Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[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

[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]

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

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

[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.

[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.

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.

[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

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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