Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[perrymason]

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]

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?

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

so murderers we have.....a murder series of 5 we do not.....

For once Mr Mason I totally agree with you on the above point

[Sam Flynn]

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

It will be my pleasure, Trevor.

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

Why does any junkie want another fix?

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

Better make it three - because the description of Nichols' wounds doesn't tally with those of either. Alternatively, we have an improvising killer on our hands... and that would hardly be a "first".

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

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

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

I disagree that this in any way a proven fact, Trevor. I'd suggest that one could use anything from a nail-scissors or a ceremonial sword, if one were sufficiently determined, and/or unhinged.

5 Going back to a point you made in a previous post about severing the carotid atery... In any event significant amounts of blood would still remain in the body

Agreed, but there would still be less than the samples your experimenters used. There's also body temperature, body mass, gender, nutrition, length of time since death, ambient temperature, levels of alcohol in the blood and many other factors to consider. Like I say, one has to try one's best to ensure that the conditions are as near as dammit the same as those which obtained in the cases in question. You gave it a good go in your book - which I continue to recommend - but I'm afraid that, commendable effort though it was, it can't be taken as definitive proof.

[Sam Flynn]

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...

That is not the case, unless you refer to Wynne Baxter's summing-up, and he was by no means qualified to say anything of the sort. Even if he were, are you seriously suggesting that, had Gordon Brown been asked his OPINION of why Eddowes' abdominal wound was inflicted, he'd have said "no reason whatsoever"? Of course Eddowes' abdominal wound was performed in order to access what lay beneath, and so were Kelly's abdominal and thoracic wounds. Just because a question isn't asked at an inquest, or just because "Coroner X" isn't inclined to heap melodramatic references into his every utterance, doesn't mean that the same conclusions wouldn't apply in each and every one of the four evisceration murders in the "Canon".

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
i would suggest Nicholls wounds were as a result of the frenzied attack and not an attempt to remove any organs.

Eddowes had only been killed a short time before her body was found of course there would have been a large significant amount of blood in the abdomen. The bodies subject to out tests had been dead for several days in some cases and still there was a significant anount of blood still left in the body which flowed into the abdomen. Sufficent enough to prove the salient points in question.

As far as the knife is concerned I dont recall anyone suggesting that anything else other than a 6 inch knife was used. test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife

[Howard Brown]

test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife-Trevor

Excuse me...are you serious ? A six inched blade ( not counting the handle) can practically go through a woman of Eddowes 'size ( Eddowes and my wife are virtually the same height and probable weight... the latter,which I am not at liberty to reveal).

[c.d.]

"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?

c.d.

[c.d.]

test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife-Trevor

Excuse me...are you serious ? A six inched blade ( not counting the handle) can practically go through a woman of Eddowes 'size ( Eddowes and my wife are virtually the same height and probable weight... the latter,which I am not at liberty to reveal).

Hi Howard,

Attempting to write on a wall with chalk is one thing but stabbing your wife is taking things a bit too far don't you think?

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

As far as the knife is concerned I dont recall anyone suggesting that anything else other than a 6 inch knife was used. test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife

Well yeah, if you start at the rectum I suppose it's difficult.

Dr. Mike

[Mascara & Paranoia]

This is getting ridiculous.

We've got one person theorising that someone other than and presumably unaffiliated with Jack was responsible for the removal of the victims' organs after their deaths, and another who's ignoring select facts in order to fit his theory about the Ripper only being responsible for the first two canonical murders (the foundations of that theory having been proven as being nothing more than speculation anyway).

Shouldn't you be more realistic and serious about people who were murdered rather than verging on writing fanfiction about their killer? We know whoever Jack was killed at least three women (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) and there's not really any hard proof (or any proof for that matter) that Kelly wasn't one of his either, aside from the fact that hers was the only murder to have been committed indoors and that she subsequently had more mutilations done to her (which could probaby be a result of the Ripper not doing this thing outside like with the others and more privacy was afforded to him in this instance). I can kind of see why there's doubt over hers and (in particular) Stride's candidacy, and so I always tend to ignore those individual cases because until there's an agreement as to who their killer was there's never gonna be any interesting discussion about them aside from the endless and tedious debate as to whether or not they were Ripper victims (*yawn*). So I think the only realistic way to get a proper read on whoever Jack was is by looking at the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders.