Different Killers

[c.d.]

Hello CD.

"The point is that there is nothing which would have prevented Chapman from doing so even if it was rare."

Well put. So, then, because something is rare may not be relevant to its happening? I think I agree.

And having imitators, although rare, . . .

Cheers.
LC

Ooh, good one there, Lynn.

c.d.

[John G]

Hello CD.

"The point is that there is nothing which would have prevented Chapman from doing so even if it was rare."

Well put. So, then, because something is rare may not be relevant to its happening? I think I agree.

And having imitators, although rare, . . .

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I think at least one poster may have inadvertently sleepwalked into a minefield!
Thus, according to Keppel the core of a killer's signature with never change, although it may get worse over time, I.e. mutilations may become more extreme. It is therefore immutable, the reason why he does what he does.

And what, according to Keppel, were JtR's signature characteristics? "The killer's signature is organized around the sexualized violence committed against his victims. The main components of Jack the Ripper's signature include the control of the victim and progressive picquerism." He then undertakes a signature analysis listing a number of signature characteristics, including posing, overkill, picquerism and "the need to completely incapacitate his victims and gain their immediate submission." (Keppel et al., 2005)

Now the question is: how does any of that remotely correspond with a slow poisoner? Of course, Keppel could be completely wrong!

[Batman]

Yes and I am also aware of post-modernism which creeps its way into even places like this. I am sorry this discussions has turned to philosophy, but when philosophy is raised as an objection to using peer-reviewed journals, expert testimony, falsification in science, then I feel if it can be addressed, to address it. It is not just on this thread philosophy got raised. Even the timing of Eddowes/Stride fell victim to it. If it is not understood, then the raising philosophy in the first place is an issue, I agree. However I am not the one raising it, just replying to it.

Hello Batman.

Your idea that brain = mind (ie, reductive materialism) was scrapped by nearly ALL philosophers in the 1960's ...

Are you aware of these events?

Cheers.
LC

Yes, that is why I said turn to the 21st century, not 50+ years ago. Well aware of those papers you mentioned.

The scrapping of mind=brain by some philosophers, is because the philosophers who accepted it moved onto neurology and the sciences, where neurology now addresses philosophical 'problems' like idealism, Mary's Room, 'mind' and 'qualia' etc.

Since the late 1990s Vilayanur Subramanian Ramachandran and others have done an immense amount of work on the neural correlates of consciousness. Dan Dennett is another philosopher who dismantles this idea that philosophy that objected to materialism has in any sense moved us forward in acquiring knowledge whereas neurology is answering many philosophical questions without recourse to anything less than matter.

Anyway why bring up philosophy in relation to experts? Philosophy departments use philosophy journals and experts just as much. I am sure you keep talking about teaching and having a class for specific reasons.

[lynn cates]

hacking

Hello CD. Thanks.

There is one thing you are overlooking--I do THIS for a living. I have actually read:

1. Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy.

2. Spinoza, The Ethics.

3. Leibniz, Discourse on Metaphysics; Monadology; New essays Concerning the Human Understanding..

4. Locke, Essays Concerning the Human Understanding.

5. Berkeley, The Principles of Human Knowledge; Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous.

6. Hume, Treatise of Human Nature; Enquiry Concerning the Human Understanding.

7. Kant, Critique of Pure reason; Grundlagen.

Hence, this trumps ANY secondary works--especially by those who have not read/understood them.

I believe it was Pablo Picasso whom, after being chastised for his art by the communist party, retorted, "I am not used to taking painting lessons from ignorant party hacks."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

indeed

Hello John. Thanks.

"Now the question is: how does any of that remotely correspond with a slow poisoner? Of course, Keppel could be completely wrong!"

Indeed. Well spotted.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Penfield

Hello Batman. Thanks.

The REAL reason Reductive Materialism was scrapped is because "Leibniz' Law of the Indiscernibility of Identicals" bloodied their noses.

Eliminative Materialism is not susceptible to that; but, at the cost of being silly.

Neurology? Try Dr. Wilder Penfield. Recall him? He pioneered brain mapping. And he became a dualist later in life.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I believe it was Pablo Picasso whom, after being chastised for his art by the communist party, retorted, "I am not used to taking painting lessons from ignorant party hacks."

I'd say he took lessons from school kids.

Not a Picasso connoisseur, as you may have guessed.

[lynn cates]

hmmm

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Well, can't really disagree with you there, mate.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Durant

So apart from just lifting the chapter listing from The Story of Philosophy by Will Durant (up until the 1960s after which you seem to draw a blank at everything) what is the argument that Chapman and Eddowes where killed by different people again because it sure as from hell ain't MO or signature, lol.

[lynn cates]

imitator

Hello Batman. Thanks.

Read my essay in "New Independent Review"--"Possibly the Work of an Imitator."

It is all spelled out there.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Do Lynn's reasons for different killers between Chapman and Eddowes tally up?

• Lifting of the skirts may have been done by either the victims or JtR plus timing can explain why he cut through clothes rather than wait for them to get them up. You also have a history of MO development to explain this. In Eddowes case a piece of apron was taken away. People with medical training learn to cut and tear with ease in the ER (see Feldshers). So your view that people who can cut wouldn't cut through clothes because its hard doesn't hold as even ripping can be done... (See Zodiac – Paul Stine).... note: ripping. JtR.

• Two cuts to the neck, reduced to one, is MO development (countless examples). Less work needed to complete MO. An extra in and up for Eddowes who also has an in and down like Polly and Annie, is a increase of signature complexity through experience (oodles of examples from history).

• There is no absence of facial bruising in Eddowes because JtR went beyond just bruising it. Her face, even below the nose, is extensively mutilated and her throat widely parted by the near decapitation (just look at any photos of Eddowes; bruising gives way to severe lacerations and trauma to the face, the colour of which is red). I would also suggest that saying Eddowes tongue was not protruding isn't in the reading of the pathology reports. Talk about Eddowes tongue is omitted. Now turn to the photo of Kate in the mortuary before she was stitched and tell me does that look like tongue firmly in mouth and a lower face without bruising? He did significant damage to ALL the face, Lynn.

• As for the Eddowes 'no skill' claim, let's see... Dr. G. W. Sequeira saw the body and said no skill. However it was Dr. Brown who did the autopsy.
  [Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
  That's Dr. Brown who later proposed a medical student as the murderer. He also proposed the skill of a butcher could have done it. Surgeon and Ripperologist Nick Warren has given an account of why skill was needed. This can be found in Sugden's book and the A-Z.

• I don't understand why you think Annie had no intestinal breakage and Kate just a severed intestine?
  
  Chapman - The intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse.
  
  Eddowes - The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery.... The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder.
  
  While we are on the topic, here is posing too in the autopsy reports - A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design

• Just because a prostitute gets out a jail doesn't mean they don't take the chance of earning money when offered it for casual prostitution.

A little reading on MO/Signatures, more attention to Eddowes face in the photos and some more attention to details on intestines in the pathology report seems to clear up this multiple killer hypothesis quite well.

Now that was all the stuff you thought was different...
... do you have the time to read all the things that are the same? If you do, try Keppel. He goes through it all. CB goes through even more.

Besides even if your original points where right, there is still yet more examples from history of greater deviations. In fact, they all seem to have some because... MOs can develop.

Let's sing it all together...

"MOs can develop.
MOs can develop.
MOs can develop."

Unless of course there is some massively magical obstacle to developing MOs we don't know about.

[lynn cates]

broken record

Hello Batman. Thanks.

1. The facial bruising that appeared on Polly and Annie, and which was absent in Kate's case, had NOTHING to do with the mutilations. It, like the lacerated/protruding tongues, had to do with seizure and strangling.

2. The point with the double cuts had to do with why it was done in the first place.

3. Regarding skill: look at Baxter's summary at the Stride inquest where he compares Liz to Polly and Annie (skilled mutilations) on the one hand, and Kate (unskilful) on the other. Simple.

4. Kate had a piece of intestine cut; not Annie. Annie's killer knew HOW to do it; Kate's--a bungler trying to imitate the first killer.

5. Please provide one SHRED of evidence that Kate was a prostitute.

"Let's sing it all together..."

I agree--you DO sound like a broken record.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Lynn can MOs change?

[John G]

Signature

I think it might be useful to focus on signature analysis. Now there is little doubt that some serial killers can be extremely consistent their rituals. For instance, Nathaniel Robert Code Jr slashed the throat of his victims with a sawing motion, resulting in deep wounds. This was clearly not simply part of his MO as it would clearly have been simpler, and less bloody, to have shot them, of murder was all he wanted to achieve. Moreover, he bound his victims using electrical appliance or telephone cords found at the scene, using a complex handcuff-style configuration. Again, this cannot simply be argued from the perspective of MO, because if all wanted to achieve was to immobilise his victims, i.e. by binding them, it would have been more expedient to have brought rope or duct tape with him; and there would have been no need to bind his victims in such a ritualistic way. It therefore could be argued that his actions were driven by his subconscious, satisfying some deep inner need, i.e. his "motivationally driven fantasy" (Schlesinger et al, 2010)

As noted Keppel regards signature as immutable; it never varies. Now, in respect of Polly and Annie, Lynn refers to the uniqueness of the parallel cuts- not present in any of the other victims. This clearly might be a problem for the single killer hypothesis if the cuts are to be regarded as ritualistic and unique, and therefore part of the killer's signature. However, it is possible that they were accidental.

It also appears that Keppel's argument is not entirely supported by empirical evidence, at least in respect of sexual homicide: "Our research suggests that crime scene actions of serial sexual murderers are fairly complex and varied. Specifically the notion that offenders leave unique signatures at every crime scene is not supported by the data." (Schlesinger et al, 2010: see http://www.jaapl.org/content/38/2/239.full.pdf.) Nonetheless, it is rare for such serial murderers to experiment in unique ways with two victims. (ibid)

Kate Eddowes might present another difficulty. Thus, it has been argued that Nichols and Chapman's killer demonstrated a significantly greater degree of anatomical skill. However, is this the case? Dr Philips was clearly impressed with the degree of medical skill exhibited by Chapman's killer, i.e. the clinical precision of the incisions. The Lancet also concluded "obviously the work of an expert." Conversely, Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes' kidney could have been removed by a person accustomed to cutting up animals. The autopsy also appears to suggest a more frenzied assault than was apparent in the case of Chapman.

However, one wonders, following Eddowes murder, if the medical experts were anxious to downplay any suggestion that a surgeon was involved. It is interesting that Dr Philips was not asked to give testimony at Eddowes' inquest. I would also note that a report by Chief Inspector Swanson, referring to the opinions of Drs Philips and Brown following the autopsy, stipulates that they were of the opinion that the killer could be "a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon. (Cited in Begg, 2004) I would speculate that Dr Philips sense of professional integrity may have resulted in him insisting that "qualified surgeon" and "student in surgery", were included in the list of possible perpetrators.

Modern medical opinion should also be considered. As I've noted before, medical experts consulted by Trevor Marriott were of the opinion that Eddowes' killer also exhibited a great deal of skill, particularly regarding the removal of the kidney, which requires "more medical knowledge" than required to remove Chapman's uterus (Marriott, 2013) And, as Trevor has noted, this lead to a conclusion that the body parts must have been removed away from the crime scene.

Kelly, on the other hand, does seem to present a number of problems.Thus, Dr Bond believed she may have been asleep when attacked: is that consistent with Keppel's signature analysis that the murders demonstrated the killer's need to "completely incapacitate his victims and gain their immediate submission." (Keppel, 2005). However, perhaps of greater concern is that this seems to have been a completely frenzied assault, demonstrating no degree of skill at all, i.e. regarding the removal of organs. This is particularly puzzling when you consider that Chapman and Eddowes were both killed outdoors, where you would surely expect to see a significantly lesser degree of precision demonstrated by the killer, in contrast to Kelly, who was killed indoors, whereas the reverse is true. Moreover, I would argue that the surgical approach to removing Chapman's and Eddowes' organs should be regarded as a signature characteristic, not apparent with Kelly, because if all the killer wanted to do was remove the organs it would surely be more expedient to do so taking a far less precise, more frenzied, approach, particularly when you consider they were killed outdoors in locations where the perpetrator must have been under severe time pressures.

Nonetheless, it was pointing out that, in the case of Kelly, we are largely dependant on the conclusions of Dr Bond, who clearly differed from his colleagues believing that none of the murders indicated anatomical knowledge and that the killer "does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer.."

[John G]

Lynn can MOs change?

Hi Batman,

Sorry for interrupting but I have a couple of observations.

The degree of anatomical skill demonstrated certainly does matter- a horse slaughter can't, within a few weeks, transform himself into a Harley Street physician! Signature also matters; orthodoxy suggests that the double cuts, if unique and ritualistic, should form part of the killer's signature.