Was Dr. Phillips flustered by it all?

[Michael W Richards]

Would 'a series of crimes with no apparent motive' suffice, Dave?

Surely even Mike Richards couldn't object to such a straightforward and factual observation.

Love,

Caz
X

Well now, ....Im honored to have been the recipient of a rare Caz concession. Im more familiar and I suppose comfortable with the sparring, but I cant see an argument with your revision.

I dont see evidence that Phillips's,.... even being flustered or flummoxed by the crimes, abilities were compromised. In all of London, and around the world at that time for that matter, there was tons of confusion and fear about these incidents.....and confusion, to a large extent, still exists. As Simon Wood once pointed out, the intervening years have added to that confusion.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Would 'a series of crimes with no apparent motive' suffice, Dave?

Caz to the rescue, again

Très diplomatique!

[Michael W Richards]

Not to spoil the moment here ...but to say this was a "series" of murders with no apparent motive isnt exactly correct, because we have a deduced motive for one of them given to us by a medical expert. Set aside the story that goes along with the premise for a minute and focus on the fact that the suggestion is that Annie Chapman was killed so that her killer could do exactly what he did to her, take her uterus...what was the quote, "there were no meaningless cuts"?...and he showed some knife skill and anatomy savvy at the same time, for certain.

Motive. Its the whole enchilada.

How these women were killed specifically isnt really the determining factor for connecting one to another, ascertaining why they were killed in the first place surely could do that. Killers may change almost any aspect of their crimes... if their motivations are Violent or Sexual or in general nonspecific, but chances are in serial crime the reason that they kill in the first place, why they kill, is the same reason they keep killing. If the evidence says that they were most probably killed by someone acting out some deranged fantasies, then the chances are we shouldnt be looking for any more than just 1 or 2 psychopaths. But we dont have enough evidence to determine that conclusively...therefore, the probable actual motives for at least 4 of the Canonical Group cannot be stated with any certainty. Thats why I agreed with "no apparent motive". ...with the above exception.

2 of the women were seen in the company of men a short time before their murder, 1 was very likely in her own bed sleeping, or not sleeping, when she is murdered. We dont know any of the men that they were supposedly seen with. We dont know Blotchy, never found... we dont know Broadshouldered Man or parcel fella at 12:35, to my knowledge neither were found...we dont know Sailor Man, assuming Lawende couldnt identify him as he claimed within a fortnight of the sighting...or if any of those men could have reason to menace those women.

We do know that any killer can and may deface a corpse in a variety of ways, and that this doesnt mean thats what the killer sought when he committed the murder in the first place. Destruction of a corpse can be done by anyone in a state of temporary insanity...which I would think applies to manslaughter kinds of scenarios. Premeditated murder of a stranger is uncommon. Random acts of murder of strangers even more rare.

Some seem a lot like terrorist acts to me...and AP Wolf as I recall. In a town rife with terrorists, at a time when HMG relationships with said terrorists were being outed, when spies were getting 5,000L to "tell-all" at public hearings, and the possible support of the Irish Self rule factions within the Parliament itself being questioned....is it possible that one or more of these women were killed in relation to their knowledge or status within those kinds of groups? Could Kates relationship with Irishman Thomas Conway, or Marys alleged courtesan excursion to Paris at a time when many Irish terrorists acts were initiated there, ...is it possible either or both were killed because of something they knew, or people they knew within those groups?

Isnt the fact that the timing of that commission..., and the fact that many folks were precariously perched during that period,...being exposed as traitors, looking at poverty, jail, or worse if their secrets were revealed,... is conspicuous when juxtaposed with the Ripper crimes? I believe that some individuals at risk during those hearings were capable of murder to save their own skins. Some may have hung out in the East End.

With the hearings beginning, when would the most likely time for any potential witnesses to disappear? Just before and just as the hearings began I would imagine. Which would be the same time period that "Jack" arrived in.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day Michael

Some seem a lot like terrorist acts to me.

They would surely induce terror but back to the start of your post was the purpose to terrorize, or was that just a result, ie if his aim was to harvest organs, or kill prostitutes, or whatever it would in no way lessen the terror.

[caz]

If the evidence says that they were most probably killed by someone acting out some deranged fantasies, then the chances are we shouldnt be looking for any more than just 1 or 2 psychopaths.

Works for me, Mike. Slitting an unfortunate's throat in a dingy backyard in the early hours, then cutting out her uterus before making off with it sounds just like the work of a pretty deranged fantasist.

Ditto the other mutilation murders around the same time and within easy strolling distance of each other.

But please, let's return to whether or not Dr. Phillips was flustered by these terribly uncommon, hideously brutal crimes against a handful of helpless women.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

deranged

Hello Caroline.

"Slitting an unfortunate's throat in a dingy backyard in the early hours, then cutting out her uterus before making off with it sounds just like the work of a pretty deranged fantasist."

Pretty much agree.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

There's a surprise, Lynn.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

old hands

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

I think one benefit accruing to those who are a long time on the boards is that such can usually guess the other person's reply.

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Wikipedia

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

[Bridewell]

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

I guess that depends on what Kendell's source was.

[Michael W Richards]

This part of Wikipedia on GBP (MJK inquest) caught my attention:
"Consequently, the coroner had not complied with the legal requisite that the length, breadth and depths of all wounds to the deceased must be recorded and, with conflicting evidence having been given to the inquest, the time of death had not been established. Phillips had conferred in private with the coroner before the hearing opened, something he had wanted to do at a previous inquest but had been refused."

The quote refers to Colin Kendell's book. I know it doesn't have a good reputation, but is there an ounce of truth there, or is it pure speculation?

I think the part I accentuated above is important when assessing which medical opinions should hold more weight. The autopsy notes reveal most of if not all of that information, but they do not contain images, photographs, they do not reflect the complete experience of the physician during the examination. The visual aspects.

This is why Phillips in my opinion is a very relevant factor when assembling a "Canonical Group". He saw 4 of the five women in death. The ONLY physician who did.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I should have been more accurate in my questioning.

What interest me is the possibility that Philips did talk to MacDonald before, and they came to an agreement.

[c.d.]

I think the part I accentuated above is important when assessing which medical opinions should hold more weight. The autopsy notes reveal most of if not all of that information, but they do not contain images, photographs, they do not reflect the complete experience of the physician during the examination. The visual aspects.

This is why Phillips in my opinion is a very relevant factor when assembling a "Canonical Group". He saw 4 of the five women in death. The ONLY physician who did.

Hello Michael,

Do we know anything about Phillips beyond his seeing four of the women which would qualify him to give an expert opinion?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Do we know anything about Phillips beyond his seeing four of the women which would qualify him to give an expert opinion?

c.d.

We know he was appointed to the Royal College of Surgeons in 1861, we know that he was asked to perform the autopsy on Alice Mackenzie..and Francis Coles, we know that he was involved in investigating the Pinchin Street murder, we know that his obit described him as a leading Police surgeon....point being cd, that we have no blemishes that might put his expertise in question. And he didnt think all 4 of the women he saw were killed by the same hand, or knife.

[c.d.]

Hello Michael,

I am not questioning his credentials but rather was he qualified as an expert in knife wounds. We also don't know the details at how he arrived at his conclusions. So rather than take his opinion as the word of God I am more inclined to take it with a grain of salt. You of course are free to do otherwise.

c.d.