Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • San Fran
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    yup

    Hello Simon. Thanks.


    Wacky, indeed.


    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:


  • Cris Malone
    replied
    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...."

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Don't you include jealousy of a romantic rival, which F. Brown doesn't think there could be, because they're prostitutes so there's more than just the problem of a single rival? Or maybe he was lumping Robbery and Jealousy or Greed and Jealousy together.

    Motives and Reasons, Jealousy and/or Unrequited Love, Envy Jealousy and Homicide
    https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread...412#post345412

    I think he was going through all the Motives he could think of for Homicide in general, Serial or single murder -

    Greed, Lust, Jealousy....and he singled out Sadism. I think he was right in excluding Lust Killing but Sadism makes no sense since they were strangled. Maybe he didn't know about that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    It's not a case of his being jealous of five different women at the same time. The implication is that some killers are jealous of something that their victims possess: money, health, success, status, etc. However, according to Brown, the Ripper didn't fall into this category because his victims didn't possess anything to be jealous of, on account of their state of chronic deprivation.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    Okay Sam, I get what you mean. It says "considering their depraved state." But it's confusing with there being at least five victims in their estimate. How could he be jealous of five different women at the same time even if they weren't in a depraved state and "too depraved" or unattractive to be jealous of.

    Parodox, interesting answer to my question. I thought it was suggesting someone could kill out of jealousy of a non-depraved state, the killer being depraved or deprived.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paradox
    replied
    [QUOTE=San Fran;345384]How can you be jealous of deprivation?





    Jealous of a simple and relatively uncomplicated existence perhaps is what was meant , definitely not a new phenomenon . Although I believe the wrong word was used to express the true meaning of the statement . Perhaps ( at the time ) for lack of a better one .

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by San Fran View Post
    How can you be jealous of deprivation?
    I guess what he meant is that a person motivated by jealousy is unlikely to target a deprived person, of whom nobody is likely to be jealous.

    Leave a comment:


  • San Fran
    replied
    How can you be jealous of deprivation?

    I think this has something to do with what I’m talking about regarding Envy in the other thread. Nice find. Good eye, Sam. I didnt pick that up when I read it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    did "depraved" mean something different back then?
    Apparently not, having looked it up. Must have been a typo or a mishearing of "deprived".

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    So, the murderer could not have been motivated by robbery or jealousy owing to the "depraved" status of the victims? Is that a typo/mishearing of "deprived", or did "depraved" mean something different back then?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Lynn,

    Not quite as wacky an idea as a Polish Jew or barrister-at-law.

    I hope you and Deborah are well.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Lynn Cates
    replied
    insane slaughterer

    Hello Simon. Thanks for posting this.


    An insane slaughterer? Hmmm.


    Cheers.
    LC

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X