Pinching the "Canon" fuse

Caz,

Perhaps the least productive poster of them all in these cases. Instead of merely dismissing evidence in the form of qualified opinion given at the Inquests, you make this my personal issue. Like others have done, to be fair. Its in the historical records.....what isnt historically recorded is the exact death count for the killer who started out as a perceived Whitechapel murderer in the Spring of 88, and what hasnt been proven is that any one man killed more than 1 woman. Logic dictates grouping the more pattern driven murders, ones that have unique facets, together...and assessing the remaining unsolved murders to see if any may be attributable to that same killer.

Even with professional men stating under oath at Inquest what they perceived the evidence revealed to them, its still going to come down to the physical and circumstantial evidence and by that barometer as M & P suggests, perhaps 3 were by one man.

That opinion is shared by some far more knowledgeable than you or I on these cases, so Id stop trying to make me sound like some left wing fanatic.....the reality is that I happen to agree with a true expert on these crimes someone in the mainstream, and you think its poppycock.

I guess one difference may be that I am looking for prosecutable linkage, and you are looking for an unpredictable madman without any discernible traits or characteristics that might be used to type him.

When I read your posts I cant help but think of someone first reading about the Canon and being then immediately convinced that was the reality there. Of course once one is more knowledgeable about the cases that belief is strained to the nth degree....but somehow not with you. You know so much more than, but still share the beliefs of, a stereotypical first Ripper book reader. Odd contrast.

Denial or something of the like must have something to do with that.

Best regards

This is getting ridiculous.

We've got one person theorising that someone other than and presumably unaffiliated with Jack was responsible for the removal of the victims' organs after their deaths, and another who's ignoring select facts in order to fit his theory about the Ripper only being responsible for the first two canonical murders (the foundations of that theory having been proven as being nothing more than speculation anyway).

Shouldn't you be more realistic and serious about people who were murdered rather than verging on writing fanfiction about their killer? We know whoever Jack was killed at least three women (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) and there's not really any hard proof (or any proof for that matter) that Kelly wasn't one of his either, aside from the fact that hers was the only murder to have been committed indoors and that she subsequently had more mutilations done to her (which could probaby be a result of the Ripper not doing this thing outside like with the others and more privacy was afforded to him in this instance). I can kind of see why there's doubt over hers and (in particular) Stride's candidacy, and so I always tend to ignore those individual cases because until there's an agreement as to who their killer was there's never gonna be any interesting discussion about them aside from the endless and tedious debate as to whether or not they were Ripper victims (*yawn*). So I think the only realistic way to get a proper read on whoever Jack was is by looking at the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders.

About the only part I can back is what I highlighted, IF Eddowes circumstances and stories that are given about her are meaningless in that nights activities....meaning her murder. I cant see what benefit "yawns" have though.

Best regards

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz

Nice to know you havent forgotten about me

i keep hoping someone is going to come forward with some direct evidence to show that the killer cut the apron piece for the purposes of either taking the organs away in it, or to show he wiped his bloody hands on it,or his knife. but just hasnt happened so the ST theory is just as plausible in my honest and professional opinion. More so now i beleive the controlled tests have negated those orginal theories.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

Could I tackle you on this from the other direction please? Rather than discussing what the killer of Polly and Annie wanted from them and why, could I ask what type of men you think killed Kate and Mary, and what each assassin wanted from these two victims and why?

Your C2 (or C3 at most) theory seems to demand that Mary's killer perfected the three Annie-like flaps of flesh from what he had read in the papers, in a deliberate and extremely insightful attempt to make the slaughter seem the same man's work, but then acted like a total idiot by extracting most of Mary's organs, including her womb and kidneys, but taking neither organ away with him, plumping instead for the heart.

If you want to attribute Kate to yet another rare mutilating murderer, who, like Mary's madman was hoping Annie's killer would get the blame, why did he take a kidney away along with her womb, and slash the face as well?

It felt quite surreal even writing the above - almost as surreal as addressing dear Trevor's fantasies about sanitary towels.

You two make the perfect 'odd couple'.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Brown
test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife-Trevor

Excuse me...are you serious ? A six inched blade ( not counting the handle) can practically go through a woman of Eddowes 'size ( Eddowes and my wife are virtually the same height and probable weight... the latter,which I am not at liberty to reveal).

Howard
The point being made is that the kidney of Eddowes was removed with some precision as to the degree of precision is perhaps debatable. However that kidney was not removed by any unconventional method it was accessed from within the abdomen. So on that basis the test set out to see if a kidney could be accessed and removed using a 6 inch bladed knife by conventional methods. from within the abdomen.The fact is that it couldnt as one of the photos in the book clearly shows.

[the walrus]

I've been lurking around here for some time, but decided this might be an appropriate time for a first post...

As far as the knife is concerned I dont recall anyone suggesting that anything else other than a 6 inch knife was used. test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife.

Haven't read your book to discover how these tests were conducted but, with all due respect, I've accessed and removed the kidneys from a human body (albeit a cadaver -- indeed, a very obese one) using only a #22 scalpel.

People are basically hollow - all you have to do is get stuff out of the way and reach inside. As Sam mentions, one could manage it with a sharp pair of nail scissors, given sufficient motivation.

Cheers!

[Mascara & Paranoia]

This is getting ridiculous.

We've got one person theorising that someone other than and presumably unaffiliated with Jack was responsible for the removal of the victims' organs after their deaths, and another who's ignoring select facts in order to fit his theory about the Ripper only being responsible for the first two canonical murders (the foundations of that theory having been proven as being nothing more than speculation anyway).

Shouldn't you be more realistic and serious about people who were murdered rather than verging on writing fanfiction about their killer? We know whoever Jack was killed at least three women (Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes) and there's not really any hard proof (or any proof for that matter) that Kelly wasn't one of his either, aside from the fact that hers was the only murder to have been committed indoors and that she subsequently had more mutilations done to her (which could probaby be a result of the Ripper not doing this thing outside like with the others and more privacy was afforded to him in this instance). I can kind of see why there's doubt over hers and (in particular) Stride's candidacy, and so I always tend to ignore those individual cases because until there's an agreement as to who their killer was there's never gonna be any interesting discussion about them aside from the endless and tedious debate as to whether or not they were Ripper victims (*yawn*). So I think the only realistic way to get a proper read on whoever Jack was is by looking at the Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes murders.

[The Good Michael]

As far as the knife is concerned I dont recall anyone suggesting that anything else other than a 6 inch knife was used. test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife

Well yeah, if you start at the rectum I suppose it's difficult.

Dr. Mike

[c.d.]

test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife-Trevor

Excuse me...are you serious ? A six inched blade ( not counting the handle) can practically go through a woman of Eddowes 'size ( Eddowes and my wife are virtually the same height and probable weight... the latter,which I am not at liberty to reveal).

Hi Howard,

Attempting to write on a wall with chalk is one thing but stabbing your wife is taking things a bit too far don't you think?

c.d.

[c.d.]

"No one person can complete the same "operation" in precisely the same way, especially when under time pressure."

Hi Sam,

Not meaning to be smart ass here but haven't you always pointed to the differences in Liz's throat wound as an indication that she was was not cut by Jack or did I misinterpret what you wrote to Trevor?

c.d.

[Howard Brown]

test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife-Trevor

Excuse me...are you serious ? A six inched blade ( not counting the handle) can practically go through a woman of Eddowes 'size ( Eddowes and my wife are virtually the same height and probable weight... the latter,which I am not at liberty to reveal).

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
i would suggest Nicholls wounds were as a result of the frenzied attack and not an attempt to remove any organs.

Eddowes had only been killed a short time before her body was found of course there would have been a large significant amount of blood in the abdomen. The bodies subject to out tests had been dead for several days in some cases and still there was a significant anount of blood still left in the body which flowed into the abdomen. Sufficent enough to prove the salient points in question.

As far as the knife is concerned I dont recall anyone suggesting that anything else other than a 6 inch knife was used. test showed you cant get near to a kidney with a 6 inch bladed knife

[Sam Flynn]

For one, not one qualified person suggested that Kate was killed for either her uterus or her kidney, however, Annie was suggested as having been killed so her killer could obtain her uterus...

That is not the case, unless you refer to Wynne Baxter's summing-up, and he was by no means qualified to say anything of the sort. Even if he were, are you seriously suggesting that, had Gordon Brown been asked his OPINION of why Eddowes' abdominal wound was inflicted, he'd have said "no reason whatsoever"? Of course Eddowes' abdominal wound was performed in order to access what lay beneath, and so were Kelly's abdominal and thoracic wounds. Just because a question isn't asked at an inquest, or just because "Coroner X" isn't inclined to heap melodramatic references into his every utterance, doesn't mean that the same conclusions wouldn't apply in each and every one of the four evisceration murders in the "Canon".

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
If you are so right about the killer removing the organs what explanations can you give to the following points.

It will be my pleasure, Trevor.

1. Having removed the uterus from Chapman why would he want another ?

Why does any junkie want another fix?

2. The abdomens from both Chaman and Eddowes were opened in different ways.To me this suggests two different persons

Better make it three - because the description of Nichols' wounds doesn't tally with those of either. Alternatively, we have an improvising killer on our hands... and that would hardly be a "first".

3. The Uterus and its appendages were removed carefully from Eddowes in a different way to Chapmans. her Uterus alone was removed. Again suggests two different persons

No one person can complete the same "operation" in precisely the same way, especially when under time pressure.

4. The killer could not have removed the kidney using a six inch knife. (Proven fact)

I disagree that this in any way a proven fact, Trevor. I'd suggest that one could use anything from a nail-scissors or a ceremonial sword, if one were sufficiently determined, and/or unhinged.

5 Going back to a point you made in a previous post about severing the carotid atery... In any event significant amounts of blood would still remain in the body

Agreed, but there would still be less than the samples your experimenters used. There's also body temperature, body mass, gender, nutrition, length of time since death, ambient temperature, levels of alcohol in the blood and many other factors to consider. Like I say, one has to try one's best to ensure that the conditions are as near as dammit the same as those which obtained in the cases in question. You gave it a good go in your book - which I continue to recommend - but I'm afraid that, commendable effort though it was, it can't be taken as definitive proof.

[Trevor Marriott]

so murderers we have.....a murder series of 5 we do not.....

For once Mr Mason I totally agree with you on the above point