Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Mascara & Paranoia]

How can anyone seriously doubt Eddowes as a Ripper victim? I can understand the doubt over Stride's candidacy (no mutilations, et cetera) as one of Jack's kills and to a degree Kelly's (completely dismantled, killed indoors, et cetera, et cetera), but Eddowes?

Why?

Because she was the first 'canonical' victim to have had her face mutilated and an extra organ removed? Because hers was the only ripping to have taken place outside of Whitechapel?

Because those are the only reasons I can see. And if it's because of those very reasons, then that means next to nothing; Jack escalated; he did it from Nichols' murder to Chapman's, and almost clearly again from Chapman's to Eddowes' murder. If anything, Eddowes seems like more of a hallmark Ripper victim than Nichols, judging by both the post-mortem[?] notes and the photos (though admittedly there's next to nothing in way of detailing the extent and exact appearance of Nicholas' wounds).

But the point I'm getting at is that I find it a bit stunning really that Catherine Eddowes is doubted as a Ripper victim. That theory even blatantly hints to a copycat killer which is tantamount to being a conspiracy theory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go, I'm just genuinely dumbfounded and intrigued as to what - specifically - casts doubt over Eddowes being a Ripper victim.

[lynn cates]

face

Hello Mascara. You have guessed correctly. The facial mutilations are the new factor.

Yes, I like Sir Melville's intensification hypothesis as well as another. But, being mindful of Sam's admonitions about disregarding intent, and just looking at knife work, one must pause and think carefully.

On the other hand, the body placement and dress arrangement point to the same hand as Polly and Annie.

LC

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

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

KR,
Vic.

Thats a good question Victor. I do know that the flaps had been mentioned in the press before Marys murder, but that is an unusual technique I agree, and as far as Im concerned...one that may be vocation based in some way.

All that I can say about Mary Kellys killer with sound evidence support is that her killer didnt take her uterus away even though it was excised...and if the motives that are suggested for the first 2 alleged victims murders were correct, then that means her killer did not kill her her for her uterus. Which again, on record, is what was surmised about the killer of the victims Mary Ann and Annie by the medical experts that inspected them...almost identical crimes. I stand by my opinion that killers may kill differently, but the reason for killing in the first place doesnt change. Killing a witness or a blackmailer may be added later.

Cheers Victor

[perrymason]

I said a few posts ago that Id try to gather a sampling from the records to help differentiate the unusual from the mundane, but its taking some time sifting through records that can be quite distracting in their own merit let alone their relevance for the discussions at hand..... Just so nobody holds me to posting some of it this weekend....

Best regards all

[jojojojo01]

From what i can gather eveyone is looking at the murders from an MO point of view. But has anyone ever considered lookingat his signature instead to determine who is canonical victims are?

[lynn cates]

vocation

Hello Mike. Did you say that the 3 flap removal might be vocation based? What do we know about Victorian cobblers and their methods? What about pig slaughterers? Perhaps Mr. Ruffles has some information on the latter?

Cheers.
LC

[perrymason]

From what i can gather eveyone is looking at the murders from an MO point of view. But has anyone ever considered lookingat his signature instead to determine who is canonical victims are?

I think thats what this thread is really trying to suggest Jojo...lets look at the things that are repetitive, the seemingly traditional Ripper-esque physical and circumstantial evidence based upon foundations laid in the first two murders, which the experts agree were likely by the same man and for the same reason....

MO can be flexible...victim profile, locations, weapons, time of day, ....all those things can change.

My contention is that WHY he killed the first 2 women would not change...if he killed more. And why he killed those first 2 women should help us isolate crimes that seem compatible and to assign probable crimes more "scientifically"...more than that range of acts that are incorporated into a Canonical Group does anyway.

All the best Jojo

[perrymason]

Hello Mike. Did you say that the 3 flap removal might be vocation based? What do we know about Victorian cobblers and their methods? What about pig slaughterers? Perhaps Mr. Ruffles has some information on the latter?

Cheers.
LC

To me the act seems like something similar to the processing of animals for their hides Lynn. Removing and Preserving large skin sections for use in leather goods production,... clothing, shoes.....I dont see the removal as being the manner in which a surgeon or one in training would have handled accessing an abdomen.....unless on a cadaver maybe.

I always like to remind myself that Pizer never acknowledged that he was in fact the man known as Leather Apron before the Hanbury backyard association, he claimed no-one ever called him that and his family stated they had never heard him called by that name.

Maybe a man with slippers, a sharp knife, and a trade that enabled him to learn something of anatomy and knife skills is still on the radar....maybe just not Pizer.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hello Mascara.

Call me M&P or just Paranoia, it's manlier.

You have guessed correctly. The facial mutilations are the new factor.

Yes, I like Sir Melville's intensification hypothesis as well as another. But, being mindful of Sam's admonitions about disregarding intent, and just looking at knife work, one must pause and think carefully.

But the facial mutilations are highly probably nothing more than just escalation and experimentation. He took an organ from the Chapman murder yet took nothing from Nichols, that doesn't mean they were killed by different hands. As for the knife work, Jack was very likely rushing (hence the haphazard ripping and the cutting of Eddowes' colon) and probably slipped with the blade, resulting in the jagged abdominal wound.

All that I can say about Mary Kellys killer with sound evidence support is that her killer didnt take her uterus away even though it was excised...and if the motives that are suggested for the first 2 alleged victims murders were correct, then that means her killer did not kill her her for her uterus. Which again, on record, is what was surmised about the killer of the victims Mary Ann and Annie by the medical experts that inspected them...almost identical crimes.

But Jack being after uteri specifically is just speculation on the doctor's(?) part who suggested that theory. So that doesn't mean a thing in factual/evidential terms.

[perrymason]

But Jack being after uteri specifically is just speculation on the doctor's(?) part who suggested that theory. So that doesn't mean a thing in factual/evidential terms.

At this stage in the game M & P, dont you think the opinions of the men that actually examined the wounds on the women in question should be the ones to use? People question the findings of the doctors who examined the women,.... who based on their skill and knowledge suggested a possible scenario that caused the deaths of the women.....like Killeen did with Martha,.....but on what grounds?

Can we say Killeen was mistaken? Do we have proof he was incapable of making an accurate assessment or that he was unable to differentiate between wound sizes? On what grounds?

Bond made a "Canon", ...yes, along with other Senior non-medical investigators....yet Bond saw only one woman in that Canon himself.

Best regards

[Mascara & Paranoia]

But it is just speculation, blatantly. How can he know that Jack was after the uterus in particular? He can't any more than we can, despite his profession and knowledge and skill.

[lynn cates]

Mike and M & P

Hello Mike. Did you just describe Fido's Kaminsky?

Hello M & P. That is one theory. And, by the way, I happen to like it, for it is plausible with respect to my lad.

It seems I hear both of you talking about motivation. Be careful--I think Sam Flynn may be about. (snicker!)

The best.
LC

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hello M & P. That is one theory. And, by the way, I happen to like it, for it is plausible with respect to my lad.

The theory that Jack was extracting and/or interested in uteri in particular? If so, I'm assuming your suspect is Druitt, with the mother connection (correct me if I'm wrong ). And if that's the case, I honestly don't mean to be confrontational with your POV, but there is absolutely nothing that links Druitt to either one of the Whitechapel murders aside from what someone (whose name I've forgotten) mentioned in an autobiography[?]. Not to go off-topic.

[lynn cates]

escalation

Hello M & P. Actually, I was referring to the escalation of violence. A kind of mania or frenzy which got progressively worse from Polly (Martha?) and terminated at Mary Jane.

So, you see, I'm either agreeing with you; or, at least would like to--once we can fix the canon. (I'll save Monty for another thread.)

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

But it is just speculation, blatantly. How can he know that Jack was after the uterus in particular? He can't any more than we can, despite his profession and knowledge and skill.

What he could say and what Ill allow him credit for is in his opinion what the killer did do....and in the opinion of those men, the throat cut was to kill the woman and perhaps let the blood out of the body so he could cut the uterus out without much mess and fuss...in fact he did so in the opinion of Annies medical attendant, with one clean sweep of the knife. The killer killed the woman, took out the uterus and some material juxtaposed to that venture, and he left. That suggests the killer did as they suggested, killed the woman to get her uterus specfically,...in Pollys case, it was assumed, I believe logically, that the venue proved unsuitable for task completion. He moves to the backyard next and succeeds.

I dont have Kaminsky specifically in mind Lynn....but I could see someone like him or a leather man killing a woman or women that were free of abdominal focus with the wound patterns.

As I said, I think Jack the Ripper should be defined by what he does with the first 2 Canonical murders which almost everyone agrees, were committed by the man later nicknamed Jack. He supposedly killed so he could obtain their uterus. The uterus is not necessarily the key here....but I believe the profile we can establish from those 2 murders, is.

Cheers mates.