Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Michael W Richards]

If you look closely at the Brown sketch with respect to major cuts, it seems that the avoidance of the navel on Catharine is unique among the abdominally mutilated victims. If anything the access methodology on Annie Chapman matches more closely the methodology used on Mary Kelly...abdominal flaps.

The difference in the 2 being obvious. This might be a case where the information as to what was done to the victims should have been withheld.

As Lynn suggested there could be imitation in some of the acts performed on Kate, and perhaps on Mary as well.

A month or 2 ago we discovered a killer in Quebec who killed his victim, ate some of him, then cut him into pieces to dispose of him. Pieces were sent to a politician and to a school in BC. Not long after that a murderer in Toronto cut his victim into pieces, scattering them across the city. Her foot was found first. Within the last 2 weeks a torso surfaced at Niagara Falls and the parts discarded were discovered in Buffalo, NY.

Anyone see imitation there? 3 different killers likely influenced by the press reports of other killers.

I think its safe to say that in 1888 killers were just as susceptible to outside influences as they are today. The argument that the nature of these crimes dictates the conclusion of a singular killer is I believe erroneous.

Cheers

[DRoy]

I don't think that each of the murders have to be an exact mirror image of each other in order for it to be the same murderer. To assume so imho would be a mistake.

Jack most likely did not go around asking for I.D's to ensure that he only killed people a certain age. I don't think he carried a scale around to ensure they all weighed the same either. Not every slice of the knife is going to be from the exact same angle; nor will it perform the same exact same depth or precision (lack there of?).

We're talking about Jack The Ripper, not Jack The Facsimile.

I'm not sure whether "Jack" killed 1 or 11 but I don't think there is enough information yet to take anyone off the "Jack" victim list until that particular unsolved murder can eventually be solved.

Cheers
DRoy

[GregBaron]

All for one or one for all...

Hello Lynn et al,

Yes, I read Cris's piece--well done.

Agreed. As was yours sir...

But Baxter derived his information from them.

Well, from Phillips I guess, who may have later altered his initial opinion...

They could indeed. But I think you are conflating claims. What was said about Polly and Annie was NOT said about Kate.

By which doctor at which time?

And I see a total lack of evidence for a serial killer. Motives? You might wish to research that political situation. It might astound you.

Well, the lack of evidence is what allows for outlandish claims like Royal conspiracies and such. Actually, due to your suggestions, I now know a bit about the political situation and you're right, it does astound me...

Conversely, after 124 years, no Jackster has been able to show that C3-C5 were actually soliciting.

This is indeed true although it's hard to believe they were passing secret codes, classified information or Royal directives.......

Besides, the other side have been looking for a serial killer all that time. How long have we been researching politics?

I'm not sure how long people have been looking for a serial killer. It does seem to be a more romantic notion for some reason. I sure hope evidence surfaces one way or another some day because I, like you, prefer the facts Jack to debating points...



Greg

[RavenDarkendale]

You might recheck that data. Liz had only one cut to the throat. And IF Kate had 2 cuts, yes, one was superficial. But there be those who claim only 1 cut.


LC

All of the data I gave here comes directly from the victim files right here on casebook.

There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath. The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards. The arteries and other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through.

The cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial, and tailed off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw. The deep vessels on that side were uninjured. From this is was evident that the hemorrhage was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery.

Left and right make two separate cuts as the pm states.

The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

Not if she had, she did have. Truth in the case of JtR is probably something we will never know. But I report only what's there in the pm.

God Bless

Raven

[lynn cates]

I don't know jack.

Hello Greg. Thanks.

“Well, from Phillips I guess, who may have later altered his initial opinion.”
Possibly. But entirely no evidence of that. In fact, much later Bagster’s assistant, Dr. Clark, claimed no more than 3.

“By which doctor at which time?”

1. By Baxter, presumably from Llewellyn.
2. By Baxter, presumably from Phillips.
3A. Dr. Brown
3B. Dr. Sequiera
3C. Dr Saunders.
3D. By Baxter, presumably from Phillips.

“Well, the lack of evidence is what allows for outlandish claims like Royal conspiracies and such."

Agreed. The problem seems to be that we theorise first. Good old Gareth Williams chastised me for that long ago. Said he, we must look at the killing itself first. He was right; I was wrong.

“Actually, due to your suggestions, I now know a bit about the political situation and you're right, it does astound me...”

And it went on for a long time. (Say, hope you can read Molony’s book. Zounds!)

"This is indeed true although it's hard to believe they were passing secret codes, classified information or Royal directives.”

Very well. But were you aware that Sir Ed had RIC chaps stationed around London as part of his information network? Did you know that many of the ladies he had hired were EXACTLY like “MJK”?

“I'm not sure how long people have been looking for a serial killer. It does seem to be a more romantic notion for some reason. I sure hope evidence surfaces one way or another some day because I, like you, prefer the facts Jack to debating points."

Precisely!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Once is enough.

Hello Raven. Thanks. Believe me, Liz had ONLY one cut. My word on it.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Assistant to the assistant...

Possibly. But entirely no evidence of that. In fact, much later Bagster’s assistant, Dr. Clark, claimed no more than 3.

Perhaps that's why he was an assistant......Sorry, couldn't help myself...

1. By Baxter, presumably from Llewellyn.
2. By Baxter, presumably from Phillips.
3A. Dr. Brown
3B. Dr. Sequiera
3C. Dr Saunders.
3D. By Baxter, presumably from Phillips.

Well, 3 Baxter's is 3 chances to get his name in the papers....I think few dispute dissimilarities in C3 but the question is the significance of these?

Agreed. The problem seems to be that we theorise first. Good old Gareth Williams chastised me for that long ago. Said he, we must look at the killing itself first. He was right; I was wrong.

We all like to theorize I believe. No harm unless it contradicts the evidence extant...

And it went on for a long time. (Say, hope you can read Molony’s book. Zounds!)

Yes, this book is on the list.......hopefully I'll get there...

Very well. But were you aware that Sir Ed had RIC chaps stationed around London as part of his information network? Did you know that many of the ladies he had hired were EXACTLY like “MJK”?

I believe I heard of such a thing in the past. I expect it's rather an extraordinary case rather than a commonplace one. If like MJK I guess that means unlike C's 1 through 4.....!

Precisely!

Indeed.


Greg

[lynn cates]

Sir Ed and his group

Hello Greg. Thanks.

Clark seems to have derived his ideas from his master. Have you read his interview?

I agree that Baxter was a bit theatrical. Not sure that either helps or hurts my point.

Actually, Sir Ed had a few older ones working. One was 40-ish. She has never been identified. And he had many such people hired as informants, etc.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Raven. Thanks.

In the past, when I have mentioned the change of technique, I am usually given to understand that "JTR" was perfecting his technique. It is then that I go back to inquest and show that the skill level after Polly and Annie was down sharply (no pun intended).

Now, one can, I suppose, argue that this is what he wanted. Very well, but I might think of a better phrase than "learning curve."

Cheers.
LC

One of the things that sort of beggars the imagination is that the killer of Polly Nichols had surgical skill where the killer of Eddowes did not. On a surgical skill scale, Nichols killer was like a three, and Eddowes killer was like a six (because removing organs is always more skillful than just cutting away at people.) What complicates it is Chapman, whose killer's surgical skill was like an 11. Really, Annie Chapman is the outlier. The guy who killed Nichols could easily graduate to an Eddowes like death. That's a significant jump in ambition, but doable. Especially with a three month break in between. But it boggles the mind as to how a killer could have gone from a three to an eleven in one month. I can think of a hundred reasons why his skills might seem to decline. I can't think of any reason for him to get infinitely better in three weeks without a major body count in between. I just can't reconcile that. Even actual surgeons don't progress that far that quickly.

I don't know what it means. Maybe there were a bunch of bodies between Nichols and Chapman, it just happened in Algeria or some such. Maybe Chapman was the one killed in a one off, and the others were the result of an incompetent frenzied hand. But thats the skill jump I find odd. Not the downward spiral, but the sharp uptick.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I think the "skillful excision" attributed to Kates killers extraction of her kidney speaks to the fact that the culprit used his knife judiciously and with some skill in that aspect of the crime, which says nothing about whether he likely had any anatomical knowledge at all.

It seems no-one was impressed by the fact that I presented 3 cases, granted..modern crimes...that were almost certainly directly influenced by the public release of certain details of the crimes preceding them.

In these cases one Canonical staple is that the likelihood of 2 such men or more operating at the same time is remote. That can be refuted statistically. The fact that we see repetitive types of injuries may just reflect another killers adulation, or another killers desire to deflect suspicion.

I would think the second possibility is more probable.

[lynn cates]

carving

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I would not have described Polly's killer as possessing surgical skill. It is only that her and Annie's mutilations were described as "skillful." Similarly, Dr. Saunders agreed with Brown and Sequiera that Kate's wounds were not skillful.

The point seems to be that Polly and Annie's killer knew how to "carve" (for want of a better word). Kate's did not.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I would not have described Polly's killer as possessing surgical skill. It is only that her and Annie's mutilations were described as "skillful." Similarly, Dr. Saunders agreed with Brown and Sequiera that Kate's wounds were not skillful.

The point seems to be that Polly and Annie's killer knew how to "carve" (for want of a better word). Kate's did not.

Cheers.
LC

The issue of "degree of skill" is another subjective determination. When we have different sources (Brown, Baxter, Phillips, Sequiera, etc.) all offering an opinion on a degree of skill, concerning different victims, we have no benchmark with which to judge.

Alternately, if we have only one source, no matter who that is, at least we can establish what "degree of skill" might mean in the opinion of that one professional.
That, is why Anderson and Warren enlisted Dr. Bond for his opinion. They needed one person to view all the evidence and give one opinion using one persons experience as the benchmark.

Just as 'we' have developed different interpretations of what 'skill' might mean, a variety of doctors in 1888 will all have had a different benchmark of what 'skill' meant to them.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I would not have described Polly's killer as possessing surgical skill. It is only that her and Annie's mutilations were described as "skillful." Similarly, Dr. Saunders agreed with Brown and Sequiera that Kate's wounds were not skillful.

The point seems to be that Polly and Annie's killer knew how to "carve" (for want of a better word). Kate's did not.

Cheers.
LC

Heh. I should have thought about the difference. My dad was a fetal surgeon, but when he carves a turkey for Thanksgiving it looks like it had a terrible blender accident.

But I think it still stands that Chapman's murder and mutilation was just miles above the others both in apparent knowledge and execution. Which given the sequence is just kind of odd.

[lynn cates]

still the one

Hello Jon. Thanks.

“The issue of "degree of skill" is another subjective determination.”

Absolutely. No argument there.

“ When we have different sources (Brown, Baxter, Phillips, Sequiera, etc.) all offering an opinion on a degree of skill, concerning different victims, we have no benchmark with which to judge.”

True enough. Yet, if you look at what Saunders said, it is quite revealing. He said he agreed with both Brown and Sequiera about lack of skill in the wounds.

“Alternately, if we have only one source, no matter who that is, at least we can establish what "degree of skill" might mean in the opinion of that one professional.”

Well, as close as we can get there is Bagster—he saw the last 4.

“That is why Anderson and Warren enlisted Dr. Bond for his opinion. They needed one person to view all the evidence and give one opinion using one person’s experience as the benchmark.”

Indeed. Sadly, this ONE person’s ONE opinion involved only ONE victim.

“Just as 'we' have developed different interpretations of what 'skill' might mean, a variety of doctors in 1888 will all have had a different benchmark of what 'skill' meant to them.”

Quite. Yet note the agreement they had, as I said above.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

In conclusion ladies and gentleman . . .

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"But I think it still stands that Chapman's murder and mutilation was just miles above the others both in apparent knowledge and execution."

Can't disagree here.

"Which given the sequence is just kind of odd."

What sequence? Polly and Annie? Not odd at all. C1-C5? Remarkably odd--in fact, bizarre.

Care to draw any possible conclusion?

Cheers.
LC