Pinching the "Canon" fuse

Hi Sam,

Your post......"What's "non-specific" about opening Kate from chest to pubes and then removing her uterus? Was not that wound also designed "to obtain access to the missing organ" (I paraphrase), as was stated in the case of Annie Chapman? For that matter, were not Kelly's wounds also designed to "obtain access" to the various organs that were then cut out of her abdomen and thorax?"

For one, not one qualified person suggested that Kate was killed for either her uterus or her kidney, however, Annie was suggested as having been killed so her killer could obtain her uterus, and the same was assumed about her predecessor. For another, Mary did not have to be emptied to acquire her heart unless done by someone who knew of no other preferable access method, and it can be only with her heart that conjecture similar to Annies can be made....ie. based on the the organ taken.....not all the ones taken out.

On these comments....."What about the plethora of unassociated damage wrought on the belly of Polly Nichols, or the somewhat one-sided excavation of Annie's abdomen? Sledgehammers and nuts, Mike - a common factor to ALL FOUR mutilation murder cases, apart arguably from Eddowes, whose abdominal incision was much neater than in any other such murder before or afterwards. Hence, whoever killed her was not a "less talented copycat" by any stretch of the imagination.".......

The damage done to Pollys belly.. if the expert who I refer to was correct ...were hastily made cuts that inevitably fell short of offering him access to what he sought, probably due to the lack of privacy and time at that location...and more importantly, experience. The location changes immediately on the next kill to one that offered far more privacy, and therefore time, and as a result we have him extracting the uterus "cleanly".

In the case of Kates possible killer, as I said, he showed some skill and knowledge, I disagree that a kidney could be removed by just an "imitator" as the comments by Phillips suggest, but we cannot even remotely come close to speculating that her murder was so the killer could take her kidney......but its not so outrageous when a specific organ as the target is suggested by the people who saw the first 2 victims, and there is so little superfluous wreckage...like the glut in room 13.

I think Killeen could tell a dagger and bayonet wound from a pen knife, I think Phillips could detect skill and knowledge most times, I think Bond knew an amateur when he saw the work of one, and I think a single slit of a throat says enough to set that murder aside. What I dont think any of them can state with any degree of accuracy or certainty at that time was a finite list of who "Jack the Ripper" killed. Ill extend belief in their professional credibility on medical issues until otherwise proven to be unworthy of that belief. Ive seen no doctor that I believe spoke accurately disparaged in such a way... yet.

We already know that the murder investigations are at least psychologically split into Whitechapel Murderer and Mr New Unsub or "Jack" after 2 consecutive almost identical murders occurred 10 days apart starting at the end of August, so murderers we have.....a murder series of 5 we do not.....at this point in time anyway.

Best regards again mate

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
If you are so right about the killer removing the organs what explanations can you give to the following points.

1. Having removed the uterus from Chapman why would he want another ?

2. The abdomens from both Chaman and Eddowes were opened in different ways.To me this suggests two different persons

3. The Uterus and its appendages were removed carefully from Eddowes in a different way to Chapmans. her Uterus alone was removed. Again suggests two different persons

4. The killer could not have removed the kidney using a six inch knife. (Proven fact)

5 Going back to a point you made in a previous post about severing the carotid atery. If that were the cause of death and i have no reason to doubt that. As you know once the heart stops, blood stops being pumped around the body. In both Chapmans and Edowes case there were no reports of large pools of blood. In any event significant amounts of blood would still remain in the body and when the abdomen and other organs are severed that blood fills the abdomen making it even harder for someone in the dark to try to locate organs which by now are slippery from the blood, attempt to take hold of them and remove them with some for of medical know how using a 6 inch knife.

[Sam Flynn]

All I can say to that Gareth is that we have educated guesses as to the reason for the murder of Annie Chapman by a medical man who examined her

And who did not examine Catherine Eddowes - or, at least, did not leave to posterity his opinion in respect of same.

and those reasons were then assumed to have been consistent with the objectives shown in the first murder, albeit an incomplete act in comparison. It was to obtain the organ taken from Annie.

What's "non-specific" about opening Kate from chest to pubes and then removing her uterus? Was not that wound also designed "to obtain access to the missing organ" (I paraphrase), as was stated in the case of Annie Chapman? For that matter, were not Kelly's wounds also designed to "obtain access" to the various organs that were then cut out of her abdomen and thorax?

Based on experts comments in those first 2 murders, I conclude that the killer of those women did have objectives that were not later obfuscated by a plethora of random and unassociated damage done to those women after they had been killed.

What about the plethora of unassociated damage wrought on the belly of Polly Nichols, or the somewhat one-sided excavation of Annie's abdomen? Sledgehammers and nuts, Mike - a common factor to ALL FOUR mutilation murder cases, apart arguably from Eddowes, whose abdominal incision was much neater than in any other such murder before or afterwards. Hence, whoever killed her was not a "less talented copycat" by any stretch of the imagination.

All I can say to that Gareth is that we have educated guesses as to the reason for the murder of Annie Chapman by a medical man who examined her, and those reasons were then assumed to have been consistent with the objectives shown in the first murder, albeit an incomplete act in comparison. It was to obtain the organ taken from Annie. Thats specificity....it wasnt anything he wanted, according to them, but what he took from Annie was the reason he killed her in the first place.

Based on experts comments in those first 2 murders, I conclude that the killer of those women did have objectives that were not later obfuscated by a plethora of random and unassociated damage done to those women after they had been killed.

As I said, I agree Kate matches a lot of what a criminal case would be based on for the killer of the first 2 women, but there are troubling, to me, differences as well....including an opinion that Kates killer was a less talented "copycat".

Cheers Sam, all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Its the specificity and the wounds that lead to a logical conclusion that suggested those characteristics to the medical authorities

The wounds are about as specific as the debris left behind after a sledgehammer has cracked a nut.

Kate Eddowes death matches the style of attack... But the specificity is absent

On the contrary, Kate's abdominal wound was arguably far more precise - a single vertical cut from breastbone to pubes - than the asymmetric "excavation" of Annie Chapman's belly in three flaps of flesh.

at least the specificity shown in the first 2 consecutive murders.

Leaving aside the lack of "specifics" about Polly Nichols' wounds on the record, how can we attribute any "specificity" to them? From what little we know of her mutilations, not only was her uterus not removed, but her abdomen was slashed across in several places. Doesn't sound particularly specific to me, although - to be fair - that's not a million miles removed from what happened to Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly.

Is a partial uterus now acceptable to Jack? Is a kidney as acceptable as a uterus was?

Was a partial bladder acceptable to him in Hanbury Street? Or a navel surrounded by a little island of skin?

Since the thread isnt really about a theory but the rejection of one, The Canonical Group, it should be mentioned based on a few posts recently that early in the Ripper series the police believed they were looking for a medical student or a deranged man with medical training, and neither of those two characters would likely be performing the "slash and grab" that has been alluded to.

Its the specificity and the wounds that lead to a logical conclusion that suggested those characteristics to the medical authorities, they did not see a killer who did not know what he wanted, but rather the inverse.

Kate Eddowes death matches the style of attack, victim profile, time of day, area of town, severe throat cut and abdominal mutilations of those early murders. But the specificity is absent, at least the specificity shown in the first 2 consecutive murders. Is a partial uterus now acceptable to Jack? Is a kidney as acceptable as a uterus was? Is a kidney a new challenge,....considering its location and Kates body position when he extracts it, it was harder to do than removing the uterus.

Since I dont know why the killer killed, I cant say, but I do know that "any old organ" is not what is in evidence in Annies killing, and she is killed for what they believed was the same reason as Polly.....but it could be the situation in Kates case,... and as for the killer in room 13, its (the organ to be taken) one of the last things he removes from inside Mary, he could have just ended up at that point rather than intentionally cut with a goal of reaching the heart and cutting it free. And he clearly did not want to take Marys uterus.

Polly and Annie were killed by someone who knew anatomy and how to use a knife,... Liz was killed by someone who could cut a throat,... Kate was killed by someone who did show anatomical knowledge and skill with a knife but who clearly did not want the organ desired in the first 2 kills and took time to simply deface the victim as well as mutilating her postmortem, and Mary is killed by someone who more than likely had no experience with anatomy or knife usage, and who likely attacked her in bed slashing with a knife at her face...

Thats a "Group" by one man? One or more men dont use knives until the victim is either fully or semi unconscious....2 use the knife while attacking the women, one or more man cuts the entire throat twice, one man slits primarily one side of a throat a single time, one or more men kills older women outdoors, one kills young women indoors, 2 are killed for their uterus, 1 is killed and has a kidney taken after, one is taken apart and has a heart taken after....not to mention the man that kills in room 13 is most probably a left handed man,....

Its not just the wounds, or the locations, or the methodology differences, or the dominant hand usage, or the unclear motives in some murders placed among murders with supposedly visible ones in the physical and circumstantial evidence....its varying degrees or all of the above and more that suggest it is unwise to ASSUME that the killer of Polly and Annie was not as committed to specific objectives as it appeared to the medical authorities, and that subsequent murders which are not clearly by the same hand reinforce that supposition.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

The bodies which were used came complete with all organs !!!!

And a complete compliment of blood - which is more than the Whitechapel victims had after the knife had finished with their carotid arteries.

all they had to do was show the difficulty in removing them

If you think it's that simple, Trevor, then there really is no point in discussing the matter further with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
You are wrong yet again

The bodies which were used came complete with all organs !!!! all they had to do was show the difficulty in removing them

By trying to use a 6 inch knife
By showing the degree of difficulty in normal conditions let alone in almost total darkness.

The slipperyness of the organs when trying to handle them to effect careful anatomical removal

The test which shows organs could not have been taken away in apron piece.

The test which shows the kiler did not use apron piece to wipe his hands on

Many other points to numerous to mention all fully documented together with photos remember one picture is worth a thousand words so there are 6 or 7 photos in the book and many more contained on the free powerpoint picture show available when purchasing the book

[Sam Flynn]

"The Evil Within" contains evidence from a team of modern day medical experts and photographs which in my opinion clearly coroborate my theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman,

I'm afraid that they don't quite, Trevor, because the experiment did not attempt to recreate the conditions in which the bodies were before the organs were removed. If one seeks clear corroboration for a theory, then it's essential that as many relevant experimental conditions are kept as consistent as possible between samples. In this case, for instance, the bodies used should have been bled before death by having had their throats deeply and extensively cut, and the personnel involved shouldn't have been using modern plastic surgical gloves to handle the organs.

[lynn cates]

other book

Hello Mr. Marriott. It was as you suggest. Thanks for clarifying. I was unaware of the other book.

The best.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn
The theories we have been discussing at length relate to how where and when and by whom the organs were removed.

I dont know which one of my two books you bought save to say that The 21st Century Invetsigation sets out the basis for my theory, whereas "The Evil Within" contains evidence from a team of modern day medical experts and photographs which in my opinion clearly coroborate my theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman,

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Mr. Marriott. I just bought your book and had a glance towards the rear. I take it the theory to which you refer is still Feigenbaum?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the parable of the sower to which you refer probably helps my theory more than yours.

Before the grapes can grow you have to sow the seeds. I have firmly planted the seeds in relation to my theory i will just sit back and wait for them to grow in the minds of the readers on here. Sooner or later they will.

In fact every day new shoots appear.

"The Evil Within" pages 388-408

[Sam Flynn]

Sower grapes?

Sam
I would give up on the analogies the last one you mentioned fell flat on its a...e

Mark Chapter 4, verses 3-9

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
I would give up on the analogies the last one you mentioned fell flat on its a...e