Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Observer]

Hi Caz

Given the fact that Kelly was murdered and mutilated indoors in the early hours of the morning, with slight possibility of disturbance to the murderer, then I'm not surprised at the extent of Mary kelly injuries bearing in mind what went before of course.

Of course it has been implied that Fleming or Barnett took advantage of the series to murder Mary Kelly and blame the crime on JTR. All I'll say is this, look at the photograph, read the autopsy report, I get the feeling of a man who was living his fantasies out to the nth degree, a vile evil individual indulging himself of those fantasies.

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

Mjk

Hello Observer. It would be much easier to believe in the C5 and, if wishes count for anything, count me in, for I wish it to be so.

Obviously, Liz and MJ (Kelly--not Druitt) have some complicating factors involved in their crime scenes. And, although I cannot rule out MJ as a "Jack" victim, neither can I rule her in at this point. (Frankly, there are so many bizarre complications in her death that I dare not tackle it as yet--it is beyond my meagre neuronal synapsing capability.)

On the other hand, I DEEPLY respect Sir MM and appreciate his dictum concerning the escalation of violence. Perhaps he is right and knew more about Montague and his purported illness than we are lead to believe.

The best.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

Re jealous lovers doing being untoward, I once put about a false rumour that an ex girlfriend was in actual fact a man, does that qualify?

Italian opera, no thanks they sing in a foreign language, Shakespeare yes but he did exagerate a bit you know.

But seriously, why all this reading into the various injuries inflicted by this man? What do you expect him to do mentally remember every little cut from his previous murder in order to replicate it to ensure the police were sure that one man was responsible? Each murder progressed, the authorities of the time realised this, they were sure that they had only one man on their hands and i tend to agree with them.

all the best

Observer

[caz]

Agreed, Observer.

I could maybe understand this need to believe that Mary was killed by a one-off (an Othello if you will) with a very temporary, very loose screw, if her murder had been far more isolated in time and place from Kate and all the others. But she was so close, in every way, to the world's idea of who might be next, and where and how badly she could be mutilated this time, that it seems almost perverse to want her kicked out of the C5 by a disgruntled lover who flipped his lid then popped it straight back on again.

Has there been anything like it at any time in history (or even fictional drama), where a mutilating fiend's work has been anticipated (Martha); jumped on and exploited - poorly (Liz); copied but modified (Kate - I can't believe it's come to this); and completely upstaged and exaggerated (Mary), by several one-off killers with personal grudges against one particular prostitute? Shakespeare is surely turning in his grave at the thought of how he could have worked that little lot into a believable tragedy. Perhaps he'd have made it a tragi-comedy.

On the other hand, we have all too many cases where one man does a variety of horrible things to large numbers of particularly vulnerable women, for as long as he is at liberty and physically and mentally capable.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Lynn, can I ask how long you have been reading these boards and when you first got interested? Just curious, because your name is unfamiliar to me.

[lynn cates]

Othello and opera

Hello Observer. Perhaps jealous lovers have never done anything untoward. Perhaps, also, you've never read Shakespeare's Othello or listened to Italian opera.

The best.
LC

[Observer]

Hi

Hello All and Sundry. I wonder if Mike's theory about multiple WM's need imply more than one disturbed individual?

If I understand Mike's opinions, we have one such chap--call him "Jack" if you like--and one chap (is it Kidney, Mike?) with serious temper problems (er, "issues"--forgot to use the new speak term). Finally, another possibly temperamental ex-lover (is it Fleming Mike?) for C5. (Did I get any of that right, Mike?)

Of course, one can parse out "disturbance" in various ways. Obviously, anger and jealousy (besides counting as one of the seven deadly sins in the first case and a daughter sin in the latter) could count as disturbances. The Stoic philosophers counted ANY human emotion as a disturbance of the soul (pathe).

I take it that, "disturbance" in the present context refers to one who is--amongst other things--a sexual serial killer? Would that not preclude Mike's slayer of C3 & C5?

All the best, chaps.
LC

Errr yes, I wonder what the Stoic philosophers opinion would have been if they'd trundled them in one by one into Mary Kelly's, little room on the afternoon of the 9th November 1888 and shown them the mutilated remains of that poor woman? I think they would have agreed that human kind had a rather disturbed human being on its hands.

It's one thing kicking the cat(not that I' do such a thing) in anger because the newspaper lad failed to deliver your copy of the Radio times, but finding out the lad in question and nailing him to the newsagents door is beyond the pale don't you think. So I don't see why your reference to the Stoic philosophers observance that any human emotion is a disturbance of the soul applies here . To suggest that a tempremental ex lover with the hump could have reduced Mary Kelly to the state she was found in is rather silly in my mind, especially as four other women five if you count Tabram met their ends in a very similar way very very shortly before the unfortunate Mary Kelly was brutally murdered.

Observer

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

Perry doesn't have a sexual serial killer in his bag of tricks. In fact he doesn't have a serial killer at all, by any recognised definition, if his aim is to minimise Jack's responsibility to just two murders, committed for financial reasons.

The irony is that his Jack would have to be very deeply disturbed indeed to imagine that what he was doing to Polly and Annie (and come on, let's get real here, Kate too) was a nice and simple way of earning a few bob.

And once you concede that he had something very wrong upstairs, you'd be silly to exclude Martha or Mary, considering the overkill involved. And I can no more exclude Liz than fly to the moon. He killed her too in my view, whether he was disturbed and disturbed - or just disturbed.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

disturbance

Hello All and Sundry. I wonder if Mike's theory about multiple WM's need imply more than one disturbed individual?

If I understand Mike's opinions, we have one such chap--call him "Jack" if you like--and one chap (is it Kidney, Mike?) with serious temper problems (er, "issues"--forgot to use the new speak term). Finally, another possibly temperamental ex-lover (is it Fleming Mike?) for C5. (Did I get any of that right, Mike?)

Of course, one can parse out "disturbance" in various ways. Obviously, anger and jealousy (besides counting as one of the seven deadly sins in the first case and a daughter sin in the latter) could count as disturbances. The Stoic philosophers counted ANY human emotion as a disturbance of the soul (pathe).

I take it that, "disturbance" in the present context refers to one who is--amongst other things--a sexual serial killer? Would that not preclude Mike's slayer of C3 & C5?

All the best, chaps.
LC

[Observer]

I see, more than one killer. So we have two very disturbed individuals going around more or less copying one another, at the same time and both of them decide to stop killing after the Kelly murder, or are both killed, leave the country, or are incarcerated for life, Not very likely I suspect.

all the best

Observer

[Trevor Marriott]

Caz
"Clever Trevor" hmmmmmmmmmmmm nice to see you appreciate some of my finer talents some of which you have yet to see though !!!!!

Just to clarify my agreement with Mr Mason is based on the facts that of the 5 canonical murders it would be wrong to assume all 5 were the work of the same person based on what we now know.

[caz]

As you are prepared to dismiss the ST aspect outright and still covet the orginal theory...

I don't 'covet' any one theory over another regarding the apron piece, Trevor.

I just know that unless you can prove Kate was barking mad, she did not use half her apron for the purpose you believe she did. So you still have to come up with a plausible alternative theory, not me. You are the ripper author here, after all. I have no theory to flog - nor a dead horse.

Caz,

Perhaps the least productive poster of them all in these cases. Instead of merely dismissing evidence in the form of qualified opinion given at the Inquests, you make this my personal issue. Like others have done, to be fair. Its in the historical records.....

Well thanks. I love you too. You are the one gaily dismissing potentially vital case evidence in your one-man quest for a C2. It IS your personal issue unless you can find someone else - here, today - to actually support your wombs for profit theory. To be fair, I’m in very good company, Perry. You are the odd man out here. That is also in the historical records, but you only see what you want to see there. Name a single professional whose opinion, after 1891, was that the Whitechapel Murderer accounted for just two victims, or three at the most.

...what hasnt been proven is that any one man killed more than 1 woman. Logic dictates grouping the more pattern driven murders, ones that have unique facets, together...and assessing the remaining unsolved murders to see if any may be attributable to that same killer.

Logic? What’s logical about clinging to someone’s pre-double event speculation about the WM’s motivation? And as for the last bit, what do you think everyone has been doing since 1888, if not assessing each and every unsolved murder to see if it could have been part of the series?

Even with professional men stating under oath at Inquest what they perceived the evidence revealed to them, its still going to come down to the physical and circumstantial evidence and by that barometer as M & P suggests, perhaps 3 were by one man.

Perhaps 3? How generous of you. The professional men at the time (whatever they believed) didn’t have an army of 20th century serial killers to inform their 1888 ideas. We do. If Peter Sutcliffe had dropped dead without being identified as the Yorkshire Ripper, I dread to think of how many innocent male associates of his 13 victims you’d now be accusing. Sutcliffe’s offences would be reduced to four or five and some terribly unlikely motive attributed to those. It’s a bit daft, isn’t it?

That opinion is shared by some far more knowledgeable than you or I on these cases, so Id stop trying to make me sound like some left wing fanatic.....the reality is that I happen to agree with a true expert on these crimes someone in the mainstream, and you think its poppycock.

Your words, not mine. I can’t make you sound like anything but yourself. You sound off and I quote your views back at you, offering some alternatives to consider. The reality is that no true expert on these crimes, mainstream or otherwise, has expressed on these boards the same poppycock that you come out with. If they exist, I certainly don’t blame them for hiding away and making you their puppet.

When I read your posts I cant help but think of someone first reading about the Canon and being then immediately convinced that was the reality there.

Well you obviously don’t read my posts fairly, or you’d know that I am not ‘immediately convinced’ by anyone or anything - you and your C2 womb theory being a case in point. My reality is looking at how many human butchers I can reasonably place in the one tiny area in the one small period of time, and three is already pushing it as far as I am concerned. Nobody would get away with a novel featuring separate offenders for each WM victim. I have always thought C5 was an absolute minimum figure for Jack’s attacks. I would actually put the figure upwards of eight these days, everything considered. That's a good deal less outlandish than wanting a dozen or more unknown men suddenly springing up independently to do away with one particular street woman.

Of course once one is more knowledgeable about the cases that belief is strained to the nth degree....but somehow not with you. You know so much more than, but still share the beliefs of, a stereotypical first Ripper book reader. Odd contrast.

Denial or something of the like must have something to do with that.

How cheeky and condescending can you get? If you were not so ignorant about my posts, you would know that my ‘beliefs’ did not come straight from my ‘first reading about the Canon’. You are the one in denial, mate. Big time. You’re lucky a few of us think it's worth responding at all. Have you noticed anyone (aside from Clever Trevor) leaping to support your views? I think you’ll find I’m in the overwhelming majority who believe the same man attacked more than two or three women.

If we are all in denial you must be the only one in step. I'm fine with that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Caz
I knew you couldnt help replying. but i am not going to argue the finer points of the apron piece as that issue has been covered many times on here.

All i would say is that the apron piece issue and also the organ removal issue are both important parts of the Ripper mystery. I know many enthusiasts have their own opinions and subscribe to the original theories in relation to both. Which is fine as everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

However it is fair to say that as far as hard evidence is concerned their is none in relation to both issues. I think its a case of the investigators and the doctors at the time were blinkered in their assesment and evaluation of the facts I think the saying is "Cant see the wood for the trees" Thats why modern day murder investigators work as a team they pool their ideas. You would be surprised how effective this can be.

The investigation process is double edged its proving or disproving issues. The same applies to suspects proving or disproving their involvement. If one can disprove certain facts or theories then one has to look at other possible theories and then the same process starts all over again.

As you are prepared to dismiss the ST aspect outright and still covet the orginal theory I would ask you and anyone else for that matter to put forward any evidence (not evidence of opinion) which supports those theories.

Sam Flynn mentioned in another post that in relation to the tests I should have tried to re create the original crime scene etc. Well in this case we did just that. The consultant gynecologist when performing a hysterctomy on a "live" patient removed the uterus and wrapped it in a white cloth for 20 mins and then the cloth was photographed. The cloth was "heavily" blood stained, now if you add to that package a kidney even more blood would be absorbed into the cloth" now to me test goes along way to disprove one of the theories regaring the apron piece.

So if you now accept that the killer did not use the apron piece as has been suggested (or maybe you dont) and you dismiss the ST issue outright. Then please put forward something new and positive as how the apron piece finished up where it did and i would be glad to investigate it.

[caz]

Yes, M&P, Perry absolutely believes in elaborate copycat theories. But there can't be much harm in it if you didn't even notice.

I'll deal with you later, Perry.

Hi Caz

Nice to know you havent forgotten about me

i keep hoping someone is going to come forward with some direct evidence to show that the killer cut the apron piece for the purposes of either taking the organs away in it, or to show he wiped his bloody hands on it,or his knife. but just hasnt happened so the ST theory is just as plausible in my honest and professional opinion. More so now i beleive the controlled tests have negated those orginal theories.

I could never forget you, Trevor. (And that's not all bad. )

You're a nice man, but I don't need any direct evidence to know that Kate did not use half her sodding apron as a sanitary towel. It may be your honest and professional opinion that it's a plausible theory (whatever 'professional' means in a feminine hygiene context - are you Dr White?), but I'm just a woman and I'm telling you it is about as plausible as Uncle Jack teaming up with George Hutchinson to study the inner workings of menopausal unfortunates.

You are the one who needs to study those - but you really don't need to murder anyone in the process.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mascara & Paranoia]

About the only part I can back is what I highlighted, IF Eddowes circumstances and stories that are given about her are meaningless in that nights activities....meaning her murder.

I'm assuming you mean why she went into an opposite direction from her home (for lack of a better word) after being released from the police station? If so, it's not exactly rocket science; I think it's a safe bet to assume that she was looking to earn back the money she'd spent on the drink that landed her in the cells in the first place. Hence how she met Jack. The only 'story' surrounding her and the alleged events that led to her murder that I can recall is the rumour of her wanting to collect the reward money for the Ripper, supposedly knowing who he was. Well, I think we can safely say that's a fabrication. Desperate for money or not, she would not go into Mitre Square with the man knowing full well that he was the Whitechapel murderer. That's some serious clichéd horror movie bimbo sh*t right there (I'm surprised there wasn't any mention of signs of Eddowes having sprained her ankle prior to being killed by the medical examiner).

How anyone can believe in some of these outlandish and substance-less claims is beyond me, let alone cast doubt over Eddowes being a Ripper victim. Do you also believe in elaborate copycat theories too?

[Sam Flynn]

"No one person can complete the same "operation" in precisely the same way, especially when under time pressure."

Hi Sam,

Not meaning to be smart ass here but haven't you always pointed to the differences in Liz's throat wound as an indication that she was was not cut by Jack or did I misinterpret what you wrote to Trevor?

Not a smart-arse at all, CD, although perhaps you've misinterpreted what I meant in respect of Stride. My main contention about Stride's throat-wound is about its depth, rather than its "shape". Besides, it's easier to be consistent about both when one is dealing with a big, external target like the throat - not so easy when one is dealing with a small organ in the bowl of the pelvis.