Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. If you are right that:

"We can't ever know what Jack's motivation was"

Of course I'm right, Lynn - at least, in that respect. We'll never know what Jack's motivations were until we get him on the couch and ask him. And that, alas, will never happen.

I do not think any aspect of the case can be approached (or at least sustained) in isolation.

The wounds, mutilations and eviscerations certainly can, because they are physical phenomena, representing directly what the Ripper actually did - not what he might have been thinking at the time, nor what we'd like to believe he was doing. Furthermore, the details are objectively recorded, sometimes even in documents written at first hand by those who conducted the post mortems. That's gold dust, and it's a crying shame if we ignore that fact.

At the other extreme, we have the Ripper's thoughts, motives, nor the influence upon him of the victims' ages or physical appearance, whether he led them or they led him to each murder scene, etc... none of which are documented anywhere. Like it or not they are all products of the imagination - that is, they are entirely subjective. By definition, therefore, such things cannot be used to objectively differentiate between whom the Ripper did, or did not, kill.

[lynn cates]

hypothetico-deductive method

Hello Sam. If you are right that:

"We can't ever know what Jack's motivation was"

then I fear it is all over (and it might be anyway).

Hence, I must respectfully disagree. I do not think any aspect of the case can be approached (or at least sustained) in isolation. Rather, I think, it must be approached after the manner of the scientist using the hypothetico-deductive method. First, we look at the evidence. "Well, now, what could account for that?" Second, we formulate a hypothesis. Third, we note that some of the evidence fits, some does not. Fourth, we emend our hypothesis and go back to the drawing board. Now, keep on plugging away.

So also with this 121 year old cold case. We look at the wounds. "Hmm. Perhaps the amount of force required rules out Jill the Ripper. Force? Did I say force? Why would someone wish to decapitate another rather than just kill? Ah! Perhaps he was angry?" If so, that might rule out a hired thug. And on and on it goes. And this should be fitted with police opinion, opportunity, and so on.

Or am I raving again?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

I might, however, disagree with your dictum that looking for a motive is:

"being off-topic in respect of the 'canon'."

I'm convinced that the canon cannot be fixed, as Mike has suggested that it should be, until we get some agreement on motivation.

We can't ever know what Jack's motivation was, Lynn - still less agree on what his motivation might have been. Even if we could know what his motivations were, they are unlikely to have been rigidly reflected in what he actually did to the victims at any given time. That's because we are all, killers and non-killers alike, constrained in the degree to which we can express our motivations by any given circumstance.

Jack's "motivations", whatever one might believe they were ("believe" being the operative word), are patently of no use whatsoever in any objective discussion about whom he might have killed. In fact, as we have seen time and again, such conjectures, whilst conducive to flights of fancy, are often poison to any serious discussion about the case. Indeed, it is because of one man's speculation that we ended up with a "canon" in the first instance.

It would be a real shame if we allowed such tangential musings to cloud our views over the Ripper's likely tally, when we have firm, objective facts - such as the medical descriptions of the wounds - at our disposal. Such facts are a luxury in this subject, and to obscure them in deliberately seeded clouds of biased speculation is wasteful in the extreme.

[lynn cates]

madness in the method

Hello Sam. Actually, I agree with nearly everything in your numerical sequence. That is, in fact, the way much of the threads go. I would like to see much more open mindedness to opposing theories. (Perhaps I am too much so. I read Sugden and I thought, "Um, Klosowsi." I read Fido and I thought, "Let's think more about Kaminski." Marriott's book is coming--wonder what I'll think then?)

I might, however, disagree with your dictum that looking for a motive is:

"being off-topic in respect of the 'canon'."

I'm convinced that the canon cannot be fixed, as Mike has suggested that it should be, until we get some agreement on motivation. Allow an example. If we know that the motivation is rage against women, then dead women found knifed in a rather calm manner (whatever THAT means) would afford prima facie evidence of not being canonical.

Does any of this make sense? Is there a method in't, or am I raving again?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

But, on the other hand, there is so little hard evidence to go on--a bloody piece of apron, as I recall, is about it.

Then there are the wounds themselves.

And that's really most of what we have to work with, Lynn. Now, the wounds might not be enough in themselves to track down the killer, but they're pretty useful in at least tentatively deciding who he may or may not have killed, which is the subject of this thread.

It is only natural, then, to try to envision WHY someone would try to do this. Anger? Revenge? Once motive is established (better: suspected) possible suspects can be examined and, rejected out of hand or kept against further evidence's being obtained.

Apart from being off-topic in respect of the "canon", speculating about motives is of no use at all, except as a diversion in itself. For one thing, we can all read different motives into what we see, as it suits us - that's ultimately a recipe for disagreement and circular arguments. For another, we do not have anything like the necessary biographical detail on the majority of the known suspects to assess whether they "match" the speculative motives in any case.

What usually happens is this:

1. Person One (for sometimes arbitrary reasons) decides victim "X" doesn't belong in the canon;

2. Practically every fact in the case is then distorted to support that argument for decanonisation;

3. Thus "biased", the canon is then used to justify a certain type of behaviour, and ultimately motive, for the killer;

4. The killer is then deemed to be a person of type "Y", sometimes for arbitrary reasons;

5. Where possible, a known suspect is latched onto if he seems to fit type "Y", no matter how tenuously, despite the fact that we really don't know too much about him;

6. Completely speculative psychobabble (such as that contained in single-suspect books) is employed, with further speculative psychobabble heaped onto it, in support of the argument against suspect "Y";

7. Person Two, who includes victim "X" in their canon, but arbitrarily excludes victim "W", start getting all hot and bothered, countering any arguments in respect of victim "X" with subjective speculation of their own;

8. Often, Person Two will have their own idea of the kind of man the Ripper was, and believes that a suspect of personality type "A" is the Ripper, and they will not be shaken from their stance (despite tokenistic protestations to the contrary);

9. Person One and Person Two will then swap ever-greater speculations between them, until nobody can tell "A" from "B", "W" from "X", or "X" from "Y", anymore;

10. Person Three chips in and points out that, unless we stick to the absolute facts - namely the descriptions of the wounds - the above is always going to happen;

11. Person Three is politely acknowledged, but that doesn't stop the pointless Spiral of Speculation from winding on and on.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Caz. I completely agree that the evidence must come first; else, we are guilty (as you suggest) of using our theory as a bed of Procrustus.

But, on the other hand, there is so little hard evidence to go on--a bloody piece of apron, as I recall, is about it.

Then there are the wounds themselves. The first 2 ladies were nearly decapitated. It is only natural, then, to try to envision WHY someone would try to do this. Anger? Revenge? Once motive is established (better: suspected) possible suspects can be examined and, rejected out of hand or kept against further evidence's being obtained.

The best.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

I just think that taking a wild stab at the ripper's motivation, then rejecting every last bit of evidence that doesn't fit 100% with it, is doing things completely backwards. This has resulted in Perry Mason doubting even that Kate Eddowes was part of the series, because his killer had no interest in kidneys or facial mutilation, but only the money he thought he could earn from pinching wombs that were well past their use-by dates.

By that token, perhaps Polly and Annie should be excluded too, because the former didn't lose her womb and the latter didn't only lose hers.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

least resistance

Hello Caz. Although I cannot completely discount it, monetary returns do not figure prominently on my list of motivations.

I suppose my greatest stumbling block there is to account for the extraneous cuts. I adhere to the theory that allows least resistance.

Permit me to illustrate.

1. The Royal family were trying to kill Ms. Kelly.

Retort: Very well. Poison her and have done with it. Why all that risky carnage?

2. A local thug was shaking down prostitutes.

Retort: Hit her on the nape of the neck and steal her purse.

Counter: She could identify me later.

Solution: Very well. Cut her throat quickly and cleanly and make off.

I admit to being the owner of a left brained, Boolean mind.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Perhaps one's seeking motivation in the case of Jack stems largely from desperation.

Hi Perry,

Lynn said it, not me.

Hi Lynn,

It's virtually impossible to establish a motive for a series of murders like this, whereas one-offs can often be traced back to someone with an obvious motive for wanting rid of that particular individual.

I just can't see any good evidence for the ripper being solely motivated by profit. It seems to me one of the least likeliest motives ever proposed.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

motive and opportunity

Hello Caz. You are quite right. Motivation is a very difficult item to establish. On the other hand, police normally try to ascertain both motive and opportunity at the earliest convenience.

Perhaps one's seeking motivation in the case of Jack stems largely from desperation. Physical evidence is at a premium.

The best.
LC

[caz]

Hi All,

The very worst kind of subjective speculation surely concerns the serial mutilator's motivation.

Once one has abandoned all logic and common sense to arrive at the strong personal conviction that all Jack was interested in was the filthy lucre he expected to get from murdering unhealthy, menopausal unfortunates and extracting their wombs, then every post must work towards this end - hence yet another thread arguing against the idea of an active serial killer who accounted for at least four of the Whitechapel victims and probably quite a few more.

Motivation is the very last thing anyone can be sure of, so it's a tad risky to make it the entire basis of a theory, which then requires a strict victim exclusion policy to give it legs. If the motivation was mutilation for mutilation's sake (and bodily parts were taken for souvenirs because he obviously didn't have too much time at the scene to savour what he had just done) then we are left with a killer who did whatever he felt like doing and was capable of doing, in limited time, limited light and difficult circumstances.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam

Which wider opinions do you refer to ?

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"

[Jon Guy]

it is the medical notes of the wounds themselves that must take paramount importance, not the wider opinions in respect of same.

Hi Sam

Which wider opinions do you refer to ?

[Victor]

Victor: "What about incresed police presence, vigilance committee patrols and alerted prostitutes making it more difficult to achieve his desired results outdoors, therefore he had no choice but to find more secluded spots (including indoors)"?

Me: The same situation existed back into early September after the first 2 kills, and after Martha's murder of course, which was still seen as possibly done by Jack by the authorities. When I think of the amount of abandoned housing and warehousing in the district...that someone who cut women into parts had the prviacy to do what he did because he felt compelled to fulfill his desires....what desires beyond cutting into dead women and extracting things do we see in the evidence prior to Kelly? Do we see any indication that the outdoor venue wasnt acceptable to him? Do we see in the early murders that he has any interest in peeling skin and flesh from bone, "posing" objects under the deceased for no reason related to cuttings or extractions? I think the reasons for moving indoors were there after Sept 8th.....and that they still seemed to be of no concern to the man on Oct 1st.

Hi Mike,

Lusk et al were setting up Whitehall Vigilance Committee towards the end of September weren't they? The "double-event" and From Hell letter seem to stir up the locals and prompted them to greater vigilance. And what happens, October is an inactive month for Jack. It certainly suggests the possibility that the streets were too busy for him to do what he wanted to.

KR,
Vic.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree that that information should exclude times, locations, probable attack sequences based on evidence, victim profile, and other information that you might call circumstantial

The times aren't known with any great precision, but are among the "least-worst" factors I suppose. However, it's the interpretation of them, the "reading-in" of significance, that's the issue in respect of times. Likewise, the significance of dates and location are entirely open to speculation, whether they were within the killer's direct control or not. The point is that it's the interpretation of those data that is subject to speculation. Such things as the "probable" attack sequences, victim "profile" (on who's say-so?), etc, are entirely speculative and should be avoided.

There is a strong chance that neither time, date nor location were directly within the killer's control, and as long as that possibility (probability?) exists, such things can have no place in an objective discussion of the canon. To allow them in is to speculate on uncertainties or - worse - upon prior speculation, which was itself usually based on uncertainties. That's how things like religion and mythology get started, and it forms no basis for any objective inquiry.