Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[perrymason]

Hi again all,

To this comment posted by Mike,....

"Your breakdown of what you think the police believed after each murder isn't representative of the body of murders as a whole. "

Thats the point Mike, this isnt a "serial" case unless you start with the assumption that the guy known as Jack the Ripper killed "serially". In most cases thats accomplished by assuming at the start of the investigation that he killed at least the five Canonicals. Each case should be weighed independently and subsequent murders should be compared with earlier murders for obvious similarities and traits that fit the unusual manner in which Mary Ann, as the first Ripper victim, was killed.

Trevor made this bold statement with which I agree heartily....."Its time both the list of victims and suspects was amended". We all know that Ripper "suspects" are really no such thing unless mentioned specifically as such by the contemporary police.

Interesting that the last few posts made since I started this post have mentioned the "serial" categorization. Having investigators suggest a list of probable victims by a single killer,......a list that in at least one case disagrees with the physician who saw the most Canonical victims in death, does not make these crimes serial....its a guess.

To Caz, I dont see any value in my continuing to address the points your making directly because they are the same today as they likely were 10 years ago and they will be the same 10 years from now regardless of what new information might surface. Youre entitled to your opinions, like I feel I am, so Ill just accept your position from this point on and express what I feel I am learning about the cases. Ill know when you disagree, Im quite sure of that.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by perrymason

Having investigators suggest a list of probable victims by a single killer,......a list that in at least one case disagrees with the physician who saw the most Canonical victims in death

Since when did George Bagster Phillips make any pronouncement that he believed Eddowes and/or Kelly did not belong on the list of Ripper victims, Mike? I didn't think he had. If so, and he did not voice such an opinion, then how can it be said that anyone's "disagreeing" with it?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

How did these doctors that you reference become "experts" qualified to deliver opinions on the killer's focus or motivation? They weren't trained in forensics or profiling. They weren't psychiatrists. I can tell you that it is not uncommon at all when parties are in litigation for each side to produce an expert who is deemed an expert witness by the court and is therefore allowed to render an opinion on matters in which they were not involved. Since each side has an expert witness, obviously those expert witnesses completely disagree with each other's opinions and conclusions. So take the opinion of any witness (especially one from 1888) with a large grain of salt.

c.d.

[caz]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

...do they automatically jump to the conclusion that the same burglar broke into all 3. No they dont they study the facts surrounding each individual offence. because all though they all may be houses (analogy victims) the method of entry and property stolen may be different. The they then will be able to either link them or deal with them as different offences

If this victim fiasco is going to continue then why not re name them The C8 to take in Tabram,Coles and Mckenzie. :

Hi Trevor,

But isn't that what the authorities did with the Whitechapel series? I don't think anyone concluded that one man was responsible for the lot, did they? And certainly with Liz and Mary, the police rightly looked into the possibility that a male associate was responsible, so they weren't complete fools.

The 'victim fiasco' is caused by a very strange denial by a small number of theorists (each of you with very different ideas about who did what and why) that a mutilating serial killer was even active in 1888. If one acknowledges this overwhelming likelihood, it follows from everything we have learned from repeat offenders over the last 120 years that the C5 is more likely to be an underestimate than an exaggeration. I have already stated that I would jump at adding Martha, Frances and Alice to this bastard's tally rather than exclude any of the C5 from it.

Originally Posted by Fisherman

A clever move, Caz, to deny me McKenzie and Coles!

Not intentionally clever, Fishypoo.

I was interested in how many 'conventional' male-on-female street murders by knife you knew of in the years before or after the whole of the 1888-92 Whitechapel Murders, as the crimes were classified. You are trying to claim that Liz's murder was rather a commonplace affair as opposed to a distinctly unusual crime. So I'd like to know how many other similar, supposedly 'commonplace' offences outside of the period in question you have found, so I can see exactly how you arrived at your commonplace verdict for the Dutfield's Yard case.

Originally Posted by Fisherman

Parallel to your question, it must also be asked how common it is that eviscerating serial killers change their MO, change their way of choosing venues, change the time they are operating at and even change the manner in which they cut. And all of this is changed JUST THE ONE TIME, whereas all other killings conform to a nigh on robotic scenario in these details.

I know Jack isn't the only option for Liz's assassin. But he's certainly still my prime suspect and will be held for questioning indefinitely. There is nobody else you could justify putting under arrest. Would you really set his suspect status lower than Kidney, for instance, on any scale of male-on-female violence? If you prefer to make a complete unknown your prime suspect and release Jack from custody, you'll have an even harder task to justify such a decision.

To be fair, we don't know exactly where and how Jack picked up his victims, so it's at least possible that his 'choosing venues' strategy was pretty much the same and he simply came across Liz outside the club. He could have walked the streets each time and come upon a woman such as Liz (Polly, Annie and so on) appearing to be soliciting, and tried his luck. Obviously he wouldn't be planning to mutilate anyone at a location he presumed was a soliciting spot. But he also wouldn't be expecting any trouble from such a woman if he offered her money to go somewhere suitably secluded. That was what all these women did, wasn't it, with anyone and everyone who could pay - in Jack's mind at least.

It takes two for a murder tango and the timing of each dance would be down to the behaviour of prospective victims as much as the killer's whim. You see I don't think that even if Jack was very much the robot in character, he would have been given the chance to act in a robotic way on every occasion he tried his luck with another unfortunate. And he was 'trying his luck'. The street women were not robots and after Martha's sensational murder they were arguably more aware of their mortality than ever. They were also not on a desert island. Everything and everyone around him was designed with the potential to put a spanner in his robotic works. He would have been lucky indeed to avoid a spanner time after time.

Originally Posted by perrymason

To Caz, I dont see any value in my continuing to address the points your making directly because they are the same today as they likely were 10 years ago and they will be the same 10 years from now regardless of what new information might surface.

Hi Perry,

That's fine by me but perhaps you could just help me out here. What new information has surfaced while I have been picking apart - sorry, addressing your arguments, which I have failed to take into account? I do hope you are not trying to suggest that any of your speculation amounts to 'new information' on the murders.

On the other hand, you didn't even seem to pause for breath, let alone thought, when I posted new information concerning three documented double eventers, whose offending behaviour corresponded only too well with one violent and highly volatile individual going straight on to mutilate in Mitre Square after a brief encounter in Berner St.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Caz is correct when she says that it took both parties to agree on a site. I think that is something that we tend to forget and tend to look at the choice of site simply from Jack's perspective. He might have learned that pressing too hard on a choice of site raised too many suspicions and caused previous negotiations to fall through. From Liz's perspective, Dutfield's Yard had the prospect of numerous men within shouting distance who could conceivably come to her assistance if needed as well as a privy in which she could freshen up afterwards. If Jack made up his mind that he wanted to kill Liz and she was adamant about the choice of place being hers, then it was Dutfield's Yard or nothing. And even if it was a poor choice of location from the killer's perspective (be it Jack or someone else), whoever killed her was quite willing to take that risk.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

Since when did George Bagster Phillips make any pronouncement that he believed Eddowes and/or Kelly did not belong on the list of Ripper victims, Mike? I didn't think he had. If so, and he did not voice such an opinion, then how can it be said that anyone's "disagreeing" with it?

According to my information Sam, Bagster Philips attended Kate Eddowes post mortem and was quoted in the Evening News on October 1st saying that "the murder was not by the same hand that killed Stride." Baxter echoes those sentiments in summation with his comments of "unskillful injuries" and "..possibly the work of an imitator", something that is clearly a real possibility with the news attention paid on the first 2 murders,....not long after another different but nonetheless ruthless murder.

As we all know, these kinds of things often incite others.

Best regards Gareth

[perrymason]

Originally Posted by c.d.

Hi Michael,

How did these doctors that you reference become "experts" qualified to deliver opinions on the killer's focus or motivation? They weren't trained in forensics or profiling. They weren't psychiatrists. I can tell you that it is not uncommon at all when parties are in litigation for each side to produce an expert who is deemed an expert witness by the court and is therefore allowed to render an opinion on matters in which they were not involved. Since each side has an expert witness, obviously those expert witnesses completely disagree with each other's opinions and conclusions. So take the opinion of any witness (especially one from 1888) with a large grain of salt.

c.d.

To my mind the way they might assess what the motivations for the killer of Mary Ann and Annie would be is in part by the presence of superfluous wounds that had little or nothing to do with the final result of the attack.

Kate didnt need to have her colon sectioned, nor did she need to have her nose sliced almost off, or her earlobe...to acquire her kidney and partial uterus. Very little of those kinds of useless "spiteful" wounds were seen when the men inspected the wounds of Mary Ann and Annie. There was an abundance of those kinds of wounds made again in room 13 in November, far exceeding the amount seen on even Kate.

They also had the approximate time it would take, indicating focus to some degree, and the wounds made to achieve the final objectives, and the fact that the women were subdued fully before he begins any cutting....almost a figurative ether dose. They did have facts that lead to their conclusions.

Cheers cd

[perrymason]

Originally Posted by caz

Hi Perry, That's fine by me but perhaps you could just help me out here. What new information has surfaced while I have been picking apart - sorry, addressing your arguments, which I have failed to take into account? I do hope you are not trying to suggest that any of your speculation amounts to 'new information' on the murders.

On the other hand, you didn't even seem to pause for breath, let alone thought, when I posted new information concerning three documented double eventers, whose offending behaviour corresponded only too well with one violent and highly volatile individual going straight on to mutilate in Mitre Square after a brief encounter in Berner St.

Love,

Caz
X

I hadnt referred to specific information Caz, because I was alluding to perspectives as well as potential data sources being uncovered. For one, youve decided a woman with no abdominal injuries was killed by a man focused on performing them.....so, I cant see how we have much in common to discuss on a point to point basis.

As to studies of serial killers being applied to these cases....when we know we have a serial killer, they might be interesting to review. For now, they are just useless bits of trivia about serial killers in the modern era....ones I might add that were caught or gave up, ones that spoke to people about their crimes, and ones that have been psychologically probed since being incarcerated. Unlike the unknown man in 1888 who killed x amount of women, and was never caught or interviewed.

But, if you find proof that Jack was indeed caught, captured and installed in an asylum,.....another unvalidated point of contention,..... and we find some notes by the doctors that examined and questioned him...then the serial killer notes would have some value. I obviously believe that a few killers co-existed during that period, and that some like Bury or Sadler or Cohen likely attacked and or killed some of the women we study.

The one called Jack may have, in my opinion of course, have killed as few as 2 or 3 women,... some other of these men might have matched those numbers. We know of some that did.

Unless I see abdominal mutilations its not Jack, and even when we do see those kinds of wounds,...thats still no guarantee.....see Alice Mackenzie. What we would need to see are murders that swiftly incapacitate the victims without knife usage, severe almost decapitation style neck wounds, and post mortem injuries upon the abdomen.

Thats why I believe 2, perhaps 3 murders match the style shown by a lone killer in the area.

We dont interpret any of the data similarly....so, thats why I made the comment, and I still think its a good policy after this exchange.

Best regards

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Originally Posted by perrymason

Bagster Philips attended Kate Eddowes post mortem and was quoted in the Evening News on October 1st saying that "the murder was not by the same hand that killed Stride." Baxter echoes those sentiments in summation with his comments of "unskillful injuries" and "..possibly the work of an imitator", something that is clearly a real possibility with the news attention paid on the first 2 murders,....not long after another different but nonetheless ruthless murder.

Then Bagster Phillips is an idiot - not to talk ill of the dead. Why anyone would imitate the Whitechapel murderer at that point, I don't know; at the time of Eddowes' death he wasn't even classed as Jack the Ripper. So whoever supposedly imitated his handiwork (hypothetically playing along with the idea that that was the case) was obviously a very intricate and easily impressed copycat. I can kind of see an imitator senario going on in the Mary Kelly killing - at an epicly proportioned stretch - but definitely not in the case of Catherine Eddowes; she and Annie Chapman are the hallmark rippings, even more so than Polly (though mostly because we haven't got a precise idea of the extent of her abdominal mutilations admittedy).

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Originally Posted by perrymason

According to my information Sam, Bagster Philips attended Kate Eddowes post mortem and was quoted in the Evening News on October 1st saying that "the murder was not by the same hand that killed Stride."

Indeed, but one can't extrapolate from Bagster Philips' pronouncements on the Stride murder to exclude Kelly, anymore than we can exclude Kelly and Eddowes on the basis of his opinions on Nichols and Chapman. If he'd actually ventured an opinion, whether negative or positive, in respect of Eddowes and Kelly versus Nichols and Chapman, you might have a point, but - as it is - none were recorded for posterity.

Baxter echoes those sentiments

Good for him... but I wouldn't take Baxter's opinions on such matters at all seriously. Not only was he not medically (or "psychologically") qualified, but he comes across as a sensationalist, attention-seeking egotist of the first water.