Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[caz]

Hi Perry,

What were the thoughts of your medical men after Eddowes and Kelly?

That is surely the question you need to answer.

It's no earthly good going by what anyone thought immediately after Chapman, is it? Anyone with half a brain would have revised their opinion when the next bodies turned up without a kidney and heart respectively and their faces slashed.

Or are you claiming that your medical men thought Eddowes and Kelly were killed by two further mutilating murderers with different motivations?

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

It's no earthly good going by what anyone thought immediately after Chapman, is it? Anyone with half a brain would have revised their opinion when the next bodies turned up without a kidney and heart respectively and their faces slashed.

Caz
X

Actually Caz I would think anyone with half a brain and no requirement to have something to tell the press corp regarding a murder would look very closely at the decidedly different situations in some of the murders that Fall....rather than just arbitrarily adding them to a killer they knew nothing about and could prove no responsibility or guilt for any crime. And Phillips thought Eddowes was killed by someone else, since you mentioned him.

Sam, from Wynne Baxter......

"....This is a matter of some importance when we come to consider what possible motive there can be for all this ferocity. Robbery is out of the question; and there is nothing to suggest jealousy; there could not have been any quarrel, or it would have been heard. I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nicholls the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place"

In summation at the Nichols Inquest.

What I am saying, and I would think it should be beyond dispute, is that there is no evidence linked to any one criminal for the murders of the 5 women cited in the "Canon" ....and by doing what Caz just suggested.....just arbitrarily changing the killer profile every time a new body is found that doesnt match the prior patterns established,... all that is being done is to add non-matching characteristics and traits and behaviors to a killer by the first 2 murders, we can tell by the opinions offered and the wounds analyzed, wanted uteri.

If a man robs banks in October 2009 in London and a bank manager is run over in 2009 in October in London, must they be related too?

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, from Wynne Baxter......

"....This is a matter of some importance when we come to consider what possible motive there can be for all this ferocity. Robbery is out of the question; and there is nothing to suggest jealousy; there could not have been any quarrel, or it would have been heard. I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object, and that in the case of Nicholls the wretch was disturbed before he had accomplished his object, and having failed in the open street he tries again, within a week of his failure, in a more secluded place"

But - again - that's Wynne Baxter, offering his own (non-medical) opinion, Mike! This same Wynne Baxter, you'll remember, was at that very time vociferously punting his pet "Cash For Uteri" theory, so he had a vested interest in coming out with speculation like that.

Speculation though it is, he was only commenting at the point when two abdominal mutilation murders had occurred - so the fact that he said that at the time of the Nichols inquest can have no bearing whatsoever on such murders of a similar nature that were yet to happen.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Michael,

Let me help you out with some useful information.

You see, Catherine Eddowes was murdered in the City of London, and her inquest was held there. Dr. Brown, who examined her said "I cannot assign any reason for the parts being taken away." Mr. Baxter said nothing, of course, because he was not at the inquest, it not being his jurisdiction.

Likewise in the case of Mary Kelly, her case was in the jurisdiction of coroner McDonald, so again, Baxter said nothing. And Dr. Phillips spoke hardly a word at the inquest.

So you are taking statements made by Baxter/Phillips in the Nichols/Chapman cases, and declaring that if these statements were not made in the Eddowes/Kelly cases, then those weren't victims of the same murderer.

That, my friend, is flawed logic, because the cases did not involve the same coroners, a different doctor in the Eddowes case, and as for Phillips, he hardly spoke at all in the Kelly inquest.

Got it?

Your mix and match doesn't jibe.

Roy

[perrymason]

So you are taking statements made by Baxter/Phillips in the Nichols/Chapman cases, and declaring that if these statements were not made in the Eddowes/Kelly cases, then those weren't victims of the same murderer.

That, my friend, is flawed logic, because the cases did not involve the same coroners, a different doctor in the Eddowes case, and as for Phillips, he hardly spoke at all in the Kelly inquest.

Got it?

Your mix and match doesn't jibe.

Roy

Hi Roy,

I dont see the call for the patronizing attitude, since I am the one using professional mens quotes and not suggesting I know better than the attending physicians who gave the opinions,.....

...on the above part in bold, are you suggesting that equally skilled and trained medical practitioners in London at the time were incapable of arriving at the same conclusions as their peers when faced with the same input data? Do you know personally which ones were the really skilled ones....and which ones we shouldnt bother to listen to?

.....the facts are that the Coroners and the men that performed the autopsies on the first 2 Canonical Murder victims saw evidence of something that was not seen by similarly trained physicians while examining some later victims. Ive read the examination details and so have you, so Im sure that you have no problem admitting that "kidney" is not a nickname for a uterus, and that men who examined the women deserve to be respected unless otherwise indicated. I respect Bonds opinion on the Kelly case.....so Im not showing any disrespect there.

The men made the comments, whether you or Sam like it or not, and those same observations were not made with later victims by different men because there simply were no reasons present to do so.

The officials HAD to guess in public what was going on....we dont. We can be more objective.

Best regards

[Roy Corduroy]

I disagree with your suggestion that it was a different murderer because different coroners and different doctors, operating in different jurisdictions and Phillips testifying under changed circumstances, did not say exactly the same things that were said in previous cases.

Roy

[perrymason]

I disagree with your suggestion that it was a different murderer because different coroners and different doctors, operating in different jurisdictions and Phillips testifying under changed circumstances, did not say exactly the same things that were said in previous cases.

Roy

I would think Roy that it would not be unfair to surmise that had the officials in those cases switched the women they had seen and commented on with the later victims that others had examined and commented on their new opinions on the cases now before them would be quite similar.

Meaning, other than Bond, I think any other physician examining Polly and Annie would have arrived at similar conclusions regarding the cause of death and the possible reasons for it.

The men saw the women they saw, and only 2 of those women were suggested as being the object of a killer who desired their uteri.

Cheers Roy

[Sam Flynn]

I am the one using professional mens quotes and not suggesting I know better than the attending physicians who gave the opinions

But you are solely basing your argument on the opinions of only two such professionals, Mike - and one of them was not even a doctor.

Do you know personally which ones were the really skilled ones....and which ones we shouldnt bother to listen to?

Do any of us? I think not. Another good reason to place their opinions a loooooong way behind the facts when it comes to assessing this case.

.....the facts are that the Coroners and the men that performed the autopsies on the first 2 Canonical Murder victims saw evidence of something

It was ONE coroner - not "the coroners" - and he was not a medic, but a sensationalist who insisted on pushing his own pet speculations into the public arena.

It was ONE doctor - not "the men who performed the autopsies". We still haven't seen anything from Dr "Left Handed Killer" Llewellyn to substantiate your claim that "both" doctors stated that the killer was "after the uterus". That's because "the men [plural] who performed the autopsies" did NOT SAY ANYTHING OF THE KIND.

I respect Bonds opinion on the Kelly case.....

Bond's greatest contribution to Ripperology was the factual report he made of Kelly's wounds, not his opinions. Which is as it should be.

The men made the comments, whether you or Sam like it or not

It's not a question of "liking it or not", more a question of whether those opinions are worth basing an argument upon, when (a) we're talking about a lay-person coroner, not a medic; (b) Doctor Phillips did not once say that Annie's killer was "after the uterus"; (c) Doctors Llewellyn said nothing at all about the killer's targeting the uterus; (d) Wynne Baxter, Bagster Phillips and Rees Llewellyn each made some incredibly misguided statements in connection with the cases in which they were involved; and (c) neither Baxter, Bagster Phillips nor Llewellyn were involved in ALL the cases anyway.

The officials HAD to guess in public what was going on....we dont. We can be more objective.

Indeed - and we can start by consigning those officials' "guesses" to the dustbin where they belong.

[perrymason]

Hello Caz. On the other hand, I think Mike takes the killings of Polly and Annie as paradigmal for the Whitechapel murders. The "uteri" for profit charge deals, I think, primarily with these 2.

Oh dear, I hope that I am not putting words in Mike's mouth?

Cheers.
LC

You've put it quite well Lynn, thanks. I do in fact believe that all we can really know about the killer nicknamed Jack is by examining the women that were killed immediately preceding a letter that first coins the nickname. It was the moment that Whitechapel Murderer became someone else. Those 2 murders signify specificity that is present in no other Canonical murder, as Lynn points out ...these 2 murders are the only ones that a story regarding uteri samples mentioned in the Coroners closing remarks are aligned with, the story was verified by one source, and the nature of this type of crime was directly related to the plethora of medical research going on in London at the time. It also has historical precedents, and the environment at the time in London may have caused a resurgence in this kind of crime....there were severe shortages of cadavers for medical research,... therefore, also of cadaver parts.

Im of the opinion that the first 2 murders showed the attending physicians that the killer had some knowledge of anatomy, and some skill with a knife, and that the actions taken were not of someone with no training. I know that after Annie's murder the police sought medical students for questioning....I know that it was a Teaching Hospital that the American doctor was said to have approached offering 20L for uterus samples the previous Fall, and I know that there was recorded opinion by the authorities that the murders of Polly and Annie were to acquire their uteri and therefore only the second one was deemed "successful".

Do I think this must be the answer....hell no. But it is one possible answer that you will actually find suggested by the authorities themselves at the time of the murders....which is more than can be said for some other "theorizing".

All the best

[perrymason]

How did my post regarding Lynns comments appear before his post?

[caz]

The officials HAD to guess in public what was going on....we dont. We can be more objective.

But Perry, they were guessing based on Whitechapel murders past and present, not future.

And don't tell us to be more objective, while you sit there being as subjective as all hell.

Tell me please what your 'expert' womb men said about their original theory after a few more unfortunates were discovered slaughtered. What anyone thought in the wake of Polly and Annie cannot possibly be relevant because they didn't know what was to come and didn't have the benefit of hindsight.

We do, so we can use it. Well some of us can. But not to form opinions on motivation, which even the killer himself would have had problems with, because none of his murders were rational, no matter how many he committed. Stealing those wombs for imagined profit would have been barking.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

paradigm

Hello Caz. On the other hand, I think Mike takes the killings of Polly and Annie as paradigmal for the Whitechapel murders. The "uteri" for profit charge deals, I think, primarily with these 2.

Oh dear, I hope that I am not putting words in Mike's mouth?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dismissing theories

Hello Mike. Thanks. I hoped I had understood your thoughts.

I agree about not hastily dismissing theories. The one dismissed just might be the correct one.

(Something odd is going on with the threads--many posts are out of sync.)

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Caz. On the other hand, I think Mike takes the killings of Polly and Annie as paradigmal for the Whitechapel murders. The "uteri" for profit charge deals, I think, primarily with these 2.

Indeed, Lynn, but I can't for the life of me see why it shouldn't also apply to Catherine Eddowes, who also had her womb removed from the scene. Of course, the problem with Nichols' death being paradigmatic in this context is that she did not have it "all taken away" by the killer.

Bear in mind that Wynne Baxter's ridiculous "theory" was not made public until looooong after the deaths of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, and only then because Baxter claims to have received a handy personal communication from a teaching hospital telling him about the "Wombs for Money" story on, or shortly after, the 20th September 1888.

That this was made public at all seems to have come about because Baxter had been criticised for his protracted inquests, and that he'd insisted on the evidence being heard in minute detail. It seems that the "Wombs for Money" theory was only wheeled out by Baxter at the next session (the coroner's summing-up of the 26th September) to show how "useful" his long-winded approach could be in unearthing new "leads".

Seen in this light, therefore, the "Wombs for Money" story seems to have been little more than a face-saving exercise on the part of an egotistical coroner. As "evidence" it is practically worthless, if not positively damaging, to any sensible assessment of the Ripper case.

[lynn cates]

intestines

Hello Sam. I wonder if it's possible to claim the "Ripper" was after uteri without subscribing to the uteri for sale theory?

I wish we had a police photograph of the bodies as found, this might clear up several mysteries. For one thing, I think we could see "how" the intestines were laid out. Is it more of "let's get them out of the way so we can get what we came for" or is it part of a release of rage--a "tasmanian devil through the innards" as it were?

The best.
LC