Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is John Douglas wrong about Martha Tabram's murder scene?

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

  • Is John Douglas wrong about Martha Tabram's murder scene?

    In "The Cases That Haunt Us" JD says

    "If a line is from crime scenes two, three, four and five, a triangular configuration is formed. This [...] is viewed a secondary comfort zone"

    "We should note that [Martha Tabram's murder] occurred just outside this secondary comfort zone"

    To me he's wrong. Tabram's murder scene is well inside this triangles. Which makes is assumption of the ripper moving back to his comfort zone after Nichols's killing even stronger.

    Am I mistaking or is JD mistaking?
    Jack lo Squartatore 1888 - http://jacklosquartatore1888.blogspot.it/

  • #2
    Leonardo:

    Its been a while since I read Douglas's book...

    If Douglas had started with the Nichols murder....and then drew a line from 1 to 2 and then down to 3 ( assuming that Stride was a Ripper victim)....then Eddowes and Kelly get left out of that triangle.

    See what I'm getting at ?
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post

      See what I'm getting at ?
      No, sorry.

      In JD's opinion triangle is made by connecting Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly (so Nichols not included)


      See my attachment (which I haven't published on my blog yet). Green circle is Tabram, which is inside the triangle.
      Attached Files
      Jack lo Squartatore 1888 - http://jacklosquartatore1888.blogspot.it/

      Comment


      • #4
        Leonardo

        I know what Douglas said....that this magic triangle of his begins with Chapman.

        I asked you what if we started with Nichols...who is just as much of a victim as Chapman was. That creates another triangle...which as I said leaves out two victims. Why start with Chapman ?

        Its all mumbo jumbo, Leonardo.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
          Leonardo

          Its all mumbo jumbo, Leonardo.
          Aaaahhhh. Now I get what you mean.

          Ok, didn't get it the first time.

          Well... You definitely make sense.
          Jack lo Squartatore 1888 - http://jacklosquartatore1888.blogspot.it/

          Comment


          • #6
            Leo:

            Just like us starting with Stride....then going to Eddowes...and then Kelly.

            Draw a line from 3 to 4 then 5 and back down to Stride.

            That leaves Chapman out now.

            Again....that's just what I think. That this aspect of profiling isn't all it is made up to be.
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]

            Comment


            • #7
              How is right. There is practically an industry of inventing ways to prove things that can't be proven. One has to be very careful. It is also possible to make a pentagram with the murder sites.

              Profilers say the first murder in a series is likely to be closest to the home of the killer. On the diagram below, assuming 1 is Polly, that site is farthest away. The more I think about Polly the more I get a feeling something she did suddenly angered the killer, that she was killed on the street due to a sudden rage on the part of the killer.
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment

              Working...
              X