Pinching the "Canon" fuse

Since when did George Bagster Phillips make any pronouncement that he believed Eddowes and/or Kelly did not belong on the list of Ripper victims, Mike? I didn't think he had. If so, and he did not voice such an opinion, then how can it be said that anyone's "disagreeing" with it?

According to my information Sam, Bagster Philips attended Kate Eddowes post mortem and was quoted in the Evening News on October 1st saying that "the murder was not by the same hand that killed Stride." Baxter echoes those sentiments in summation with his comments of "unskillful injuries" and "..possibly the work of an imitator", something that is clearly a real possibility with the news attention paid on the first 2 murders,....not long after another different but nonetheless ruthless murder.

As we all know, these kinds of things often incite others.

Best regards Gareth

[c.d.]

Caz is correct when she says that it took both parties to agree on a site. I think that is something that we tend to forget and tend to look at the choice of site simply from Jack's perspective. He might have learned that pressing too hard on a choice of site raised too many suspicions and caused previous negotiations to fall through. From Liz's perspective, Dutfield's Yard had the prospect of numerous men within shouting distance who could conceivably come to her assistance if needed as well as a privy in which she could freshen up afterwards. If Jack made up his mind that he wanted to kill Liz and she was adamant about the choice of place being hers, then it was Dutfield's Yard or nothing. And even if it was a poor choice of location from the killer's perspective (be it Jack or someone else), whoever killed her was quite willing to take that risk.

c.d.

[caz]

...do they automatically jump to the conclusion that the same burglar broke into all 3. No they dont they study the facts surrounding each individual offence. because all though they all may be houses (analogy victims) the method of entry and property stolen may be different. The they then will be able to either link them or deal with them as different offences

If this victim fiasco is going to continue then why not re name them The C8 to take in Tabram,Coles and Mckenzie. :

Hi Trevor,

But isn't that what the authorities did with the Whitechapel series? I don't think anyone concluded that one man was responsible for the lot, did they? And certainly with Liz and Mary, the police rightly looked into the possibility that a male associate was responsible, so they weren't complete fools.

The 'victim fiasco' is caused by a very strange denial by a small number of theorists (each of you with very different ideas about who did what and why) that a mutilating serial killer was even active in 1888. If one acknowledges this overwhelming likelihood, it follows from everything we have learned from repeat offenders over the last 120 years that the C5 is more likely to be an underestimate than an exaggeration. I have already stated that I would jump at adding Martha, Frances and Alice to this bastard's tally rather than exclude any of the C5 from it.

A clever move, Caz, to deny me McKenzie and Coles!

Not intentionally clever, Fishypoo.

I was interested in how many 'conventional' male-on-female street murders by knife you knew of in the years before or after the whole of the 1888-92 Whitechapel Murders, as the crimes were classified. You are trying to claim that Liz's murder was rather a commonplace affair as opposed to a distinctly unusual crime. So I'd like to know how many other similar, supposedly 'commonplace' offences outside of the period in question you have found, so I can see exactly how you arrived at your commonplace verdict for the Dutfield's Yard case.

Parallel to your question, it must also be asked how common it is that eviscerating serial killers change their MO, change their way of choosing venues, change the time they are operating at and even change the manner in which they cut. And all of this is changed JUST THE ONE TIME, whereas all other killings conform to a nigh on robotic scenario in these details.

I know Jack isn't the only option for Liz's assassin. But he's certainly still my prime suspect and will be held for questioning indefinitely. There is nobody else you could justify putting under arrest. Would you really set his suspect status lower than Kidney, for instance, on any scale of male-on-female violence? If you prefer to make a complete unknown your prime suspect and release Jack from custody, you'll have an even harder task to justify such a decision.

To be fair, we don't know exactly where and how Jack picked up his victims, so it's at least possible that his 'choosing venues' strategy was pretty much the same and he simply came across Liz outside the club. He could have walked the streets each time and come upon a woman such as Liz (Polly, Annie and so on) appearing to be soliciting, and tried his luck. Obviously he wouldn't be planning to mutilate anyone at a location he presumed was a soliciting spot. But he also wouldn't be expecting any trouble from such a woman if he offered her money to go somewhere suitably secluded. That was what all these women did, wasn't it, with anyone and everyone who could pay - in Jack's mind at least.

It takes two for a murder tango and the timing of each dance would be down to the behaviour of prospective victims as much as the killer's whim. You see I don't think that even if Jack was very much the robot in character, he would have been given the chance to act in a robotic way on every occasion he tried his luck with another unfortunate. And he was 'trying his luck'. The street women were not robots and after Martha's sensational murder they were arguably more aware of their mortality than ever. They were also not on a desert island. Everything and everyone around him was designed with the potential to put a spanner in his robotic works. He would have been lucky indeed to avoid a spanner time after time.

To Caz, I dont see any value in my continuing to address the points your making directly because they are the same today as they likely were 10 years ago and they will be the same 10 years from now regardless of what new information might surface.

Hi Perry,

That's fine by me but perhaps you could just help me out here. What new information has surfaced while I have been picking apart - sorry, addressing your arguments, which I have failed to take into account? I do hope you are not trying to suggest that any of your speculation amounts to 'new information' on the murders.

On the other hand, you didn't even seem to pause for breath, let alone thought, when I posted new information concerning three documented double eventers, whose offending behaviour corresponded only too well with one violent and highly volatile individual going straight on to mutilate in Mitre Square after a brief encounter in Berner St.

Love,

Caz
X

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

How did these doctors that you reference become "experts" qualified to deliver opinions on the killer's focus or motivation? They weren't trained in forensics or profiling. They weren't psychiatrists. I can tell you that it is not uncommon at all when parties are in litigation for each side to produce an expert who is deemed an expert witness by the court and is therefore allowed to render an opinion on matters in which they were not involved. Since each side has an expert witness, obviously those expert witnesses completely disagree with each other's opinions and conclusions. So take the opinion of any witness (especially one from 1888) with a large grain of salt.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Having investigators suggest a list of probable victims by a single killer,......a list that in at least one case disagrees with the physician who saw the most Canonical victims in death

Since when did George Bagster Phillips make any pronouncement that he believed Eddowes and/or Kelly did not belong on the list of Ripper victims, Mike? I didn't think he had. If so, and he did not voice such an opinion, then how can it be said that anyone's "disagreeing" with it?

Hi again all,

To this comment posted by Mike,....

"Your breakdown of what you think the police believed after each murder isn't representative of the body of murders as a whole. "

Thats the point Mike, this isnt a "serial" case unless you start with the assumption that the guy known as Jack the Ripper killed "serially". In most cases thats accomplished by assuming at the start of the investigation that he killed at least the five Canonicals. Each case should be weighed independently and subsequent murders should be compared with earlier murders for obvious similarities and traits that fit the unusual manner in which Mary Ann, as the first Ripper victim, was killed.

Trevor made this bold statement with which I agree heartily....."Its time both the list of victims and suspects was amended". We all know that Ripper "suspects" are really no such thing unless mentioned specifically as such by the contemporary police.

Interesting that the last few posts made since I started this post have mentioned the "serial" categorization. Having investigators suggest a list of probable victims by a single killer,......a list that in at least one case disagrees with the physician who saw the most Canonical victims in death, does not make these crimes serial....its a guess.

To Caz, I dont see any value in my continuing to address the points your making directly because they are the same today as they likely were 10 years ago and they will be the same 10 years from now regardless of what new information might surface. Youre entitled to your opinions, like I feel I am, so Ill just accept your position from this point on and express what I feel I am learning about the cases. Ill know when you disagree, Im quite sure of that.

Best regards

[Sam Flynn]

Then why do we put the word "serial" in front of killer?

When there is little reasonable doubt (or, ideally, when it is known) that the same person committed a series of murders. Also, to sell papers. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[c.d.]

Then why do we put the word "serial" in front of killer?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

the police and everyone else since then should have looked at each murder separately instead of lumping them all together...

Another example if the police of today in your town receive reports of three overnight house burglaries. do they automatically jump to the conclusion that the same burglar broke into all 3. No they dont they study the facts surrounding each individual offence. because all though they all may be houses (analogy victims) the method of entry and property stolen may be different. The they then will be able to either link them or deal with them as different offences

A very good point, well made, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Caz asks:

"Do you know of many other penniless unfortunates, before say 1888 or after say 1892, who had their throat cut out on the street by a knifeman with a conventional motive, eg robbery, rape, customer dissatisfaction etc, or crime of passion? It is a very rare thing for a man to kill a woman outdoors with a knife, even for one of these reasons. "

A clever move, Caz, to deny me McKenzie and Coles!

That matters little, though, since you are asking the wrong thing here. The fact that Stride was penniless and sometimes prostituting herself could have precious little to do with the fact that she was killed.
If we are dealing with a domestic affair of some sort - and much speaks for it - then the reason for Stride getting cut may well have been a thing like jealousy. We should also consider that she was practically living out on the streets, since she had no real home address. The risk of her getting killed out in the streets would be much, much larger than the same risk would have been for somebody with a steady home. Even when she was at her dosshouse, she would have been one in a collective of people, making it almost impossible for a killer to get to her unnoticed. Such a thing would be a lot easier out in the open street, in fact!

So maybe we should not ask ourselves how credible it was for a pennyless unfortunate to get killed in the open street. Instead we may have to ask ourselves how common it is for women to be killed by their spouses in love affairs. And suddenly we are left with another answer than the one you are looking for! And radically different probabilities!

Any which way we cut it, Caz, it will not change one single bit of the evidence from Dutfields yard. Parallel to your question, it must also be asked how common it is that eviscerating serial killers change their MO, change their way of choosing venues, change the time they are operating at and even change the manner in which they cut. And all of this is changed JUST THE ONE TIME, whereas all other killings conform to a nigh on robotic scenario in these details.

Believe me, Caz - Jack never was the only option for Strides demise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Almost there, Phil, though I would favour a version that leans in no way at all - perhaps only by stating, just like you do, that at present nothing is known about a perhaps once existing motive.

Statistically, though, you would be right - most killings HAVE motives. But since the Stride killing is such a hot potatoe, it may be wise to tread carefully...

The best,
Fisherman

[Phil Carter]

Motiveless?

Fisherman,

Yes, I will change that statement.

Would you accept.. "In all probability there is a motive, however we are, at present, without a known one".. better than seemingly motiveless I hope?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

wild speculation?

Hello Trevor,

Respectfully, I, for one, am not "up"..and as calm as the next person.

Also, "WILD" speculation it most certainly isn't. It is a thoughtful prosess designed to broaden the way we ALL look at things, opinions, are, after all, only what the police and public and newspapers (Police Illustrated INCLUDED), gave 121 years ago.. so I can't see any "wildness" in sensible balancing of the facts.

In conjunction with that, calling it a C8 is not "wild" ...I don't happen to think that way...but wild it isn't. What's good for the goose....

Personally speaking, I was pondering a possiblity of 2 killers in the same area at the same time. Thats not wild..it is sensible GIVEN the questions we, as a group, and as individuals, raise against MacNaghten's judgement, Stride's killer, Kelly's killer to name but a few.

How we INTERPRET facts, as INDIVIDUALS, is a matter, ALWAYS, of personal conjecture. So of course theories etc will come from within with a slant from the meaning of the writer of such theories. It's human nature. We dissolve facts and come up with ideas, based on such facts. There is no emotion involved, it is a calculated judgement as we see things.

I, for one, keep AN OPEN MIND to all possibilities. Whether it ends up as one killer for the whole lot or five different killers, it really doesn't matter to me. BUT, I will not doggedly defend any idea, and am always open to other opinions, whether I agree with them or not. I RESPECT your opinions and your judgement, but won't call it wild theorising because it doesn't fit with my view. Thats blinkered and judgemental.

Fisherman respectfully disagrees with my comments... I like that, and he uses HIS balanced judgement to perhaps point me in another direction...looking at things another way. Which, Fisherman, I am considering. Thank you. :-)

From what I have seen on this thread, there hasn't been "wild" theorising. Because Trevor, respectfully, if it so happens in 50 years time that Caz, or Fisherman, or me, or yourself, or Humpty Dumpty turned out to be right all along, it wouldn't have been a wild theory...would it? It would be the CORRECT one.

I'm sure some thought SPE's theory was "wild", ditto Daniel Farson or Leonard Matters..etc etc etc.

I consider them all, without having to agree to any particular one. Surely, that is a sensible way of approaching difference of opinion?

The fact is, that MacNaghten's original canon was based heavily upon the opinion of one Doctor, who only saw first hand, one body. He read the reports of the others. JUST LIKE WE ARE DOING.

The good Doctor's opinion wasn't deemed wild. Neither has MacNaghten's. Just, in the opinion of many here..it is seriously flawed..hence the thread.
Hence debate, hence opinions, hence theories to substantiate those opinions.

That is what makes this thread so interesting.

RESPECTFULLY,

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fish,

A pointless exercise, Trevor old stick, because she wasn't. You might as well say 'if Mary Kelly had been killed in 1930...' (yes, when Miller's Court was gone).
Caz
X

Its not a pointless excercise it shows the police and everyone else since then should have looked at each murder separately instead of lumping them all together and calling it a C5 and suggesting the same killer killed all 5.

Another example if the police of today in your town receive reports of three overnight house burglaries. do they automatically jump to the conclusion that the same burglar broke into all 3. No they dont they study the facts surrounding each individual offence. because all though they all may be houses (analogy victims) the method of entry and property stolen may be different. The they then will be able to either link them or deal with them as different offences

If this victim fiasco is going to continue then why not re name them The C8 to take in Tabram,Coles and Mckenzie. :

[caz]

Hi Fish,

Do you know of many other penniless unfortunates, before say 1888 or after say 1892, who had their throat cut out on the street by a knifeman with a conventional motive, eg robbery, rape, customer dissatisfaction etc, or crime of passion? It is a very rare thing for a man to kill a woman outdoors with a knife, even for one of these reasons.

The problem with Caz's assumptions regarding Jacks motives...

Er, Perry, what assumptions? What motives do I 'assign' to Jack? I'd really like to know because I have consistently stated that we cannot possibly even begin to guess what was motivating the author of any of these unsolved murders. You are the one gaily assigning motives: Polly and Annie slaughtered horribly just for their wombs, leaving every other unfortunate corpse to be accounted for by individuals harbouring deadly personal grudges. Womb Man comes along and supposedly gives 'em all permission to hide under his cape and do their own 'orrible deeds.

Why would you look for anything 'coherent' in murders that were completely irrational by any standards? The murders of Polly and Annie were no more rational than those of Liz, Kate or Mary, and if you were right about the womb motive for just those two, arguably a good deal less rational. I can't think of a more crazy way of trying to earn money, can you?

Could you please quote where I have ever said that I was 'convinced the guy just wanted to cut people'. How many more times do I have to repeat that we can't know what the killer(s) of these women really wanted. We can only know what was actually done.

It's not a case of Phillips or Baxter being 'incompetent' with their conclusions in the wake of the 'first 2 murders' (ie Polly and Annie). They were not psychic and could not be expected to know that more mutilated unfortunates would soon turn up to undermine the wombs for profit idea, in favour of the infinitely more reasonable conclusion that one man was mutilating unfortunates in any way that suited him at the time.

Of course I don't deny there were other dangerously violent men in the area at the same time, please stop making things up about me, it does nothing to help your case and makes you look slightly desperate. There are violent men in every town and always have been, which only serves to highlight the rarity of a series like the Whitechapel Murders, despite all the evil men do, every day, all round the world. I simply dispute your own rather incredible notion that there were possibly as many as three organ-removing ghouls preying on unfortunates in 1888 one after the other, in the same tiny part of town: one for Polly and Annie; a second for Kate; and a third for Mary. Why in God's name add to the already excessive number of known lady killers during the period in question? There were already x so we can add on as many more as we like? That makes no logical or statistical sense.

Liz is included as far as I am aware. If you want to exclude her as well as Kate and Mary, you need evidence against yet another knife-wielding lady killer, or a firm alibi for the murderer in Buck's Row, Hanbury St and Mitre Sq. And no, I don't need any of the interruption theories, as I have surely told you a dozen times. If only you could try and read my posts, you wouldn't be forced to invent a position for me that I don't hold. There are many other plausible reasons why Liz's killer, whoever he was, would have been wise to leave when he did, or not even contemplate mutilating her where he found her, outside that busy club, looking like the kind of woman who could be bought and taken to a more secluded spot.

I love the way you talk about everyone else's failed attempts at 'deciphering' these crimes, as if that somehow gives your take on them a better chance of being correct. Once again, we can't attribute a motive to any of these unsolved murders, singly or collectively, using any combination of victims list you can think of. You are trying to do just that by excluding every murder that doesn't indicate a womb for profit motive. It's like saying that everybody has failed to cure the common cold so it's about time they stopped looking at germs and coughs and sneezes and started praying to the Goddess of Kleenex instead.

What drove Jack to kill certainly didn’t need to change to make sense of any of the murders. But I don't know what that driving force was any more than you do. You are the one stuck in a groove because you have convinced yourself that his driving force was limited to trying to make a quick and easy buck from outdoor murder and womb extraction. That makes him a total nut job in my book, which in turn means that he could have got fed up trying to extract wombs for his demanding, and equally peculiar paymaster, and decided to feed a kidney and later a heart to his invisible friend instead - the driving force being the thrill that only a nut job could get from mutilating a female in any way, shape or form.

Jack could have killed Liz to silence a threat. He could have done it just because she annoyed him and he knew exactly how to shut her up. How can you profess to know what would cause him to flip his lid with any woman and what he would tolerate from one? He butchered women who went with him willingly. So what would stop him harming one who gave him a moment's grief?

If Stride hade been the first murder...

A pointless exercise, Trevor old stick, because she wasn't. You might as well say 'if Mary Kelly had been killed in 1930...' (yes, when Miller's Court was gone).

If you have to tinker around in any way with the order or timing of one of the murders, I humbly submit that your overall argument must be in trouble. If we assume, for argument's sake, that Liz was killed by Jack, the time and date don't need tinkering with to make perfect sense of what happened next. So I can see why people like to play this game of moving victims, like pawns in a chess game, from their starting position, to score pretendy points.

Love,

Caz
X