Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

concedo

Hello Sam. I grant that all we have, evidence wise, are the eviscerated cadavers. But I'm not sure what that gets us.

Take Polly for example. The evidence shows she was likely strangled, had her left carotid slit, then was ripped open.

Witnesses of event? None.

Mr. Cross, did you see anyone nearby? No.

OK. Death by person or persons unknown. Now we wait for a confession? Unless we accept the unlikely stories about Cream or Deeming, it never happened.

How can we proceed without some theory which includes, among other things, a motivation?

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

To touch on an earlier point that Caz and Lynn were discussing..the only reason grappling with some kind of motivation is purely speculative is because when using the Canonical Group, you are starting with pure speculation..... who can say what really motivated the killer in room 13....who can say if Kates partial uterus puts her in a solid 3rd spot on the series list that starts with a uterus hunter in the opinion of the examining physician....

Thats why I didnt include Motivations in my early suggestions on some filters to be applied......a killer may change many things about his kills, but the one steady component is what makes him kill in the first place. Why he or she kills doesnt change, unless only to add erasing potential threats or witnesses to the murderers repertoire. In the Canonical Group there seems to be cases to be made for some victims to have been killed for different reasons than the reasons the first 2 kills were made.....in the opinions of the medicos, the first murders were connected by the killers ultimate objectives....or motivators.

Liz wasnt killed for those same reasons by the physical and circumstantial evidence, and I cant say that the next 2 were either. But Kate remains the closest match to those first 2, by both the physical and circumstantial evidence.

Cheers for now.

[Victor]

But Kate remains the closest match to those first 2, by both the physical and circumstantial evidence.

Hi Mike,

What about the "three flaps", that Sam mentioned, linking Mary to Annie?

KR,
Vic.

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Mike. Good observation about Kate. Every time that I begin to doubt her canonicity, I reread the coroner's report and note the placing of the body and dress. That brings me round again.

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. I grant that all we have, evidence wise, are the eviscerated cadavers. But I'm not sure what that gets us.

If there are marked similarities in the wounds and eviscerations between two murders, Lynn, that is at least a sane way of establishing whether the same killer was involved. As far as discussions of the "canon" goes, it doesn't get much better than that.

How can we proceed without some theory which includes, among other things, a motivation?

We don't KNOW what his motivation was, and we never will. There's plenty of objective data available in the medical reports of the mutilations upon which to debate the canon, and we should stick to those, if we have any sense.

It won't mean we're 100% right, but I can guarantee you that "motivic" thinking hasn't got a chance in Hell of improving matters, because (a) it's based on little more than speculation; (b) it's invariably used to further a given agenda - so it's not even "objective" speculation at that; and (c) Jack's motives can never, ever be proved.

[lynn cates]

induction and deduction

Hello Sam. I agree it cannot be proved, for proof pertains to deduction; induction merely has evidence.

The canon may be established (or come close to being established) by comparing wounds, clothes arrangements etc. But what does one DO with a canon once established? My estimation was, that Mike wished to establish a canon as a preliminary to further research.

Perhaps it could be said that my thoughts about the canon misfired?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

My estimation was, that Mike wished to establish a canon as a preliminary to further research.

That may be the case, Lynn, but we will never achieve that if we allow our thinking to be muddied by subjective interpretation of factors which might well have been beyond the killer's direct control. The only things that were indisputably within the killer's "gift" were the mutilations, and it is only these that can be used as a baseline for the canon.

[lynn cates]

sponge time

Hello Sam. Very well. I'll throw up the sponge.

When it comes to the canon, perhaps I've met my match?

The best.
LC

[Jon Guy]

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"

Agreed. But the information such as the size of the knife and the state of the victims clothing is important information, and not speculation.