Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hello M & P. I am not sure that Mike is trying to pass off the uterus theory as fact; he is, however, discussing what a medical man at the time observed.

Oh, he is, whether it's intentional or not.

Mike may be discussing and observing the opinions of some of the men involved in the inquest of two of the victims, but he's also ignored and distorted evidence in order for his theory to work. Now, I personally got nothing against doing that and who am I to? (Although it's not helpful at all on a serious basis) But to do so with a clear agenda to knock a victim or two out of the canon isn't really fair, especially when - factually - they're in the wrong.

I don't like being confrontational, but like I said, this is at the end of the day a real murder case and not a game for us to have fun with, y'know? I know if I was murdered and people were storytelling about my killer that I would not be a very happy boy.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello M & P. I am not sure that Mike is trying to pass off the uterus theory as fact; he is, however, discussing what a medical man at the time observed.

...in respect of only two murders - and only the first two canonical murders at that. Bagster Phillips' observations on the Eddowes and Kelly murders (in respect of "motivation" or "canonicity") are simply not recorded anywhere.

On a separate point, the uterus theory was Wynne Baxter's, and he was a non-medical man.

[lynn cates]

facts

Hello M & P. I am not sure that Mike is trying to pass off the uterus theory as fact; he is, however, discussing what a medical man at the time observed.

Now, an observation may or may not be the case. Frankly, we know very little about the Whitechapel murders. I can construct a scenario with the same hand killing about a dozen women; I can also construct one with a different killer for each woman. (I daresay you could too.) So, observations are just that--observations. I say observe, and then see what happens.

the best.
LC

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Heres the straight goods....by their opinions, its possible that C1 and C2 were killed by the same man for the same reason. Phillips saw almost every Canonical....yet he never again suggested that what he saw in those later kills suggested to him that the murders were committed for the same reason as he suggested for the first 2. Nor did anyone else. Why? Cause its crystal clear that they couldnt even make that speculative leap.... Liz and Kate and Mary were not, 100%, killed so the killer could get their uteri. The story of the uteri ends with Annie....there are no grounds for that story to be applied to any other Canonical or unsolved murder during that time.

Eddowes had her uterus removed. Nichols didn't.

You could argue that the Ripper was interrupted during the first canonical murder before he could obtain anything but at the same time that's also just speculation - something you're confusing with evidence.

There's no proof that the killer was interrupted any more than there is proof that he was intent on getting a uterus from a dead woman. For all we know the Ripper could've been done and dusted with Nichols in the same state that she was found in and was quite content with just opening her up. We have no idea what his motive was or ever will, and the authorities at the time were in no position to deem what his agenda was either.

Back then I doubt they knew about much serial killers and their tendency to take trophies, as cliché as it may be nowadays, so they would speculate as to why he removed an organ or two from certain crime scenes and them being medical men would automatically jump to the conclusion that the killer was solely out to nab a uterus. It doesn't mean anything, not in this day and age, as we know so much more about how serial killers operate, both internally and methodically. That and removing Eddowes from your preferred canon and insinuating that there was quite an intricate copycat on the scene does nothing but show the 'uteri thief' theory up for what it highly probably is; fantasy.

I honestly don't meant to confront what you're saying but there are so many myths and out-there theories involved in this case that it's just becoming a gimmick as opposed to the very real murder case that it is, and it's not helping matters. Unless there's actual proof, tangible proof, to back these ideas up then it's just speculation and that isn't a good thing when it's passed off as fact.

[Sam Flynn]

These men were not the idiots youre portraying them as Sam.

Another false conclusion. Just because I state - quite factually - that knowledge has advanced considerably since Bagster/Baxter's time, does not mean that I'm calling them "idiots". Baxter comes perilously close, however - he's certainly an irresponsible, egotistical windbag as far as I can see. Whether or not one agrees with that doesn't alter the fact that Baxter was in no way qualified to make pronouncements about matters medical or psychological. So you can kick his opinions into touch right away.

Heres the straight goods....by their opinions, its possible that C1 and C2 were killed by the same man for the same reason.

Right, in large print, in the hope that it finally sinks in:

Those opinions were given only after the first TWO murders, and what your beloved Baxter/Bagster combo thought of the "canonicity" of Eddowes and Kelly is NOT KNOWN. It's not known simply because they did not officiate at either of the last two inquests, and because their opinions on the matter were not recorded by the press or any subsequent source. You just CANNOT say that they would not have held precisely the same opinions about the last two canonical murders, because their opinions on the matter aren't written down anywhere.

To illustrate how utterly absurd this argument is, consider this:

Baxter opined that Jack made "Judas-like approaches" to Annie Chapman. Well, fair enough - as far as opinions go. However, are we then to believe that Jack did not make similar "Judas-like approaches" to any other of his victims? By your logic, no murderer - whether before, during or after the Whitechapel series - ever made "Judas-like approaches" to any victim other than Annie Chapman, unless Wynne Baxter said they did. Of course, that's clearly a preposterous conclusion - but, according to your style of argumentation, it's a perfectly valid one.

They're wrong because you dont agree...... isnt a viable counter.

They're entitled to their opinions, Mike. The problem is, you're accepting it as gospel - or, to turn your words back on yourself: "You want them to be right because YOU agree". That's not a viable counter either.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

and by the way (Bond) mixes up his own Ripper pronouncements after seeing Alice Mackenzie

Which mix-up was this?

Cheers,
Ben

Correction - it just happens to be in print. The opinions of Dr Bagster Phillips on the Eddowes and Kelly murders in comparison to Nichols' and Chapman's are not recorded. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the idiot Baxter was not in charge of those inquests.Yes, indeed. And - as I've pointed out several times - opinion (or supposition) is not the same as evidence.By a doctor and coroner who only took part in a subset of the inquests, and whose views in each case have been passed down to us only via the filter of the popular press.

Since its bleeding obvious that no Canonical died so that a killer could acquire a uterus after Annie...no surprise that it they were incomparable in that context Sam. They saw wounds that led to extracting and theft,....they didnt see an abdundance of cuts or actions that did not help facilitate that goal.

These men were not the idiots youre portraying them as Sam.

Isnt it the story,....the real story of what happened that allows the evidence to be seen in its proper context and/or light for any crime, let alone a murder? A cutup woman isnt evidence of anything but a murder, but how they were cut and why they were cut, how many were cut, at what locations they were cut...those kinds of answers can mean everything in a murder case....it sure does in this one.

Means, motive and opportunity are unto themselves unsatisfactory for the prosecution of any criminals.

So like it or not, there is a story that can address every unknown in these Ripper crimes...we just dont know what it is,....that doesnt mean we cant know something about the stories individually. Because its far from certain that one story can address all 5 murders.

Heres the straight goods....by their opinions, its possible that C1 and C2 were killed by the same man for the same reason. Phillips saw almost every Canonical....yet he never again suggested that what he saw in those later kills suggested to him that the murders were committed for the same reason as he suggested for the first 2. Nor did anyone else. Why? Cause its crystal clear that they couldnt even make that speculative leap.... Liz and Kate and Mary were not, 100%, killed so the killer could get their uteri. The story of the uteri ends with Annie Sam....there are no grounds for that story to be applied to any other Canonical or unsolved murder during that time.

That doesnt negate the fact that it was said ONLY for the first 2 murders...and that Phillips and Baxter saw grounds for making their statements.

They're wrong because you dont agree...... isnt a viable counter. Now or ever.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

I know you dont like that its on the historical records

On the contrary, Mike, I like facts - even if those facts expose the naivete of the Victorian middle classes.

Its in print...

Correction - it just happens to be in print. The opinions of Dr Bagster Phillips on the Eddowes and Kelly murders in comparison to Nichols' and Chapman's are not recorded. Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that the idiot Baxter was not in charge of those inquests.

its based on supposition of course

Yes, indeed. And - as I've pointed out several times - opinion (or supposition) is not the same as evidence.

but by the people charged with finding some sense of what transpired based on the evidence they were given, both physical and circumstantial.

By a doctor and coroner who only took part in a subset of the inquests, and whose views in each case have been passed down to us only via the filter of the popular press.

No - where we are is wondering why in Hell's name there are so many people out there who set such store by the utterances of unqualified Late Victorian authorities, senior or otherwise. It was a different world back then, and we have learned so much more since. One thing that the passage of time has not altered, of course, is that the "findings" of non-qualified coroners are by no means definitive when it comes to matters medical or psychological. In fact, they're often hopelessly quaint, if not shoddy and amateurish.Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggg gggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

(Smashes own head against desk and loses the will to live.)

I know you dont like that its on the historical records ....but it is my friend. Its in print...its contemporary...its based on supposition of course, but by the people charged with finding some sense of what transpired based on the evidence they were given, both physical and circumstantial.

Im not behind this as the answer Sam....Im just pointing out that to just brush statements that controversial and with some known foundation away isnt good investigating, IMHO.

All the best G

[Sam Flynn]

Where we are now is where we end up on oh so many threads....and thats contesting the findings of the senior authorities.

No - where we are is wondering why in Hell's name there are so many people out there who set such store by the utterances of unqualified Late Victorian authorities, senior or otherwise. It was a different world back then, and we have learned so much more since. One thing that the passage of time has not altered, of course, is that the "findings" of non-qualified coroners are by no means definitive when it comes to matters medical or psychological. In fact, they're often hopelessly quaint, if not shoddy and amateurish.

And they are the ONLY 2 Canonicals that a killers motive of uterus acquisition was attributed to.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrr rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

(Smashes own head against desk and loses the will to live.)

Where we are now is where we end up on oh so many threads....and thats contesting the findings of the senior authorities. And its where I can understand emotional responses to the data each of us may have on the various investigators and medics play a larger role that perhaps they should....for example, by the way that Bond dismisses the opinions of men who were qualified to make them and without the benefit of actual in person inspections himself suggests to me that his ego taints his opinions,...and by the way he mixes up his own Ripper pronouncements after seeing Alice Mackenzie to me puts his comments in question.

Just like Macnaghtens. And Andersons. I fully understand how some might react to some individuals differently....but I have yet to see myself a reason to suggest to me that Phillips and Baxter were incapable of accurately assessing the physical and circumstantial evidence in the first 2 murders.

I know I harp on the first 2 murders,...its because they were virtually identically executed murders.....no other Canonical murder matches with either so closely, and no other Canonical murder matches with another Canonical murder so closely.

And they are the ONLY 2 Canonicals that a killers motive of uterus acquisition was attributed to.

They belong in the same group...clearly.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

According to my information Sam, Bagster Philips attended Kate Eddowes post mortem and was quoted in the Evening News on October 1st saying that "the murder was not by the same hand that killed Stride."

Indeed, but one can't extrapolate from Bagster Philips' pronouncements on the Stride murder to exclude Kelly, anymore than we can exclude Kelly and Eddowes on the basis of his opinions on Nichols and Chapman. If he'd actually ventured an opinion, whether negative or positive, in respect of Eddowes and Kelly versus Nichols and Chapman, you might have a point, but - as it is - none were recorded for posterity.

Baxter echoes those sentiments

Good for him... but I wouldn't take Baxter's opinions on such matters at all seriously. Not only was he not medically (or "psychologically") qualified, but he comes across as a sensationalist, attention-seeking egotist of the first water.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Bagster Philips attended Kate Eddowes post mortem and was quoted in the Evening News on October 1st saying that "the murder was not by the same hand that killed Stride." Baxter echoes those sentiments in summation with his comments of "unskillful injuries" and "..possibly the work of an imitator", something that is clearly a real possibility with the news attention paid on the first 2 murders,....not long after another different but nonetheless ruthless murder.

Then Bagster Phillips is an idiot - not to talk ill of the dead. Why anyone would imitate the Whitechapel murderer at that point, I don't know; at the time of Eddowes' death he wasn't even classed as Jack the Ripper. So whoever supposedly imitated his handiwork (hypothetically playing along with the idea that that was the case) was obviously a very intricate and easily impressed copycat. I can kind of see an imitator senario going on in the Mary Kelly killing - at an epicly proportioned stretch - but definitely not in the case of Catherine Eddowes; she and Annie Chapman are the hallmark rippings, even more so than Polly (though mostly because we haven't got a precise idea of the extent of her abdominal mutilations admittedy).

Hi Perry, That's fine by me but perhaps you could just help me out here. What new information has surfaced while I have been picking apart - sorry, addressing your arguments, which I have failed to take into account? I do hope you are not trying to suggest that any of your speculation amounts to 'new information' on the murders.

On the other hand, you didn't even seem to pause for breath, let alone thought, when I posted new information concerning three documented double eventers, whose offending behaviour corresponded only too well with one violent and highly volatile individual going straight on to mutilate in Mitre Square after a brief encounter in Berner St.

Love,

Caz
X

I hadnt referred to specific information Caz, because I was alluding to perspectives as well as potential data sources being uncovered. For one, youve decided a woman with no abdominal injuries was killed by a man focused on performing them.....so, I cant see how we have much in common to discuss on a point to point basis.

As to studies of serial killers being applied to these cases....when we know we have a serial killer, they might be interesting to review. For now, they are just useless bits of trivia about serial killers in the modern era....ones I might add that were caught or gave up, ones that spoke to people about their crimes, and ones that have been psychologically probed since being incarcerated. Unlike the unknown man in 1888 who killed x amount of women, and was never caught or interviewed.

But, if you find proof that Jack was indeed caught, captured and installed in an asylum,.....another unvalidated point of contention,..... and we find some notes by the doctors that examined and questioned him...then the serial killer notes would have some value. I obviously believe that a few killers co-existed during that period, and that some like Bury or Sadler or Cohen likely attacked and or killed some of the women we study.

The one called Jack may have, in my opinion of course, have killed as few as 2 or 3 women,... some other of these men might have matched those numbers. We know of some that did.

Unless I see abdominal mutilations its not Jack, and even when we do see those kinds of wounds,...thats still no guarantee.....see Alice Mackenzie. What we would need to see are murders that swiftly incapacitate the victims without knife usage, severe almost decapitation style neck wounds, and post mortem injuries upon the abdomen.

Thats why I believe 2, perhaps 3 murders match the style shown by a lone killer in the area.

We dont interpret any of the data similarly....so, thats why I made the comment, and I still think its a good policy after this exchange.

Best regards

Hi Michael,

How did these doctors that you reference become "experts" qualified to deliver opinions on the killer's focus or motivation? They weren't trained in forensics or profiling. They weren't psychiatrists. I can tell you that it is not uncommon at all when parties are in litigation for each side to produce an expert who is deemed an expert witness by the court and is therefore allowed to render an opinion on matters in which they were not involved. Since each side has an expert witness, obviously those expert witnesses completely disagree with each other's opinions and conclusions. So take the opinion of any witness (especially one from 1888) with a large grain of salt.

c.d.

To my mind the way they might assess what the motivations for the killer of Mary Ann and Annie would be is in part by the presence of superfluous wounds that had little or nothing to do with the final result of the attack.

Kate didnt need to have her colon sectioned, nor did she need to have her nose sliced almost off, or her earlobe...to acquire her kidney and partial uterus. Very little of those kinds of useless "spiteful" wounds were seen when the men inspected the wounds of Mary Ann and Annie. There was an abundance of those kinds of wounds made again in room 13 in November, far exceeding the amount seen on even Kate.

They also had the approximate time it would take, indicating focus to some degree, and the wounds made to achieve the final objectives, and the fact that the women were subdued fully before he begins any cutting....almost a figurative ether dose. They did have facts that lead to their conclusions.

Cheers cd