|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Missing Links
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
Missing Links
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 09:22 pm |        | Hello Again Everyone,
During the past semester, I'd think about the Whitechapel murders from time to time. One thing that would continually wash through the thought cycle, and return to the top is the lack of a solid m o joining one murder to the next.
The physical circumstances of Mary Ann Nichols murder, barely resemble those of Annie Chapman's, and Chapman's wounds and circumstances barely resemble Elizabeth Stride's and so on. You can argue that they shared mutilations to a common anatomical region, but that observation has it's own set of problems; briefly: Think of abdominal and genital mutilations as a genus, and the manner in which they are inflicted as a species, the postmortem surgeons disagree on the issue of which hand was holding the knife, i.e. they can't assign the species to the genus, because they can't positively identify the animal who committed the crime, and assign it to a species.
Go to the victims page here at the Casebook, (Or consult any of the books on this subject) and take some notes on the wounds, and the Doctors opinions. Next, go to the witness page and repeat the process; take note of the similarities and discrepancies in the descriptions, and testimony of the witnesses; you will notice that there is always an element critical to one murder, that doesn't match up with one or more of the other murders. The strongest link binding the evidence together, apparently, is the phenomenon of common dissimilarities; any number of victims you might chose to enter into the equation, be they canonical or otherwise, are noteworthy because of their distinctiveness.
A roux to this eclectic stew of facts is the possibility that Thomas Bulling, a journalist with The Central News Agency, may be responsible for attributing the crimes to a single person. (Taxonomy II: Assembling mismatched species into a genus) He accomplished this feat by initiating a mailer to the London police via his news agency, using marginal information about the crimes as the murderer's bona fides; he creates a catchy moniker for him, gathers a number of murders to his name, and sells a lot of newspapers in the process.
Let's consider this ordered pair of probabilities. The abscissa is: If there is no lone psychotic killer named Jack the Ripper murdering women in Whitechapel, then we are looking at a dozen or so unrelated murders committed by an unknown number of murderers. The ordinate is: If the Thomas Bulling scenario holds a parallel course to the other facts in the case, then the law of common dissimilarities applies, and we are no worse/better off then we were before. Point plot = There are to many variables in play; it is impossible to logically determine a suspect.
A few topics for your consideration:
1 What questions can be answered in the absolute about this case?
2 Does any chiseled in granite evidence exist (Within reasonable +/- parameters) that can connect at least one of these murders, to at least one of the other murders in the frame?
3 Is the evidence that links together the victims of a serial murder usually this ambiguous? |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Tuesday, 15 May 2001 - 11:12 pm | | Joseph,
Good to see you back again, old boy! I'm glad there's actually someone older than me who likes to work on this case!
Your questions are excellent, but it seems to me that you're forgetting one thing in the way you ask them.
1. Answers in the absolute is not the question. The parts adding up to the whole is.
2. Whatever murders are connected to whatever are so connected in virtue of the whole.
3. If you know what the whole is, then nothing important is ambiguous.
The deeper you go into the dark forest, my friend, the closer you are. And in this case, one is either very close, or very far away indeed.
David
PS I'm not as old as CAZ! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 04:37 am | | Hi David Cohen Radka,
You are as old as the woman you feel ( ), so:
Did 'Jack' rejuvenate himself with MJK? Was she his only Jill - or just one of a harem?
Good stuff, Joseph. Keep it coming.
I AM the missing link - Goodbye!
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:13 am | | Hi Caz, and Mr. Radka,
Mr. Radka, thank you for your kind welcome.
The points you made are among the answers I am pursuing with my line of questioning. Thanks again for your in-put.
Caz, it seems you are the benchmark by which all things are measured, or at least that's the impression one gets from reading some of the other boards. In fact, your accomplishments seem to send some readers into fetid fits of jealous hysteria. I wonder if estrogen therapy is helpful for people suffering from delusions of self-importance, and excessive rudeness. It's a pity really; the first thing that fades with some of these old timers is their memory, all that is left is forgetful, misguide rage. They can't seem to answer the most simply put questions, no matter how often they are repeated. Hopefully there is a government-subsidized home somewhere that cares for these poor nerve shattered unfortunates.
And by the way, you naughty girl, your bizarre sexual allegations are quite bland and uninspiring so just stop it why doncha.
Well that's enough for now. :-)
Tootle loo
PS. How's the upset stomach coming along? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 11:46 am | | Hi Big Bruv,
Which bizarre sexual allegations? You'll have to be more specific, so I can make them far less bland and uninspiring for ya in future. 
(My tummy's fine again today, thanks. And the funny taste in my mouth probably has more to do with thinking about sardine bagels than who's been fingering who.)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:12 pm | | Hello Everybody,
Joseph, nice to see you back. I don't think Bulling can be credited with deciding JTR was one deranged individual. The police must have made an anouncement, demonstrated by The East Anglia Times, which reported (something along the lines) of the police treating the last five murders as a series.
Also one of the coroners, and I forget which, thought the killings were connected by a single hand. I trust that this well informed answer (eh?) can help you out!
Caz, the mind boggles! For some reason Captain Birdseye's finest fish fingers are no longer on tonight's menu.
Thanking you with a slight blush
Jim Leen |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 16 May 2001 - 12:43 pm | | Hi Jim,
Here's that slight blush for ya! 
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
