Assignation of Victims to a single killer

[Errata]

I think in cases 1 and 2, we have a cold killer....not one running hot. To me that suggests some mental illness combined with knife skills and anatomy knowledge....and we do have a suspect for those crimes that fits both categories. One that was identified by witnesses as being in the immediate area of the Hanbury murder that same morning, with blood on him, acting strangely. Lynn can enlighten you more on that person if you haven't read his article on him.

For the first 2 murders only we need to have a suspect who knows knives, who knows anatomy, and who was mentally ill. That is not required for victim 3, and excluding the mental capacity issue, the skill and knowledge aspect is not suggested with any other Canonical murder.

Meaning.....anyone with a knife and the predisposition to kill could have killed Liz, Kate, and Mary. And in all 3 cases a single killer isn't necessarily required.

Cheers

In general, mental illness tends to inspire savagery and not precision. Mental illness is emotional, and delusions and hallucinations are products and expressions of those emotions. You find someone ripped apart into hand sized pieces or something, and that killer is crazy. Psychopaths, those accustomed to extreme violence, and those who have delusions of being justice personified are the ones who run cool. I don't know why the delusion that god or society has ordained you to be judge jury and executioner goes along with dispassionate people, or maybe it doesn't always, but the passionate ones get weeded out early by shrieking at people or something. But if you want a cold blooded killer, look for a psychopath, not a psychotic.

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Raven. Thanks.

"The argument of skill in dissection has been argued back and forth since the very time of the murders. #4, Eddows, has been argued as skillful, because of the removal of her kidney. The sloppy stuff, face slashing, large rip in the stomach removing part of the stomach wall, could go down to killing frenzy. JtR also had very limited time to work on Eddows due to the timing of police patrols. He also would have had to work in almost pitch dark."

I was not referring to organ removal. I was talking about the knife cuts. As for darkness, see Sequiera's remarks on this score.

"Escalation is the term given by criminal profilers to describe curving from minor wounds to major to, in the case of MJK, total destruction."

Of course, this precludes Liz.

"The way the flesh was peeled from her legs in great "flaps of skin" could indicate the skill of a slaughterman, medical dissector, or hunter."

Or any one else with knife in hand.

"As a hunter who has cut up animals, I can tell you it takes time to perfect method."

And, since the skill level decreased . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

"As a hunter who has cut up animals, I can tell you it takes time to perfect method."

And, since the skill level decreased . . .

Cheers.
LC

To a certain extent you have to wonder how much sloppiness is due to sheer repetition. My handwriting has never been the best, but on occasions where I have to write a stack of thank you notes, it goes from almost legible to an EKG readout in fairly short order. Pretty much the second my mind moves away from the task at hand. The first few times he kills, he can live in the moment. But then he starts anticipating some other part of it, and his skill level tanks.

Another possibility is that he realized that it wasn't the precision that was giving him satisfaction. Like maybe he had this whole doctor/dissection fantasy, and then sort of realized that it wasn't the method he liked, it was the result so he stopped being fussy. Kids do that all the time. They start out being very excited about the brightly wrapped package, and you have to convince them to open it, and they quickly learn that what's inside is WAY better, and then you may as well not bother wrapping it at all.

It could be anything I suppose, but a deteriorating emotional state is the most common reason for any deteriorating set of skills. Being a bipolar jeweler was terrible, because every time I wasn't okay, which was kind of a lot, I couldn't concentrate on my work. And my hands shook. And when you have to hold a $3000 anything in a tiny pair of tweezers with a wicked tremor, the stress level does not go down. Which doesn't mean he was bipolar or anything, but he could have run into a neighbor a few minutes earlier and his nerves were still screaming at him.

[lynn cates]

curve

Hello Errata. Thanks. Delighted that you agree about a deteriorating skill set. Once established, that pretty well puts to rest the notion of a "learning curve."

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks. Delighted that you agree about a deteriorating skill set. Once established, that pretty well puts to rest the notion of a "learning curve."

Cheers.
LC

Well, not exactly. It puts to rest a notion of a learning curve towards surgical precision. But a deteriorating skill set could come from a change in priority. And changes in priority are part of a learning curve. It's more a self discovery thing that a skill thing, but still.

Take the handwriting example again. Students in first grade or so put a lot of emphasis on how their writing looks, and less on the information contained within their schoolwork. Which is part of what they are graded on, so it's not unreasonable. In high school, the concentration is more on the information than the handwriting, so the work get absorbed better, but it's in a poor hand. And then some of us move on to just getting the work done, never mind the handwriting or the information, and then you get a barely legible scrawl. It's a deteriorating skill, but an evolution in priorities.

And then sometimes your skills don't deteriorate, your priorities don't change, you just have an off day.

But he could have learned new skills, more satisfying victim selection, better time management, an number of tings, and just let the knife skills go. There is a cut on Eddowes that I am convinced is a skip of the blade. Maybe the knife hit one of her numerous buttons and he wasn't so focused on the cutting this time that he lost control of the knife. Surgically, it's a rookie move. But if he was frustrated, or anticipating something else, or even just bored with cutting open part, then it's an understandable mistake. So he could have evolved in one way, and devolved in another.

[lynn cates]

curve ahead

Hello Errata. Thanks. Very well, a negative learning curve.

Cheers.
LC

[RavenDarkendale]

Hello Errata. Thanks. Delighted that you agree about a deteriorating skill set. Once established, that pretty well puts to rest the notion of a "learning curve."

Cheers.
LC

Really? How odd. If I agreed with devolution of technique, the pattern is still there. What Errata is saying is that JtR may have evolved as to what was more important to him. The FBI would profile JtR as a "sexual sadist". It would take more and more for him to achieve satisfaction, an upward curve in violence.

Skill is a hard thing to settle as one expert has stated that the killer displayed no skill to the ones who compared it with a surgeon. And oddly enough, that was argued over the removal of Eddows' kidney, skill of a surgeon to find and remove this organ.

I do feel JtR must have died, been imprisoned, in a mental hospital, moved away or became more adept at hiding the bodies. Thus the cessation of murders.

God bless

Raven

[lynn cates]

curve

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."

Can you direct me to the place where Eddowes' assailant is described as having the skill of a surgeon? It was said that he had some anatomical knowledge in being able to locate the organ, but both the mutilation and extraction of organs evinced no skill--at least, according to the medical examiners.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again all,

Thanks for contributing ideas to this thread first off. I also wanted to place a little more emphasis on something we do know that might assist us in making better guesstimates on what we don't know.

We do know that the medical expertise assigned to these cases, including one who saw 4 victims dead and another that saw only 1, placed Polly and Annie as the first 2 victims. We do know that those 2 murder Inquests were the only ones within the Canonical Group that compared a previous victims injuries to the ones being examined in the following case. The skill, methodology, victimology, knowledge and focus were thought to be present, and essentially identical, to the presiding medical experts. We do know that the evidence in the Stride case.. at face value... is not a match to the above. We do know that in the case of Catharine Eddowes the medical expert that was presiding or present at the first 3 victims autopsies did not see evidence of similar skill or knowledge in her murder. And we do know that the man presiding over the final Canonical victim, one whose opinion has shaped the ideas of many a student since, proclaimed that Mary Kelly's killer did not even have the skill of a butcher.

Now...Im not saying that one must automatically exclude victims from a single killers probable list based solely on the injuries they received, the weapon that was used, or the circumstantial evidence.

What I am saying is that we do have contemporary opinion that suggests the skill and knowledge and focus that early on was evident to them is not consistent with the rest of the Group.

So the killer either became less adept and less focused as time and victims went by, changing his victim profile, his preference for women who were working at the time..(surely the key to getting a women in a dark place that Fall),...and he became increasingly obsessive about making cuts that had nothing to do with causing death or accessing internal organs,....or, we dont have a single killer as the most probable answer.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Looks like we crossed paths on our arguments Lynn,......but in reference to what you were saying about the skill shown with Kate, ...I used to be persuaded by the fact that he removed her kidney through her front that he had some knowledge, but in recent years the sloppy upstroke has me almost convinced that he likely found the kidney, he didnt seek it.

I think the partial uterus is one key here.....I believe that indicates the killer sought to relate Kates murder to the murder where that organ was apparently sought out.


Cheers mate

[lynn cates]

double or nothing

Hello Mike. Thanks. What I'm on about is the difference in throat cuts. It has always convinced me that Polly and Annie had the same killer since they both had twin cuts. Not so Kate. Also, both had their dresses lifted for the mutilations to occur. Not so Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

They're only Doctors...

Here's a quote from Chris Malone's superb article in the
latest New Independent Review.

Regarding the phrases “anatomical knowledge”
and “medical skill,” let’s look at the evidence.
Chapman’s uterus was removed along with parts
of the bladder and vagina. The uterus alone was
removed from the pelvic area of Eddowes. The
bladder was left uninjured. It could be argued
that the extraction of Eddowes’ uterus displayed
greater skill with the knife than was indicated in
Chapman’s case, and probably under more
difficult circumstances, considering the relative
darkness and short time involved. That Eddowes’
cervix was left behind is irrelevant. It was only
deemed so because Baxter’s anatomical specimen
theory, which required the uterus and all of its
appendages be removed intact. If the murderer
had some other motive in extracting the uterus,
what was left behind wouldn’t matter.
Eddowes’ left kidney was extracted; something
that was not previously done. The left lobe of the
liver and the spleen were cut, along with the
peritoneal lining that covered the kidney and the
renal artery was severed. There was no groping
here; these cuts were deliberate, purposeful and
the killer knew where the kidney was. Whatever
term one wants to apply, it took more “skill” or
at least some proficiency “by a man who was not
altogether ignorant of the use of the knife” to
perform the extractions on Catherine Eddowes
than it did with Annie Chapman. Eddowes’
murderer did cut the colon, causing the effusion
of fecal matter. That may have been a mistake.
But, again, it may have been the result of great
“haste” on the part of the murderer; the same
reasoning used by Phillips for the mutilations of
Annie Chapman.

I think the multipliers rely too much on the opinion of the histrionic
Baxter at the expense of the medicos. We also must consider we are
talking about 19th century Doctors who had never seen murders like
this before. In essence, the docs essentially agreed that the murderer
had some basic anatomical knowledge and was good with a knife - attributes
to which many Whitechapel working class blokes could lay claim...

The other problem I see for the multipliers is the total lack of evidence
for any copycat/political/domestic motives. We're 124 years in and no one
has been able to show that our victims are anything but poor, distressed
unfortunates of Whitechapel...




Greg

[RavenDarkendale]

Lets see:

Post-Mortem Reports

Polly Nichols: Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn: Throat cut twice, abdomen slashed so that intestines protruded

Annie Chapman: Dr. George Bagster Phillips: Throat cut twice, abdomen slashed and intestines drawn out and placed over shoulder.

Elizabeth Stride: Dr. George Bagster Phillips: Throat cut twice, one of the wounds superficial. Different from PN & AC in that they were on opposite sides of the neck, not one above the other. No evidence of abdominal mutilation

CE: Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown: Throat cut twice, one superficial, one above the other. Abdomen slashed and intestines drawn out and over shoulder. Piece of colon removed and lying near arm. Kidney removed by someone with knowledge of position of kidney. The argument against this statement by another Doctor is where skill\no skill comes in. Other Doctors involved disputed the knowledge. I accept it as such, you are just as justified in differentiating between "knowledge of position" and "surgical skill", I surrender the question. It cannot be coincidence that intestines were drawn out and over shoulder just as AC's were. Crime scene sketch would argue that the clothing was indeed pushed up, partially covered with intestines. To me, very similar to AC.

MJK: Dr. Thomas Bond: Throat cut, abdomen totally emptied, breasts removed by "circular cuts", face destroyed in mutilation frenzy. The body was only identified as MJK because it was in her room, the clothes piled on a chair were hers, and her hair and eyes. Frankly, even with the blown up detail on another thread, I can't see the eye thing. Then also she was reported being seen alive long after that body was dead. She either disappeared or that was indeed her body and witness testimony wrong. As two claimed to talk to her, that mistake would be harder, but not impossible, to make.

And now I have reached a conclusion different from what I originally had, so our discussion has produced that much.

PN, AC, and CE mostly likely same murderer, with MT an earlier victim.
ES becomes a questionable murder, because with her dead from the cut throat you would expect pushed up clothes at least in preparation for abdomen slashing if not a tentative cut before fleeing if he was indeed disturbed while at work

MJK by witness report might have even escaped alive and not been the body in the room. The total destruction of the body would have made identification pretty much impossible in those days before finger prints and DNA. With these admitted possibilities, same murderer cannot be established.

AMc: Dr Philips: Throat cut, abdomen slightly cut, Dr, Philips again accredits knowledge to the killer

FC: Dr. Philips: Throat cut three times, no mutilation, same person unlikely

So MT, PN, AC, CE, and possibly AMc all the same murderer-- could be

Enjoy the debate

God Bless

Raven

[lynn cates]

124

Hello Greg. Thanks.

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

"I think the multipliers rely too much on the opinion of the histrionic
Baxter at the expense of the medicos."

But Baxter derived his information from them.

"We also must consider we are talking about 19th century Doctors who had never seen murders like this before. In essence, the docs essentially agreed that the murderer had some basic anatomical knowledge and was good with a knife - attributes to which many Whitechapel working class blokes could lay claim."

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

"The other problem I see for the multipliers is the total lack of evidence
for any copycat/political/domestic motives."

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.

"We're 124 years in and no one has been able to show that our victims are anything but poor, distressed unfortunates of Whitechapel."

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

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

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

data check

Hello Raven. Thanks.

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.

"It cannot be coincidence that intestines were drawn out and over shoulder just as AC's were."

Not coincidence--deft imitation. He read the paper.

"Crime scene sketch would argue that the clothing was indeed pushed up, . . ."

Indeed. But her clothes were cut a good deal. Not so Polly and Annie.

Moreover, Annie and Kate's body cavities were entered differently. All of Polly and Annie's cuts were downward; Kate had ascending cuts as well.

And it's NOT a debate. Debates are to win points. All I want is the truth.

Cheers.
LC