Surgical knowledge?

[Tecs]

Regardless, I can't swear that Polly Nichols mutilations weren't interrupted, bu he certainly accomplished enough to take an organ if he wanted it. He had enough time.

Hi Errata,

If he had only just opened up the abdominal cavity as appears to have happened and then heard someone approaching then surely that would mean he didn't have time to remove an organ?

I might be missing something but it would surely take several more cuts and more time to remove the uterus by which time Cross/Lechmere is standing over him?

Or have I missed something?

Regards,

[Tecs]

Hello Tecs.

"is there a smoking gun which says that the simple idea of,

Nichols attempted organ removal but interrupted after first abdominal cut

Chapman no interruption so organ removed

Stride interrupted after throat cut so no abdominal mutilation

Eddowes no interruption so organs removed

Kelly well, I'm not sure! Maybe she wasn't a ripper victim? (No I won't start that one, it's definitely for another thread.)

And all showing somebody who at some level knew what he was doing,

couldn't be true?"

No, there is not. Similarly, there is no smoking gun showing it could not be Elvin Presley in a pre-incarnated state who did for all five. Of course, I have no reason to make that assumption either. No offense.

Cheers.
LC

Dera Lynn,

I could be sarcastic and ask who Elvin Presley is!!!

I agree but if we came from that direction we wouldn't be able to exclude anything. I just think that looking at the simplest explanation is probably best until something like a smoking gun takes us away from that theory.

And I can't see anything that does in the interruption cases.

No offense!!!

Regards,

[Tecs]

Hi again,


If we assume that murder 1 and 2 were committed by the same person, which I do...and all of the Canonical believers also believe,..then either the killer acquired a taste for internal organs within 10 days, or the first kill wasnt representative of the killers ultimate goal.

Very well put.

That is essentially what I am saying. Years of violence in the East end may have gone by right up to Emma's nasty end and Martha's multiple stabbing, but then suddenly out of nowhere, someone appears who cuts womens throats and performs some sort of mutilation on their abdomens. The ones where organs were not removed may be a puzzle but one which is easilly explained if we imagine that the killer was interrupted before he had a chance to finish his actions.

And as said above, if Polly was not targeted in order to gain her uterus then JTR must have decided 7 days later that this time I'll have a uterus. Why would that urge suddenly come upon him?

It could be possible that in some state of insanity he attempted to get Polly's uterus but somehow backed out or was overcome with some emotion that stopped him going through with it at the last minute but carried it through with Annie. I can accept that. But the idea that he developed a passion for stealing uteri in seven days is a bit much. Admittedly there must be a day when a person who did feel this goes from not wanting to do it to wanting to in which case if that date fell between 31st August and 7th September then maybe.

But I think that if JTR was possessed by something that made him kill women and extract their uterus out on the street, then he probably felt it one week before too.

And don't forget, the two outside murders where we have no reason to think he was disturbed and therefore did exactly what he wanted to do, organs were removed.


Regards,

[Errata]

Hello Mike. Thanks.

IF the killer had a goal, then perhaps so. I still maintain that the killer of Polly and Annie had no such goal but was victimised by delusions.

Cheers.
LC

But even a goal fueled by delusion is still a goal. Maybe not a practical one... but there are some pretty basic goals that are common in delusional murderers. Really simple stuff, like make that person stop looking at me, or sometimes more complicated ones, like exposing the alien inside that shopkeeper. There's a positive trend towards delusional murderers killing people to make them shut up, regardless of whether or not they were actually talking. Though that type tends not to become serials.

[lynn cates]

goal

Hello Mike. Thanks.

IF the killer had a goal, then perhaps so. I still maintain that the killer of Polly and Annie had no such goal but was victimised by delusions.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Whate We Know

We know that "The Ripper" was sick; possibly physically but more likely mentally.

Do we know this, Mr Holmes, or do we speculate that it must have been so?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=lynn cates;247321

"If we assume that murder 1 and 2 were committed by the same person, which I do...and all of the Canonical believers also believe,..then either the killer acquired a taste for internal organs within 10 days, or the first kill wasnt representative of the killers ultimate goal."

One further assumption is required for this--you must assume that the killer had a goal.

I don't really make that assumption.

Cheers.
LC[/QUOTE]

Hi Lynn,

I believe I can say with some confidence Lynn that EVERY killer has some "goal", and its clear that the person who killed Polly and Annie did not see the act of murder as that objective. Annies killer left her after he removed the organs, therefore, by his actions.. he demonstrated that the act he sought to accomplish was achieved. Liz Strides murder shows us that her killer also had a goal,... to kill her. Once accomplished, he left. Thats what the physical evidence shows us anyway.

If mutilation was the goal of the killer of Polly then Annie, then why dont we see lots of organs removed, or a corpse cut and sliced like Mary Kelly....why did he restrict his mutilations to the abdomen, and why did he cut the uterus out with some care?

There are 2 organs taken within the Canonicals that have obvious symbolic connotations,...the uterus, and the heart. One speaks of creation and womanhood, the other speaks of emotion and character.

I dont believe it would be wise to set those ideas aside in these cases, because in the case of Mary Kelly, the heart, her room as the murder site, her state of undress and the fact she was in bed screams out that she was in the company of someone she knew. Hence, the heart as a choice seems revealing to me. Like the uterus with Annie killer.

Best regards Lynn

[Wickerman]

Wickerman what makes you so sure this McCormick wrote that verse? and explain provenance if you would be so kind

Mr Holmes

We would need an entire thread devoted to McCormick and his "funny little games".

McCormick has a long track record of dabbling with inexactitudes, from those "first-person revelations" in The Mystery of Lord Kitchener's Death, through those notes by 'Dr. Dutton' and onward to purportedly tell the bio of Ian Fleming.

Melvin Harris interviewed McCormick about this Eight Little Whores poem.

I put it to McCormick that these verses had no antiquity; they were unknown before appearing in his book, IN 1959. While the reference to Henage Court showed that the writer had drawn on the PC Spicer story, which did not reach print UNTIL MARCH 1931. In short it was not a Victorian piece, but a 20th century concoction. Again, at no time did I ask him to name the faker. But I asked him to acknowledge it as a MODERN fake and stated that I would be content to describe it as being the work of a "very clever man who enjoys his quiet fun." McCormick accepted that formula AND WITHOUT ANY BLUSTER OR EQUIVOCATION ADMITTED THAT IT WAS A FAKE AND WAS INDEED INSPIRED BY THE SPICER STORY; A STORY THAT HE DISCOVERED IN A BUNDLE OF OLD PRESS CLIPPINGS AND THEN USED IN CONSTRUCTING HIS BOOK.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/maybrick_diary/mb-mc.html

McCormick unmasked as a hoaxer across a broader range of subjects..

http://jeremyduns.blogspot.ca/2011/02/licence-to-hoax.html

If you like fiction, McCormick is your man..

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Poets R Us

Hello (again) Mr. Holmes.

"We know that "The Ripper" was sick"

What ripper?

"I don't know why anyone in their right mind would try to pull one over on the cops in such a macabre way."

Pull one over on the cops? What do you mean?

"Therefore I conclude that the verse was/is genuine."

Genuine what? There was a poem in the East End about Deeming being the ripper. Is that to be genuine as well?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

poem

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

That "poem" has an interesting history. Personal beliefs aside, can you trace its earliest emergence?

Cheers.
LC

[Sherlock Holmes]

Wickerman what makes you so sure this McCormick wrote that verse? and explain provenance if you would be so kind

Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

It is not off topic in the slightest as it concerns a poem which alludes to some degree of surgical knowledge.

Well, if that's your justification for posting it then, ok, but, I'd be surprised if anyone else can see an allusion in McCormicks poem to surgical knowledge.

Therefore I conclude that the verse was/is genuine.

Provenance doesn't appear to be an issue with you then?

Regards, Jon S.

[Sherlock Holmes]

There's all kinds of patterns in the world. Sometimes they are the goal, sometimes the consequence. And sometimes just by products of natural law. When I walk down the stairs, I always down on the right til about halfway down, then switch to the left. That's my pattern. It isn't significant. The reason I do it is because I have this one overly optimistic cat who thinks I am going to feed her every time I go downstairs. She hugs the right wall, and usually catches up with me about halfway down, forcing me to move over or face an inglorious death. Now I just do it by habit. Going down stairs at the mall or something, it looks completely arbitrary, but there is a reason I do it.

Now, none of that matters in the slightest, but if I disappeared, and someone was looking at my muddy footprints going down the stairs, it would lead to some false assumptions, like that I had met someone on the stairs. But a dry run doesn't necessarily mean it was premeditated. it just means he was fully capable of taking advantage of the situation. He attacks, he kills, both of those actions can be pretty spontaneous. But the mutilations could have been planned, could have been goal oriented. I did improv theater for 15 years. And we had weekend rehearsals. I've practiced for any number of spontaneous events. I've taken first aid. I've in fact had to use mouth to mouth not long after getting certified, but I have yet to need CPR. But if someone drops in front of me, I'm ready. Fantasize about something enough, especially if you research it, and you don't need premeditation to pull it off. It just needs to occur to you.

True but murder like that (with that degree of mutilation) would suggest that these were calculated and that the only thing spontaneous was the choice of victim (to me anyway).

Mr Holmes

[Errata]

Interesting indeed a "dry run" as you put it would imply that these crimes were premeditated and not spur of the moment opportunistic crimes as I have seen suggested and i must confess once thought myself. Yes figuring out why he "did what he did" the way he did it would answer a lot of questions.

Mr Holmes

There's all kinds of patterns in the world. Sometimes they are the goal, sometimes the consequence. And sometimes just by products of natural law. When I walk down the stairs, I always down on the right til about halfway down, then switch to the left. That's my pattern. It isn't significant. The reason I do it is because I have this one overly optimistic cat who thinks I am going to feed her every time I go downstairs. She hugs the right wall, and usually catches up with me about halfway down, forcing me to move over or face an inglorious death. Now I just do it by habit. Going down stairs at the mall or something, it looks completely arbitrary, but there is a reason I do it.

Now, none of that matters in the slightest, but if I disappeared, and someone was looking at my muddy footprints going down the stairs, it would lead to some false assumptions, like that I had met someone on the stairs. But a dry run doesn't necessarily mean it was premeditated. it just means he was fully capable of taking advantage of the situation. He attacks, he kills, both of those actions can be pretty spontaneous. But the mutilations could have been planned, could have been goal oriented. I did improv theater for 15 years. And we had weekend rehearsals. I've practiced for any number of spontaneous events. I've taken first aid. I've in fact had to use mouth to mouth not long after getting certified, but I have yet to need CPR. But if someone drops in front of me, I'm ready. Fantasize about something enough, especially if you research it, and you don't need premeditation to pull it off. It just needs to occur to you.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm almost tempted to ask, on what grounds?, but its way off topic for this thread.

Regards, Jon S.

It is not off topic in the slightest as it concerns a poem which alludes to some degree of surgical knowledge. We know that "The Ripper" was sick; possibly physically but more likely mentally. I don't know why anyone in their right mind would try to pull one over on the cops in such a macabre way. Therefore I conclude that the verse was/is genuine.

Mr Holmes