Different Killers

[Batman]

Did I say that I had forensics to tie Feigenbaum to any of the murders?

You need to read what you seek to challenge in more detail before responding. It might be a good idea to then engage you brain properly before rushing to put pen to paper.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You tied Eddowes to Carrie Brown through X shaped knife wounds. Then you tied Feigenbaum to Brown and therefore Eddowes but the point is you are using the forensics to make this connection but then when others bring up forensics say its all guesswork.

[Trevor Marriott]

You tied Eddowes to Carrie Brown through X shaped knife wounds. Then you tied Feigenbaum to Brown and therefore Eddowes but the point is you are using the forensics to make this connection but then when others bring up forensics say its all guesswork.

I am not using forensics I am using documentary evidence i.e. the victims photos showing the wounds for comparison purposes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

I am not using forensics I am using documentary evidence i.e. the victims photos showing the wounds for comparison purposes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor do you or do you not reference the pathology reports of the time and the inquest findings in your books to determine a forensic outcome? The answer is you did this from start to finish in your book. You referenced them for your own forensic interpretations.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor do you or do you not reference the pathology reports of the time and the inquest findings in your books to determine a forensic outcome? The answer is you did this from start to finish in your book. You referenced them for your own forensic interpretations.

How can I interpret them from a forensic perspective when I am not a forensic expert. I can only give a personal opinion

That is why I used the services of forensic experts etc to try to prove or disprove the original opinions of the doctors from 1888, and more so the opinions of modern day researchers who use those historical doctors opinions to prop up modern day theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

How can I interpret them from a forensic perspective when I am not a forensic expert. I can only give a personal opinion

That is why I used the services of forensic experts etc to try to prove or disprove the original opinions of the doctors from 1888, and more so the opinions of modern day researchers who use those historical doctors opinions to prop up modern day theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well since you have described their work as guessing, you can't have a better opinion than a guess given you are using their written words as a source for whatever else you or someone you hired have to say about it.

Yet you don't advertise it as guess work do you? You advertise all this as a 21st century modern investigation.

You can't have your cake and not eat it. Either your work is a guess based on their guesses or you have to admit they have facts you are building upon, the latter meaning your criticisms of Whitechapel forensics is nothing less than hypocrisy if you are using said forensics. Which you do.

[John G]

Hello Lynn,

I have just finished reading your article "The Case Against Jacob Isenschmid" (Ripperologist, 125), which I greatly enjoyed reading. As expected it is detailed, informative and well-argued, although as you acknowledge the evidence is only circumstantial.

Thus, we are told that he was prone to wandering the streets during 1888 and that he carried butchers's knives. He may also have inspired some of the Leather Apron stories, assuming he existed at all. You also speculate that he may have stolen money from local prostitutes.

The first difficulty is that there is no evidence that he committed acts of violence against anyone during this period, except against his wife in the domestic environment. He was certainly never arrested, let alone charged with any offence.The argument that he stole money from prostitutes is based on little evidence and, in any event, this seemed to have been quite a common crime anyway.

According to the Asylum reports his language, whilst incarcerated, was often violent, as it was sometimes at home. However, even here there seems to be limited evidence of him actually assaulting anyone. True an account is given of a struggle he had with a police officer, but he complained that he had been handled "very roughly". Considering how poorly mental health was understood in 1888, and arguably still is today, could it be that episodes of violence were largely a response to mistreatment? I mean, at the very least I strongly suspect that Colney Hatch was no Magic Mountain!

And then, of course, we have the account of Fiddymont et al. However, all they seemed to have witnessed was a man with a torn coat and a few spots of blood on his hand, although the evidence seems to have been greatly embellished in later press reports. And, as I argued before, isn't this more likely to be a description of a man who has recently been involved in a fight, than someone who has just eviscerated Annie Chapman?

Apparently another clue is that when he was followed, by the man Taylor, it was noted by the witness that he acted strangely and held his coat together with both hands, with the collar buttoned up. Well, perhaps he was simply cold, or feared he might be about to be mugged by Taylor, hence the instinctive reaction to hold his coat together, i.e. in order to protect his possessions. That seems infinitely more likely to me than the alternative explanation that he was seeking to cover up evidence of a gruesome murder. Not only is this a somewhat fantastical conclusion, but why did he wander around for an hour and half, before walking into a public place, if he was remotely aware of what he'd done? And if he wasn't why bother to attempt to conceal the evidence?

Of course,we don't even know that this man was Isenchmid. Even if it was it's scarcely credible that, whilst in the throes of some terrible delusion, he'd just managed to eviscerate Chapman with the apparent skills of an expert surgeon. And then, of course, we'd have to accept that he wandered around for an hour and half, prior to showing up at the pub, covered in blood and gore, in a delusional or semi-delusional state, without having attracted the suspicions of a single witness.

You further argue that he may have struggled with Chapman, pointing out that records show that he had a black eye and some bruising some days later. I find this very tenuous, and in any event there is no evidence whatsoever that Chapman was involved in a violent struggle with her assailant; to the contrary, she seems to have been overpowered very quickly, given no opportunity to defend herself.

I find your argument concerning the motive behind the parallel cuts somewhat fantastical. However, I accept that as similar cuts were apparent on Nichols body it might have had some ritualistic meaning.

Are the cuts evidence of a killer's signature? Well, as they were not present on Eddowes or Kelly, this might on the face of it support the multiple killer hypothesis. However, hen profilers refer to signature analysis they are generally referring to much more general characteristics such as posing and overkill.

In fact, in a sexual homicide study it was found that 37 of 38 offenders engaged in ritual behaviour with at least two victims in a series. However, only 5 used exactly the same ritual with every victim in the series. In fact, in two cases an offender behaved very differently with two victims in a series and in one case very differently with three victims in a series.http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf.

Alluding to Jacobs delusion that all the money in the world belonged to him, you speculate that when Annie was heard to say "no" this was in response to demands for money, and that her refusal triggered a violent and delusional response. However, might a simpler solution be that Annie saw her assailant quickly pull out a knife, making her suddenly aware of the danger she was in? Moreover, as noted above, you argue that he may have regularly demanded money from prostitutes, some of whom may have refused. Isn't therefore highly improbable that the only two occasions when a prostitute resisted his demands, Nichols and Chapman, resulting in an extreme and highly unpredictable response, were out of sight of a single witness?

In conclusion, there is no doubt that Issenschmid suffered from a number of delusions, some of them violent in character. However, none of these delusions involved mutilations or indicated that he was confusing people animals. This is despite the fact that he was clearly happy to disclose his delusional thoughts, even when they involved violence.

Nonetheless, evidence that he was actually violent to anyone but his wife, or outside of the asylum environment, were he may, by, modern standards at least, have been mistreated is virtually non-existent.

It seems to me that Jacob was the very epitome of what Victorian England considered a serial killer, or violent mutilator, to be. An eccentric or delusional individual, observed obsessively sharpening his knives and wearing a leather apron. And, of course, the stereotype would not be complete without the "peculiar walk", the frightening look, and the "wild-looking and staring eyes" (all of which were observations of the suspect, who may have been Jacob, given by the witness Joseph Taylor).

This all sounds like the stuff of nightmares. However, today the more enlightened realise that, far from resembling Freddy Kruger or Michael Myers, most serial killers, like Ted Bundy, present themselves as perfectly ordinary, mundane, even charming. They ado not resemble wide-eyed delusional maniacs, the sort of person who easily attracts suspicion. That is surely why these type of killers are so successful, and go undetected, under the radar, for so long. And that is perhaps the frightening reality.
]

[Trevor Marriott]

Well since you have described their work as guessing, you can't have a better opinion than a guess given you are using their written words as a source for whatever else you or someone you hired have to say about it.

Yet you don't advertise it as guess work do you? You advertise all this as a 21st century modern investigation.

You can't have your cake and not eat it. Either your work is a guess based on their guesses or you have to admit they have facts you are building upon, the latter meaning your criticisms of Whitechapel forensics is nothing less than hypocrisy if you are using said forensics. Which you do.

It is you that keeps raising the forensic issues not me. I am simply trying to respond in way that I hoped you would be able to comprehend, clearly I overestimated your ability to do that.

It is quite clear that it is impossible to partake in rational and intelligent conversation with you, so I will withdraw from any further discussions with you as have others have done before me.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

It is you that keeps raising the forensic issues not me. I am simply trying to respond in way that I hoped you would be able to comprehend, clearly I overestimated your ability to do that.

It is quite clear that it is impossible to partake in rational and intelligent conversation with you, so I will withdraw from any further discussions with you as have others have done before me.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you don't want to reply then don't.

Did you address the lack of blood on the handkerchief or not? You did. You are making a forensic statement, period.

Your explanation for the lack of blood on the handkerchief was that the pathologist got it wrong and was just guessing and can't be trusted. <--- your position.

You have done everything here to try and reduce their contemporary input to nothing more than archaic conjectures.

... yet you use their words and trust them in your own books. Which make your view here hypocrisy.

Anyway if you don't want to address me, then don't. So I shall repeat myself again without going down your alley.

[Batman]

Stride's lack of blood on neckerchief refutes rear attack hypothesis

The rear attack hypothesis holds that her throat was cut from the rear. The lack of blood on her front which should be there because gravity doesn't suspend itself suggests she was killed while lying down. One position for the rear attack hypothesis is that the neckerchief stopped the blood from spraying. On inspecting the pathology report, there is no mention of a blood soaked neckerchief/handkerchief, just that it was cut.

In addition to this the absence of blood is not a mystery at all. It is pooled behind her head and running on the ground. As expected if she was killed while lying down.

This is why Dr. Phillips told the inquest she was killed this way.

[lynn cates]

observations

Hello John. Thanks.

I don't think "stolen" is correct. How about panhandled?

Right. No evidence of violence. Of course:

1. his words

2. his charts

3. his wife

indicate he was a violent man--but only when delusional.

If Mrs. Fiddymont's man had been merely fighting, he should have known where to cross the street? He crossed the same street three times! Clearly confused.

His coat? To be sure. But since "LA" was observed in precisely that way, I am suggesting habitual. It had NOTHING to do with concealment.

"And then, of course, we'd have to accept that he wandered around for an hour and half, prior to showing up at the pub, covered in blood and gore, in a delusional or semi-delusional state, without having attracted the suspicions of a single witness."

The dustman, perhaps? Recall a dustman had spotted a man with some blood stains at that time.

It you take Cadosch's timings--from "No" until the fall--there was time for a struggle AND the bruising to her face. (See Dr. Phillip's remarks.)

The parallel cuts are, of course, crucial to my hypothesis.

I made no claim about a sexual homicide.

Other girls may have turned down his request for coins. Bu they may nave been better able to escape. Recall both Polly and Annie were severely impaired.

Finally, I agree that JI was nothing like today's serial killer. Had he been I should have passed him over--quickly.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

refuting the prone hypothesis

Hello BM. Stride's holding the cachous refutes your hypothesis about lying down, as does the absence of mud on her back.

Watch my reenactment and LEARN--especially about arterial spray. And DO stop talking twaddle. You're beginning to bore me.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello BM. Stride's holding the cachous refutes your hypothesis about lying down, as does the absence of mud on her back.

Watch my reenactment and LEARN--especially about arterial spray. And DO stop talking twaddle. You're beginning to bore me.

Cheers.
LC

What completely obliterates the idea that dying people never hold onto anything is the amount of forensic evidence to the opposite including handfuls of hair, skin, guns, knives, handbags, even shopping bags in each hand. After floods, hurricanes, tidal waves we have bodies galore of people holding onto things, including each other, even in death. Then you have the fencing response and all sorts of spinal injury causing clutching. The fact is people hold onto things in death as much as they do in life. Even suicides grip their briefcases all the way down several floors. People hold onto their possessions and some don't give it up so easily.

And besides the rear attack doesn't explain why they would hold onto anything any more than if they where on the ground!

P.S - it's not my hypothesis. It's Dr. Phillips. See the inquest. She was killed after being grabbed by the shoulders and thrown onto the ground. You hold a modern view.

[FrankO]

The rear attack hypothesis holds that her throat was cut from the rear. The lack of blood on her front which should be there because gravity doesn't suspend itself suggests she was killed while lying down.

...

In addition to this the absence of blood is not a mystery at all. It is pooled behind her head and running on the ground. As expected if she was killed while lying down.

This is why Dr. Blackwell deposed at the inquest:
In reply to a juryman, who asked whether he could give any information as to whether the throat was cut while the woman was lying down or standing up, the doctor said: I formed the opinion that probably the murderer took hold of the silk scarf, which was tightly knotted, and pulled the woman backwards, and cut her throat in that way. The position of the blood would indicate that her throat was cut when she was lying down or as she fell. It is, perhaps, most probable that she was on the ground first before her throat was cut.

The best,
Frank

[Batman]

Bottle in the hand, unconscious grin

Ever seen a drunk person with a bottle fall over and pass out with the bottle still in hand?

Heck any professional drunk knows how to crash-land without spilling a drop and even sit it up straight while being subject to a self-inflicted sudden lights out.

Seriously, this idea falling people always drop stuff is nothing but a fairy tale. In fact, when you fall back, you would automatically cling to what you could, including whatever is in your hand. Better something, anything, than nothing.

Plus dropping a bag and dropping sweets end in two different results. A bag you can wipe down but sweets that will taste like muck. Once dropped or spilled, that's it over for them unless you have a taste for strong organics from the horses travelling that path.

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

I don't think "stolen" is correct. How about panhandled?

Right. No evidence of violence. Of course:

1. his words

2. his charts

3. his wife

indicate he was a violent man--but only when delusional.

If Mrs. Fiddymont's man had been merely fighting, he should have known where to cross the street? He crossed the same street three times! Clearly confused.

His coat? To be sure. But since "LA" was observed in precisely that way, I am suggesting habitual. It had NOTHING to do with concealment.

"And then, of course, we'd have to accept that he wandered around for an hour and half, prior to showing up at the pub, covered in blood and gore, in a delusional or semi-delusional state, without having attracted the suspicions of a single witness."

The dustman, perhaps? Recall a dustman had spotted a man with some blood stains at that time.

It you take Cadosch's timings--from "No" until the fall--there was time for a struggle AND the bruising to her face. (See Dr. Phillip's remarks.)

The parallel cuts are, of course, crucial to my hypothesis.

I made no claim about a sexual homicide.

Other girls may have turned down his request for coins. Bu they may nave been better able to escape. Recall both Polly and Annie were severely impaired.

Finally, I agree that JI was nothing like today's serial killer. Had he been I should have passed him over--quickly.

Cheers.
LC

Hullo Lynn,

A robust response, I would have expected nothing less!

To be fair I think you make as strong an argument as possible in favour of someone I regard as a weak suspect (but then aren't they all- I seem to be arguing in favour of Dr Bond's involvement on the other thread, but I'm sure that's open to challenge as well!)

Okay to address your points. Although Jacob certainly talked violently there seems to be scant evidence that he was actually physically violent outside of the domestic or institutional setting. This offers some support to his wife's observation that "I do not think my husband would injure anyone but me." And, of course, domestic violence was much more common at that time.

Regarding the asylum. As I noted earlier, I do feel that to a certain extent he could of started to act aggressively in response to mistreatment. He did complain about being treated roughly by a police officer and, at the very least, I strongly suspect that a Victorian asylum like Colney Hatch would be far removed from the rarefied atmosphere of the somewhat idyllic Magic Mountain (although, of course, that only existed in literature!)

Was he Fiddymont's man and was he delusional at the time? Possibly, although the evidence is speculative at best. And, as I noted in my previous post, this doesn't explain how he avoid drawing suspicion on himself following Chapman's murder and evisceration unless, of course, you count the possibility of a solitary dustman!

Turning to the issue of a possible struggle. I think this is somewhat of a stretch, particularly if Chapman was ill: Coroner: "was there any evidence of a struggle." Dr Phillips: "No; not about the body of the women. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings."

In respect of whether the murders of Nichols and Chapman were sexual homicides. Well, Keppel et al. (2005) certainly seemed to think so. Referring to the sexual component of picquerism, they conclude: "He used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victim, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse." (15) I therefore feel that the study I cited is relevant and supported by authority.

You mention that other girls may have been better able to escape, and argue that Annie and Polly were severely impaired. Well, Annie was certainly not impaired by drink, at least according to Dr Philips. She had been ill, but such an argument is self-defeating as it brings into question her ability to resist her attacker, or the likelihood that she would have the awareness to realize the danger she was in, particularly as her killer probably acted with great speed and efficiency.

The same arguments apply to Polly and her drunken state. Moreover, given that many street prostitutes of the period were partial to drink, wouldn't many of the other girls he may have accounted during his lengthy wanderings over London have been equally impaired?

Finally, I return to the point of the mutilations and organ removals. As noted earlier, experts consulted by Trevor Marriott have questioned whether a butcher would have anything like the relevant skill to effectively eviscerate a human being. In fact, they seem to conclude that it may have been beyond the capabilities of a highly skilled medial professional, give the time frame and poor lighting conditions.

I would therefore conclude, in light of these findings, that the suggestion that a delusional pork butcher could have accomplished such a feat is fanciful in the extreme.