Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paper read by Dr. G. Brown 1903 re: Whitechapel Murders

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

  • #16
    Apparently Mr. Brown had a slightly different opinion by April, 1905, at least according to John Churton Collins, who was part of an exclusive group that was given a tour of the murder sites by Gordon Brown himself:


    "...He [Brown] was inclined to think that he (the murderer) was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts.
    There was absolutely no foundation, in his opinion, for the theory that he was a homicidal maniac doctor, whose body was found in the Thames, tho' that is the theory at Scotland Yard, because (1) the last murder, possibly the last two murders, were committed after the body was found, he was strongly of opinion that the last two were Ripper murders; (2) the murderer was never seen near enough for any trustworthy identification, and Dr. G. Browne was absolutely of opinion that they still remain an unsolved mystery. He thought the murderer suffered from a sort of homicidal satyriasis-that it was sexual perversion...."
    Best Wishes,
    Cris Malone
    ______________________________________________
    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

    Comment


    • #17
      yup

      Hello Simon. Thanks.


      Wacky, indeed.


      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #18
        depravity

        Hello Gareth. I wonder if "depraved" might be an allusion to the alleged prostitution? (Ie, who would be jealous of such a person?)


        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
          Apparently Mr. Brown had a slightly different opinion by April, 1905, at least according to John Churton Collins, who was part of an exclusive group that was given a tour of the murder sites by Gordon Brown himself:


          "...He [Brown] was inclined to think that he (the murderer) was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts.
          There was absolutely no foundation, in his opinion, for the theory that he was a homicidal maniac doctor, whose body was found in the Thames, tho' that is the theory at Scotland Yard, because (1) the last murder, possibly the last two murders, were committed after the body was found, he was strongly of opinion that the last two were Ripper murders; (2) the murderer was never seen near enough for any trustworthy identification, and Dr. G. Browne was absolutely of opinion that they still remain an unsolved mystery. He thought the murderer suffered from a sort of homicidal satyriasis-that it was sexual perversion...."
          The problem with the Ripper is that as we see there were many "opinions" given by both police and doctors, and as a result people back then, and today readily accept those opinions, even though many contradict each other.


          In this article, how can anyone tell from a slashed face whether or not the wounds were inflicted by a butcher, baker, or a candlestick maker.



          Dr Biggs a forensic pathologist who has reviewed the medical evidence from 1888 states

          "Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line. In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"


          Seems to still be the case 130 years later!


          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
            Hello Gareth. I wonder if "depraved" might be an allusion to the alleged prostitution? (Ie, who would be jealous of such a person?)


            Cheers.
            LC
            Yes, Lynn. I think he put robbery and jealousy together. So who would want to rob someone so depraved or unfortunate? Who, in such a deprave state, could cause someone to be jealous of her or someone she was with?

            Motivation can be a combination of things not just one, although there would be a prevailing one. Not much you can eliminate though, except for maybe Sadism and Greed, Satyriasis in a normal sense unless he had weird fetishes.

            Comment

            Working...
            X