Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion : What Do We Underestimate In The Whitechapel Murders Case ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Dr Savage,second paragraph,was Henry Gawen Sutton's son in law.Retired from Bethlem in 1888.Trained at St.Guys.

    Comment


    • #17
      Thank you for the help. After looking at the Star's article, I see that the man's name was spelled Blenkingsop.

      As for the topic of what may be underestimated about the case, I think we might consider how really dark the lighting conditions were during those nights in Whitechapel. It must have been very tough for witnesses in that area to get a good look at people who were near the crime scene just prior to the murders and to distinguish colors of clothing accurately.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Markus Aurelius Franzoi View Post
        Hi, D.J.

        Don't you think we underestimate the Ripper's age?
        His age and skill,but not his height )

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Joe Chetcuti View Post
          Thank you for the help. After looking at the Star's article, I see that the man's name was spelled Blenkingsop.

          As for the topic of what may be underestimated about the case, I think we might consider how really dark the lighting conditions were during those nights in Whitechapel. It must have been very tough for witnesses in that area to get a good look at people who were near the crime scene just prior to the murders and to distinguish colors of clothing accurately.
          You raise some valid points, even in todays world of crime investigation the question of identificrtion is a contentious issue, as a result a mneumonic has been adpoted which is ADVOKATE which stands for

          Amount of time under observation: How long did the witness have the person/incident in view?

          Distance: What was the distance between the witness and the person/incident?

          Visibility: What was the visibility at the time? Factors include the time of day/night, street lighting, etc.

          Obstruction: Were there any obstructions to the view of the witness?

          Known or seen before: Did the witness know, or had the witness ever seen, the person before? If so where and when?

          Any reason to remember: Did the witness have any special reason for remembering the person/incident? Was there something specific that made the person/incident memorable?

          Time-lapse: How long has elapsed since the witness saw the person/incident?

          Error discrepancy: Are there any errors or material discrepancies between descriptions in the first and subsequent accounts of the witness?

          I know these guidelines were adopted for use in connection with the identification of modern-day offenders and suspects however; they can still safely be applied to the various witnesses and the description they give from 1888. Taking all that into account I would reiterate that in any event the various witness descriptions are unsafe and should not be totally relied upon.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #20
            We underestimate the variability of the killer's mindset from day to day, hour to hour, etc.

            Comment


            • #21
              Good point Scott. I think that sometimes we can think ‘ well the killer thinks like this, and so this is how he would have acted,’ but like anyone he was subject to outside influences which could have affected his mood and thought processes from day to day.
              Regards

              Michael🔎


              " When you eliminate the impossible whatever remains no matter how improbable......is probably a little bit boring "

              Comment


              • #22
                This is just a follow-up on the outdoor lighting conditions at the Ripper crime scenes. A superb account of the lighting conditions at Eddowes' murder site can be viewed in the March 2005 Ripperologist issue. Neil Bell's Jack By Gaslight? The problem with illumination in Mitre Square is a fine piece of writing. The article was complimented with picture images of Mitre Square by Jane Coram.

                Not only potential witnesses, but also policemen and night watchmen had to contend with the lack of lighting at the crime scenes. For example, after PC Watkins came across Eddowes' body, he went to the nearby night watchman George Morris, who in turn, had to first find a lit lamp to take with him in order to navigate his way to Eddowes in the darkness.

                Then there was PC Harvey who went into Church Passage around 1:40am. According to the Ripperologist article, the gas lamp hanging in Church Passage was 74 feet away from where Eddowes was found. The article also mentioned that, on average, the light given out by a gas lamp such as this one would be equivalent to a fridge light. So from PC Harvey's vantage point, he would have been hard pressed to have seen anything where Eddowes was. (It should be noted, however, that it wasn't Harvey's duty to look into the square. His focus was on Church Passage.)

                The closest lamp to Eddowes was 64 feet away to the north, but it wasn't working properly.

                Potential witnesses, policemen, night watchmen, and the murder victims all had to deal with this outdoor lighting issue. Jack, of course, used this situation to his advantage. But I can see how that lighting problem may get underestimated by modern day researchers when we look back on those crimes.

                Comment

                Working...
                X