Pinching the "Canon" fuse

Hi Mike,

Good to see you here too!

There's really no contradiction implicit in Bond's observations. An individual can acquire "skill" at dispatching women with a knife through doing it on several occasions. He could simply have honed his abilities in that department through practice despite having no formal training as a medical practitioner, butcher or slaughterer.

The problem with prioritising Phillips's views over his contemporaries is that he was inclined to attribute the Chapman and Eddowes murders to different killers - a controversial position for obvious reasons, and it cannot help but influence our assessment of his views on Chapman.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

On your last point I personally see reasons to entertain his suggestions about Kate, there are some troubling physical and circumstantial matters that are not adequately explained regardless of who killed her, and I see value in reserving judgment on a definite Jack assignation. Its the same reasons that I hold off on a Jack label for Liz. As for Phillips....he personally saw more Canonicals that any medic...his observations are therefore crucial information.

The thing about that argument is that Bond never hinted that the skills were acquired since the Canonicals....he suggested as I quoted that they were indeed present in the Canonical murders. A 180 degree turn from his opinions after inspecting Mary and the notes on the others.

My best as always mate

So he knew in advance how to remove Annie Chapmans head? Because this is what he attempted. He wasn't very successfull was he?

Observer

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.

I think the decapitation locally was handled adequately by the Torso killer anyway, dont you? He could easily have taken Marys head off if that was Jack in that room, it was almost off anyway...so was Kates. I dont see decapitation as any kind of driver or objective myself....for Jack anyway.

All the best

[lynn cates]

motivation

Hello Observer. I see what you mean. My remarks were merely intended to be general, based on possibilities. I was not addressing motivation.

If "Jack" intended to decapitate, he seemed unprepared. It is not clear whether the problem lay with the implement or his surgical skills.

The best.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

I think the emphasis in Mikes argument revolves around the fact that the killer set out to acquire organs, if he wanted a head then why didn't he come prepared?

But forget the above, a long sharp knife would have sufficed to remove Annie Chapmans head, expierienced practicioners insert the blade between the vertebrae and severe the cartlidge, thus removing the head. I don't like to air this fact but hostage takers who commit this horrendous practise are experienced in such matters, they using nothing more than a knife to achieve this effect.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Good to see you here too!

There's really no contradiction implicit in Bond's observations. An individual can acquire "skill" at dispatching women with a knife through doing it on several occasions. He could simply have honed his abilities in that department through practice despite having no formal training as a medical practitioner, butcher or slaughterer.

The problem with prioritising Phillips's views over his contemporaries is that he was inclined to attribute the Chapman and Eddowes murders to different killers - a controversial position for obvious reasons, and it cannot help but influence our assessment of his views on Chapman.

Best regards,
Ben

[lynn cates]

inadequate knife

Hello Observer. I feel confident that you are correct about "Jack's" intention to decapitate AC. I wonder, however, whether his failure was due to a lack of skill or an inadequate knife? If I remember, his knife was generally thought to be long, thin, and sharp. Usually, a decapitation is expedited by a heavier implement, such as a meat cleaver or small axe. The point being (Oh, dear! No pun intended!) that the blade of these is rather heavy and can separate the bony parts.

Just a suggestion.

The best.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Mike

So he knew in advance how to remove Annie Chapmans head? Because this is what he attempted. He wasn't very successfull was he?

I very much doubt the killer had any medical experience whatsoever, he couldn't remove Annie Chapmans head for one, and the evidence shows that in all likelyhood this is what he attempted, her neck being cut all around down to the vertebrae. Even a butcher would have been capable of beheading Annie Chapman, so I doubt whether he was a butcher either.

The removal of the victims organs in my opion were done as an afterthought, a result of the abdomen lying open in front of him. `



all the best

Observer

The evidence speaks for itself, Mike, and it needs neither my objective reading of it nor Bagster/Baxter's baffling interpretations to back it up.

Hi Sam,

Phillips suggests that anything that can be seen that seems improper or sloppily done might be due to the nature of the act the man was performing, where he was doing it, and what available light and privacy he might have had while doing it. The fact that the venues themselves...the outdoor ones....required fast cutting and little time to assess on the spot how he might achieve what it is he wants to achieve....(its not merely murder obviously, because what we are talking about is post mortem activity....he is still interested in the women after he kills them)....Phillips to me rationally concludes that the killer knew where to cut and what to do to achieve his objectives before arriving at the point those wounds commence....and that anything that is done less than skillfully is likely due to the haste and the circumstances.

I would expect that a highly skilled surgeon placed in the exact same scenarios would be able to complete all the tasks done but I wouldnt expect that any of those field surgeries would automatically appear as if done under controlled circumstances, without emotion, by a very skilled man. We know that in a few cases physicians estimate the time they would take themselves to properly do some of the acts, and the times they give are often multiples of the actual time that was used.

They would have been acting in haste with poor light as well had they been in the killers shoes....its a fair point.

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

All were at the expense of time and environment and none of what you mention above says the uterus was not the goal.

That wasn't my point. My point was to illustrate how hopeless Wynne Baxter was at (a) materia medica; and (b) coming out with a sober, sensible statement devoid of sensationalism. "No meaningless cuts", my bumpy arse!

What you are doing is defending your opinion that the Ripper had no skill anatomically or with a knife

I quote myself: "What about the asymmetrically gouged-out abdominal wall, the double incision to the throat, the missing belly button, the failed attempt at separating the vertebrae, the severed rectum, the hacked-off bladder?"

The evidence speaks for itself, Mike, and it needs neither my objective reading of it nor Bagster/Baxter's baffling interpretations to back it up.

Baxter did not have a medical function - ostensible or otherwise - in his role as coroner, and he betrays his medical ignorance (not to mention his sense of melodrama and instinct for hyperbole), in his summing-up: "There were no meaningless cuts", indeed. What about the asymmetrically gouged-out abdominal wall, the double incision to the throat, the missing belly button, the failed attempt at separating the vertebrae, the severed rectum, the hacked-off bladder?

All were at the expense of time and environment and none of what you mention above says the uterus was not the goal. You want to mention something as "casual cutting" and you do so based on the 2 women who had the least superfluous wounds, and opinions by a physician who inspected them that the actions taken were to ultimately obtain the organ taken from Annie?

What you are doing is defending your opinion that the Ripper had no skill anatomically or with a knife, that he was a "slash and grab" artist which you have said numerous times....2 things that are directly refuted by physicians who inspected the wounds themselves...in the cases of Mary Ann and Annie.

You have my respect for the breadth of your knowledge as always, but your opinions on the medical skill that is in evidence in a few of the Canonicals do not supercede those who offered different opinions....and who were there Sam. For me anyway.

With continued respect but with absolute disagreement, best regards.

Both Sam and M & P are incorrect in their assessment of whats being claimed by me, so I dont see how any of their counters or refutations have any bearing on the actual matter, which is that there were suggestions made by the man that examined Mary Ann and Polly that were based on physical evidence that occurs in no other murder after Annie, and by the man that summarized the findings of both in the Nichols Inquest....they saw a seemingly determined effort.. without much obligatory cutting.... to kill the women so as to obtain their uterus......not any organ, and not just to cut any part of any womens body after they are killed.

The reason I say no other Canoical death comes with those comments is to illustrate that there was a distinct lack of suggestive evidence for that same reasoning to be applied to any of the 3 remaining "Canon" members murder(ers). The consistency displayed in the actions is absent, and the overall objectives judging by what was done and what was taken do not show that C3, C4 or C5 were killed so the killer could get uteri.

I have said its not that I believe its fact already, and that I believe you cannot toss the official opinions out because you dont agree that the physical evidence or the circumstantial evidence warrants the conclusion espoused.

Seems to me the men I quoted were there, inspected the wounds, and made their assessments for the records....not to please anyone.....and that there is within the physical description of those 2 womens wounds, foundations for that theorizing.

This is contemporary theorizing by the men charged with determining the very questions they offer their opinions on....if anyone was also there and can offer a contrary opinion, or if anyone can prove that they could not have been correct in their suggestions.....then Id be happy to acquiesce.

So tell me why Phillips could not know the killer was after the uterus....based on the physical data he saw and an equal medical background.

......the silence will most assuredly be deafening.....

Best regards

Hi Mike,



Which mix-up was this?

Cheers,
Ben

Hello old friend....havent seen you on here for a while, nice to see you Ben.

In the Fall of 88 in Bonds summary of the Canonicals for Anderson, based on the single post mortem he actually performed, he said "in each case the mutilation was inflicted by someone who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge...not even the technical knowledge of a butcher."

In his report on the case of Alice Mackenzie, he suggests that in her murder he saw "evidence of similar design to the Whitechapel murders, viz: sudden onslaught on the prostrate women, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts.....I am of the opinion that the murder (Alice Mackenzies) was performed by the same person who committed the former Whitechapel murders".

Clearly his summary on Alice is that he thought she was killed by someone who knew what they were doing and where to cut.....things he did not feel the reports of the 4 Canonicals he reviewed did show...despite the reports by the physicians who did attend the actual autopsies and their opinions of the killers skill and or knowledge.

All the best mate.

[lynn cates]

function

Hello Sam. I think my claim was presiding OVER an ostensible medical function. A coroner's inquest often does (forgive the garish phrase) "medical type stuff." Hence, it is an ostensible medical function. And, unless I am mistaken, Mr. Baxter was presiding over it.

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. Very well, I stand corrected. How about: "A solicitor in his presiding over an ostensible medical function"?

Baxter did not have a medical function - ostensible or otherwise - in his role as coroner, and he betrays his medical ignorance (not to mention his sense of melodrama and instinct for hyperbole), in his summing-up: "There were no meaningless cuts", indeed. What about the asymmetrically gouged-out abdominal wall, the double incision to the throat, the missing belly button, the failed attempt at separating the vertebrae, the severed rectum, the hacked-off bladder?

[lynn cates]

yet again

Hello Sam. Very well, I stand corrected. How about:

"A solicitor in his presiding over an ostensible medical function"?

The best.
LC