Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"you continue to play fast and loose with your percentages. If you are saying that your 47% believe Jack to be entirely innocent of Liz's murder, and the remaining 53% believe that he did this one too, where are all the fence-sitters"

The question asked was "Who do you think was killed by Jack?". I somehow think it neither fast nor loose to accept that those who do not think that Jack killed Stride simply opted for not adding her to the list.

Incidentally, this works two ways. Unless you claim that the 53 per cent are absolutely dead certain that Jack killed Stride? My take on it is that 53 per cent say that he probably did, and 47 say that he probably did not.

"Jack would still not be entirely innocent, would he, if his deeds directly inspired others to be handy with their own knives, as you suggest yourself."

Uhm - well, yes he would. At least juridically. Ethically and morally, though, you may have a point. But it has a distinct smell of desperation to it, if you pardon my French - is it really of such a paramount importance to you to drag Jack into Dutfields yard? Even if it is only in the shape of an inspirational ghost?

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Victor]

Originally Posted by perrymason

Your point is well made and taken Victor....I should have mentioned the skin flaps did repeat in the series. Although I dont think suggesting an imitator is playing both sides of any coin, that idea is first raised with Kate actually.

Hi Mike,

I was trying to make the point that it is inconsistent to use the "no similar wounds" argument to destroy the canon, and then use the opposite to destroy the canon with the added explanation that the killer deliberately imitated Jack by making similar wounds.

I dont think there is a case that holds the Canon together that isnt speculative or assumptive....too much so for my personal tastes.

I suppose that you need to define what is meant by "canon", if you believe it means Jack definitely killed Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate and Mary and no-one else ("5 & only 5"), or there are enough similarities in the murders of PALK&M to suggest Jack probably killed these 5, but there are not enough similarities with eg Martha to include her too, although she may also have been one of Jack's victims. I lean towards the latter.

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

Originally Posted by Fisherman

My take on it is that 53 per cent say that he probably did, and 47 say that he probably did not.

That's similar to my take too, Fish. But it wasn't what you said in the first place - which is why I introduced the idea that most people would probably not profess themselves anywhere near 100% sure either way. My take was that only a very tiny minority would vote for 'definitely not', which you then turned into a (nearly) respectable 47%, you naughty boy!!

It's of no importance to me whatsoever to 'drag Jack into Dutfields yard', thank you very much. But I can't help it if he was there, grinning right at you, but you prefer to turn your head away and finger someone not known to have harmed a living soul.

This one really doesn't need fixing. You are the one trying, not me.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caz,

Yes, I can see myself agreeing with much of what you said there.
Motiveless killings are very very rare indeed.

Perhaps, if I may, can I ask this to be considered?

1) The cutting of a man's throat, man on man, opens all sorts of reasons for why it was done... (fights, money, arguments over all sorts of things..)
but the cutting of a woman's throat, which, without knowledge of all the facts I will suggest was much rarer, AND seemingly motiveless, is not just the mind of a psychopathic, homocidal maniac at work. This isn't just built up "urges", not even "just" hatred of women. There is METHOD in the madness...the method of AVOIDANCE.

2) Everyone was looking for any sign of a person who stood out, from the police through to the entire population of the area. The women were hyper alert, the local men were on the streets hunting. The newspapermen were mingling and watching, the police were out in force both in uniform, in "civvies" and even dressed up as women...

And yet at least ONE complete madman is able to avoid the whole lot! You would think that TWO of them doing the same thing, in the same area at the same time is almost incredulous! We, like the police, are looking for similarities. Looking for differences may very well indicate TWO murderers. And if so..


Either
a) he/they didn't live in the area and came and went, or

b) they weren't NOTICABLE. because

c) he/they looked as normal clothing apparel-wise as the next man.. and I DON'T just mean looking like a pauper either. If it was normal to be dressed as a railway worker, railway policeman, doctor, sailor, cab man etc etc, they would, dress-wise, NOT be out of place...because...

d) Look at the suspects observations... American Hat, Gold Chain, etc etc..those people stood out!! Because people were looking for exactly that... one who would arouse the suspicions! Both by behaviour, AND appearance.

d) The police apprehended many that were well dressed and could give a good account of themselves... doctors included. They also apprehended a more shabby type too...Could this be that they really had ONE if not BOTH of their men at one stage, like PETER SUTCLIFFE, the Yorkshire Ripper, and let him/them go? I suggest it is plausible.

Another point, perhaps worth considering. Let us, for the sake of argument agree that Stride and Eddowes were killed by DIFFERENT people.

Given the above, that there is intellingence in NOT being detected, at least ONE of the murderers, if not BOTH, is/are now spooked, big time, that TWO killings have happened on the same night, without the other one knowing! That puts the AVOIDANCE situation into focus. NEITHER ONE DARED. So..there was a lull. Why?

The place was crawling with people looking for the murderer. The East End was in total uproar, which meant that even the murderer ,BRILLIANT at being avoided, couldn't take the risk. The discovery of a body, 4 days later, in Whitehall, a torso, apparently the work of a killer 2 months or so previously, didn't help these killers either!.. They HAD to stay away from murdering again....or...

ONE of them at THIS point in time stopped.. either gets locked up for lunacy, dies, is killed himself, travels out of the area, or is seriously ill enough to be witheld for an illness of his own in a hospital.

That leaves ONE killer. On Nov 9th, THIS one thought he was safe to try again, or the control had become too much. I suggest the latter, because of Kelly's extensive mutilations. And if we assume he has some intellingence as above, he has worked out that INDOORS is far safer than outdoors.

That leaves us with Mary Kelly's murderer. AFTER THAT murder, he certainly does one of the above... too, either gets locked up for lunacy, dies, is killed himself, travels out of the area, or is seriously ill enough to be witheld for an illness of his own in a hospital.

Look. I know this is speculation. I dont take it as Gospel, but the doubt over MacNaghtens DEFINITIVE canonical five, the doubts over Stride, in particular, the completely way over the top method and the possible left handedness of Kelly's murder situation, it surely MUST be considered as a plausible scenario.

Why?..Because this lot of murders was ABNORMAL in an area where shouts of "murder" WAS normal. SO normal that those shouts were at times IGNORED. So this has GOT to be DIFFERENT.. and therefore all the "normal" rules can't apply.

Possible? Or just me thinking down the wrong line?

I would be happy to have this totally rubbished..or perhaps agreed with.

I am just trying to be illogically logical. Thinking outside the box I believe the modern term is.

best wishesand much respect to all

Phil

[perrymason]

The problem with Caz's assumptions regarding Jacks motives is that she assigns those motives to him while using the total Canon as his death count....thats why she will never see anything coherent in a smaller Ripper tally...she is convinced the guy just wanted to cut people.....which by 2 kills for uteri, a single slice of a throat, a kidney theft with facial markings and a free for all indoors, is reasonable. Problem is...you cannot add #3, #4 or #5 to the same unknown killer of either Polly or Annie without explaining why the focus seen by the experts in the first 2 murders is absent. Caz and others say its absent because it was never there in the first place.....suggesting that Phillips, Baxter or both were incompetent with their conclusions....yet Bond was competent in deciphering the true meaning of the physical evidence for 4 murder victims he did not see or attend personally.

She denies that there were known violent deranged men in that area at the same time, saves comments on a known man that made Torso's of humans....even though we as students know many "suspects" to whom killing wouldnt have been a great problem...some who even did kill non-Canonicals to our knowledge. She also wants to include Liz even though there is nothing in that murder that suggest a "Ripper", or a mutilator. Which MUST mean that she buys into the interruption theory, which has zero support in the physical evidence, there is no other way to reconcile the absence of ALL Ripper signatures. Starting with a double throat cut while the victim was lying down on their back.

To be frank in my early study Ive read those ideas in many Ripper books before I noticed that all the failed attempts at deciphering these crimes may be based in at least part to compiling a fictional victims list for a single killer that is unidentified and no-one knows anything about. There is no way to attribute a motive to a list or crimes that in many ways are unrelated crimes based on the evidence....unless you assume these are serial killings.

Since contemporary and qualified men suggested a possible motive for only the first 2 killings then others subsequently diminished the value of that partial profile to add a non-Ripped woman, a woman who had another abdominal organ taken, not a uterus which was quite possibly the motivation in both of the first 2 murders, and finally one without any semblance of sanity that one might get some handle on.

I said a long time ago here.....killers change what they look like, who they kill, where they kill, what weapons they use...but the reason that drives them to kill doesnt change. Based on that principle and the officials suggestions on motives for only the first 2 murders, there are no further murders that share that same motivation. Yes other abdomens are cut....but no murder is ever suggested as being incited by acquisition of a specific organ within the female abdomen.

Historically this is the Police evolution of thought...

Martha Tabram-Whitechapel Murderer, guilty of other attacks and/or murders of Unfortunates
Mary Ann Nichols-Not Whitechapel Murderer, new killer, and killer is intent on post mortem mutilations
Annie Chapman-assumed second victim of Unknown killer not the Whitechapel killer, killer intent on acquiring the uterus post mortem....when transposed with the investigation into the death of the first victim, it is suggested that the evidence for both murders showed the same motivation for the killer, which was to obtain a uterus from the victim.
Liz Stride-assumed 3rd victim of Unknown killer nicknamed Jack the Ripper in a hoax letter to the Police, "Jack" is assumed to have been unable to complete any post mortem activity, and it is unclear that any was intended by the physical evidence....but its widely assumed to be the case anyway.
Kate Eddowes-assumed 4th victim of Jack the Ripper, murdered in the same fashion as the first 2 women, but lacking the motivation focus for the first 2 killings that was suggested by Wynne Baxter based in part on Phillips statements. Its now assumed that there was no focus on the uterus after all in the first 2 murders... despite the records stating that hands on authorities believed that to be the case,.... and they decide that the killer simply mutilates post mortem.
Mary Jane-assumed to be the 5th and last Ripper victim, and it is assumed that the travesty found within the crime scene shows us that the killer has lost whatever marbles he may once have had, and he just intended to cut aimlessly now that he had the convenience of an indoor venue and some more time and privacy. That this murder showed zero signs that the killer had any skill or knowledge does not marry well with the first 2 victims and their killers supposed knowledge levels of each.

The parts above in bold show how this whole Canonical Group is about assumptives and suppositions. Only the first 2 murders were seen as truly repetitive crimes....both in the same manner and for the same proposed reason.

Killers dont change why they kill.....unless its to silence a threat perhaps. And the doctors who examined Polly and Annie were better qualified to give an opinion on what they perceived incited those murders than anyone else connected with the crimes. It was only the circumstances and the injuries they had to assess....not why some striking differences existed.

Best regards

[The Good Michael]

Originally Posted by perrymason

Killers dont change why they kill.....

I don't believe this actually, but let's say it's true. We don't know why JTR killed. We haven't a clue. For all we know, it was all exploratory killing and whatever he did after the murder was invented as whim struck him. The predation may have been the reason and everything else gravy. The killing of people knowing that he had a chance to be caught, but knew he could get away with it, may have been the WHY. You don't know and neither did the police, and neither does anyone else.

Your breakdown of what you think the police believed after each murder isn't representative of the body of murders as a whole. Of course there is hesitancy in ascribing similarities to the first two (if you include Tabram), but it is as a whole, even including Stride, that one can see connectivity to all if one has eyes to do so. It is via the process of taking each murder as if in a vacuum, that one can look at dissimilarities, but is that a valid process? I don't know the answer to that question, but something tells me that it all depends on what your "theory" is as to the approach one takes.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"My take was that only a very tiny minority would vote for 'definitely not', which you then turned into a (nearly) respectable 47%"

Caz, the wiews of those who say that they are sure that Jack did not do it are of as little interest to me as are the wiews of those who say he emphatically did. Both these stances are untenable, as anybody with a head on their shoulders should readily recognize.
The only things we are at liberty to do, is to deduct as best as we can from the existing evidence whether it was more or less probable that Jack was Strides killer, and since none of the evidence points in Jacks direction, it is an easy call as far as I´m concerned.

"you prefer to turn your head away and finger someone not known to have harmed a living soul."

I do? How odd! Who is this person? To the best of my knowledge, I have not fingered any named person at all.

Don´t you think you are being slightly over-melodramatic in your defense of this grey eminency? Is it not a tad silly to cry over my cynicism, given the fact that both you and I know that history has produced more killers than Jack? Quite a few, even.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil Carter writes:

" the cutting of a woman's throat, which...was...seemingly motiveless"

Such a stance points us directly to the rank of people to whom Jack would have belonged - people able to kill without any other motive than the lust of killing...
...which is why we are not at liberty to state such a thing with no substantiation, I´m afraid. Why would we presume that Strides killing was motiveless? What is there in the evidence to even suggest such a thing? How are we to be able to conclude that jealousy, economic gain or something else was not the factor that unleashed the cut to her throat???

There is absolutely no need to believe - if there were two killers around - that these killers represented the same sort of slayer: one who killed out of a need to do so. Such creatures are far more rare than the average, boring spur-of-the moment killer who has a drink too much and catastrophically looses his grip on things just once.

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Why would we presume that Strides killing was motiveless? What is there in the evidence to even suggest such a thing? How are we to be able to conclude that jealousy, economic gain or something else was not the factor that unleashed the cut to her throat???

There is absolutely no need to believe - if there were two killers around - that these killers represented the same sort of slayer: one who killed out of a need to do so. Such creatures are far more rare than the average, boring spur-of-the moment killer who has a drink too much and catastrophically looses his grip on things just once.

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman,

Thank you for your response.

1. From all the documentation that is currently available to us, there has never been, unless I am grossly mistaken, any KNOWN motive for Elizabeth Stride's killing. Therefore, as there isn't a known motive, and by definition, until one is factually produced, it is seemingly motiveless. Speculation around a motive doesn't equate to fact.
Ipso facto, we CANNOT "conclude that jealousy, economic gain or something else was not the factor that unleashed the cut to her throat" either. It is speculation.

2. The two killers.. I didn't state they WERE the same sort of slayer, only that they were both probably mad murderers. To me, "The same sort of slayer" is a generalization. Their methodology, and or indeed their motive/non-motiveness may well differ from each other. One could have been well heeled, one poor. WE don't know.

3. I agree with you that "such creatures are far more rare than the average, boring spur-of-the moment killer who has a drink too much and catastrophically looses his grip on things just once. ".. that was part of my point on a wider scale of having two such men in the midst of the local populace. Like I said.. this was DIFFERENT.

with best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hey people

You need to clam down and chill out most of you are getting into this way above your heads take a step back. This thread is now full of wild speculative theories based on personal opinions.

Look at things from a different angle in relation to Strides murder.

If Stride hade been the first murder in Whitechapel at that time and the second i.e. Eddowes 7.14 or 21 days later. Would the police at the time have suggested the same killer was responsible for both having regard to the circunstances surrounding each murder. i would suggest probably not becasue it is quite clear that they are different.

Why should our thinking be any different today ?

The only real link is that Stride was murdered in between a series of murders which can be linked to the same killer. i.e Chapman, Eddowes and Nicholls.

Its time both the list of victims and suspects was amended. Murder investigations are not just focused on who did it but also who didnt do it. take the list of suspects on here clearly at least half of them should be removed.