Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Carol]

Hello Caz. How long have I been around? Well, chronologically, too long. It's time to get rid of us old birds and replace us with fresh young blood.

You state:

"[T]his double event remains intact according to the majority opinion on casebook according to the relevant poll."

Hmm. Is that an argumentum ad populam? Actually, both C3 and C5 were questioned vis-a-vis the canon by policemen in the years surrounding those events. If, however, one is to accept them on faith and respecting tradition, well, you'll never find a more traditional chap than I am.

Finally:

". . . have you thought how it would impact on the Hutchinson theory . . ."

Now here we are in accord. I like to play Ripper games of "What if." Lately I've been playing the, "What if Klosowski were the Ripper?" game. I try to see how the various pieces fit together. Fascinating! (But Monty is still m'lad.)

The best.
LC

You appear to be 'a chap' judging by the above post.
Carol

[caz]

...Right now, I need a list of victims (not a canon) so that I may contribute to the noteworthy efforts of others. To date, I haven't even begun...

...But you will agree that there are serious disparities in Liz's case--based on the factual information.

How can I 'agree' with you when you say you need a list of victims before you can even begin to contribute to the efforts of others?

I cannot possibly agree that there are 'serious' disparities in Liz's case, based on the facts - especially if I consider fully documented double eventers since 1888 whose 'two attacks in one night' have had far fewer obvious similarities between them than the attacks on Liz and Kate. Once again, it is nonsense to try and claim that the one man who could not have cut Liz's throat and scarpered, leaving no useful clue about himself, was the man who went on to cut Kate's within the hour. We don't know of another active throat-cutting killer that night (unless you want to accuse that chap who killed his wife and is regularly dragged in to prove some point or other), so why is inventing one any more logical than holding the ripper for questioning until he can safely be cleared of this crime by evidence that proves he could not have done it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

A "tiny" minority, Caz? I seem to remember that the later polls here on Casebook have been everything but onesided.
Then again, you DO specify that this "tiny minority" you speak of claim that Jack "could not have cut her throat", and in that respect you would be a bit closer to the mark; only the fewest, I think, would argue that it was an impossible thing for him to have done.

Hi Fishcakes,

What a wordy way of conceding that what I wrote may actually have been what I meant! The posters who regularly argue most strenuously for Jack's absence from Berner Street must believe that he could not have killed Liz because otherwise their dogmatic stance would make little sense.

My belief is that Jack was very obviously capable of this murder and it therefore makes no sense to presume him entirely innocent of it and some other poor sod guilty.

53% believing 100% that Jack killed Liz would actually be very high. And of course if you are right about the remaining 47% believing 100% that Jack didn't kill her, there would be nobody left, you included, keeping even a vaguely open mind on the subject! So I'm afraid your figures don't quite add up to the reality, despite 53 plus 47 equalling 100 - if you see what I mean.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz
I admire you for standing your ground but in relation to Stride your ground is very shaky. Everything about the murder of Stride is different from all of the others save for her murder being in the location of the others.

Now most people do not accept Coles or Mckenzie as being Ripper victims however i would suggest that their murders are more comparable to the murders of all the other victims which could suggests our killer or killers did not stop in November as many seem to want to beleive.

Hi Trevor,

Well there you go. Just to show you that I am not slavishly following whatever most people do or don't 'accept', I would consider including Frances and Alice far more readily than I would exclude Liz, Mary or Kate from this very sick puppy's total.

Once again, I'm not asking anyone to believe what most people believe. I was simply explaining to Lynn Cates that Liz's place in the C5 does not currently need 'saving', and more information and understanding about serial offenders and their double events will only make her place more secure in the future, not less.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hi all,

Caz, Lynn, and others...like your comments..... healthy discussion

Heard THIS theory once...

Martha...............One killer
Polly and Annie... One killer
Liz.....................One killer
Kate and Mary.....One killer
Frances and Alice.One killer, possibly the same one as Martha or Liz
Pinchin St Torso... Same killer as Kate and Mary, now having taken it all a step further.

Please...I don't for one minute believe it, but whilst we speculate a little, are the chances of 4 or 5 killers around in the same area greater or less than one killer being responsible for all 9? In other words... if we take the canon of 5 to be correct... then are we talking 4 MORE individual murderers? All "down" on unfortunates, all in the same area? And NOBODY knows anything?
Hmmmm....

And thinking of it now, pairing Frances or Alice with Liz or Martha... isn't as daft as one might perhaps think.

Anyway, we have a canon of 5 atm... Im sure many of the punters, debated EXACTLY this point, for some, in the "snug" down the Ten Bells. I am more likely to believe that EVERY killing was counted in the local's eyes as coming from the same hand. Its human nature I suppose.
However, what the police in general thought, is perhaps reflected in the wide range of meaning of WHOM the killer was....

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Caz rounds off with:
"if you see what I mean"

Do I ever, Caz!

"The posters who regularly argue most strenuously for Jack's absence from Berner Street must believe that he could not have killed Liz because otherwise their dogmatic stance would make little sense."

Who said anything about being dogmatic? What I press is the other way around completely; to state that Jack would not have been capable of the Berner street deed or that it could not possibly have been him that pulled it off would be a stupid thing to do.

Equally, it would be stupid to claim that George Chapman could not have done it. Or John McCarthy. Or Alice MacKenzie. Or Melville Macnaghten. Or the Lord Mayor of London. Or his shoemaker. Why, even Robert Mann COULD have been the one that did it!
As long as we have no proof against these characters being Strides killer, the simple fact remains that they may have been just that.

Keeping an open mind is a healthy thing at all times. Being dogmatic is not, unless you are sure you are right. And neither you nor I can be that, can we, Caz?

"My belief is that Jack was very obviously capable of this murder and it therefore makes no sense to presume him entirely innocent of it and some other poor sod guilty."

What´s with the "entirely" bit, Caz? He would not be "partly" guilty, would he? It´s either or. And the evidence speaks for a verdict of Jack being "entirely" unguilty here as far as I and my fellow 47 per cent are concerned. The "tiny" fraction, remember?
The biproduct of some other "poor sod" being guilty is inevitable in such a case, Caz. Though you may think that it is deeply unethical to suggest that other people of the East end streets were capable of murder during the Ripper scare, the sad truth is that Jack was one of many killers in London. And if we start counting potential killers too, then we are dealing with thousands of men, I should think.

I would also like to once more press the point that the Ripper killings were the media sensation of the day. Only the fewest of the Eastenders would have been unaware that a throatcutting and bellyripping killer was roaming the streets at the time of the Stride murder. Such a thing may well have put strange ideas into the heads of people belonging to the beforementioned tally of potential killers.

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

saving Liz

Hello Caz. Your dictum:

"it is nonsense to try [to] claim that the one man who could not have cut Liz's throat. . ."

is correct. I would not claim that he COULD not; but, merely that he DID not--and that based only on the physical circumstances. To say one "could not" requires a much higher level of modal involvement than I am willing to concede.

I can, indeed, present 2 or 3 scenarios (all a bit contrived) which will save Liz's place in the historical canon. But I prefer the simple explanation, namely, that it was someone else who did her to death.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello again all,

Busy thread, Im glad people are engaged by the topic....

First from Sam....."Dr Phillips stated at the inquest that Annie Chapman was undernourished, and that she had very fine teeth. Just because no other medic (or coroner) pronounced likewise in the other inquests doesn't entitle us to assert that Catherine Eddowes was a fat bastard and Mary Kelly's mouth was naught but gums.?"

I think that the analogy lacks relevance Sam, I was referring to medically trained men who suggested that criminal acts were done to obtain uteri, nothing to do with a physical feature.

Phil wrote....."that the original canon is supposition by an individual high ranking policeman clearly linked to, for the most part, the opinion of one doctor who only attended in person one victim...is weak..not being based on enough mathematical factors to definitively decide a conclusive canon."

Precisely the issue, this isnt about individual inclusions per se, its about a flawed introductory premise that leads all students astray...some perhaps only for a shorter time than others.

Caz says....."Well, GM, I’m still waiting to hear from Perry about just one person in authority - sane or barking - who concluded any such thing after 1891. Perry himself is strangely reticent on the matter. It’s no earthly good going on what was speculated before the double event or MJK."

What Ive said Caz is that the medical evidence links the first two deaths to a single killer by virtue, in part, to the physical and circumstantial evidence suggesting that perhaps both women were intended to part with what only Annie eventually did....no later Canonical deaths share the same speculative plunge regarding any organ, and there is no comparative within the 3 remaining Canonicals to base such an assertion. .....in other words we cannot match any 2 of the remaining 3 victims by either assumed objectives or specific organ "fascinations".

and this bit...."Perry, you are so close to my sweet shop analogy right there and you can't even see it. Of course nobody in their right mind would conclude, after a kidney and heart are taken from two later crime scenes (or American hard gums and love hearts), that there must therefore be three independent ghouls."

I think you confuse all murderers with ghouls,and only Jack with the ability to cut people open. Seems to me that the Torso killings and at least 1 non-canonical death suggest that not only were other people killing and cutting up women, but at least one of them was doing it just like your "Jacky" would have. We have ample evidence that there were loads of creeps all over that end of town at the very time of the Ripper killings, why you continue to assert ONLY Jack does these things is beyond me.

Mi amigo Fisherman says....."A "tiny" minority, Caz? I seem to remember that the later polls here on Casebook have been everything but onesided"....for which I say "here, here"...

And again from Caz...."I cannot possibly agree that there are 'serious' disparities in Liz's case, based on the facts"

Are you kidding us? Is this a little leg pull.....ALL on the evidence used to include Stride is assumptive, from the interruption theory to explaining the single artery severance and the total absence of any act after the throat cut, including even perhaps just moving the body onto its back....

Its "belief" like that I find most annoying, because it hints at a head in the sand, or hands over ears mentality when it comes to criminal investigations. The evidence is what is relevant....not who thought Jack was interrupted in Dutfields Yard....because not one shred of evidence could confirm that speculation. The same with the idea that Kate had to be killed by Jack so that means Liz must have been too because it was within an hour and and a 10 minute walk apart......well, a John Brown slit his wifes throat that same night in the East End, perhaps as "horribly" as Liz Strides......so the FACTS say at LEAST 2 men were killing women with knives on that very night, in that neighborhood.

Facts and Stats...Im sure Sam will go for the second part readily, but is this alleged Ripper streak a quantifiable spike in the records concerning violent crime in the area in the years before and just after the Ripper series? Have we not even seen cases of murder and organ extractions before the Fall of 88? Do we not have at least one killer in addition to Jack that cuts women up, killing at the same time? Do we not have a plethora of unsound minds that we know of living in that area at that time, some named by police?

Time to stop imagining Jack had the streets of East London to himself, and that nasty acts dont spawn more nasty acts...not always by the same source. If Jack didnt kill Alice, then he certainly learned a lot from Jacks press coverage the year before. Could another killer have done something similar during the actual series?

Of course its possible.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

First from Sam....."Dr Phillips stated at the inquest that Annie Chapman was undernourished, and that she had very fine teeth. Just because no other medic (or coroner) pronounced likewise in the other inquests doesn't entitle us to assert that Catherine Eddowes was a fat bastard and Mary Kelly's mouth was naught but gums.?"

I think that the analogy lacks relevance Sam, I was referring to medically trained men who suggested that criminal acts were done to obtain uteri, nothing to do with a physical feature.

On the contrary, it is entirely relevant, because the "targeting the uterus" comment was a statement made at an inquest. Just because similar statements weren't made at later inquests doesn't mean that the "medically trained men" (of whom, it bears repetition, Wynne Baxter was NOT) wouldn't have also surmised that the victims' bellies were opened in order to gain access to the organs. Indeed, unless one believes in "psychic surgery", there is no feasible means of removing the womb and kidney without making some sort of cut in the abdomen - on which basis, Wynne Baxter's and George Bagster Phillips' observations that the mutilations were made in order to get at the uterus are somewhat unimpressive, if not positively redundant.

Facts and Stats ...Im sure Sam will go for the second part readily, but is this alleged Ripper streak a quantifiable spike in the records...?

Have some stats, Mike. The following graph is based on data from a survey in an academic book (the title escapes me) that Howard Brown found and posted on his site. The data in the book related to reported murders per head of population in London (and Liverpool - not shown here) from 1871 to 1911. What I did was to multiply those data by the population stats for London based on census info, averaged out between the census years. The graph is only a rough guide, therefore, but it shouldn't be too wide of the mark.



NB: I only show the data from 1880 onwards, as the graph would be too big otherwise. Apologies for the silly "ripperesque" font, but I couldn't resist

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

Thanks for that graph, and for the responses. My point on the comments made by Phillips and Baxter are really to highlight what was not evident to anyone in any other Canonical murder....but what to them was evident in the first 2. Phillips did in fact examine records or inspect 4 of the 5 women, and was called to 3 murder sites. Hardly an outsiders opinion. No-one claimed that any Canonical after Annie was murdered for any organ....even though 2 of the 3 had organs taken...and no-one suggested that any 2 of the remaining 3 murders appeared as if connected by methodology or suggested motivations. Liz was murdered so she would be dead.....Kate was murdered and her killer took abdominal organs, and Mary was murdered and her killer essentially dissected her corpse, eventually taking her heart.

On the graph, I assume we are talking about Metropolitan London as a whole, not the specific <1 mile geographical segment where all of the crimes that we study took place....is that correct? Meaning....those are not Whitechapel/Spitalfield murders stats alone? I was referring to the local crimes in my comments....

If Im correct, then youll know why Ive been reading Old Bailey records on my off time...seeing if I can find crimes that are violent, in the right period, against women, and in the geographical area that we focus on.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

My point on the comments made by Phillips and Baxter are really to highlight what was not evident to anyone in any other Canonical murder.

Whooooaaaah, hold on there! Just because nobody is on record as saying so in respect of the other Canonical murders doesn't mean that they wouldn't have held that opinion. Frankly, it would be absurd if they hadn't. The only difference is that Wynne Baxter couldn't keep his walrus-like gob shut at the inquest, and dredged up all manner of lurid details as was his wont. On top of which, Baxter verbally jerks off on his stupid "wombs for sale" theory. This, it seems, he seemingly only produced to humiliate Dr Phillips for daring to challenge the great Wynne Baxter at the previous sitting. In so doing, what a petulant, egotistical brat Baxter showed himself to be.

On the graph, I assume we are talking about Metropolitan London as a whole

Indeed, and different kinds of murder - but it serves as a benchmark of sorts.

I was referring to the local crimes in my comments.

Take the graph as only a rough guide, like I said. If nothing else, it shows that all that guff about London being a relatively "murder-free zone" before 1888 should be taken with a shovel-full of salt. It also shows, in answer to your earlier question, that 1888 did indeed represent a "spike" - and that "spike" was seemingly not only accountable to Jack the Ripper, irrespective of which size of Canon one might espouse.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

Got that reply, and I get the graph perspective and your comments that the spike doesnt necessarily highlight the appearance of any single killer canonical group but rather its indicative that there was increased violent crime in general in London that year.....but on the comments.....

....What I am saying is that the grounds for making such, in your opinion, subjective remarks, are based on the attack and the resulting wounds which they both were very informed about,....and which in both cases were nearly identical.... all things considered. No other Canonical murder offers the grounds for making any assumptive remarks that might allude to the killer motivations being abdominal organs in general, let alone a specific one. And no other Canonical after Annie alligns with the assumed motivations of the killer being represented in the first 2 murders.....none of the 3 remaining Canonicals match in methodology, injuries performed, and suspected motivations...nor do any match the first 2 victims in that manner.

The men said the killer of Polly and Annie wanted their uterus and thats why he killed them...essentially....supported by the second murders details and results....they didnt say "any", or "one of", or "an" organ..they said the one that was taken successfully and "cleanly" only from Annie. That the later murderers, or even the same murderers, took other organs isnt the point.....no murders after Annie were even remotely possibly committed so the killer could take away a uterus...."cleanly". In the last case, its very clear, and in the case in Mitre Square, the organ that is extracted with some care and effort is a kidney. And in Dutfields Yard....a woman was murdered.

They saw similar hands in C1 and C2 with the same objectives, no other sequential Canonical murder or even within the remaining three have any consistent goal that could be assumed by the physical and circumstantial evidence present in the first 2 cases.....you dont agree, but in fairness old pal, you didnt see either of them lying on a slab. Neither did I. Thats why their word, unless they can be shown to be careless, inaccurate or a lousy physician, should merit some respect. Like Killeen should.

Polly and Annie were thought to be killed by the same man so he could extract and take their uterus away by the Senior medical men attending their Inquests No others were assumed killed for a uterus, or any organ. Not one expert says Kate was killed so he could have her kidney, and no-one in their right mind would suggest that the killers objective in room 13 was to kill her to extract and take her heart. Its likely the very last, and one of the few focused acts in the room. Acts without purpose or for extraction are in abundance in that room....and they are striking in their absence in the first 2 murders, comparatively.

So if this is Jack, and Jack killed the C1 and C2 victims, and the senior medical opinions were correct....Jack either forgot his preferred abdominal organ, the uterus in particular, and he seems to have forgotten why he started to peel flesh off thighs, or where to put a uterus once extracted....in the case of Annies killer....that was likely his pocket. In the case of Marys killer....thats under her head.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

....What I am saying is that the grounds for making such, in your opinion, subjective remarks

"In my opinion"? Of COURSE they're subjective remarks - they're OPINIONS for pity's sake!!

are based on the attack and the resulting wounds which they both were very informed about.

The point is that they happened to make those points at the inquest, and just because similar points weren't made at subsequent inquests means nothing at all. Of course Brown, Bond and Phillips himself would have had little doubt that Eddowes and Kelly were also opened up to secure their internal organs - it's just that the questions weren't asked, or not documented, or the coroners at the latter inquests weren't such utter, preening twats as Wynne Baxter.

I'm going round in circles, now, and I'm bored of it.

[Trevor Marriott]

I posted this on another thread i feel it is just as important on this thread.

With regards to The Whitechapel murders it cannot be argued that the killer or killers motive was murder. Thats what he set out to do first and foremost The next point of comparison is where the murders were committed, then how he killed, then what he used to kill, then what did he do after that etc etc.d

One thing you should all not get carried away with is the throat cutting. Cutting someones throat was more of an accepted method of killing in victorian times. This does not make it unique to The Whitechapel murders. What does make a good comparison with the murders is how the throat was cut, and what type of knife was used.

Eddowes,Chapman and Nicholls all had similar throat wounds caused by a long bladed sharp knife and all were subjected to a frenzied attack. So i would say by same killer.

Tabram,Stride and Kelly have many different aspects to their murders which set them apart from Nicholls,Eddowes and Chapman.

However we then come back to the removal of the organs. None were removed from Nicholls and no real attempt to effect any kind of removal. So that make her murder different or does it. ? if it does the only difference is the non removal of organs from her.

Now the old chestnut re surfaces again that being some will say the killer was disturbed. Well that can be argued but i guess it suits some people to belive that as fact. BUt fact it is not. What if the killer was not disturbed but after murdering Nicholls simply left her in the gutter. Now we have a 50% chance that one of those two theories is correct.

What is fact is that Nicholls body was taken to the mortuary and never left alone before PM. Also her abdominal wounds were minor.

The bodies of the other two were left alone and the abdomens already laid open by the killer, making it easy for the organs to be taken.

My point is that the murders of all three can still be linked to same killer if you accept the organs were not removed by the killer.

If you dont then the shops are now selling chestnuts for xmas

[Victor]

none of the 3 remaining Canonicals match in methodology, injuries performed, and suspected motivations...nor do any match the first 2 victims in that manner.

Hi Mike,

3 flaps!!!

And what about the possibility that JtR has a uterus after Annie, so why would he want another?

KR,
Vic.