Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2015 2:53:18 GMT
Not looking to be the new guy who keeps posting to the penis thread, but I do have a serious, non-puerile reason for coming back. There's that theory hanging out there of two separate East Area Rapists, and it seems as if the under-endowment thing stands in the way. With that in mind, I'd like to bring up two related topics.
#1: It does indeed seem unlikely for two offenders to have shared this anatomical distinction. Recall the serious medical study published earlier this year in the BJU International, the one that "estimated the distribution of penile dimensions across humanity." We're all in luck, by the way, as we can now download the PDF for free from the link below (found on Google Scholar):
www.docdroid.net/file/download/w8cy/bju13010.pdf
A few posts up-thread, Lepke and Dengas suggested that we not ignore the issue of girth. Fair enough. Victim 19 (05/05/77) compared EAR's organ to a quarter. A quarter has the circumference of about 7.6 cm. Looking at the appropriate nomogram in the journal paper, the offender ranks below the 5th percentile. Assuming that this particular victim's account is correct, the odds do seem quite low that two "thin" rapists were at work.
But the witness descriptions, as conveyed by Crompton and Shelby, vary a bit. And sometimes there is no mention of organ size at all.
#2: The accounts of the three DNA-linked attacks omit any mention of penis size. (Attacks 39, 42, and, 46.) Not even for Attack 39 (10/28/78) which has a very detailed offender description in Shelby's HaP. Are these omissions just a fluke? I'm assuming that's the case or everyone would have been all over the discrepancy a long time ago. Consider it a newbie question. We're sure that the three EAR attacks linked by DNA have the offender associated with a small organ, right?
great thoughts here... I am going to be looking into this. Kudos