called evidence for assuming Stride was murdered by the same hand was right there before them:
Same class of woman - prostitute
Same mode of murder - throat cut
No mutilation, but this is because he was disturbed, re second murder.
Cheers,
Michael |
Sir Robert Anderson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
"The fact that Eagle said 'another' when refering to this murder would indicate that he believed this murder to have been perpetrated by the same person who had previously murdered Nichols, Chapman, and possibly Tabram. Surely, if this was not the case, he would have said: "Come on. There has been 'a' murder".
Thought transfer did the rest, and almost straight away the police linked the murder of Stride to the previous murders."
Wow - you're torturing Eagle's statement to make it confess. Irrespective of the manhunt for Jack, I think it is plain English to exclaim precisely what Eagle said, perhaps with an expletive or three. Not an immediate judgment on whether Stride's was a victim of the killer, but a simple statement of fact.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jfripper
Sergeant
Username: Jfripper
Post Number: 21
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 12:31 am: |
|
Hi,
Sirrobert I have to disagree with your last comment. In plain English, surely it is more reasonable for someone who had just discovered a murder to have said to an official (To put it politely): "Come quick. There has been 'a' murder!" or "Come quick. Somebody has been murdered!"
IMO, for Eagle to have said 'another', when reporting this murder to PC Lamb, implies his judgement was biased by the previous murders.
Just like the eventual judgement of the police in this murder. A judgement that may have inadvertently stemmed from Eagle's chance/casual remark to PC Lamb.
So the point I am really trying to make is:
That the judgement of the police was biased and clouded by the previous murders and also because of Eddowes' murder, later that same night.
And this is probably one of the main reasons why they considered Stride to be a victim of JTR, and no-one else.
Cheers,
Michael |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1420
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
Hi Lindsey,All
The scarf strangulation would have provided him with what he needed to cause her to have lost consciousness and in fact death.It would have ,as in the other murders,also caused the minimisation of blood spurting out and blood loss.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1421
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 4:26 am: |
|
Hi Jfripper!
It was the facts above together with the type of wound to her neck/throat ie the cut was a single slice that almost [or did]reach her vertebrae.This had also happened inthe previous murders and they recognised the "signature"----or rather thought they did.Clearly a slit throat can differ in depth and movement.
Natalie |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 12:52 am: |
|
Hi Lyn,
Good question. Why did the police consider Stride a ripper victim? It is a straight forward simple question and a very important one. I dont really have an answer but I felt the strange need to post and tell you that you are asking the right type of questions. I personally have not read anything were a detective who was involved in the case doubted that Stride was a ripper victim. Has anyone?
Your friend,CB |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 276
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Arguing out of the other side of my mouth, it would have been in the police's best interest to have the Stride murder thought of as a one-off rather than part of the series so as not to make them look so bad.
Mags
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 199
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 12, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
CB,
Thank you for that. It's a question that has been puzzling me for a long time. I just wish I could come up with a reasonable answer..
And I wish my mind wouldn't go around in so many circles regarding Stride. At this point (and I think I got blasted for this in the chat room last night - hard to tell what my inquisitor was really meaning. I'm not meaning either of you, Dan and Carl.. the other person) I'd say that, because of the difference in MO, Stride probably wasn't a victim of the Ripper. I don't think Jack was Broadshoulders, nor Pipeman. I don't think that Jack would have let himself be seen so (God, what is the word I'm trying to think of here..) publicly? I'm sure that I've heard Glenn say the same thing. In which case, I have to agree.
I just can't seem to tie in an interruption, which then made Jack seek another victim. I still see two individual and different murders. But, as we all know, I am often off the wall with my thinking. And I am always open to being corrected (with enough evidence to show me my error - so far, none has reasonably been presented to me).
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 25
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:07 am: |
|
The whole context, mood of the times, focus and even public opinion, would probably have influenced the contemporary police view that this was a JtR murder. Hard to stand back in those circumstances and be cool.
By the time Kidney was seen, conclusions would have been reached - the woman was a prostitute; slit throat, "night time" attack - and then a second frenzied killing....
It is only when, as AP did, for instance, that you look at Liz Stride's life, her relationship and the known personality of Kidney, that you begin to reassess the evidence and other options/conclusions open up.
But students of the Whitechapel murders have questioned many aspects of the police investigation and press reporting in 1888. We have heated debates about which were the victims, were the "canonical" five accurate (probably not) we would now wish to add and subtract victims (Kelly, Tabram etc) and 1888 views on the "later" killings have also been discussed anew.
The police views at the time are important - they saw and spoke to Kidney, Barnett, Sadler etc as we can not. That must have influenced their views. They had more information, but were also locked into the heat of the moment.
I see it as valid to reassess and re-weight the evidence. On that basis, I have concluded that the probablity is that Stride was not a JtR victim, but was killed by A.N.Other (who's name may have been Michael Kidney).
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Phil,
You beat me to the punch.
Will you please slow down and let Monty post the posts you are about to post....got that?
I feel, quite simply, that the fact Strides throat was cut was enough evidence for the Police to include her in the series.
If you discussed subtle MO differences with PCs Lamb or Watkins, Insps Abberline or Swanson then I feel you would be greeted with a few quizzical looks.
Thats no slight on the Police at the time. Its just that knowledge has advanced since then. Basically we know a little more about Serial Killers in general and the importance of studying the crime scene and victim.
Thats just my view.
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 146
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 7:03 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Dan, you wrote:
"I'm impressed, Adam. I didn't realize anyone found a way to hook 1888 telegraph lines up to this Internet site to retrieve and post messages."
*sigh.*
Dan, if you had used even the tiniest ounce of intelligence there, you would have realised that I was referring to Profiling, Forensics, DNA, etc, etc. There was no need to be sarcastic about it. Besides that fact, even if people in 1888 could hook up telegraph lines to an internet site, I doubt they would go to the trouble to do that just to see stupid messages like that.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator!
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 484
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 2:20 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
I'm sorry, but personal attacks are uncalled for. Taking my attempt at humor literally and calling me stupid for it is a pretty silly thing to do. You had complained about what you saw as bad treatment from others before, but your response here was way out of line.
If you'd rather I not post light fluffy comments I could just say that ignoring a century of learning about serial killers, forensic science and so forth and working with only what the police back then knew makes no sense at all. It's like claiming that paleontologists shouldn't use modern knowledge about genetics, anatomy, DNA tests, etc. because the dinosaurs never heard of them so its irrelevant.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 152
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 3:51 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
"I'm sorry, but personal attacks are uncalled for. Taking my attempt at humor literally and calling me stupid for it is a pretty silly thing to do. You had complained about what you saw as bad treatment from others before, but your response here was way out of line."
Your attempt at it, yes. I didn't see anyone laughing at it, including myself. It was not just a light hearted little joke, in any case, it was also a ridicule of what I had said. You deliberately misinterpreted what I said to make me look stupid and make a 'joke' at my expense.
And yes, admittedly, I have complained about my early treatment on these boards before, but since then I have met several great people off here, and have realised that it was my own fault that I copped it early in the first place.
Also, I think paleontology and dinosaurs is somewhat different to the murders of Jack the Ripper. For one thing, Jack the Ripper and the dying out of dinosaurs are tens of millions of years apart, in a completely different era. Secondly, dinosaurs weren't murdered, they died out naturally. And finally, using Forensics/DNA in cases like paleontology, when there is no other alternative, is quite a bit less controversial than applying it to 116 year old murder cases, when there are other alternatives.
I didn't mean to insult you. I don't mind some good humor. But I would appreciate it if you don't take my messages and turn them in to some kind of sarcastic comment.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2881
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:48 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
As far as Dan's points are concerned, though, I fear I have to agree with him.
I don't really understand your reasoning here. Dan only chose paleontology as an example, but you could pick anything. The principle is the same. There is no reason why you can't apply modern police methods to a 116 year old case. I really can't see it; just because the police at the time didn't have the forensic knowledge or experience we are not supposed to use ours? Why? Excuse me but that puzzles me.
This is a criminal case, and should be treated as such. It is quite unreasonable and rather stupid to not use our knowledge just because is 116 years old. What else are we supposed to use?
Of course, we have to consider the historical and social context (which for me as a historian is essential), but that is another thing.
Therefore we can't take the contemporary police officials' words for it (regarding facts, opinions and suspects etc.) just because they "were there". Of course that particular circumstance is to their benefits, but our knowledge and experience of forensic evidence and serial murders is to our advantage. We have knowledge they didn't have, and that can't be disregarded, and it is pure stupidity not to use it. As long as we are aware of the historical and social context, i see no problem with this.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 158
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
You wrote:
"There is no reason why you can't apply modern police methods to a 116 year old case. I really can't see it; just because the police at the time didn't have the forensic knowledge or experience we are not supposed to use ours? Why? Excuse me but that puzzles me."
There are plenty of reasons why we can't use modern technology and investigations in the case of the Ripper. To name but a few:
1.) The police, unlike us, were actually there at the time. They knew the goings on. Anything we say without proof from 1888 is just speculation.
2.) Many police officers lived for 40, 50 or more years after the Ripper case. Naturally, being involved with such an infamous case, they weren't easily forgotten. Almost all of the major police figures of the time lived into the 1920's. Policeman like Walter Dew, Arthur Neil and George Godley were still alive and some writing their memoirs into the 1930's and 1940's. Inspector Abberline himself lived until the very end of 1929. If something had arisen which could have helped in the case during those long decades after the Ripper, one of the surviving policemen would surely have mentioned it in a memoir or an autobiography. They failed to capture the killer in 1888, so I think they would want to do whatever they could to help in the case even then. But nobody did. They would have known about it. And in those years, things like fingerprinting, etc evolved. So, it seems obvious that even updated technology could not solve the Ripper case, and the policemen themselves are proof of that.
3.)As you yourself have pointed out, Jack the Ripper was not unique. There were others before him. The police knew to a certain extent what they were dealing with.
4.) Modern police investigations are done in a largely different way than they were in 1888. All the modern improvements, Profiling, Psychological analysis, Balistics, DNA, etc, etc are of no use in the Ripper case. Why should anything else be?
"It is quite unreasonable and rather stupid to not use our knowledge just because is 116 years old. What else are we supposed to use?"
I agree, it's stupid. But it's necessary. To get decent and acceptable answers, we have to base investigations off what we already know from the original records. I do not believe fresh investigations can begin from nowhere, especially not after 116 years.
"We have knowledge they didn't have, and that can't be disregarded, and it is pure stupidity not to use it."
Not to me. I would believe records from original policemen and records from 1888-1894 any day before I would believe any modernised "proof." But, that's me. Everyone does things in their own way, and that's mine. You have your own way, too.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2963
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 7:31 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
"The police, unlike us, were actually there at the time. They knew the goings on. Anything we say without proof from 1888 is just speculation."
OK, let me see... So even if later developments have made us aware of forensic facts -- showing they were totally wrong a hundred years ago -- we should disregard this.
let's take an example in the connection with psychological disorders and Kosminski. The police and the doctors strongly believed he had become ill from masturbation, a view that was based on misconception and fobia in the Victorian society. Today we know that is complete crap. Does this mean we should accept it anyway just because they "there were and we not"? I think you are way too rigid on this point.
"As you yourself have pointed out, Jack the Ripper was not unique. There were others before him. The police knew to a certain extent what they were dealing with."
Only to some degree. Our experience from these types of killers are way bigger than theirs. They certainly didn't have that much experience from killings attributed to a series.
"All the modern improvements, Profiling, Psychological analysis, Balistics, DNA, etc, etc are of no use in the Ripper case."
I disagree. All old sources must be critically viewed and studied. Regarding profiling -- if one believes in that approach -- there is, I believe enough information from the crime scenes to give us a hint of the motives behind the crimes and what type of individual the Ripper may have been. The descriptions are quite clear and informative on this point. What is difficult is to point out a certain individual since too much material is lost and we have no physical evidence to convict anyone. But on the other hand, that is not the task of a profiler anyway.
We also have a far greater knowledge of serial killers than the police of 1888 had.
Regarding physical evidence, that is a point that is worthless, since they could not use the physical evidence even if they had access to it. So we are not in a worse situation then they were in that regard.
"I would believe records from original policemen and records from 1888-1894 any day before I would believe any modernised "proof." But, that's me."
I see your point, but there are also problems with relying only on these sources. Like in the case of the doctor opinions, we have a lot of conflicting statements! Just look at the views on the suspects and all that conflicting information in connection with that. In order to analyse this, we have to turn to our knowledge and experience in general to be able to study these, because surely the contemporary 1888 material can't give us answers and solutions in that regards. We know today that certain conclusions they did at the time were wrong and based on the norms and beliefs of 1888. If we should apply your reasoning, this should be totally disregarded, which I find a problematic view.
I admit that there are problems with applying modern methods on old cases, but I think you are too rigid in your views here. One thing does not exclude the other.
As long as we have knowledge of the historical and social context (and are aware of the differences displayed in living conditions, norms and society), I see no reason to totally exclude modern knowledge.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2964
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 7:47 am: |
|
Let me also add, that -- in spite of our modern developments and knowledge -- the police couldn't solve the crimes in 1888, and we won't be able to do it today.
Regardless of which information we use as a reference.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Reading the above posts I can see both sides of this quite well.Both of you make good points.
A few things I question though are the assertions that the doctors at the asylum thought Kosminski"s compulsive masturbation was the cause of his illness.We have noevidence at all that that was what Doctors thought caused his illness. All we have is confirmation that this type of behaviour [which may have been in public] caused him to have to be admitted to the asylum.It was clearly anti social and together with his other manifestations[delusuions which are commented on too in the medical notes] he was considered to have severe enough mental health problems to be sectioned.
re the Doctors reports,Glenn.
-we have the views of three other doctors two of whom didnt "disagree" with Dr Phillips but rather in the case of Polly Nichols put a different emphasis on their findings. For example Dr llewellyn thought the murderer must have had some medical knowledge-and there doesnt appear to have been a second medical opinion on that so it doesnt exactly "conflict" with the stronger views held by Dr Phillips on the Chapman case.Dr Brown agreed with Dr Phillips on Catherine Eddowes injuries-Dr Brown thought [from a surgeon"s point of view]that the murderer of Catherine Eddowes possessed2 a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them"...
Dr Bond-the profiler-was the only doctor who disagreed-"contrary to other medical opinion Bond did not think the murderer possessed scietific or anatomical knowledge......in my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowedge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cutting up dead animals.
Well Ok Dr Bond disagreed with the "majority opinion"----but looking at just the photos alone of Mary Kelly tells us why he would have concluded that.But Mary Kelly was not the only victim of Jack the Ripper. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2966
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 9:02 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Firstly, Kosminski was regarded as being ill from "self-abuse", which in Victorian London referred to masturbation. Several scholars and authors have confirmed this. It is clearly stated in the records. In Victorian times masturbation was silly enough believed to create mental illness.
This is a clearly dangerous example of how the norms of Victorian times have coloured the contemporary facts and where they must be treated with caution -- not to mention reinterpreted and reexamined from a modern knowledge point of view.
Secondly, as regarding the medical opinions -- which I don't want to interfer with the discussion here; there is another thread for that -- it is here our modern interpretations comes in. Brown's opinion in Eddowes' case was based on a belief that the killer knew what he took out of her body and that he deliberately targeted the kidney. Which, seen with today's eyes, seems to be a hasted conclusion, only based on speculation on his part. As for the mutilations in general, Bond clearly was of the opinion that a medical man was not responsible.
There were certainly diverging views upon this, and also among the police. Several investigations show that they did not exclusively believe in a medical man, but we have just as many indications on that they looked for a slaughterman.
Dr Bond may have been the medical authority regarding Kelly alone, but he clearly did not base his opinion only on Kelly, but also had sufficient information concerning the other victims.
Leaving that issue aside (since it -- as I said -- has a thread of its own), we also have the clearly contradicting police views upon the suspects and their diverging notions concerning several facts of the case. This is where modern forensic knowledge, historical analysis and interpretation comes in.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 9:42 am: |
|
Yes,Glenn but the police did not have access to the anatomical and surgical training of the three doctors who disagreed with Dr Bond.These were Drs Phillips,Llewellyn and Brown.Nor would the medical knowledge, analysis and conclusions of the police, regarding these mutilations compare with the medical knowledge,analysis and conclusions of that journal of medical knowledge and practice that the Lancet was and is.
For informed opinion on the mutilations today we would still need the evidence such as exists studied by several surgeons and consultants and those with a very high degree of medical training before we could determine what skills he would need to have and before the views could be dismissed of the doctors who were advising at the time.Scholars would not necessarily have such knowledge.
The register of admissions for Kosminski[Aaron]
records that the "cause"of his admission was "self-abuse".
However the "Form of the Disorder" was "Mania" which is a generic term for the totality of symptoms he displated which as you know were "command delusions" about where and what he should eat,how to interpret the knowledge of others "by instinctive understading aof all the matters of the World" and so on-----not so very different a diagnosis as we would have today only it would be dressed up under a different terminology in different countries.
Best
Natalie
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2971
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Yes, the form of disorder, Natalie..
That I am not disputing.
I was talking about the cause of the illness. And clearly in modern thinking you can't become insane from masturbation. That is just a silly construction based on the sexual fobia in Victorian London and something that of course must be challenged and set straight from a modern perspective.
I wasn't taking about their diagnose of his illness as such, just their beliefs in the cause of it.
"Yes,Glenn but the police did not have access to the anatomical and surgical training of the three doctors who disagreed with Dr Bond.These were Drs Phillips,Llewellyn and Brown."
I know that Natalie. I was only trying to give examples of that their opinions varied on the matter. And surely there more uncertainty between the different medical opinions on this point to a larger extent than you make it out to be. Phillips was the only one who really stated this opinion with total authority and certainty, while others were more uncertain and admitted they could only speculate. You choose to discount Bond, that's fine. I don't; in my mind he was probably the most capable and competent of the the police surgeons. And he certainly had access to all the information about the other victims and also discussed the murders with his collegues.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 184
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
" To get decent and acceptable answers, we have to base investigations off what we already know from the original records. I do not believe fresh investigations can begin from nowhere, especially not after 116 years. "
Fair enough, Adam. I admit that I flip flop from day to day on the whole issue. The one thing that I keep getting drawn to is that the original records we have are woefully incomplete due to the Blitz as well as records being tossed by the police themselves.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1503
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Glenn,
It is possible here that there is a genuine misunderstanding due to our different interpretations of these hospital notes
Anyway they then list under "observations" the following statement:
On admission the patient was extremely deluded.As mentioned in the certificate he believes all his actions are dominated by an "instinct".This is probably due to hallucination.Answers questions fairly but is inclined to be reticent and morose.
This would concur pretty well with current diagnosis of the key features of schizophrenic psychosis.
As for your claim to the superiority of Dr Bond"s opinion over the other three Doctors Phillips,Brown and Llewellyn can I ask you directly what criterion you have for such a statement?Is it based on factual knowledge or just your own opinion?
Best Natalie
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2975
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
"It is possible here that there is a genuine misunderstanding due to our different interpretations of these hospital notes
Anyway they then list under "observations" the following statement:
On admission the patient was extremely deluded.As mentioned in the certificate he believes all his actions are dominated by an "instinct".This is probably due to hallucination.Answers questions fairly but is inclined to be reticent and morose.
This would concur pretty well with current diagnosis of the key features of schizophrenic psychosis."
*sigh* Yes, but once again, I know all that. I am speaking about the ROOTS to his illness. Not the observations or description of his illness. The ROOTS, Natalie. I wrote that loud and clear in my previous post; there is nothing to misunderstand.
The documentation said that he had become mentally ill as a result from self-abuse a.k. masturbation -- which we know is ridiculous with modern standards.
If you are masturbating in public, something is already seriously wrong with you, but masturbation as such doesen't make you insane. But the Victorians believed that. My whole point with that was to show that we can't accept everything from the original sources; our modern knowledge knows that this is a wrong and wacko deduction based on misconceptions of the time.
What you are referring to are how his illness is manifesting itself, which is something else -- I know that everything probably points at him being a paranoid schizofrenic and I have never disputed that. That is not the point. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. We are only losing the subject of the thread here and my points are being distorted beyond recognition.
"As for your claim to the superiority of Dr Bond"s opinion over the other three Doctors Phillips,Brown and Llewellyn can I ask you directly what criterion you have for such a statement?Is it based on factual knowledge or just your own opinion?"
Purely my own opinion, nothing else.
I don't think anyone can base their deductions of anything besides opinion regarding that anyway. On the other hand, I don't see any reason for dismissing him just because his notion doesen't fit into the opinion of a Ripper with medical background.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 23, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2977
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 1:27 pm: |
|
Adam,
"Many police officers lived for 40, 50 or more years after the Ripper case. Naturally, being involved with such an infamous case, they weren't easily forgotten. Almost all of the major police figures of the time lived into the 1920's. Policeman like Walter Dew, Arthur Neil and George Godley were still alive and some writing their memoirs into the 1930's and 1940's. Inspector Abberline himself lived until the very end of 1929."
Yes, but as retired men they were hardly in a position to make investigations and use police equipment, right?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1505
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 2:11 pm: |
|
Sorry Glenn,but there is nothing I know of where any doctors report states what you state about the reason why Aaron Kosminski was admitted.
I have in front of me John Eddleston writing about the reasons given for his admissionand he states[page219] "he was admitted in the first place because he heard voices,did no work,refused to take food from people,never washed ate bread from the gutters and drank water from taps".
The notes are simply hospital admin records.
It is absolutely true-and may have coloured people"s judgement-that both Anderson and Machnaghten say he brought his illness on himself
through this practice.But that is a world away from having sight of a doctors report which states this was the case.Maybe we should try to get hold of their report.I have never yet seen one and would be very surprised to see it state this.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2979
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Natalie,
*sigh again* I have never referred to the doctor's reports. The part about "insanity due to solitery vices" is from Macnaghten.
Everyone who has studied Victorian society knows that they believed masturbation made you insane and a bad person. The same goes for here in Scandinavia at the time -- I know, I found that out during research at the Medical History Museums when I worked on my book. The fact that the reasons for his illness is not apparent in the medical records doesen't change that. And I can't see why Macnaghten should make it up and himself give opinions on his own behalf on medical matters he had no experience in.
Now, can you drop it, please. This is getting tedious. It is not a Kosminski thread. I only picked an example.
Once again, my point -- which is constantly being distorted and lost here -- is that modern knowledge and methods of study is necessary during interpretation of old sources. We can't uncritically accept what was stated by people at the time just because they "were there". It is simply not good enough -- much of their opinions were based on the circumstances, notions and the historical context of things that were true in 1888.
The police officials had totally diverging views on possible suspects; witness statements were more or less contradictory or confusing; the existing original documentation is full of holes and several documents are lost and therefore a lot of facts inconclusive, the authorities in 1888 didn't have our knowledge concerning psychology, serial killers etc. etc.
Modern investigation methods can't help us solve the case, but they can help us explain some of the inconsistencies and question marks appearing in the original investigation. Just because the existing policemen or doctors at the time were there, doesen't automatically mean that they were right in everything or that they made the right interpretation. We were not there, but we have 116 years of experience and knowledge to help us look at these "facts" from the outside.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:24 pm: |
|
"the authorities in 1888 didn't have our knowledge concerning psychology, serial killers etc. etc."
I agree with much of what you say, Glenn. The caveat I would place on this is that what modern psychology may lack is insights into the serial killers of 1888}. We might err in assuming that we understand the motivations and urges of JtR by superimposing a modern day template.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1506
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
Glenn,
I am trying to sort out from other people"s interpretations what was actually said and by whom.It has seemed to me that when a hospital doctor writes a report the medical terminology used often is often in Latin so that lay people,including Machnaghten and Anderson may not have understood it and such reports would have been different again from their police doctors reports.So Anderson and Machnaghten may well have had to rely on their prejudices to make sense of the case against Kosminski for example and therefore in my opinion it is important to try to sort out fact from opinion in this case.
Anyway,thanks for the discussion.Like yourself I am inclined towards the butcher/slaughterer[particularly the ceremonial slaughterer] suspect-though I believe he practised
removing certain organs or at the least read up on
human anatomy before tackling his victims.
Cheers
Natalie
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2981
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:41 pm: |
|
I know that, Sir Robert, and that is where the problem comes in.
But frankly, I believe we have a much larger over-all picture of how a serial works today then they had in 1888 (although not conclusive, of course) and I also believe that the mind of a serial killer was the same in 1888 as it is today. The social context and living conditions may change, but the mind of a killer works the same, independent of time, like psychological disorders also in many aspects were the same as today. And a prostitute's situation was very much the same in 1888 as a street prostitute today. Some things have changed, but not that much in reality. The latter part of the 19th century was very much the starting point for our modern society and much elements are in many aspects the same -- things that are not that surprising for a historian. It is not like we're talking 1788.
Although I am quite cautious about psychological profiling as a whole (also in connection with modern crimes), I think people are making a mistake when they state that it can't work just because it was a different society. That, I believe is irrelevant.
What can make profiling or criminal psychology analysis more problematic in historical cases is the lack of information and the fact that no witnesses or persons from that time is alive, not the fact that it happened in a 100 year old society. As long as one is educated in the historical and social context, I don't see that as a problem. A psychopath is a psychopath and a paranoid schizofrenic is a paranoid schizofrenic -- regardless of time. What differs is the context they lived in and how they were treated. But their mind worked the same as it would today. At least as I see it.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2982
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Natalie,
"Anyway,thanks for the discussion.Like yourself I am inclined towards the butcher/slaughterer[particularly the ceremonial slaughterer] suspect-though I believe he practised
removing certain organs or at the least read up on
human anatomy before tackling his victims."
What??? Now you tell me? Have all my arguments on that other thread about the Ripper being a medical man or not, been in vain?
Those are exactly my opinions as well. So what were we arguing about, really?
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 23, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1508
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
No more arguement then!!!
Take Care
Nats |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 187
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
"and I also believe that the mind of a serial killer was the same in 1888 as it is today."
Of course it is conjecture either way, but my belief is that this may not be the case.
My favorite Ripper quote is something that unfortunately is from the movies, and not a real letter: "In time men will say I gave birth to the 20th century..." There's an element of truth to it, although obviously hyperbole. I think 1888 is close enough to our time to successfully hazard some guesses, but we are looking back at the birth of the modern serial killer and it's dangerous to assume we know his motivations or for that matter what message he was trying to send.
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2987
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Guesses and speculations is all I ask for, Sir Robert. It's all we can do anyway.
can't say I agree with you otherwise, though. I don't see serial killers as a modern invention at all and neither does the profilers. The only difference is, that in historical times they were never detected and the term or concept not known.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 23, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 188
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
" I don't see serial killers as a modern invention at all and neither does the profilers. "
Well, the profilers in a very real sense have invested in their industry, and I can't imagine them saying anything but that....
It's a major point, but I don't think we're going to convince each other and I don't want to hijack the thread into a discussion of profiling. Not to mention that I respect your opinions and contributions...so no more from me on this.
Back to changing our unchanging minds!
Sir Robert
"I only thought I knew"
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 161
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"OK, let me see... So even if later developments have made us aware of forensic facts -- showing they were totally wrong a hundred years ago -- we should disregard this."
Without backing up from some sources from the original investigation into the Ripper, or later memoirs of police involved with the case - then, to put it in 3 words - Yes, we should.
"Today we know that is complete crap. Does this mean we should accept it anyway just because they "there were and we not"? I think you are way too rigid on this point."
I'd like to question what masturbation has to do with the Jack the Ripper case. That is nowhere near the same thing, and the Ripper had no sexual contact with his victims anyway. It's not even in the same league.
"Only to some degree. Our experience from these types of killers are way bigger than theirs. They certainly didn't have that much experience from killings attributed to a series."
Yes, but with the lack of evidence, and the loss of files, etc, it is impossible to use modern technology in such a case anyway. And modern policemen have all the advantages of forensics, etc, to help solve the case. It's not even done in the same way an 1888 investigation was.
"there is, I believe enough information from the crime scenes to give us a hint of the motives behind the crimes and what type of individual the Ripper may have been."
There are and were 4 usual motives - Love, Money, Sex, Vengeance. The Ripper fits the bill of none of those.
Love - It has never been proved that the women knew each other. And it seems highly unlikely that the same man could have loved 5 or more women within 3 months, especially when some of them already had partners.
Money - That's why they were on the streets. They had none!
Sex - It was determined that there had been no sexual contact with the victims.
Vengeance - Vengeance of what? They had done nothing!
So, just what is the motive? And yes, there have been psychological profiles built of the Ripper before, which have proved quite interesting. This is a much more possible task than trying to determine motives, I think.
"We also have a far greater knowledge of serial killers than the police of 1888 had."
I've addressed that point above.
"We know today that certain conclusions they did at the time were wrong and based on the norms and beliefs of 1888. If we should apply your reasoning, this should be totally disregarded, which I find a problematic view."
That only applies to a fairly small amount of things, like beliefs in various mental conditions, etc. Not all are directly involved with the Ripper case, and these were experienced doctors. They would have known what they were talking about, living and working in a place like the Whitechapel/Spitalfields area in 1888. I'd imagine they would have encountered gruesome murders before. They have nothing to do with beliefs in mental conditions, etc of the time.
"Let me also add, that -- in spite of our modern developments and knowledge -- the police couldn't solve the crimes in 1888, and we won't be able to do it today.
Regardless of which information we use as a reference."
That point I have to agree with. I do not believe the Ripper case will ever be solved, but atleast then it will serve as an almost mythical "Whodunnit?". The case won't ever be brought to an answer, atleast not one that isn't subject to controversy and disagreement by some people. This has always been the case with new theories.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2991
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
Adam,
I must say I totally disagree with nearly all of your points (surprised?) and some of them I don't even understand.
So I am only going to addres those points worth responding to and then put a lid on it, since I feel this is going around in circles leading nowhere:
"I'd like to question what masturbation has to do with the Jack the Ripper case. That is nowhere near the same thing, and the Ripper had no sexual contact with his victims anyway. It's not even in the same league."
*sigh* Why is it so difficult for you to see the over-all picture?
I only used it as an example of how public notions, medical knowledge, sexual fobia etc. in 1888 could colour the information, in a way that we know is not correct today. The information from that time is based on several conceptions of things that were true to them at the time, but we know from modern knowledge that this is not true. As a historian, this is something I have to deal with all the time. Therefore you can't take everything they say in the original documents as truth.
"There are and were 4 usual motives - Love, Money, Sex, Vengeance. The Ripper fits the bill of none of those."
These types of murders are motiveless, if we consider the motive as something that is planned in a tradition way. This is not what a profiler means with motive, they mean "reason" for why the murder occurred or what triggered it off.
What you say about sex isn't true. Most serial killings are based on sexual fatasies. It don't have to manifest itself in signs of intercourse of ejaculation. The mutilations are generally a replacement for that. So, you don't have to see signs of sex in sexual murders. So sex and recentement are generally the most common catalysts in serial sexual murder.
"Yes, but with the lack of evidence, and the loss of files, etc, it is impossible to use modern technology in such a case anyway. And modern policemen have all the advantages of forensics, etc, to help solve the case. It's not even done in the same way an 1888 investigation was."
Yes, and that is also exactly -- as Sir Robert pointed out -- why we can't just sit back and rely on the original material either! How can you come to a factual conclusion from material that is incomplete? That is exactly why we need additional methods of interpretation in order to analyse it. Relying on the original stuff just doesen't cut it and it is naive to not question their opinions and conclusions.
Besides this, even though I can see some of your points as valid, I think you are completely in error, Adam. We know quite a lot more about how criminals and serial killers work than they did in 1888, and to just throw out that in the bin on the sole belief that "they know what they did" is pure nonsense.
We also know that some of the judgements made in Victorian times were based on beliefs that in modern times have proved wrong and is a result of conceptions at the time. This have to be considered while examining the original material. That is called source evaluation, Adam!
I know that there is a valid point in taking the police and doctor's seriously since they had first hand information, but we can't just believe everything they say without analysing it from our modern point of view and modern methods (if it's possible). Lots of information in the original documents are contradictive and doesen't add up, and therefore we need to use our modern knowledge during the interpretation -- that is what historians has to do every time, and a criminal case is no different. They were there, but we have a better general knowledge on practically all fields than they had, and they certainly were not automatically right just because they were present at the time.
End of story.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 459
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
I’ve been following the discussion between you and Glenn and here’s perhaps a better (more appropriate) example of why we can and should modern police methods in an old case such as the Ripper’s.
Dr Phillips, like undoubtedly many others after Chapman’s murder, was probably trying to make some sense of the mutilations and the taking of body parts. Although he was an experienced police surgeon, he (seems to have) had no experience at all with mutilating killers such as the Ripper.
Quite possibly, the fact that the uterus had been cleanly cut from the pelvis caused him to state that the objective of the deed must have been the taking of this particular organ and that therefore it must have been someone who knew where to find this particular organ and how to retrieve it from the abdominal cavity intact, or, in other words, he must have been a surgeon of some sort.
As Dr Phillips saw less evidence of medical expertise in Eddowes’ murder than in that of Chapman, his opinion formed after the Chapman murder even caused him to be inclined not to believe that these murders were done by the same hand.
Today, knowing what we know about serial killers in general and mutilating killers such as Jack in particular, we know that such acts don’t require someone with a (professional) medical background. So, unlike Dr Phillips, as a result of the knowledge we have about serial killers, no-one today doubts if Chapman and Eddowes fell victim to the same murderer.
All the best,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2994
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Good point, Frank;
I naturally agree completely.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 257
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Frank,
As Glenn has already said, you make a good point here.
As Dr Phillips saw less evidence of medical expertise in Eddowes’ murder than in that of Chapman, his opinion formed after the Chapman murder even caused him to be inclined not to believe that these murders were done by the same hand.
I can't disagree.
Bestest,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 163
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 5:55 am: |
|
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"I must say I totally disagree with nearly all of your points (surprised?) and some of them I don't even understand.
So I am only going to addres those points worth responding to and then put a lid on it, since I feel this is going around in circles leading nowhere:"
Oh, what a terrible shock, that you'd disagree with me. Never heard that one before...
"Worth responding to" - thanks Glenn, you really know how to make a person feel good!
"*sigh* Why is it so difficult for you to see the over-all picture?"
Because we're supposed to be talking about Jack the Ripper, not what people thought of masturbation 116 years ago!
"I only used it as an example of how public notions, medical knowledge, sexual fobia etc. in 1888 could colour the information, in a way that we know is not correct today. The information from that time is based on several conceptions of things that were true to them at the time, but we know from modern knowledge that this is not true. As a historian, this is something I have to deal with all the time. Therefore you can't take everything they say in the original documents as truth."
Yes, I know that we know better than that today, but once again, that has nothing to do with it. The late 1800's were a time when new things were constantly being invented and used, and they were getting a better idea of things by then. Doctors included. And while they didn't know what we know today, they did know enough to make sensible investigations and conclusions.
"What you say about sex isn't true. Most serial killings are based on sexual fatasies. It don't have to manifest itself in signs of intercourse of ejaculation. The mutilations are generally a replacement for that. So, you don't have to see signs of sex in sexual murders. So sex and recentement are generally the most common catalysts in serial sexual murder."
Sexual fantasies, perhaps. I wrote what I was referring to, and I didn't mention anything about fantasies, nor did I deny it. It could very well have been based around sexual fantasies, yes. I agree with that.
"How can you come to a factual conclusion from material that is incomplete? That is exactly why we need additional methods of interpretation in order to analyse it. Relying on the original stuff just doesen't cut it and it is naive to not question their opinions and conclusions."
Glenn, you're not getting what I am saying. I never once said that original opinions/conclusions shouldn't be questioned or looked into, but I do believe that at the end of the day, we need to fall back on them.
As for making conclusions from incomplete material, use a little improvisation and imagination! Not every little tiny step has to be documented in the case. If you just think over certain things, then you can easily realise how even incomplete information links together. The basics for what we need is there, it is up to us to make judgements from it.
"Besides this, even though I can see some of your points as valid, I think you are completely in error, Adam."
According to you, yes. Not according to me.
"We know quite a lot more about how criminals and serial killers work than they did in 1888, and to just throw out that in the bin on the sole belief that "they know what they did" is pure nonsense."
Well if we say for a moment that Jack the Ripper had only the victims you think he did, he only just scrapes in as a serial killer in the first place. Furthermore, it's easy to use modern science to make conclusions on serial killers, etc, but it is an entirely different context these days to the murders in 1888, in social context, etc. Therefore, an analysis on him without all of those factors included, is flawed right from the start. Killers can model themselves on other killers as well. This, for a start, can't apply properly to Jack's case. So, you see, it is very difficult to build a proper analysis on him.
"I know that there is a valid point in taking the police and doctor's seriously since they had first hand information, but we can't just believe everything they say without analysing it from our modern point of view and modern methods (if it's possible)."
I don't believe everything the doctors said. Infact, we know that some of what they said turned out to be false anyway. But overall, they were experienced doctors, and they knew about most of what they were saying. And that applies to police documents as well. They must be taken seriously, because whether they knew everything or not, they lived and worked there, and yes - in short - they were there, we weren't.
"End of story."
What!? That easy!?
Debates like these never end, Glenn. It's always only the beginning, because there is always more that can be added on.
Frank, you wrote:
"Dr Phillips, like undoubtedly many others after Chapman’s murder, was probably trying to make some sense of the mutilations and the taking of body parts. Although he was an experienced police surgeon, he (seems to have) had no experience at all with mutilating killers such as the Ripper."
Well he may not have been so skilled with mutilation murders, no. Murders as serious as Jack the Ripper's weren't exactly every day events, so that's excusable for him not to be sure on some things regarding the mutilations.
"As Dr Phillips saw less evidence of medical expertise in Eddowes’ murder than in that of Chapman, his opinion formed after the Chapman murder even caused him to be inclined not to believe that these murders were done by the same hand."
Well, Eddowes' was the first murder which included facial mutilation, different from Annie Chapman, so once again, he can be excused for believing this at the time. As I said before, it wasn't every day he had to deal with this kind of thing. Then of course there was the public pressure for answers, etc, which came back to people like him. It's no wonder he couldn't be right in some details!
"Today, knowing what we know about serial killers in general and mutilating killers such as Jack in particular, we know that such acts don’t require someone with a (professional) medical background. So, unlike Dr Phillips, as a result of the knowledge we have about serial killers, no-one today doubts if Chapman and Eddowes fell victim to the same murderer."
It didn't require a doctor, no. But it still required someone with a degree of anatomical knowledge. Back then, the first thought would naturally be a doctor, surgeon or butcher. It could have been numerous other things, certainly, but a doctor is naturally first choice. He wasn't entirely wrong for saying that, because the killer did know where he was going and what he was doing once he started cutting up the body.
In my opinion, Dr. Phillips was simply trying to provide answers in a frenzied time, and to the best of the ability with what he had to work with. In any case, it's his autopsies that have provided us with many of the details in the first place. We owe a lot to him, and I don't think he was completely wrong in what he believed. Or, atleast, his beliefs were justified.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3056
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 7:49 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
When I said "worth responding to", I didnt mean that your opinions were worthless, just that I only found SOME of the points necessary to respond to, since the others I had already addressed. Wrongly expressed on my part, I admit.
However, I see now that I could have spared myself that effort also. This this is a pointless exercise and I do not intend to go any further with it.
You say: "Because we're supposed to be talking about Jack the Ripper, not what people thought of masturbation 116 years ago!". But for God's sake, I was using that as an example for why we can't trust original opinions in the late 19th century society on anything, simply because some opinions at the time were coloured by ignorance and incorrect notions at the time. You must be able to see that, even if one doesen't necessary link it exactly to Jack the Ripper! The Jack the Ripper case existed in a historical society and context -- not in a vacuum of its own!!!! To say that "that has nothing to do with it" is just completely off the wall.
I think this is just getting tedious and leads nowhere.
You seem convinced of that our modern knowledge -- which in many ways have expanded enormously since 1888 -- is worthless and should not be applied, simply because the people who were there at the time knew better -- in a time when forensic science, crime investigation methods (like photographing the dead bodies in situe, no methods to preserve and analyse traces) and psychological knowledge was practically non-existent.
Not to mention the fact that we have several contradictive statements from different officers about the suspects! So, if they "knew best", why is that? Does that still mean that we shouldn't challenge and criticise them?
If your reasoning should be applied, then no historical research and science from a modern point of view would be possible at all.
Your trust in original statements is just overwhelming. We have gained 116 years of knowledge about serial killers and mutilations since 1888 -- simply because a lot of such cases has in fact happened since then; possibly we will never know the real truth and we are possibly only scraping the surface of these complex crimes. But we have developed psychology (which practically didn't exist in 1888) and criminal investigation methods that exceed far more in quality than what was available at the time.
They did as good as they good in that respect, but in comparison to you I don't think that is enough and the fact that "they were there" just doesen't cut it.
That doesen't mean that there aren't problems to consider; no physical clues has survived and no witnesses or suspects are alive today. But still our experience in these types of killers IS worth something, not to mention our possibilities to examine and study a society in retrospect, which for the most part means that we can see things much more clearly and in a completely different light than the person who lived in 1888.
Every historian knows, that it is very hard to make contemporary deductions and conclusions while things actually happen; to see patterns and facts in a fresh lights, you need to look back with modern eyes -- and when you do that, you also draw other conclusions from patterns and facts they may not have seen or noticed at the time, because they just were stuck in the middle of the whole mess.
If you are convinced of that they knew what they were doing on all counts and that they knew best (even in areas that were hardly invented yet) and that it is pointless to challenge and critically analyse original statements -- fine, you go ahead and believe that.
What is pointless is to continue this argument, which is merely a complete waste of time. Case closed.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 468
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
Try and take a helicopter view. There’s no need to defend the good doctor as I wasn’t attacking him. Dr Phillips was an experienced and respected doctor and, like yourself, I believe he did the very best he could for the day and age he lived in.
My previous post was only an example of why modern knowledge and modern methods can and should be applied to old cases such as the Ripper’s. Without them, we might still have believed Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different men.
Cheers,
Frank
"Every disadvantage has it's advantage."
Johan Cruijff
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 168
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Hi again all,
Glenn, I know you have decided to quit this discussion, but I would like to respond to a couple of your points anywyay, just to clear a few things up.
You wrote:
"When I said "worth responding to", I didnt mean that your opinions were worthless, just that I only found SOME of the points necessary to respond to, since the others I had already addressed. Wrongly expressed on my part, I admit."
Well thanks for pointing that out, and I mistook what you meant as well. A bad misunderstanding. Well, atleast that's settled.
"But for God's sake, I was using that as an example for why we can't trust original opinions in the late 19th century society on anything, simply because some opinions at the time were coloured by ignorance and incorrect notions at the time. You must be able to see that, even if one doesen't necessary link it exactly to Jack the Ripper! The Jack the Ripper case existed in a historical society and context -- not in a vacuum of its own!!!! To say that "that has nothing to do with it" is just completely off the wall."
But my point is that that is not a good comparison to make, since it doesn't directly involve the Jack the Ripper case. If you had raised the point of, for example, medical technology in the late 1800's as opposed to what we have today, then it would make much more sense. I'm not saying that I'm not "seeing it", because I agree with that opinion, but what I mean is that it's not the right comparison to make. And it doesn't really explain anything.
"You seem convinced of that our modern knowledge -- which in many ways have expanded enormously since 1888 -- is worthless and should not be applied, simply because the people who were there at the time knew better -- in a time when forensic science, crime investigation methods (like photographing the dead bodies in situe, no methods to preserve and analyse traces) and psychological knowledge was practically non-existent."
You're exaggerating what I'm saying. I don't believe that modern science can't be used what so ever in the case. I have said this before in other posts - I don't believe it can be used without supporting proof from the time. Of course that is impossible with thinks like DNA, Fingerprinting, etc, but as much as possible, then yes.
And the late 1800's was a time when new technology was coming around quite a lot - the doctors may not have had what you said, but they still knew much more than they did 50 years before then, and they had their ways of doing things. They weren't completely working in the dark.
"If your reasoning should be applied, then no historical research and science from a modern point of view would be possible at all."
Exaggerating, once again. Infact, I said this only in my last post:
"I never once said that original opinions/conclusions shouldn't be questioned or looked into, but I do believe that at the end of the day, we need to fall back on them."
So, you misunderstand my points.
"But we have developed psychology (which practically didn't exist in 1888) and criminal investigation methods that exceed far more in quality than what was available at the time.
They did as good as they good in that respect, but in comparison to you I don't think that is enough and the fact that "they were there" just doesen't cut it."
I know that, but my point is and always has been that many of our investigation methods of today can't properly be applied to 1888 standards. Times change, Glenn. If there was any way that modern methods might help with parts of the Ripper case, or possibly even solve it, don't you think somebody would have already attempted it? If not, why not? Why hasn't it been done? Yes, psychological profiles have been built, etc, and they are very interesting, but I am talking about modern science, forensics, etc. And profiling is too touchy to attach too much faith to, as well.
"If you are convinced of that they knew what they were doing on all counts and that they knew best (even in areas that were hardly invented yet) and that it is pointless to challenge and critically analyse original statements -- fine, you go ahead and believe that.
What is pointless is to continue this argument, which is merely a complete waste of time. Case closed."
Running away from debates doesn't help anything, Glenn, because the same kind of thing is only going to end up getting carried over into other threads. You need to realise that just because not everyone shares your opinions isn't a reason to bulldoze what they think and then run off.
As I explained above, I do believe in looking at the case in retrospect, and using modern thoughts to look back at the case, but what I don't believe in is using modern criminal investigation methods to try and solve parts of an 1888 case. There's just not enough in common between the 2.
Frank,
Sorry if it sounded like I was making it seem as if you were attacking Dr. Phillips, that's not what I meant it is, I was just raising a few points of why he was doing the best with what he had. We all know that they did what they could, they couldn't do anymore.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page