Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[Mascara & Paranoia]

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 can see where you're coming from but it's just exactly what I highlighted; their opinion, i.e. speculation. For all they knew, just like us, Jack could've done what he set out to do with Polly and just opened her up; we don't know the extent and exact appearance of her wounds so it's impossible to determine whether or not he was interrupted et cetera (that certainly wasn't a theory until one[?] man speculated such after Annie's murder). As for Annie having had her intestines drawn out, that could've been Jack experimenting a bit and being intrigued to have a look at what's inside the female body. Regarding her uterus being removed, it could be something as simple as Jack wanting to take a memento and cut out the first thing he saw in the area that piqued his interest the most. It doesn't necessarily mean he set out to get a uterus from the off or if he even knew what that melon-shaped thing was that we commonly refer to as a womb.

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.

Then that small minority are being a bit silly to cast doubt over Mary Anne's and Annie's candidacy as Rip vics.

Though I do agree that those murders (in addition to Eddowes') are the best way of getting a proper read on Jack, rather than endlessly discussing and debating who killed MJK and Liz Stride.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I think the key point here is that Jack was after internal organs of which the uterus is one. I don't think that it necessarily indicates that the uterus itself was his goal. Consider this scenario -- you have a thief who is targeting office buildings within a radius of three or four blocks. His M.O. is basically the same every time. The first two times that he strikes he steals computers. The next time a computer monitor and when he strikes again he steals a fax machine. I think the most logical conlusion is that it is the same thief since in every instance he steals computer equipment. The fact that he has switched from computers to a fax machine is basically irrelevant.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I think the key point here is that Jack was after internal organs of which the uterus is one. I don't think that it necessarily indicates that the uterus itself was his goal. Consider this scenario -- you have a thief who is targeting office buildings within a radius of three or four blocks. His M.O. is basically the same every time. The first two times that he strikes he steals computers. The next time a computer monitor and when he strikes again he steals a fax machine. I think the most logical conlusion is that it is the same thief since in every instance he steals computer equipment. The fact that he has switched from computers to a fax machine is basically irrelevant.

c.d.

Thats a good analogy for your point cd, but......if the thief needs a CPU and not a monitor, if he can sell a CPU through his network easily but not things like faxes, if he is stealing a PC for a client of his, if he needs things from the CPU that are not part of the electronics in faxes....then I would be very surprised to see perform fax thefts. Why would he?

The same could well be the case here. The man that killed Mary Ann and Annie were said by the medical examiners to be killed so the killer could open them and take the organ that is only successfully taken from the second victim. They didnt conclude based on the wound patterns that he wanted anyabdominal organ. Or just any organ from the body, for that matter.

So why would I or anyone else assume that his real objectives were to cut the women into pieces as time allows and to take whatever is the first thing he sees when he cuts them open? Since her uterus isnt the first thing he would come across.

Best regards cd

[caz]

Hi Perry,

This is precisely what Sam and I, among others, have been objecting to - how in the world were those medical men qualified to ascertain a killer's motivation from the state of the victims' bodies on discovery?

There is absolutely no way of knowing what became of the missing bodily bits, rings and what have you, therefore there is absolutely no way of knowing what the killer(s) intended to do with them on each occasion, if anything. They were missing and never found again. Were the doctors psychic or something? Could they predict, from the hole it had made, whether a missing organ would be preserved, eaten, wanked over, popped in the post, sold to the highest bidder or simply discarded?

Even if ten unfortunates turned up with their wombs missing, an eleventh could be killed by the same man, with the same motivation, for all the brightest medics in the world would know, and he could have decided to ring the changes and pinch a heart this time - maybe because, ooh I don't know, he had no thick layers of clothing to fight his way through, or he had more time, more light, or an easier and safer place to work in, and perhaps a bed to work on. What did the same doctors think when Kate's kidney was taken and she was mutilated above the neck, and when Mary's womb was removed but left at the scene? Did they stick rigidly to womb harvesting as the killer's evident goal and exclude Kate and Mary as a result? Or is it more likely that they revised their original ideas as more bodies were found?

The Dear Boss author smartly predicted that his "Jack" wasn't just in it for the wombs, but would be cutting ears for jolly if he got the chance on his very next outing. What the hell made him so sure that the killer of Polly and Annie would soon depart from the downstairs department and head that far north? He was way ahead of the doctors, wasn't he? But I suspect they all caught up in the end when Mary's breasts were removed and her heart disappeared.

What evidence do you have that Jack was not working his way up?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Thats a good analogy for your point cd, but......if the thief needs a CPU and not a monitor, if he can sell a CPU through his network easily but not things like faxes, if he is stealing a PC for a client of his, if he needs things from the CPU that are not part of the electronics in faxes....then I would be very surprised to see perform fax thefts. Why would he?

This is insane. The point CD made was that the guy was taking things from offices based upon what he could get. You took it down a path of his stealing for clients. Why? Do you think that's what Jacky was doing? He was getting specific parts for clients? That's kind of loony.

Mike

[caz]

That's exactly the bee that has been buzzing away in Perry's bonnet, as far as I can see, GM.

But to be fair, I suppose the killer could have been the sort of total loony who imagined he had hit upon the simplest and smartest method of "making ends meet".

He did seem to have a thing about "ends", after all.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi Caz and Mike,

Im not selling anything here, but if I was to suggest that the killer might have killed Polly and Annie based on preconceived notions of selling the parts he gets, then we have a verified story concerning an American doctor the previous year to use as support...and the opinions of the two medical examiners as to the purpose for the murders. This isnt some Royals deal ....it has evidentiary support me hearties. And historical.

Methinks you place too much significance on words in a letter Caz, and bits of ear.

As to this paragraph Caz.....

"Even if ten unfortunates turned up with their wombs missing, an eleventh could be killed by the same man, with the same motivation, for all the brightest medics in the world would know, and he could have decided to ring the changes and pinch a heart this time - maybe because, ooh I don't know, he had no thick layers of clothing to fight his way through, or he had more time, more light, or an easier and safer place to work in, and perhaps a bed to work on. What did the same doctors think when Kate's kidney was taken and she was mutilated above the neck, and when Mary's womb was removed but left at the scene? Did they stick rigidly to womb harvesting as the killer's evident goal and exclude Kate and Mary as a result? Or is it more likely that they revised their original ideas as more bodies were found?"...

.....How is it that a man who kills for uteri and one who kills for a heart kills for the same reasons? How could you know that from just those facts?

How did Annies killer need more time by the evidence? I can see when assessing the prior, that that was likely the case as the contemporary medical men thought...the ones who examined the women....but what evidence is there that the first and second murders were not the entire world of Jack the Ripper...whose to say he changes like a child changes out of church clothes...fast and to anything handy. Whose to say, as you and Mike and apparently some of the authorities of the period seem to suggest his chameleon-like motivations are something the evidence suggests....(which it does not, by the way, a Canon does).....that the murders he actually committed werent precisely what he wanted and needed to do.

You add a failed attempt and a bloodbath to Jack because they did....that doesnt make assuming these five women were all killed by the same man somehow more credible...it just makes it match the opinions of the men that didnt solve the murder cases.

Its still possible someone may put it all together one day, and Ill wager hard cash on no Canonical Group of 5... right now.

Best regards

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Gotta step in here due to the irony.

that doesnt make assuming these five women were all killed by the same man somehow more credible...it just makes it match the opinions of the men that didnt solve the murder cases.

So, one man assuming that Jack's main goal in the Polly/Annie murders was to obtain a uterus is to be treated as tantamount to 'evidence' by you, yet another assumption isn't because it doesn't sit right with your theory? Right.

The only thing we can be sure of is that it's mostly all just speculation and is not to be treated as absolute proof of any one theory without actual evidence, and your doc assuming that Jack's main objective with his mutilations was to harvest a uterus or uteri is NOT evidence - it's a theory, and not even one that holds that much weight or water or whatever that saying is.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

So you're not selling anything here, but you'll wager hard cash on no canonical group of five.

Well that's fine then because I also believe that five wasn't the number. I'd plump for this killer attacking more than five women.

...we have...the opinions of the two medical examiners as to the purpose for the murders...

But where is your evidence that they did not revise their original theory as more bodies were found with different wounds?

Methinks you place too much significance on words in a letter Caz, and bits of ear.

I don't know what you mean. All I was saying is that whoever wrote about clipping ears off on the next job seemed to have a better grasp of what the killer was about than your medical examiners. Within hours of the letter landing on a policeman's desk another unfortunate was being ripped like a pig in the market. But for the first time the knife went way above the abdomen, to attack the cheeks, ear and nose. So it was very far from obvious by that point that the killer's main aim was to extract and sell wombs.

.....How is it that a man who kills for uteri and one who kills for a heart kills for the same reasons? How could you know that from just those facts?

I don't know that. It's just one perfectly logical alternative possibility that you seem determined to reject for no good reason. You don't know that at least four different killers were responsible for the six victims from Martha to Mary. But that's what you are trying to get us to swallow.

You keep saying what the evidence does and doesn't suggest to you. But it allows for a lot more alternatives than you are prepared to consider. Who is to say that the murders were precisely what he wanted and needed to do? Your opinion is no better or worse than anyone else's and the evidence is just not clear enough to tell us who is right or wrong. What you think is more 'credible' will not necessarily appear remotely credible to others.

Nobody will ever 'put it all together' with mere theory, Perry. It will take a whole lot of new evidence - enough to make individual theorising redundant.

Love,

Caz
X

[Septic Blue]

5-15%
Geographical Location/Range:
My thinking is to start to look at events within a 50% larger circle than is made using the less than square mile he actually kills in.....say 1.5 square mile radius with somewhere near the Commercial and Wentworth intersection as the central point.

Er-Er-Erm!

[ATTACH]6861[/ATTACH]
Figure 2: Isolating the Murder-Site 'Center of Minimum Distance' (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

The process of isolating the murder-site 'center of minimum distance' begins with the construction of a 'Convex Hull' (white); i.e. the smallest convex polygon (in this particular instance; an irregular pentagon), in which the six murder-sites are contained. Its construction is simply a 'connection of the dots', in which the Tabram murder-site is by-passed in order to maintain convexity. It is analogous to wrapping a rubber band around an arrangement of push-pins depicting the murder-site locations on a bulletin-board map; in as much as the centrally located push-pins (e.g. the Tabram murder-site) would not come into contact with the rubber band, and hence would not affect its polygonal 'shape'.

Of Note; The Area of the 'Convex Hull' (White): 782,065.96 Square-Yards, i.e. 0.25 Square-Miles

Conventional wisdom dictates that the 'Macnaghten-Five' victims of 'Jack the Ripper' (i.e. those, which comprise the supposed 'Canon': Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly) were all murdered within an area of 'one square-mile'. As the measured area of the 'Convex Hull' would indicate; this assessment is actually too conservative. But, as the 'Convex Hull' in this particular case is an irregular polygon, depicting the 'tightest possible fit'; it would be somewhat inappropriate to base the 'size' of the 'Ripper's killing field' on its measured area.

As demonstrated later in this project; the 'Ripper's killing field' can be justly defined by its as yet undetermined Murder-Site Mean-Center (i.e. 'Mean-Center'; as opposed to 'Median-Center'), along with its corresponding 'Circle of Greatest Single Deviation' (0.72 Square-Miles) or 'Ellipse of Greatest Single Deviation' (0.53 Square-Miles). Using a 'happy medium' of 0.63 Square-Miles, it can be rightly asserted that the 'Macnaghten-Five' were murdered within an area of approximately 5/8 of a square-mile; that being substantially less than the convention of 'one square-mile'.

[ATTACH]6862[/ATTACH]
Figure 27: Cumulative Probability Distribution (Greatest Deviation: Polly Nichols) (Circular) (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Red: Greatest Deviation (Polly Nichols) 0.00 - 1.38 Standard Deviations
- Radius: 843.50 Yards
- Area: 0.72 Square-Miles
- 'Expected' Distribution Accumulation: 77.30% *
* Were these murders to have continued ad infinitum; the 'expectation' would be that 77.30% would have occurred within the specified circular area. This can be loosely interpreted, to mean that the 'probability' of the impending subsequent murder occurring within this circular area; would have been 77.30%.

[ATTACH]6863[/ATTACH]
Figure 25: Cumulative Probability Distribution (0.00% - 90.00%) (Circular) (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

…

Red/Orange/Yellow/Green/Aqua: 0.00% - 90.00% Stipulated 'Expectation' of Distribution Accumulation *
- 0.00 - 2.02 Standard Deviations
- Radius: 1,234.67 Yards
- Area: 1.55 Square-Miles
* Were these murders to have continued ad infinitum; the 'expectation' would be that 90.00% would have occurred within the specified circular area. This can be loosely interpreted, to mean that the 'probability' of the impending subsequent murder occurring within this circular area; would have been 90.00%.

"Area: 1.55 Square-Miles"

There's your circle, having an area of ~1.50 square-miles, Michael!

It is indeed a very significant component of my "Geo-Spatial Analysis", in as much as those who were actually investigating these murders, in late November 1888, should have perceived a 90.00% probability that any impending subsequent murder would occur within the specified area.

The specified circular region is in fact, the portion of East London that I have dubbed the "General Vicinity of the Murder 'Locale'", as part of my effort to define those areas, which were 'local', to the mystery of 'Jack the Ripper'!

It is also notable that the specified circle encompassed the entirety of the "Jewish East London", of the 1880's/1890's.

--- Click the Above Link to View the Map of "Jewish East London" ---


Figure 1: Murder 'Locale' - Immediate Vicinity; General Vicinity (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Red: Greatest Deviation (Polly Nichols) 0.00 - 1.38 Standard Deviations
- Radius: 843.50 Yards
- Area: 0.72 Square-Miles
- 'Expected' Distribution Accumulation: 77.30% *

* Were this series of murders to have continued ad infinitum, the expectation would be that 77.30% would have occurred within the specified circular area, i.e. within 1.38 'Standard Deviations' of the murder-site 'Mean-Center' (green dot).

This can be loosely interpreted to mean that in late November 1888, the perceived probability of any impending subsequent murder occurring within this circular area, should have been 77.30%.

Red/Aqua: 0.00% - 90.00% Stipulated 'Expectation' of Distribution Accumulation *
- 0.00 - 2.02 Standard Deviations
- Radius: 1,234.67 Yards
- Area: 1.55 Square-Miles

* Were this series of murders to have continued ad infinitum, the expectation would be that 90.00% would have occurred within the specified circular area, i.e. within 2.02 'Standard Deviations' of the murder-site 'Mean-Center' (green dot).

This can be loosely interpreted to mean that in late November 1888, the perceived probability of any impending subsequent murder occurring within this circular area, should have been 90.00%.


Figure 2: Murder 'Locale' - Immediate Vicinity; General Vicinity; Broad Vicinity (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009


Figure 3: The 'East End' (1888) (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

Purple: The City of London
Yellow: The Parish of St. John at Hackney
Red: The 'East End' (1888) …

The Parliamentary Borough of Shoreditch
- The Parish of St. Leonard Shoreditch

The Parliamentary Borough of Bethnal Green
- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green

The Parliamentary Borough of Tower Hamlets
- The Liberty of Norton Folgate
- The Old Artillery Ground
- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields
- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town
- The Parish of Holy Trinity ('Minories')
- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel (portion within the County of Middlesex)
- The Liberty of Her Majesty's Tower of London
--- [The Liberty of the Tower]
--- [The Precinct of Old Tower Without]
--- [The Tower]
- The Precinct of St. Katharine
- The Parish of St. Botolph without Aldgate (portion within the County of Middlesex)
- The Hamlet of Mile End Old Town
- The Parish of St. George in the East
- The Parish of St. John of Wapping
- The Parish of St. Paul Shadwell
- The Hamlet of Ratcliff
- The Parish of St. Anne Limehouse
- The Parish of St. Mary Stratford Bow
- The Parish of Bromley St. Leonard
- The Parish of All Saints Poplar


Figure 4: Murder 'Locale' in the Context of a Larger 'East End' (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009


Figure 5: Murder 'Locale' in the Context of a Larger 'East End' (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

The following two perspectives (i.e. "Deviations from Murder-Site Mean-Center" (Circular & Elliptical)) enable a comparative analysis of each victim's 'viability', on the basis of geography.

I can provide the applicable statistics, for each of the two perspectives, but must defer doing so, until later this week.


Figure 6: Deviations from Murder-Site Mean-Center (Circular Perspective) (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009


Figure 7: Deviations from Murder-Site Mean-Center (Elliptical Perspective) (Click to View in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2007
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2009

I think he walks to kills and thats supported by the tight grouping of alleged victims.

"supported by the tight grouping of alleged victims"

That's actually not the case, Michael!

The relative proximity of each of the murder-sites to the murder-site mean-center, in this instance, clearly affords the very distinct possibility that the murderer walked to each of the murder-sites, from his 'base of operations'. But that is all that it affords! It does not indicate an increased 'probability' that the murderer operated in a pedestrian manner.

[perrymason]

Thats some great work Colin and I thank you for posting it based on a suggestion I made.....seems Im a little late to the game on this.

To M & P, you didnt properly note that I am not the "one" making the guess that the killer of Polly and Annie was after the uterus, the men that examined those victims did.....under oath at the Inquest. Im just not discarding that theorizing in favour of some made by the man who saw only Mary Kelly in death, and men that did not have the experience or skill sets to make such determinations as they lacked medical expertise.....just like most of us actually,..... I can speak for myself anyway.

Im not a physician and I didnt see one Canonical...but a medical man who saw several stated in his opinion that Annie was killed for her uterus.

Not that he took her uterus after he killed her....he killed her for the uterus.

Best regards Colin, M & P.

[Sam Flynn]

To M & P, you didnt properly note that I am not the "one" making the guess that the killer of Polly and Annie was after the uterus, the men that examined those victims did.....under oath at the Inquest.

The fact that they were "under oath" doesn't mean that their opinions were any more valid, Mike. Enough people have been wrongly convicted by the opinions of "expert witnesses" to prove that beyond question.

Besides, where did either Llewellyn or Bagster Phillips state that the killer was "after the uterus" anyway? I can't think of anything of the kind being discussed "on oath" at the Nichols inquest, so - even if it weren't for his pathetic "left handed killer" suggestion - we can rule out Llewellyn's opinion on this matter for starters.

As far as Annie Chapman is concerned, we at least have this: "The conclusion that the desire to possess the missing abdominal organ seems overwhelming"... but that was the (non-medical) coroner Wynne Baxter who came up with that typically opinionated statement, not Bagster Phillips.

[perrymason]

The fact that they were "under oath" doesn't mean that their opinions were any more valid, Mike. Enough people have been wrongly convicted by the opinions of "expert witnesses" to prove that beyond question.

Besides, where did either Llewellyn or Bagster Phillips state that the killer was "after the uterus" anyway? I can't think of anything of the kind being discussed "on oath" at the Nichols inquest, so - even if it weren't for his pathetic "left handed killer" suggestion - we can rule out Llewellyn's opinion on this matter for starters.

As far as Annie Chapman is concerned, we at least have this: "The conclusion that the desire to possess the missing abdominal organ seems overwhelming"... but that was the (non-medical) coroner Wynne Baxter who came up with that typically opinionated statement, not Bagster Phillips.

From Phillips, at the Chapman Inquest, along with all his comments regarding the skill required to perform the acts on Annies body after .....

".....The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

This is not a suggestion of a "slash and grab" Sam, none of the medical men involved with those 2 murders thought that.

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

From Phillips, at the Chapman Inquest, along with all his comments regarding the skill required to perform the acts on Annies body after .....

".....The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

Yes, but that's not saying he was "after the uterus", is it? And it's not Dr Llewellyn, either - so what you said, regarding both doctors' opinions, on oath, wasn't strictly true, was it?

This is not a suggestion of a "slash and grab" Sam, none of the medical men involved with those 2 murders thought that.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggg gggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

What "2 murders"? You've just quoted Bagster Phillips, that's all - ONE medical man. You have NOT substantiated your claim that Rees Llewellyn also said "under oath" that the killer was - in your words - "after the uterus". Yet, according to you, that becomes "none of the medical men involved with those 2 murders". What weird sort of algebra allows you to do that?

Besides, as I've said before - "opinions", whether under oath or not, are NOT THE SAME AS EVIDENCE.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Hear, hear!