|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Simplicity - Occams Razor
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simplicity - Occams Razor
Author: Lisa Muir
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:23 pm |        | David - I, too, saw the original "Occam's Razor" entry and thought to myself, 'misspelled'. But, then, each subsequent entry spelled it the same way which made me curious. Eventually, I looked in the back of my dictionary. It read, "William of Ockham", also spelled "Occam". Evidently, either is permissible.
Lisa |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:24 pm | | NO! NO! If you don't spell it Ockham I'll cut you up like Eddowes! Don't mess with Bill!
David |
Author: Lisa Muir
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:27 pm | | Sorry, about that. My screen went blank and when it righted itself the "Add a Message" box was blank so I figured my message was lost. I was wrong. It's been a long day.
Lisa |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:34 pm | | | Could this admittedly large half-apron have been wadded up into a compact ball which would have made it less noticeable? If it were very wet it would have been possible to make it even more compact. |
Author: Lisa Muir
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:37 pm | | | All right, David, I'll spell it "Ockham". Now if only you could get the spelling corrected in the heading. I'm afraid every time you see it you'll be that much closer to an ulcer. It's not good to let things fester. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 06:52 pm | | Mirriam Webster has this to say about Ockham (Occam)
Main Entry: Ock·ham
Variant(s): or Oc·cam /'ä-k&m/
Function: biographical name
William of circa 1285-?1349 English philosopher; best known for Occam's Razor, a philosophical rule that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex
- Ock·ham·is·tic or Oc·cam·is·tic /"ä-k&-'mis-tik/ adjective
You wanna talk about color (colour) or nite (night)......what was that saying?
"A people, bonded by a common heritage and seperated by a common language"
(Winston C.) |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 08:16 pm | | In an attempt to close a loop......
I was perusing R. A. Altick's, "Victorian studies in Scarlet" and came across some references to the licencing of Doctors.
"By 1858 nearly two dozen corporate bodies and officials had the power to grant licences for medical practice."
Because of this worsening situation a "Medical Act was past in this year, 1858. which created the General Medical Council."
From this date on, all those wishing to practice as Doctors had to pass a test to receive a licence to practice in the British Isles.
(pg 166)
Then a passing reference to a Doctor who wrote on the subject of sexual habits, describes him "Thomas Low Nichols, M.D. F.A.S., an American doctor unlicenced to practice in Britain, where he resided."
(pg 247)
So, on the face of it, it would seem Doctor's were certainly required to be licenced to carry on a practice, so I wonder if Baxter's 'American Doctor' was refused the organs by two medical institutions because he was not licenced.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 08:37 pm | | | Jeff, the Jack the Ripper story is full of contradictions,--think one thing, and you confound yourself on something else. I've always taken it for granted that he was a display killer, killing for a reason,--the reason being to terrify. I've written an essay for my own interest setting down all the reasons why I think it was Barnet. A sentence you used in your post was exactly the same as a sentence I used in my essay,--"he couldn't have had time to enjoy mutilating the bodies, he had to be away. Thats why I think he could have stopped at any time. He was killing to frighten, not to satisfy a craving. The body parts I would guess ended up in some earth lavatory--poked well down. Some people think that maybe JtR was killing and taking body parts to sell, but just think, --nothing taken from Nichols, --he took a sizeable chunk of Chapmans stomach wall with her uterus,-- he made a poor job of taking Eddowes uterus,-- and he didn't want anything like that from Kelly. He wanted and took her heart, and I'll bet that was the only thing that was not thrown away, make of that what you will, Jeff. Rick. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 09:27 pm | | The above post by Mr. Parminter gets me thinking--Does anyone think JtR did the killings for an ulterior motive? One we wouldn't necesarily see in the evidence per se? I mean: not to terrify, not to display, not to sell the organs, not because he hated women, not because he liked blood and guts, or not because he liked daredevil activities. I wonder what y'all think.
David |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 10:44 pm | | David
The organs need not have been for sale, but for study. In the 1860's birth control & the sexual habits of Victorian's was very much in the forefront. Esoteric Anthropology and other obscure titles were popular treatis, also the subject of Malthusianism was a hot topic, in a manner of speaking. Specifically, the means by which practices & devices would serve as prudential checks to the production of offspring, as euphemistically expressed by the stiff upper lipped Victorians.
(birth control)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 10:48 pm | | | Delete duplicate |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 11 October 2000 - 10:52 pm | | David,
You forgot "tother piece I fried and ate it was very nise" -- cannibalism.
This line of thinking can get pretty macabre fairly fast. He could have been sacrificing the organs to Lucifer. I don't know, putting them on a satanic altar in return for wealth, power, invisibility or perhaps the one thing we all know for sure that he received -- everlasting fame.
Maybe he was a mad doctor attempting to get a fetus and transplant it to some sort of incubator or test tube or... egads, another woman! This would of course restrict his number of victims to 3 or possibly 4 if you count ES.
Keith,
I enjoyed reading about your hunting experience. I've hunted myself but mostly for wild turkeys. After looking at your website and your photograph, I definitely agree with my buddy Rick that you could have been Jack in Victorian England. ;-)
Also, I tried to get your "artillery" page up but it didn't work. Is a model 70 .30-06 big enough?
Regards,
Jack the Ripper/Killer/Hunter/Doctor/Warlock/whatever |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 08:27 am | | Hi,
When you look at the increasing mutilations, it could appear as though the killer was actually looking for something specific.
I don't believe he wanted organs or that there was any financial meaning to the murders. Anyone wanting to secure human organs of any type for any purposes would find many ways to do so without frightning the sh** out of entire country.
It's not just the mutilations, but the way the victims pockets were turned out also. Each time he dug deeper and deeper, becoming more frenzied. He was actually looking for something. (pleeze don't ask me what ?!?)
In looking at the similarities however, of each murder, the way the victim was displayed is totally significant, but it is the victims position against the nearest wall or fence that tells us how he attacked. Each victim is lying parallel to a wall or fence. I believe the killer attacked from behind with a choke hold. He placed his arm around the victims throat to cause the flow of blood to the brain to be stopped, causing death or unconsciousness within seconds.
It is strange then though, that the killer would have had his back to the street or his means of exit. If he knelt on the right side of Eddowes for example, he would have obscured his only source of light. Could the killer have had his back to the wall, kneeling on the victims left ? There does always appear to be a gap between the body and the wall. It's the Mitre Square murder that really makes me think this. I can't see the killer facing his back to the square. Any comments ?
Jeff D |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 11:00 am | | It is possible that Jack rotated Eddowes' body after mutilating her. In other words after stangling her, he lays her down on the pavement, feet towards the corner of the buildings, head towards the Mitre St. carriageway: Exactly opposite of how she was found. In this manner, he could work with his back to the wall and from her right side, to which he had by then become accustomed to doing. That way he could more easily perform his work and watch the three passages more easily.
This, of course, does not explain the jagged cuts to the abdomen, such as right-handed killer would make if working from the left side of the body and cutting upwards towards to head. Moreover, the portion of the intestines over the left side of the body and partially laying on the pavement would seem to indicate that the body was mutilated in the position it was found. But maybe not. I was again looking at the in-situ sketch of the body in Rumbelow's book. There is quite a bit of 'fluid blood' up near the upper chest area. I think most of the blood would have run down from the abdomen towards the feet. Then again, we don't know what the grade of the pavement was. The possibility exists, I think, that she could have been 'positioned'. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 02:31 pm | | Well, I'm glad this Ockham/Occam thing has been cleared up - though I did forget the apostrophe...
You don't need a motive like organ theft for a killer like Jack. Serial Killers take organs as trophies. They examine and fondle them and attempt to relive the experience and (perhaps), the sexual gratification of the actual killing. This is what they do and it's a pattern that's been noted over and over again in similar cases.
Leather: A 30.06 is plenty for bears except for the big Alaskan browns. For that, you need something on the order of a 250 grain bullet and up. A .45/70 is ideal for Alaskan bears.
Keith |
Author: Chandler
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 02:36 pm | | Jeffrey and all greetings
The turning out of the pockets is an interesting point because it could be considered another "clue". Could of JtR been poor and looking for any bit of cash he could get?(I haven't forgot the farthings in an earlier crime but am just speculating here.) Or is his "rummaging" of the pockets another form of his "rummaging" through the victims thoraxes; another violation of their very selves. Is he souvenir hunting? Is he looking for items to add to his ritual dispay?
One of the things about this action does seem to me "contrary". By searching the pockets and seeing
their contents he is in some small way humanizing
and individualizing his victims; for the contents of the pockets would tell something of the victims "life story" negating the killers attempt
to turn the "unfortunates" into "just" "objects".
Being a new poster on the board I have tried to
avoid potificating so if I have above: my apologies. Jeffrey's pocket reference got me thinking. Thanks J!
regaurds,
chandler |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 05:07 pm | | | Hey Jeff, he picked the wrong name for himself didn't he?. Little Jack Horner sat in his CORNER---- He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum?-- naw, a kidney! Thats what he was rummaging after. Rick. |
|
|
|
|
