Originally posted by Observer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The name's Bond
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by John Wheat View PostAbsolutely Observer
Whose next to be suspected of being the Ripper, Monroe?G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostI think the fact the killer in Mitre Square severed the colon and loosed some feces indicates that at the very least he wasn't as careful as he had been. Plus a partial uterus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostI think the fact the killer in Mitre Square severed the colon and loosed some feces indicates that at the very least he wasn't as careful as he had been. Plus a partial uterus.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostPerhaps. But might a lack of care be explained by the poor lighting conditions and time pressure that he was undoubtedly under, i.e. as a consequence of the regular police beats? Not to mention the fact that he might have just encountered Lawende et al. In Fact, you yourself pointed out in Post 153, "Polly's was a stressful location"; In this regard, I can't see that Mitre Square would be any less "stressful", and possibly a great deal more so.
IF Lawende didn't see Kate then there is ample time for these things to have taken place with some more care. There were 3 exits in Mitre Square, whereas Bucks Row was a short street open at both ends. Mitre was dark, yes, but when comparing Polly and Kate its clear that Kates killer chose to take her from the street into the dark, Pollys killer wasn't thinking of his safety or salvation. He needed to do what he did so bad that he acted in a venue that ultimately didn't offer him enough private time with the victim to accomplish all he had intended. That's why a backyard on Hanbury was chosen next.
If that killers actions evolve based on his failures, then why wouldn't he learn from his successes too? His success with Annie showed him that with the proper venue he had time to act swiftly but also skillfully. Does this same killer then put himself in a precarious position, with more avenues to watch and an almost complete absence of light? Can we say that the actions taken in Mitre Square were required to obtain a kidney..or a partial uterus?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostHi John,
IF Lawende didn't see Kate then there is ample time for these things to have taken place with some more care.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostGeorge Morris, the night-watchman, said he opened his door only 2-3 minutes before Watkins showed up. This only being an estimate, the possibility exists it was a bit longer, and that the killer was disturbed by Morris opening his door. Whether this caused him to hurry, or make an unforeseen departure, is rarely considered.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostUnforeseen departure would make sense if he was disturbed Jon, but there is no evidence in the Mitre Sq murder that indicates any actions were incomplete. An example of an incomplete action might be the partial denuding of Marys legs, but in that case its likely because he had no idea what he was doing rather than he was interrupted. And this killer traced a cut line around her navel, took time to take a section of apron, to cut the nose, to cut the colon...seems like he had enough time to do what he wanted.
I'm not specifically talking about an interruption as has been suggested with Stride, but if the 2-3 minutes mentioned by Morris was in fact a little longer he may have opened that door ajar just as the mutilations began. Giving us the reason for a hurried mutilation, the killer not choosing to leave a second attack that night incomplete?
(Assuming Stride was also by the same hand of course).Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostHi John,
IF Lawende didn't see Kate then there is ample time for these things to have taken place with some more care. There were 3 exits in Mitre Square, whereas Bucks Row was a short street open at both ends. Mitre was dark, yes, but when comparing Polly and Kate its clear that Kates killer chose to take her from the street into the dark, Pollys killer wasn't thinking of his safety or salvation. He needed to do what he did so bad that he acted in a venue that ultimately didn't offer him enough private time with the victim to accomplish all he had intended. That's why a backyard on Hanbury was chosen next.
If that killers actions evolve based on his failures, then why wouldn't he learn from his successes too? His success with Annie showed him that with the proper venue he had time to act swiftly but also skillfully. Does this same killer then put himself in a precarious position, with more avenues to watch and an almost complete absence of light? Can we say that the actions taken in Mitre Square were required to obtain a kidney..or a partial uterus?
It seems to me that Hanbury Street was a particularly risky venue. Not only was Chapman possibly killed in broad daylight- at a time when many locals were leaving, or preparing to leave, for work -but the killer risked getting himself boxed-in if disturbed, with the only options being to either scale fences, force his way through an overcrowded residential accommodation, or confront his interrupter.
Contrastingly, Mitre Square's multiple exists/entrances might have increased the chances of being disturbed, but it also had the advantage of providing the killer with multiple escape routes. Moreover, the darkness would have helped cloak his activities, a logic that also applies to Dutfield's Yard.
Regarding organ removal, of course we cannot know that the killer intended to target specific organs at any murder scene, that is simple speculation.Last edited by John G; 12-26-2015, 03:17 PM.
Comment
-
Apologies for the late reply, JohnG, and many thanks for providing those sources.
Sugden also cites "Baxter's summing up at the Stride inquest" in support of his claim that Phillips attributed Chapman and Eddowes to different killers. Presumably, he reasoned that Phillips must have influenced Baxter's opinion, as he had done with previous murders; in which case I would agree. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence to suggest he believed both were slain by the same individual. In fact, I'm not even sure he inferred a link between any two victims, with the possible exception of Nichols and Chapman. This is in obvious contrast to the much-maligned Bond, whose opinions on that subject are ironically much more consistent with those of modern-day theorists, including those who seek to undermine him for his repudiation of the "medical knowledge theory.
All the best,
BenLast edited by Ben; 12-26-2015, 03:30 PM.
Comment
-
Hi Jon,
Exactly, "the best of a bad bunch", AKA = Hobson's Choice.
Well, in trying to present thee most qualified opinion, Dr. Phillips, to the equivalent of a voice in the wilderness, and then confusing Chapman with Stride, it is easy to see why you arrive at the erroneous conclusion that there was no anatomical knowledge.
Which brings me to Dr. Bond, yes he did read the autopsy notes of the murders previous to Kelly, yet right at the outset he makes a claim that is more the result of emotion than medical expertise.
He writes: "All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand...". A conclusion he cannot possibly arrive at from reading autopsy notes alone.
"No evidence of a struggle" is technically correct inasmuch as a struggle usually connotes actual fighting, which obviously didn't occur. The act of strangulation was undoubtedly done to prevent a "struggle" from occurring.
All the best,
Ben
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben View PostHi Jon,
But if you sensibly acknowledge that he was the "best of a bad bunch", what's the sense in arguing that he was less likely to have seen the actual ripper than people who offered discredited fag-ends to the press in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder? That's not so much Hobson's Choice as Hobbyist's Choice. It can be observed that it isn't definitely established that the couple in question were Eddowes and her killer, but he was more likely to have seen the actual killer than anyone else.
Quite simply because of the dozens, possibly scores, of other witnesses who identified suspicious people to the police, none could claim to have seen anything incriminating. They merely expressed their suspicions.
The other factor in calling on Lawende in later years is very likely that he was the only witness who's whereabouts was known.
Lawende had a business, therefore a fixed address, whereas the others could quite easily have moved around and become hard to trace.
That's a pretty outlandish claim if you think about it, Jon. Why couldn't he have applied his skill and expertise to studying the written details of the mutilations, and deduced from them that Nichols through to Kelly were murdered by the same hand, which is ironically the view you yourself endorse?
Time and proximity are commonly used as persuasive factors in including Stride in the canon, more the result of emotion than the application of medical experience.
"No evidence of a struggle" is technically correct inasmuch as a struggle usually connotes actual fighting, which obviously didn't occur. The act of strangulation was undoubtedly done to prevent a "struggle" from occurring.
So resistance was noted, and resistance is "struggle", so Bond was in error.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ben View PostApologies for the late reply, JohnG, and many thanks for providing those sources.
Sugden also cites "Baxter's summing up at the Stride inquest" in support of his claim that Phillips attributed Chapman and Eddowes to different killers. Presumably, he reasoned that Phillips must have influenced Baxter's opinion, as he had done with previous murders; in which case I would agree. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence to suggest he believed both were slain by the same individual. In fact, I'm not even sure he inferred a link between any two victims, with the possible exception of Nichols and Chapman. This is in obvious contrast to the much-maligned Bond, whose opinions on that subject are ironically much more consistent with those of modern-day theorists, including those who seek to undermine him for his repudiation of the "medical knowledge theory.
All the best,
Ben
Thanks for the reply. I must admit that I find the conflicting medical opinions very confusing. Thus, as you've pointed out Dr Sequeira concluded that Eddowes' killer had "no great anatomical knowledge ". In contrast, Dr Brown seemed to think that he was, or may have been, a medical student: See The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins, 1912.
However, for me it is Dr Phillips' assessment of the Chapman murder that is the most problematic. There is clearly no doubt that he felt the murderer possessed a great deal of skill. Thus, the Report following the post mortem examination states:
"...and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert-of one at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." (see
http://www.casebook.org/victims/chapman.html)
And as Dr Calder opined: "The pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues. This would be technically very difficult , as the organs are down in the bowl of the pelvis, and would require continuous observation to avoid the complicated local anatomy. (Marriott, 2013).
At the very least, the degree of care taken suggests that the perpetrator had significantly more skill than, say, a butcher or slaughterman. In fact, a master butcher consulted by Trevor Marriott pointed out that, "in abattoirs very little care is taken when removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called cut and slash" (Marriott, 2013).
And what adds to the confusion is that Dr Phillips stated at the inquest that, "the whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these body parts."
But if that was the case then why remove Chapman's intestines? I mean, even the butcher consulted by Trevor confirmed he was aware that you didn't need to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus.
Dr Bond, as you point out, didn't believe that the killer possessed any skill at all, even "the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer. " However, he was only present at Kelly's autopsy, where the clear medical consensus was that no great skill was evident. It is therefore somewhat perplexing that he could arrive at such a conclusion in respect of the Chapman murder when, presumably, he only had Dr Phillips' notes to consider, and he, of course, took a quite contrary view.Last edited by John G; 12-28-2015, 05:22 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostRegarding organ removal, of course we cannot know that the killer intended to target specific organs at any murder scene, that is simple speculation.
I snipped the above in your reply to point out that we do in fact have professional opinion on that particular question with one Canonical, Annie. It was suggested that everything the killer did in terms of cutting was to facilitate removal of the organ that he eventually took. Its one reason why they postulated about possible black market organs to meet the needs of teaching hospitals. I believe Burke and Hare targeted specific items as well, based on the demand at the time. Not that they have any meaningful connection to any Ripper case.
Annie Chapman was considered to have been dissected in a professional manner, with skills that exceeded a mere butcher or slaughtermans'. That it was done in the early light of dawn is another marker of that skill. They sought medical professionals after that murder, not just students.
How that killer lost his skills by the time he supposedly kills Kate is one serious problem with the Canonical group, another is that Liz Strides wounds were considered to be significantly different from the preceding victims. They obviously were restricted to a single cut at any rate.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostJohn,
I snipped the above in your reply to point out that we do in fact have professional opinion on that particular question with one Canonical, Annie. It was suggested that everything the killer did in terms of cutting was to facilitate removal of the organ that he eventually took. Its one reason why they postulated about possible black market organs to meet the needs of teaching hospitals. I believe Burke and Hare targeted specific items as well, based on the demand at the time. Not that they have any meaningful connection to any Ripper case.
Annie Chapman was considered to have been dissected in a professional manner, with skills that exceeded a mere butcher or slaughtermans'. That it was done in the early light of dawn is another marker of that skill. They sought medical professionals after that murder, not just students.
How that killer lost his skills by the time he supposedly kills Kate is one serious problem with the Canonical group, another is that Liz Strides wounds were considered to be significantly different from the preceding victims. They obviously were restricted to a single cut at any rate.
As I noted in my reply to Ben, Annie Chapman's intestines were removed, a procedure that would have been totally unnecessary in order to access the uterus: see, for example, the opinion of Dr Calder (Marriott, 2015.) Therefore, I cannot see how it can be reasonably concluded that "everything the killer did in terms of cutting was to facilitate removal of the organ he eventually took."
Dr Phillips expressed no opinion as to the specific profession of the perpetrator, therefore I don't see how a medical student can be ruled out; and Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes killer was possibly a medical student. And, interestingly, Dr Calder concluded that Eddowes killer, "would not only to have knowledge of anatomy, but experience in applying it" (Marriott, 2015).
Comment
Comment