Pinching the "Canon" fuse

Caz, Sam........my point was never that they were obviously intended to be given to an American Doctor that asked to buy some uteri the year before...my point was that the story offers a possible explanation of why anyone would kill for that specific organ.

I can and do think of other reasons.

Tumblety was a long forgotten but well known man to the investigators at the time, he was nuts and dangerously so.....he is also too tall to reconcile with any witness sightings.

I can see possibly a few different stories for some of these murders that involve men we know about now....maybe Kosminski as Strides killer, maybe Bury or someone like him for Martha's, .......but the guy who killed the first 2 Canonical women seemed to the investigators, coroner and physician, to have done so in order for him to cut into the dead bodies and extract their uterus. The targetted organ in Annies case is obvious, the case for the same man in Pollys killing relies on the physical and circumstantial data...they were killed almost identically, and both murders had injuries that are consistent with the final outcome objective that is accomplished in only the second murder.

Ive never said these had to be kills for an American Doctor,.....only that the story for the basis of the theory was accurate, and it is one explanation that also might involve a known nut in the area at the time that had no great fondness for women,.... alive or dead I would imagine.....and who is considered to be a possible suspect for all the Ripper slayings.

My best regards

[caz]

Hi Perry,

What's so difficult about this? The wounds to Polly and Annie were merely found to be consistent with an attempt by the killer to extract the womb from their dead bodies.

That's it.

End of.

After that, the best guesses of the finest medical or non-medical brains in the land, as to the killer's motivation for leaving the bodies in the condition in which they were shortly found, were no better or worse than anyone else's, including yours or mine today.

There is not a shred of evidence to indicate one potential use for the organs over any other. We are not dealing with a logical killer here - especially if he thought it a useful little earner to do what he did to Polly and Annie.

But we can surely use some common sense here to rule out some kind of demented Uncle Jack figure, desperately keen to help women overcome their fertility problems - by studying the menopausal wombs ripped from hurriedly slaughtered unfortunates.

This was just over a hundred years ago, Perry, not a thousand. My grandparents were ten in 1888.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Ive actually never have said that I personally believe the uterus story given by Wynne Baxter during his Nichols summation is what we all should accept as the ONLY acceptable premise or even the most likely premise for the murder of the first 2 Canonicals. I have said consistently that it is a real story that is at the heart of the theory and that it was offered by the men charged with the determination of whether Polly and Annie were murdered

Correction, Mike - it was offered by ONE man, Wynne Baxter, and he used the story to humiliate Dr Bagster Phillips. That upstart doctor had had the cheek to question the Great Baxter's wisdom in insisting that the gory details be given out at the inquest, details which were subsequently suppressed by the press.

That latter point makes Baxter's claim rather interesting. I paraphrase, but the gist of it goes:

"How dare people [by implication the hapless Dr Bagster Phillips] suggest that I was wrong to ask for the gory details to be given at my inquests. It just so happens [by an amazing coincidence] that I was vindicated straight away. I was contacted by an official of one of our great medical institutions, who had read all about Chapman's evisceration in the paper. I [personally, natch] went to meet him, and he informed me that [insert account of "Womb-Man's Weekly" magazine here]...".

What puzzles me is how Baxter's curator chum got to read about Annie's hysterectomy, if this detail was omitted by the mainstream press - yet Baxter claims his correspondent read about it in the morning papers. I smell a rat.

Ive actually never have said that I personally believe the uterus story given by Wynne Baxter during his Nichols summation is what we all should accept as the ONLY acceptable premise or even the most likely premise for the murder of the first 2 Canonicals. I have said consistently that it is a real story that is at the heart of the theory and that it was offered by the men charged with the determination of whether Polly and Annie were murdered...and possibly if the physical evidence suggests a possible motive, to then offer that.

Which he..... and since Phillips comments assist him with this speculation of his....they did.

Many people ignore or disregard what was suggested. I personally dont see reasons to arbitrarily toss aside an opinion of a contemporary investigator who has had benefit of viewing or discussing with the physician who did inspect the deceased's wounds, the specific nature of the wounds inflicted.

Not being a doctor I have no grounds to overrule their opinions... as some here do anyway, and just like Bond without the benefit of actually seeing 4 of the women himself......but to my untrained eye it seems acceptable that they might suggest this theory for the killer who murdered Annie at least, because there are few cuts on her body that would not have had to happen to enable the uterus theft. Almost every cut can be explained based on that premise, from the throat cut on.

What again is the explanation for the removal of thigh flesh in connection with the obtaining of a heart?

I must have missed that logical progression in there somewhere that people seem to think is present.

Best regards all

[lynn cates]

Ham Berger

Hello Caz. Your dictum:

"he would still fit the definition of a violent male-on-female repeat offender"

could not be more accurate. My dictum:

" 'angin's too good for 'im ah says."

Regarding Perry Mason. His helper was indeed Della Street. And who was his nemesis? (Couldn't resist.)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I think you'll find that Perry can usually speak up for himself, Lynn. And I'm not so sure your references to works of fiction are designed to help him.

It really doesn't matter how many wombs Perry's ghoul was commissioned to extract out on the teeming streets of Whitechapel, since he would still fit the definition of a violent male-on-female repeat offender, even if he totally failed in the first mission and succeeded in the second, never to attack another woman in his life.

Oh this is getting too silly to counter. I'll leave you to defend Perry Mason (our fictional detective) in your own way. You may need a new incarnation as Della Street.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

demand

Hello Caz. Permit me, once again, to say something on behalf of Mike's theory.

First, lest there be a misunderstanding, I am neutral on organ harvesting. Perhaps soon I'll have an "aha!" and come down on one side or the other.

But I am thinking of your:

"Was he only after a single womb for profit, when he first sallied forth with his knife? Or was he hoping for as many as he could get his bloody hands round?"

Well, I put it to you that the answer would most likely be dictated by demand. (I think here of "Frankenstein" when Colin Clive asks Dwight Frye [Fritz] to get a brain [singular]; or, "Bride of Frankenstein" when Colin Clive asks Dwight Frye [Karl, this time] to get a heart [singular].

So, if some poor devil were after organs, he would likely wish to obtain EXACTLY however many he were commissioned to get.

Sorry, Mike, if this is incorrect.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Perry's going to regret this but...

Hi Perry,

Just wondering what you think your womb man was, if not a violent repeat offender?

Was he only after a single womb for profit, when he first sallied forth with his knife? Or was he hoping for as many as he could get his bloody hands round?

Either way he could hardly be described as a one-off killer with a conventional motive. Unique in the annals of crime more like, if the theory held any water. So why your aversion to any comparison between Jack the Womb Man and other violent male-on-female repeat offenders, if that's precisely what the killer of Polly and Annie was?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...with your...."many serial offenders" crap...

...You'll continue to be cart before the horse type for as long as you breathe...

...Id prefer not to have to waste that time addressing nonsense just because Im poilte.

I take it you meant "I'm polite".

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

If I'm wrong and Im poilte is some chronic condition, I'm so sorry to have made it flair up with just the power of my fingertips on a keyboard. I'd advise bed rest - for at least three months. You never know when I might pop up to express my opinion.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I was referring to the fact that almost every action that is undertaken after Annies murder can be logically assumed to have been the killer seeking to obtain the organ he takes.

Organs, plural, Mike. Most of the bladder, and a lozenge of the belly wall containing the navel, went astray as well.

And, as I've pointed out, there's no great mystery to cutting open the abdomen to remove the uterus - it's the logical thing to do. Seen from that perspective, the fact that the "mutilations were performed in order to obtain the missing organs" is a tautology. It certainly doesn't mean that the killer set out with the intention of removing the womb.

There are no facial slashes, nicks, peeled thighs or uteri left under the head.

Perhaps Jack felt time (and daylight) pressure creeping up on him, and Cadoche mooching about next door couldn't have helped calm his nerves. Plus, of course, this would arguably have been Jack's first glimpse of a "fanned out", still-warm, still-throbbing corpse in half-decent light.

No wonder he didn't hang around to do more damage.

As I said before Caz, the only truly useless thing I can do here is to counter posts you make addressed to me.

That you cannot or will not use logic and reason shouldnt be my problem to correct.

"A little humility wouldn’t go amiss, you know....
Are you really now judge and jury over Jack’s mind as well as his apparently superhuman powers? He would/could never have failed to perform exclusively womb-bound mutilations on any woman he ever attacked in the streets?

Did you miss the fact that it was my opinion and not a mandatory stance I was suggesting?

"I hope you are right, Lynn, for his sake. He would never succeed. But isn’t he completely wasting his time in any case, trying to pass off the antiquated post-Chapman, pre-Eddowes and Kelly uterus theory as a valid modern perspective on the Whitechapel Murders?"

I think what youve identified is that I, unlike you and many others, havent discarded a contemporary suggestion by men who saw and examined the victims. You are the one who has the rampant ego...suggesting that they were incorrect then without any proof that was the case....like you know better than the men personally involved in the cases. My experience has shown me that you ignore or reject anything that doesnt fit your own baseless... and unsupported in evidence... feeb serial killer theorizing.

"Then let me break it for you with a whisper. Phillips could not know what the killer did with anything after taking it from the scene. He could have left a victim wombless (kidneyless or heartless) purely for shock value, or just because he could, and fed the cold meat straight to his cat for all the ‘experts’ knew. Any of the medical men could have worked out what he actually removed from a victim and took away from the scene. Nobody but the killer himself could have known what happened to the stuff next or why."

That was supposed to address this comment....

"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.?"

I was referring to the fact that almost every action that is undertaken after Annies murder can be logically assumed to have been the killer seeking to obtain the organ he takes. There are no facial slashes, nicks, peeled thighs or uteri left under the head.

I said the kill itself was not the "thrill" for the killer......seemingly a statement beyond reproach as all the evidence suggests the kill was the second final act of what we call Jack the Ripper kills.....yet you state....

"You don’t know that it wasn’t part of the thrill, though, to overpower a woman and to effect a swift and silent kill. The female neck is evidently a key attraction for many a violent serial offender."

Again with your...."many serial offenders" crap as your standby. Let me give you some advice....dont apply lessons learned about Modern Serial killers who were caught to a bunch of unsolved murders of women who are not proven to be victims of any serial killer.

You'll continue to be cart before the horse type for as long as you breathe, so again, no need for us to discuss anything related to either your posts or mine in the future. Ive asked more than twice, please respect that.....as you say, many of us dont have a lot of time for addressing things here, Id prefer not to have to waste that time addressing nonsense just because Im poilte.

Regards

[caz]

This is most definitely a case for people with plenty of time to waste, Lynn - judging by how quickly some posters manage to respond to anything and everything within minutes.

I've only read up to July on many of the topics here and I have more time than most people to do what I like with. So I truly don't know how others manage to keep up with it all.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

wasting time

Hello Caz. Regarding Mike's wasting time, I don't think examining an event from EVERY possible angle can ever be a waste of time.

Presumably, there are those who think that a 121 year old cold case is altogether a waste of time in itself. I sincerely hope that they are wrong.

The best.
LC

[caz]

Unless I see abdominal mutilations its not Jack...

Hi Perry,

A little humility wouldn’t go amiss, you know.

Are you really now judge and jury over Jack’s mind as well as his apparently superhuman powers? He would/could never have failed to perform exclusively womb-bound mutilations on any woman he ever attacked in the streets?

I am not sure that Mike is trying to pass off the uterus theory as fact...

I hope you are right, Lynn, for his sake. He would never succeed. But isn’t he completely wasting his time in any case, trying to pass off the antiquated post-Chapman, pre-Eddowes and Kelly uterus theory as a valid modern perspective on the Whitechapel Murders?

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.....

Then let me break it for you with a whisper. Phillips could not know what the killer did with anything after taking it from the scene. He could have left a victim wombless (kidneyless or heartless) purely for shock value, or just because he could, and fed the cold meat straight to his cat for all the ‘experts’ knew. Any of the medical men could have worked out what he actually removed from a victim and took away from the scene. Nobody but the killer himself could have known what happened to the stuff next or why.

The kill isnt the thrill for Jack...

You don’t know that it wasn’t part of the thrill, though, to overpower a woman and to effect a swift and silent kill. The female neck is evidently a key attraction for many a violent serial offender.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I've compared the above quote with his comments on Alice MacKenzie, and I still see no contradiction. He detected no scientific or anatomical knowledge of the order that might be possessed by a butcher or horse slaughterer, but he detected a certain amount of skill with the knife. Such skills could easily have been learned, incrementally, as he killed prostitutes.

Best regards,
Ben