Pinching the "Canon" fuse

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

yet again

Hello Sam. Very well, I stand corrected. How about:

"A solicitor in his presiding over an ostensible medical function"?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. Very well, I stand corrected. How about: "A solicitor in his presiding over an ostensible medical function"?

Baxter did not have a medical function - ostensible or otherwise - in his role as coroner, and he betrays his medical ignorance (not to mention his sense of melodrama and instinct for hyperbole), in his summing-up: "There were no meaningless cuts", indeed. What about the asymmetrically gouged-out abdominal wall, the double incision to the throat, the missing belly button, the failed attempt at separating the vertebrae, the severed rectum, the hacked-off bladder?

[lynn cates]

function

Hello Sam. I think my claim was presiding OVER an ostensible medical function. A coroner's inquest often does (forgive the garish phrase) "medical type stuff." Hence, it is an ostensible medical function. And, unless I am mistaken, Mr. Baxter was presiding over it.

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,



Which mix-up was this?

Cheers,
Ben

Hello old friend....havent seen you on here for a while, nice to see you Ben.

In the Fall of 88 in Bonds summary of the Canonicals for Anderson, based on the single post mortem he actually performed, he said "in each case the mutilation was inflicted by someone who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge...not even the technical knowledge of a butcher."

In his report on the case of Alice Mackenzie, he suggests that in her murder he saw "evidence of similar design to the Whitechapel murders, viz: sudden onslaught on the prostrate women, the throat skillfully and resolutely cut with subsequent mutilation, each mutilation indicating sexual thoughts.....I am of the opinion that the murder (Alice Mackenzies) was performed by the same person who committed the former Whitechapel murders".

Clearly his summary on Alice is that he thought she was killed by someone who knew what they were doing and where to cut.....things he did not feel the reports of the 4 Canonicals he reviewed did show...despite the reports by the physicians who did attend the actual autopsies and their opinions of the killers skill and or knowledge.

All the best mate.

[perrymason]

Both Sam and M & P are incorrect in their assessment of whats being claimed by me, so I dont see how any of their counters or refutations have any bearing on the actual matter, which is that there were suggestions made by the man that examined Mary Ann and Polly that were based on physical evidence that occurs in no other murder after Annie, and by the man that summarized the findings of both in the Nichols Inquest....they saw a seemingly determined effort.. without much obligatory cutting.... to kill the women so as to obtain their uterus......not any organ, and not just to cut any part of any womens body after they are killed.

The reason I say no other Canoical death comes with those comments is to illustrate that there was a distinct lack of suggestive evidence for that same reasoning to be applied to any of the 3 remaining "Canon" members murder(ers). The consistency displayed in the actions is absent, and the overall objectives judging by what was done and what was taken do not show that C3, C4 or C5 were killed so the killer could get uteri.

I have said its not that I believe its fact already, and that I believe you cannot toss the official opinions out because you dont agree that the physical evidence or the circumstantial evidence warrants the conclusion espoused.

Seems to me the men I quoted were there, inspected the wounds, and made their assessments for the records....not to please anyone.....and that there is within the physical description of those 2 womens wounds, foundations for that theorizing.

This is contemporary theorizing by the men charged with determining the very questions they offer their opinions on....if anyone was also there and can offer a contrary opinion, or if anyone can prove that they could not have been correct in their suggestions.....then Id be happy to acquiesce.

So tell me why Phillips could not know the killer was after the uterus....based on the physical data he saw and an equal medical background.

......the silence will most assuredly be deafening.....

Best regards

[perrymason]

Baxter did not have a medical function - ostensible or otherwise - in his role as coroner, and he betrays his medical ignorance (not to mention his sense of melodrama and instinct for hyperbole), in his summing-up: "There were no meaningless cuts", indeed. What about the asymmetrically gouged-out abdominal wall, the double incision to the throat, the missing belly button, the failed attempt at separating the vertebrae, the severed rectum, the hacked-off bladder?

All were at the expense of time and environment and none of what you mention above says the uterus was not the goal. You want to mention something as "casual cutting" and you do so based on the 2 women who had the least superfluous wounds, and opinions by a physician who inspected them that the actions taken were to ultimately obtain the organ taken from Annie?

What you are doing is defending your opinion that the Ripper had no skill anatomically or with a knife, that he was a "slash and grab" artist which you have said numerous times....2 things that are directly refuted by physicians who inspected the wounds themselves...in the cases of Mary Ann and Annie.

You have my respect for the breadth of your knowledge as always, but your opinions on the medical skill that is in evidence in a few of the Canonicals do not supercede those who offered different opinions....and who were there Sam. For me anyway.

With continued respect but with absolute disagreement, best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

All were at the expense of time and environment and none of what you mention above says the uterus was not the goal.

That wasn't my point. My point was to illustrate how hopeless Wynne Baxter was at (a) materia medica; and (b) coming out with a sober, sensible statement devoid of sensationalism. "No meaningless cuts", my bumpy arse!

What you are doing is defending your opinion that the Ripper had no skill anatomically or with a knife

I quote myself: "What about the asymmetrically gouged-out abdominal wall, the double incision to the throat, the missing belly button, the failed attempt at separating the vertebrae, the severed rectum, the hacked-off bladder?"

The evidence speaks for itself, Mike, and it needs neither my objective reading of it nor Bagster/Baxter's baffling interpretations to back it up.

[perrymason]

The evidence speaks for itself, Mike, and it needs neither my objective reading of it nor Bagster/Baxter's baffling interpretations to back it up.

Hi Sam,

Phillips suggests that anything that can be seen that seems improper or sloppily done might be due to the nature of the act the man was performing, where he was doing it, and what available light and privacy he might have had while doing it. The fact that the venues themselves...the outdoor ones....required fast cutting and little time to assess on the spot how he might achieve what it is he wants to achieve....(its not merely murder obviously, because what we are talking about is post mortem activity....he is still interested in the women after he kills them)....Phillips to me rationally concludes that the killer knew where to cut and what to do to achieve his objectives before arriving at the point those wounds commence....and that anything that is done less than skillfully is likely due to the haste and the circumstances.

I would expect that a highly skilled surgeon placed in the exact same scenarios would be able to complete all the tasks done but I wouldnt expect that any of those field surgeries would automatically appear as if done under controlled circumstances, without emotion, by a very skilled man. We know that in a few cases physicians estimate the time they would take themselves to properly do some of the acts, and the times they give are often multiples of the actual time that was used.

They would have been acting in haste with poor light as well had they been in the killers shoes....its a fair point.

Best regards Sam

[Observer]

Hi Mike

So he knew in advance how to remove Annie Chapmans head? Because this is what he attempted. He wasn't very successfull was he?

I very much doubt the killer had any medical experience whatsoever, he couldn't remove Annie Chapmans head for one, and the evidence shows that in all likelyhood this is what he attempted, her neck being cut all around down to the vertebrae. Even a butcher would have been capable of beheading Annie Chapman, so I doubt whether he was a butcher either.

The removal of the victims organs in my opion were done as an afterthought, a result of the abdomen lying open in front of him. `



all the best

Observer