Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Sam Flynn]

Like I said yesterday, any opinions - whether those of the medics, police or coroners - were and are subjective, and whatever "X" said after the event was certainly not within the Ripper's direct control.

If we have any hope of objectively discussing the "canon", then we must focus solely on what definitely happened to the victims, for it is only these features of the murders that were caused personally by the murderer himself... or murderers, as the case may be.

[lynn cates]

most important

Hello CD and Sam. I agree about the non-sacredness of the current canon.

And I should think that ascertaining which were killed by which hand would be most important. To take an example. I spend much time looking about for clues regarding Druitt. If, however, it could be established that either McKenzie or Coles died by the same hand as Polly and Annie, then I'd be wasting my time for obvious reasons.

Cheers.
LC

[perrymason]

Hi again folks,

I havent had time to complete my research on the stats but I will by this weekend. Thought Id address a couple of points in the meantime.....

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.


Tom: "Dr. Phillips: Nichols, Chapman and Kelly for sure killed by the same hand. Stride and Eddowes only possibles.

Me: A man who examined a few Canonicals. A man of some position...a man close to the cases...and one that wasnt sure that there were 5 kills by one man.

Dr. Bond: Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly all killed by the same hand.

Me: A man who examined one Canonical first hand, a man who contradicted every opinion that preceded his as to the possible skill/knowledge possessed by the killer..... a man who thought Alice MacKenzies killers showed skill and knowledge and yet used that to suggest that likely adds her to the Canonical Group, the group he suggested was killed by one man with no skill or knowledge, ..... a man who suggests many things including that the Ripper suffered from attacks of Homicidal and Erotic Mania, that he is middle aged and neatly and respectably dressed, that he is without a job, .......my point here is that he only saw 4 women, he obviously gives contradictory opinions, and he supposes a great deal about the suspects attire and occupation based on cuts. Not my personal go-to guy.

The Police: All seem to have agreed on Bond's 5 and some added Tabra and/or Coles and/or McKenzie."

Me: That the police suggested many killings were by one man isnt really a huge mystery, considering they had no clues to many, many unsolved murders at the time and to admit total failure in all those cases based on independent killers would have been disaster politically.

cd: "So let's keep in mind exactly what is being debated here before anybody goes off the deep end."

Me: Precisely. That would mean we have unsolved murders without any proven connections to any one killer or group.

Sam: ".....then we must focus solely on what definitely happened to the victims, for it is only these features of the murders that were caused personally by the murderer himself... or murderers, as the case may be".

Me: I would half agree with the above, what was done is the ONLY valid information.....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 Gareth. Circumstantial speculation would be that Liz Stride was killed by Michael Kidney cause it appears she was in the company of someone she knew based on some evidence....Circumstantial evidence suggests that Liz Stride did not fear her attacker at the moment of her attack, because she was holding breath fresheners.

This was a different time, not a time when Modern Serial killers are conscious and wary of the means the police have to catch them...not a time when hair, fiber or fingerprints were used in prosecutions, not a time when databases existed for other killer of this type...stranger vs stranger kills, not a time when there were surveillance cams, cell phones, online databases.....these men were not equipped or experienced enough to interpret this data,...in my opinion. Fear, politics, and money...those drove these investigations and thats no way to find a killer among "many homicidal maniacs"-(Macnaghten).

My best regards and promise for some comparisons on the filter idea in the next few days.

Cheers.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

You speak of abandoned housing and warehousing. I can't see any prostitute eager to conduct business in such a location. Spiders, rats, garbage, maybe squatters and who knows what else. Even before the Ripper, I am sure that these women didn't want to be in such a place at the total mercy of unknown and probably drunken customers. At least on the street, you could yell for help or try to run away. And Jack dragging his victim to such a place really seems quite unlikely.

And as for Mary being killed indoors, she was the only victim with her own place. That provides a very simple and logical explanation for what took place.

c.d.

[Jon Guy]

any opinions - whether those of the medics, police or coroners - were and are subjective

If we have any hope of objectively discussing the "canon", then we must focus solely on what definitely happened to the victims

Hi Sam

The medics opinions, although subjective, were based upon their own findings, which were collected scientifically at the crime scene and post mortems, and presented legally at the Inquests, and therefore, must be of great value to any discussion.

[Sam Flynn]

The medics opinions, although subjective, were based upon their own findings, which were collected scientifically at the crime scene and post mortems, and presented legally at the Inquests, and therefore, must be of great value to any discussion.

I fundamentally disagree, Jon - certainly in respect of the objective details of the case that were irrefutably within Jack's control, and after-the-event speculation can logically have no bearing on what a killer did at the time of a given murder. In that respect, it is the medical notes of the wounds themselves that must take paramount importance, not the wider opinions in respect of same. Opinions are not evidence, no matter who gives them. They have no place in any objective discussion of the canon.

[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.

[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.

[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 ?

[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"

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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