Pinching the "Canon" fuse

Is that a verbatim quote from Dr. Bond, Mike? It would change a lot if it is.

He observed that the killer did not exhibit any "scientific" or "anamotical" knowledge, which is very different to skill with the knife, which can be acquired through practice (i.e at killing women) without any formal instruction in an institutional capacity. It is my personal belief that the ripper had become relatively "skilled" with the knife towards the end of 1888 as a result of his criminal activity with that weapon, but that he had no professional experience in anatomy or surgery.

Best regards,
Ben

Hey Ben,

According to A-Z, Bonds general report to Anderson on the 5 Canonicals included these comments...."in each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person with no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cutting up dead animals".....I would assume that includes a hunter.

Compare that with his comments on Alice Mackenzie....they are diametrically opposed views...but from one source.

Cheers mate

[c.d.]

A butcher is practicing his trade when he cuts and prepares meat. Ultimately, his purpose is to prepare cuts of meat for sale. He therefore makes some effort to make them look presentable. On the other hand, Jack's intent was to remove organs as quickly as possible. Even if he were a trained physician, he would have no reason to exhibit those skills.

c.d.

[Ben]

"he didnt even have the knife skills of a butcher".

Is that a verbatim quote from Dr. Bond, Mike? It would change a lot if it is.

He observed that the killer did not exhibit any "scientific" or "anamotical" knowledge, which is very different to skill with the knife, which can be acquired through practice (i.e at killing women) without any formal instruction in an institutional capacity. It is my personal belief that the ripper had become relatively "skilled" with the knife towards the end of 1888 as a result of his criminal activity with that weapon, but that he had no professional experience in anatomy or surgery.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Mike,

It's more than possible to acquire a certain amount of "skill" with the knife without having any prior "scientific" or "anatomical" knowledge. Since it is clear that such skill could have been garnered on the job of murdering prostitutes, there's really no evidence that Bond offered conflicting statements on the subject of the killer's overall proficiency. He simply believed that the perpetrator was skilled with the knife, if not anatomically knowledgable, and that isn't a contradiction.

All the best,
Ben

But Ben he referred to the killer in his summary for Anderson after inspecting Mary and the reporst of the others, that "he didnt even have the knife skills of a butcher".

I see where you base your case, but Im sure you also see that it seems that he at least suggests the killer is without any skill or knowledge in 1888, and he states in 1889 that a woman killed by someone just like the Canonicals cannot be killed by the Ripper because Jack had some knife skills...when he killed in 1888....and the wounds he saw on Alice did not show that same skill.

All the best mate.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

It's more than possible to acquire a certain amount of "skill" with the knife without having any prior "scientific" or "anatomical" knowledge. Since it is clear that such skill could have been garnered on the job of murdering prostitutes, there's really no evidence that Bond offered conflicting statements on the subject of the killer's overall proficiency. He simply believed that the perpetrator was skilled with the knife, if not anatomically knowledgable, and that isn't a contradiction.

All the best,
Ben

The victims' throats, Chapman's and Kelly's especially, do appear as though the killer cleaved them rather than slashed them. Though I don't think he intentionally set out to decapitate them, that is what he very nearly did.

Thats my take on that particular point as well M & P, so I dont see any of those very deep cuts as failed decapitations Observer.

If I were to set out to kill outdoors with the objective being that I could cut the victims open and perhaps take things from inside them, or cut their heads off.....I think Id want to know how to do that first off, and I think when I begin the exercise it would be with the idea that the women are made to be still and quiet as soon as possible. Even if these are compulsions he cant control, that doesnt then mean he was incapable of anticipating his night and how it might go best. I believe thats why the cuts are so deep they appear as if to remove the head entirely....its a step that need not take much time at all, and once completed, he is free from worry that the victim will spoil the events to come. He cant control the rest of the East End though....so he cuts them so severely because he does it fast and with only certain death as the possible outcome.

If Liz Stride had been found just as she had been cut, she might have lived. Mary Ann was lying still and not resisting when hers was cut to the spine, Annie as well...both on their backs, lying immobile. So was Kate apparently. Mary maybe not so immobile. But none of those women could have survived the severe throat cuts even if they were done in front of a doctor.

The kill isnt the thrill for Jack...but its something that has to happen...and quickly.

Best regards all.

[Observer]

Hi M and P

Sliced them all around, right the way around down to the vertbrae. The only other thing that I can think of apart from a desire to remove the head and this is highly speculative, is that the killer envisaged the head falling off as the police lifted the body, a grisly joke on his behalf.

all the best

Observer

[Mascara & Paranoia]

The victims' throats, Chapman's and Kelly's especially, do appear as though the killer cleaved them rather than slashed them. Though I don't think he intentionally set out to decapitate them, that is what he very nearly did.

[Observer]

Incapable of cutting off a head Mike, despite having two goes at it. And it would take approximately the same amount of time to severe a head than it would to extract a womb or a kidney, thats if you know what you're doing, which is doubtfull in this case.

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

I never suggested anyone was beyond reproach Sam, I dont see how his and Wynne's comments on Mary Ann and Annie fall into the category of questionable though.

I don't think they're particularly questionable either, Mike - it's just your reliance on their non-existent comments for or against the "canonicity/motive" relating to Eddowes and Kelly that I find questionable.

Hi Mike



Bit more than overkill I would suggest. It's a safe bet that Annie Chapman was strangled to render her unconcious, she was then placed on her back, and her throat was deeply cut. To me, no matter how much overkill is employed in cutting her throat I doubt whether the initial cut would have extended all the way around her neck, the killer would have needed to lift her head to achieve this, and this suggests to me that he intended to severe her head.

all the best

Observer

Well that theorizing would mean that The Torso Killer was much smarter than Jack the Ripper then, cause when he wanted to cut off arms, legs and heads, he did so in private. Not in public.

Jack couldnt figure out he'd need privacy and time to cut off a head? Even I would know that.

And then when he gets privacy in a room...he suddenly doesn't want to cut heads off anymore?

Cheers Observer

[Observer]

Hi Mike

Hi Observer,

In my opinion the nicked vertebrae, which occurs on murders after Annie Chapman too, is a direct result of the overkill technique that he used to kill. He cuts twice...as deep as he can, ensuring death. He would have to pull back at the last moment to avoid any nicking I would think...based on how deeply he cuts.

Bit more than overkill I would suggest. It's a safe bet that Annie Chapman was strangled to render her unconcious, she was then placed on her back, and her throat was deeply cut. To me, no matter how much overkill is employed in cutting her throat I doubt whether the initial cut would have extended all the way around her neck, the killer would have needed to lift her head to achieve this, and this suggests to me that he intended to severe her head.

all the best

Observer

Why then, Mike, didn't Dr Bagster "Infallible Judgment" Phillips come out with that, instead of suggesting that a (deliberate) attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck?

You really can't have it both ways. I'm just kindly pointing out an inconsistency that's at odds with your acceptance of the good doctor's opinon on other matters.

All that might indicate Sam is that I was wrong assuming that decapitation was not an objective... if he was correct, or that he can possibly make an error..... just like Bond did describing his own opinions on the skills of the Ripper while examining Alice Mackenzie.

I never suggested anyone was beyond reproach Sam, I dont see how his and Wynne's comments on Mary Ann and Annie fall into the category of questionable though. Unless either or both is provably inept?

Best regards Sam

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

Indeed unprepared, acting in an off the cuff manner. Motivation, who knows? Only the killer I would suggest.

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

In my opinion the nicked vertebrae, which occurs on murders after Annie Chapman too, is a direct result of the overkill technique that he used to kill.

Why then, Mike, didn't Dr Bagster "Infallible Judgment" Phillips come out with that, instead of suggesting that a (deliberate) attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck?

You really can't have it both ways. I'm just kindly pointing out an inconsistency that's at odds with your acceptance of the good doctor's opinon on other matters.