motivation

[lynn cates]

imagery

Hello. Mr. Flynn, your imagery is delicious!

LC

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Sam... I would think that you would at least acknowledge that possible motivations for the first 2 kills were offered by the men that examined the women, and the last 2 murders have nothing in common with that motive. Ive seen you make light of many of the medical opinions...I dont recall how you envision Bonds specifically....but your downplaying of their significance is missing an important element which has not be provided to be fully convincing......some evidence that we have any reason to question opinions of the men that examined the women in death. That includes Killeen on a side note.

I can certainly think of at least reason to counter a huge medical opinion in the cases.......concerning the man who counters those opinions even though he himself never touched or saw 4 of the 5 women in death.

The facts are...that they are some of the most important opinions in these cases and they are on record with those opinions for the first two murders only, and the wounds on the first 2 victims as have been described are as one would expect based on the uteri theft as a motivation for the murders themselves...

Kate did not die for that reason. Nor did Liz. Nor did Mary....demonstrated clearly by leaving an extracted uterus under her head with a breast. I think you far too easily ascribe radically different crime scenes to a single killer, but thats the heart of Ripperology isnt it?

And thats the majority position, which still amazes me.

You live, you learn.

All the best Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

I would think that you would at least acknowledge that possible motivations for the first 2 kills were offered by the men that examined the women, and the last 2 murders have nothing in common with that motive.

I can't acknowledge it at all, Mike - because the sequence of events simply doesn't support it. The fanciful "uterus magazine" motive did not enter the public domain until well after the first two murders. If that motive can't sensibly explain the first two murders, it can't possibly be used as a basis to differentiate between them and those that followed.

The facts are...that they are some of the most important opinions in these cases and they are on record with those opinions for the first two murders only, and the wounds on the first 2 victims as have been described are as one would expect based on the uteri theft as a motivation for the murders themselves...

Firstly, Nichols' uterus was not removed; secondly, Eddowes' uterus was - and without damaging the bladder. Quite how you can lump Nichols and Chapman together on that basis, and then exclude Eddowes, is baffling.

[perrymason]

I can do so because 1, it is a supported position using the medical authorities remarks on those particular cases, and 2, its obvious that the uterus was not the target of Kates murderer,.. and that is not the case with the first 2.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I can do so because 1, it is a supported position using the medical authorities remarks on those particular cases

Was the supported position of the medical authorities that Polly Nichols had her uterus removed? I think not. On that basis, the idea that Baxter's ridiculous "uterus magazine" theory had anything to do with Nichols' murder as opposed to that of Catherine Eddowes - who DID have her womb removed - is a little tricky to comprehend.

[Christine1932]

Motive? This is from site 12 Jan 2009
www.apsu.edu/oconnort/crim/crimtheory08.htm -
"People who cannot contain their urges to harm (or kill) people repeatedly for no apparent reason are assumed to suffer from some mental illness. However, they may be more cruel than crazy, they may be choosing not to control their urges, they know right from wrong, they know exactly what they're doing, and they are definitely NOT insane, at least according to the consensus of most scholars (Samenow 2004). In such cases, they usually fall into one of three types that are typically considered aggravating circumstances in addition to their legal guilt -- antisocial personality disorder (APD), sociopath, or psychopath -- none of which are the same as insanity or psychosis..

Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) is practically synonymous with criminal behavior. It's so synonymous, in fact, that practically all convicted criminals (65-75%) have it, with criminologists often referring to it as a "wastebasket" category."
Meaning: his motivation was that he enjoyed killing and cutting.

[perrymason]

Was the supported position of the medical authorities that Polly Nichols had her uterus removed? I think not. On that basis, the idea that Baxter's ridiculous "uterus magazine" theory had anything to do with Nichols' murder as opposed to that of Catherine Eddowes - who DID have her womb removed - is a little tricky to comprehend.

Arguably the ONLY meaningful differentiators in Mary Anns and Annies murder are the locations, and the fact that only one had any organs removed from the location. Everything that is present in Pollys murder is almost identical to Annies until that extraction....and in the case of that location, there is validity to the concept that he was interrupted.

There are more differentiators when comparing those 2 murders to Kates.

Cheers Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

Arguably the ONLY meaningful differentiators in Mary Anns and Annies murder are the locations

So what, apart from location, materially differentiates Annie's from Kate's? A cut face, that's all! You can't even claim that an extra organ was taken - because Annie's missing bladder cancels out Kate's missing kidney. Against that, we have Polly Nichols with her abdomen deeply - and multiply - scored, but with NO OTHER mutilation or evisceration whatsoever in sight.

There are more differentiators when comparing those 2 murders to Kates.

That assertion is completely untenable. If anything, there were far more similarities between Kate's murder and Annie's, than there were between Annie's and Polly's.

[lynn cates]

wounds

Hello Sam. Do you subscribe to the Ripper "progression" theory where each kill and ripping builds on the last, as it were?

A couple of months ago, I found a page here on casebook which showed sketches of all C5 wounds. Do you recall how to get to that page?

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. Do you subscribe to the Ripper "progression" theory where each kill and ripping builds on the last, as it were?

Possibly, Lynn, but I incline to believe that he merely did as much damage as circumstance permitted. When you think about it, those possibilities aren't mutually exclusive - on the contrary, they might be a manifestation of the same thing.

A couple of months ago, I found a page here on casebook which showed sketches of all C5 wounds. Do you recall how to get to that page?

I'm afraid I can't recall the specific post to which you refer. Perhaps someone else will help us both out

[lynn cates]

most bang for the buck

Hello Sam. That sounds rather like "most bang for the buck." That would seem to indicate either anger or a need to mutilate and disfigure, perhaps for its own sake or to make the ladies "ugly."

I'll keep looking for the wounds chart.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

That would seem to indicate either anger or a need to mutilate and disfigure, perhaps for its own sake or to make the ladies "ugly."

Mutilation for its own sake, I tend to think.

[perrymason]

1. So what, apart from location, materially differentiates Annie's from Kate's? A cut face, that's all! You can't even claim that an extra organ was taken - because Annie's missing bladder cancels out Kate's missing kidney. Against that, we have Polly Nichols with her abdomen deeply - and multiply - scored, but with NO OTHER mutilation or evisceration whatsoever in sight.

2. That assertion is completely untenable. If anything, there were far more similarities between Kate's murder and Annie's, than there were between Annie's and Polly's.

Hi Sam,

In answer to your rebuttal....

1. Mary Ann Nichols murder looks like Annies without the organ extractions....both in the circumstantial evidence and witness statements, and in the physical evidence. The 2 exceptions are the location and those extractions. Kate Eddowes has her face mutilated, her nose almost cut from her face and "nicks" on her cheeks. She has a 2 foot section of her colon cut and placed between her body and arm. She has a piece of clothing cut and ripped free and taken. The intact organ that is taken is a gender neutral one from her lower back, the partial uterus seems to have been taken out far less efficiently than the complete uterus taken from Annie. There are also many circumstantial elements that are not clearly like "Ripper events".....we do not know whether she was soliciting when she meets her killer, we do not know why she headed to that location at all.....she is killed when 7 or 8 ex or active policeman are the closest people to her and she is killed after just being released from police custody.....we have the circumstances of her arrest, her alleged comments to her ex landlady, the "coincidental" nomme de plumes for the boots and her arrest, and some irreconcilable statements regarding the last 24 hours of her life. The circumstances alone are unlike those of Annie Chapman.

...and, ....

2. Annie and Polly were killed by someone who the medical experts believed was after the organ that was removed from only Annie. It was they believed the reason for the murder. There is no such speculation regarding the motivation for the murder of Kate Eddowes that is based on the organ taken or the partial organ taken, and in fact there is medical opinion that suggests that the murder of Kate Eddowes was done by an imitator and not the same man who killed Mary Ann and Annie. 2 victims which no-one has aggressively argued should be re-assigned to 2 different killers.

All the best Sam

[lynn cates]

trephining

Hello. Jack's mutilations are still getting the better of me. I know many reasons why one kills, but this . . . ?

I wonder if any theoretician has ever advanced the view that Jack was an impressionable soul who heard, say, a sermon about the evils of prostitution. Perhaps the sermon attributed such activity to evil spirits/forces of darkness. Then Jack, in his warped mind, would be doing something like spiritual trephining, if you will.

Too bizarre?

LC

[Observer]

Hello. Jack's mutilations are still getting the better of me. I know many reasons why one kills, but this . . . ?

I wonder if any theoretician has ever advanced the view that Jack was an impressionable soul who heard, say, a sermon about the evils of prostitution. Perhaps the sermon attributed such activity to evil spirits/forces of darkness. Then Jack, in his warped mind, would be doing something like spiritual trephining, if you will.

Too bizarre?

LC

You said it

Observer