Dr Bond and his "CANON".

[perrymason]

From what Ive read of the man,....Bond should have been shot from his "Canon".

Best regards.

[Ben]

Bond never had a "canon", though, Mike.

Best wishes,
Ben

[perrymason]

Bond never had a "canon", though, Mike.

Best wishes,
Ben

Isnt the Canon a perceived group of victims by a single killer that was constructed using Bonds medical opinions, and subsequent comments by the likes of investigators such as Macnaughten?

I think he owns co-creator status at the very least Ben.

And including a victim that had to be interrupted to have any chance of being Jack as killer....with at least 4 minutes available alone with the victim after the throat cut...and a woman who could be a daughter to one of the middle aged victims, who was destroyed indoors and in bed....doesnt make for a sound premise.

Best regards Ben.

[Ben]

Oh it's a perfectly sound premise, Mike, believe me.

If you examine other serial killers and the way in which they deviate from their "MO" you'll notice a great deal more variance than Tabram through to Kelly. In comparison to most, they're pretty similar. Doesn't make it correct without a shadow of a doubt, but a "sound premise" it certainly is. Historical precedent informs us as much.

Even if the premise was wrong, it wasn't Bond's creation anyway. The canon is based specifically on Macnaghten, who can't have been using Bond as a basis or else he would not have excluded Alice McKenzie as a victim (a victim Bond included).

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

The canon is based specifically on Macnaghten, who can't have been using Bond as a basis or else he would not have excluded Alice McKenzie as a victim (a victim Bond included).

All the best,
Ben

Ben, didnt Bond use his analysis of the notes on the previous victims and Alice to denounce McKenzies killer as the man who killed the women the year before....because she didnt have the knowledgeable or skilled wounds...that some of the notes revealed the others were felt to have by the experts presiding over the Post Mortems he didnt conduct? And the only one he presided over is arguably one of the most suspect inclusions in the Ripper tally.

Isnt his conclusion about Alice a complete about face from his rationale on the prior reports?

Cheers Ben.

[Dan Norder]

Isnt the Canon a perceived group of victims by a single killer that was constructed using Bonds medical opinions, and subsequent comments by the likes of investigators such as Macnaughten?

The "canon" as we know it comes solely from Macnaghten and ignores the many, many other police and medical officials who had different lists of victims they thought were killed by the same hand. Bond's list specifically also included Alice Mackenzie, and this was on record before Macnaghten wrote his memorandum, so Macnaghten specifically ignored Bond's opinion when he made his list.

.with at least 4 minutes available alone with the victim after the throat cut...

There you go jumping to conclusions again and pretending they are facts. You should know by now that you aren't fooling anyone (except maybe yourself), so why do you repeat these things over and over?

and a woman who could be a daughter to one of the middle aged victims, who was destroyed indoors and in bed....doesnt make for a sound premise.

And, frankly, that's a ridiculous statement. Indoors, in bed, and age are all trivial, minor, and, no way around it, ridiculously ignorant things on which to base an argument about who were real victims and who were not. Based upon the location, the timing, and, most importantly, the fundamental similarity of the wounds and the post-mortem activities of the killer, it's an extremely sound premise to list Kelly with the others. In fact all the experts who do such things professionally include her as an obvious match. The only people who do not are authors who, let's face it, have suspect-based reasons to try to separate Kelly out... and a couple of message board posters who are more interested in trying to convince other people of how smart they think they are (the 180+ IQ somehow you claimed to have oddly doesn't help you with basic rules of punctuation and grammar, for instance).

If someone were to insist on removing victims until there were only three on the list that we call the most likely Ripper victims -- which would be ridiculous to start with, but let's do it for the sake of argument -- you'd have to remove Nichols before Kelly based upon both the location and, most importantly, the signature. Kelly's circumstance are an extremely close match to both Eddowes and Chapman, and, probably not coincidentally, the location of the three murders are the three of this "canon" that are closest to each other. The odds that some other mutilation killer would wander in to that very small area of London and destroy Kelly in that specific way at that specific time are just ludicrous to consider. If you want to break the connection between Kelly and the others you'd have to break the connection between all of them. Yet for some reason we have people wanting to rationalize up reasons to exclude Kelly without being intellectually honest enough to apply the same rules to the other victims... probably because they realize how stupid that would be but just can't let Kelly be what she obviously is because their favored theory would fall apart.

[perrymason]

Dan,

You and I dont disagree on every aspect here, even though we dont discuss commonalities much.

From what Ive personally read or seen, there is almost nothing that Mary Kelly had in common with the prior victims in terms of the circumstances of her death...not what was done in the room.

She was at least 14 years younger than the closest in age...the other 4 varied by what, only 6 years...she is murdered then found indoors and undressed, and the only evidence that she was seen outside her room after 11:45 on the 8th, a suspect sighting, ....was discarded before weeks end.

Although you and others here can discuss the wounds and how they occurred backwards and forwards, which leads to a conclusion on its own, I think you disregard the immediate circumstances that night. She is in her room before midninght noticeably drunk with a man, she does not need to pay for her bed that night, or in the morning, to still have a place to sleep Nov 9th. There is evidence she ate at some point.There is also evidence that it began to rain hard shortly after she went inside.

Much of that suggests...and with the absence of contrary statements by the relevant witnesses, that Mary never did go back out. You may be right that some cuts that were done suggest the Ripper, but potentially the approach, acquisition, and initial attack do not.

I personally feel that the most likely pair are Mary Ann and Annie, with Kate being strongly considered as a third.

I know that many officials had different Canons, and that Macnaughten is really the culprit...but Bonds rebuttal of his colleagues opinions without the benefit of attending the Postmortem have damaged this study.

You may not agree with me Dan, but we really dont need to spar over it do we?

Best regards

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

So no one is allowed to analyse unless they see the body first hand? Doesnt bode well for future cold cases.

No, if the report was available then there is no need to view the body. Its a pointless task.

On the other hand, I would assume that medical reports in those days were much less detailed and informative as they are today. As Natalie also pointed out (I think), in those days the knowledge of several medical and phsyical mechanisms were questionable so personally I doubt that 'reading the reprts' would be as sufficient as basis for deduction as some people here makes it out to be. All in all, autopsy reports in those days were not exactly the reliable, detaild protocols we are used to today.
Of course none of us here have seen the bodies eihter but I personally think that perfectly illustrates the point, because we have problems coming to unanimous conclusions as well just because of that, haven't we?

That said, I have never liked Dr Phillips. I see him as the typical Victorian busybody who was too aware of his authority for his own good, and rather arrogant and pompous.To me there is little doubt that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by the same hand, and the fact that Phillips initially found evidence on Eddowes that contradicted his view on the killer as a 'medical expert' shows that his intial statements regarding Chapman on that regards should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As for Bond, he obviously committed suicide by throwing himself out of a bedroom window in 1901 after suffering several years of severe physical pain and depression. I wonder what his actual condition was?

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Bond committed suicide by throwing himself out of a bedroom window in 1901. I wonder what his actual condition was?

...flat.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

...flat.

Well, before he actually jumped, Sam, but thanks just the same.

All the best

[Tenth Bell]

Bond Miller's Court preliminary notes ...

Greetings all,
I am, by and by, working on a bit of Kelly-related research, and this question is in reference to the first paragraph of Bond's alleged 'notes', returned in 1987 (by whom and from God only knows where...)
The first lines of his report state that the victim -mjk- lay on the 'bed' naked, in the position we are all familiar with. Notice he says on the BED, and not mortuary or examination table. So these notes, it is assumed, are being prepared BEDSIDE, inside room #13, and not following removal, am I correct?
If this is the case, why does he say she is naked? It is exponentially clear from the 3 photos that she is clothed, and that the bulk of her clothing is on her still, but in a blood-soaked heap. Is Bond just nervous and speaking erroneously, or are we to believe that his assessment of her corpse actually takes place following the acquisition of these famous images? Could it be that her clothing was removed following the photographs in order that a more thorough medical examination could ensue? Maybe, also, the removal of the butchered garments was done in an attempt to begin to clean up the horrific mess involving all of the 'non-human' items in the room? The question arises, then, as to who removed the chemise - Bond, the police, another doctor present? To me, there is the notion that, if Bond really did view her body NAKED on the bed, and someone other than he removed her garments, then there is the remote chance that some potentially important evidence may have been discarded with the poor girl's nightgown ... Like her heart perhaps, which appears to be resting comfortably just inferior to her left hand, its apex being closest to her left little finger, and the roots of the great vessels, about a fist's length from the apex. The apex, by the way, unlike in the lung, refers to the Bottom-most region of the heart.
Now, I am a medical person. But for all of you non-medical folks out there reading and researching, I ask you, how many of you know what a dissected human heart looks like (before going to Google image search?). You see, this is my point: to an individual other than a doctor (constable?) and especially in a horrific setting like the one there in the room, the dissected and bloody heart - out of anatomic place naturally and in amongst the blood-saturated lower portions of Mary's chemise - could easily be overlooked by the untrained eye, and was potentially discarded with the saturated nightgown. I think Mary's heart was accidentally removed with her clothing bofore Bond began to assess her naked body there on her bed, and that's why he reports the heart as being 'absent'. And this would account for the fact that no one else in the room cold find the heart in any other area of the room. Thus it was assumed that her killer took the heart as a keepsake or souvenir, even though he nerver mailed it to anyone (that we know of anyway) as he did with the Lusk kidney.

And not to open another can of worms, but let's say mjk was slain by a scorned lover, as I believe has been a shallow theory throughout the years ... There is the notion in 'Love gone all wrong' of having one's 'heart ripped out'. Maybe the killer intended to do something 'extra special' with the heart - indeed to RIP IT OUT, as his had been, and the desire was to place it somewhere, not only deemed conspicuous (on top of the whole disturbing mess) but also, just inferior to the victim's LEFT HAND, which has specific references to EVIL and DECEIT and in general, the work of the Devil. You can GOOGLE it.
The picture, by the way, is MJK3, and the organ in question (as well as myriad other details) can be quite well appreciated in the enhanced image in the thread pertaing to 'MJK3 enhanced' in the victims category/MJK.
Cheers friends. I welcome all feedback
Christopher

[Tenth Bell]

images...

[Cap'n Jack]

That's a couple of thought provoking posts you made there 10th Bell.
Against your idea is the fact that the victims appeared to have been removed to the mortuary with their remaining clothes still on, hence one of Eddowe's ears falling out of her clothing when undressed at the mortuary.
But I think we tend to look at this business with modern eyes, and my impression of the medical results from examination of the victims is that the doctors were sloppy, unconcerned and often damnright cavalier in their attitude to slain prostitutes.
And then there is the intense fire in the grate?

[Stephen Thomas]

Sam grow up, other people are entitiled to thier opinions. I don't think i've seen you post anything that is not rubbishing other peoples opinions who don't happen to fall in line with everything you think is right about the Ripper case, how about trying to be a bit more objectionable.

Now there's your problem, Sam.

You're just not objectionable enough.

Or maybe you should be more subjectivable.

[perrymason]

And then there is the intense fire in the grate?

There is Abberlines opinion that the fire was intense at some point and it melted the spouts' solder, but as you well know AP, an intense fire would not leave fabric placed on it intact...and the skirt fabric was. We also have no idea when the spout was damaged, nor do we have one eye witness that suggests any bright lights from her window...and candlelight was visible through the muslin curtains...as per Mary Ann's comments.

I do agree with you though some good points made by our previous poster, although in the literal presentation of Marys missing organ,..... I think it might be that the man took a heart that was not figuratively given to him by Mary, and left her an empty, soulless carcass.

A rejected lover.

We have 2 men that we know were rejected by Mary at some point, one within the previous 8 days, ...both had lived with her, one had wanted to marry Mary, the other was acting as her husband when they signed the lease in her name for room 13. The one that wanted to marry her was seeing her on the side when Joe B was residing there...maybe he expected to be invited to stay with her after Joe leaves.

Cant know exactly what Joe F was thinking, just that his thinking gets him committed as insane for the rest of his life within a few years.....maybe he should have left a note that he felt he "might become like Mother", and placed some stones in his pockets..

Best regards AP