Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[lynn cates]

vocation

Hello Mike. Did you say that the 3 flap removal might be vocation based? What do we know about Victorian cobblers and their methods? What about pig slaughterers? Perhaps Mr. Ruffles has some information on the latter?

Cheers.
LC

[jojojojo01]

From what i can gather eveyone is looking at the murders from an MO point of view. But has anyone ever considered lookingat his signature instead to determine who is canonical victims are?

I said a few posts ago that Id try to gather a sampling from the records to help differentiate the unusual from the mundane, but its taking some time sifting through records that can be quite distracting in their own merit let alone their relevance for the discussions at hand..... Just so nobody holds me to posting some of it this weekend....

Best regards all

Hi Mike,

What about the "three flaps", that Sam mentioned, linking Mary to Annie?

KR,
Vic.

Thats a good question Victor. I do know that the flaps had been mentioned in the press before Marys murder, but that is an unusual technique I agree, and as far as Im concerned...one that may be vocation based in some way.

All that I can say about Mary Kellys killer with sound evidence support is that her killer didnt take her uterus away even though it was excised...and if the motives that are suggested for the first 2 alleged victims murders were correct, then that means her killer did not kill her her for her uterus. Which again, on record, is what was surmised about the killer of the victims Mary Ann and Annie by the medical experts that inspected them...almost identical crimes. I stand by my opinion that killers may kill differently, but the reason for killing in the first place doesnt change. Killing a witness or a blackmailer may be added later.

Cheers Victor

[lynn cates]

face

Hello Mascara. You have guessed correctly. The facial mutilations are the new factor.

Yes, I like Sir Melville's intensification hypothesis as well as another. But, being mindful of Sam's admonitions about disregarding intent, and just looking at knife work, one must pause and think carefully.

On the other hand, the body placement and dress arrangement point to the same hand as Polly and Annie.

LC

[Mascara & Paranoia]

How can anyone seriously doubt Eddowes as a Ripper victim? I can understand the doubt over Stride's candidacy (no mutilations, et cetera) as one of Jack's kills and to a degree Kelly's (completely dismantled, killed indoors, et cetera, et cetera), but Eddowes?

Why?

Because she was the first 'canonical' victim to have had her face mutilated and an extra organ removed? Because hers was the only ripping to have taken place outside of Whitechapel?

Because those are the only reasons I can see. And if it's because of those very reasons, then that means next to nothing; Jack escalated; he did it from Nichols' murder to Chapman's, and almost clearly again from Chapman's to Eddowes' murder. If anything, Eddowes seems like more of a hallmark Ripper victim than Nichols, judging by both the post-mortem[?] notes and the photos (though admittedly there's next to nothing in way of detailing the extent and exact appearance of Nicholas' wounds).

But the point I'm getting at is that I find it a bit stunning really that Catherine Eddowes is doubted as a Ripper victim. That theory even blatantly hints to a copycat killer which is tantamount to being a conspiracy theory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely dumbfounded and intrigued as to what - specifically - casts doubt over Eddowes being a Ripper victim.

[Jon Guy]

To illustrate:

"Doctor's description of wounds" = focused, objective data

"Doctor's opinion of who was responsible for the wounds" = wider opinion, speculative and hence not even "data"

Agreed. But the information such as the size of the knife and the state of the victims clothing is important information, and not speculation.

[lynn cates]

sponge time

Hello Sam. Very well. I'll throw up the sponge.

When it comes to the canon, perhaps I've met my match?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

My estimation was, that Mike wished to establish a canon as a preliminary to further research.

That may be the case, Lynn, but we will never achieve that if we allow our thinking to be muddied by subjective interpretation of factors which might well have been beyond the killer's direct control. The only things that were indisputably within the killer's "gift" were the mutilations, and it is only these that can be used as a baseline for the canon.

[lynn cates]

induction and deduction

Hello Sam. I agree it cannot be proved, for proof pertains to deduction; induction merely has evidence.

The canon may be established (or come close to being established) by comparing wounds, clothes arrangements etc. But what does one DO with a canon once established? My estimation was, that Mike wished to establish a canon as a preliminary to further research.

Perhaps it could be said that my thoughts about the canon misfired?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. I grant that all we have, evidence wise, are the eviscerated cadavers. But I'm not sure what that gets us.

If there are marked similarities in the wounds and eviscerations between two murders, Lynn, that is at least a sane way of establishing whether the same killer was involved. As far as discussions of the "canon" goes, it doesn't get much better than that.

How can we proceed without some theory which includes, among other things, a motivation?

We don't KNOW what his motivation was, and we never will. There's plenty of objective data available in the medical reports of the mutilations upon which to debate the canon, and we should stick to those, if we have any sense.

It won't mean we're 100% right, but I can guarantee you that "motivic" thinking hasn't got a chance in Hell of improving matters, because (a) it's based on little more than speculation; (b) it's invariably used to further a given agenda - so it's not even "objective" speculation at that; and (c) Jack's motives can never, ever be proved.

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Mike. Good observation about Kate. Every time that I begin to doubt her canonicity, I reread the coroner's report and note the placing of the body and dress. That brings me round again.

The best.
LC

[Victor]

But Kate remains the closest match to those first 2, by both the physical and circumstantial evidence.

Hi Mike,

What about the "three flaps", that Sam mentioned, linking Mary to Annie?

KR,
Vic.

To touch on an earlier point that Caz and Lynn were discussing..the only reason grappling with some kind of motivation is purely speculative is because when using the Canonical Group, you are starting with pure speculation..... who can say what really motivated the killer in room 13....who can say if Kates partial uterus puts her in a solid 3rd spot on the series list that starts with a uterus hunter in the opinion of the examining physician....

Thats why I didnt include Motivations in my early suggestions on some filters to be applied......a killer may change many things about his kills, but the one steady component is what makes him kill in the first place. Why he or she kills doesnt change, unless only to add erasing potential threats or witnesses to the murderers repertoire. In the Canonical Group there seems to be cases to be made for some victims to have been killed for different reasons than the reasons the first 2 kills were made.....in the opinions of the medicos, the first murders were connected by the killers ultimate objectives....or motivators.

Liz wasnt killed for those same reasons by the physical and circumstantial evidence, and I cant say that the next 2 were either. But Kate remains the closest match to those first 2, by both the physical and circumstantial evidence.

Cheers for now.

[lynn cates]

concedo

Hello Sam. I grant that all we have, evidence wise, are the eviscerated cadavers. But I'm not sure what that gets us.

Take Polly for example. The evidence shows she was likely strangled, had her left carotid slit, then was ripped open.

Witnesses of event? None.

Mr. Cross, did you see anyone nearby? No.

OK. Death by person or persons unknown. Now we wait for a confession? Unless we accept the unlikely stories about Cream or Deeming, it never happened.

How can we proceed without some theory which includes, among other things, a motivation?

The best.
LC