JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Sam Flynn]

I just have an intense dislike towards bragging with knowledge and telling other people how much more learned someone is. I object to that behaviour, not to the persons involved. Hope that makes some sense.

Nicely put, and thanks for your even-handed views.

However, what I see as more objectionable is groundlessly accusing people - whether learned or otherwise - of deliberately distorting or manipulating evidence. When the sources for this evidence are pointed out to the protagonists and they still persist in making the same accusations, it is all the more regrettable. Nobody is pretending that long-service medals in Ripperology make the bearer any less likely to make mistakes (far from it - the field has its fair share of "sages" trotting out the same tripe and twaddle of yore), but the least one might expect is that newbies and oldies alike check their facts before shooting at someone from the hip.

High jinks and high spirits are fine and dandy, and there is energy in abundance amongst some of our more enthusiastic posters (new and old) that is most welcome. It is a shame when that energy is dissipated in the form of accusatory foot-stomping, when it would be better expended in getting to grips with, or brushing up on, the source documentation. There's plenty to read on this site, without getting prematurely embroiled in the verbal ping-pong on the threads!

Well, the question regarding the suspects was toward Perry/Michael.

Hi JS,

If the truth be known, I never ever saw a single killer, from the moment I closed the first book on the subject, right up until this sentence.

Not because I didn't want to,..(despite the opinion of my detractors here, which by the way are plentiful, not limited to Dan)....which I think could be said for some that defend the "Canon" because they don't want to be faced with the prospects of having to start some of these investigations again from scratch, or be forced to give an opinion that some contemporary investigator didn't say.

And for those counting....all of those opinions from Bond, Macnaughten, Anderson, ...and all the "C5" boys have provided us with is, an improbable answer with absolutely nothing from which could be used to validate their theory,.... and all 5 cases remain unsolved, individual murders of full or part time whores. Among the 11 or so unsolved attacks on whores that are often discussed pertaining to this location and period.

I think the only two I feel confident involved one man are Polly and Annie actually,... I think Kates story may involve The Ripper, but also much more in terms of missing information, I believe that the easiest to solve using known data and pure common sense is Liz's...she was most probably killed for making a thug with a knife angry, and Mary Kelly had about as much to do with Ripper methodology and the historical patterns shown, as did Chapman's poisoned women.

Oops...forgot, he's actually a prime suspect right? Based on what....the fact he killed women by poisoning years later and lived in the East End during the murders? Or Druitt....a guy drowns himself weeks after Marys death, and the mysterious "family source" concerns are what get him pinned with "Suspect?" Remember....there is still a death mask of Deeming around that for years was displayed as the "Face of the Ripper". It seems if you were male and lived in the East End in 1888, you can become a suspect.

The best way to illustrate my point is using an Artist I think. Lets say a painter uses only that medium, paint, to make his Art,..and his audience knows that,.... and while he was in the midst of his painting career, 2 pieces of sculpture show up in Art circles bearing his name. Before he can be asked whether he did make them too...he dies.

Now...which is the logical approach....assuming that people must just not have known that he actually made sculpture too, and they are from the same prolific time in his life, so they must be authentic pieces? Or that since he was known for only using paint, and never ever expressed any interest or desire to expand that interest, and never ever showed anything but paintings to anyone, that its more likely these sculptures are forgeries. Would you buy the sculptures thinking they must be the dead Artists?

That scenario is very appropriate when assessing who killed whom.

My best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

Read ALL the accounts of the Eddowes inquest in the Press Reports section, then read the official transcripts, then get a copy of the "Ultimate JTR Sourcebook" and read the witness statements... just like a few of us here actually have done already. Once you've done so, whilst I acknowledge that you may not be any the wiser, at least you'll be better informed.

Casebook's Press Reports section

The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook

Happy reading... Hopeful comprehension.

Last night I took the trouble to read in detail,yet again, Dr Phillips reports for the inquests.Not only was he knowledgeable ,well educated,and a very experienced police surgeon,but he was also highly regarded by all his contemporaries-for this read the final chapters of the Ultimate.The possible exception in this regard is Dr Bond ,who once Robert Anderson put him on the Rose Mylett case, didnt seem to know whether he was on his arse or his elbow and to the utter astonishment of his boss, The Surgeon -in Chief, A.MacKellar ,Bond changed his story.Not only his boss, Dr A.MacKellar was in profound disagreement with him but so were four other Police Surgeons,one of whom was Dr Phillips,but each and every one of them were in profound disagreement with him [and Robert Anderson].
So Dr Bond"s behaviour and theories, may be a better bet to study in depth than Dr Phillips"s .I believe there was some reason for Anderson"s intransigence over Rose Mylett.It came hot on the heels of Bond"s talk about a "canon of victims" and his "profile of the killer".But perhaps more significantly, it came hot on the heels of Anderson"s talk about low class Polish Jews and whole load of other red herrings and spanners he started throwing into the works.

[Doctor X]

Very well.

Thought you called me a snob.

Can I help it if I am better than everyone else?!!!!11!!



--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

Well, the question regarding the suspects was toward Perry/Michael.
The snobbish part was about the gentle feeling that this thread was going downhill fast, at least in regards to factual basics and politeness.
I do not consider any of the posters in here as snobbish per se, I just have an intense dislike towards bragging with knowledge and telling other people how much more learned someone is. I object to that behaviour, not to the persons involved. Hope that makes some sense.

[Doctor X]

To whom do you address the question?

Whom do you consider "snobbish?"

--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

I really wonder if we could all just kick out all the snobbish crap going on in the last postings and resume a polite discussion that relies on more than "I know more than you so..."
While I tend to disagree with you Michael, I have no active antipathy towards you.
I am a bit curious, did I understand you correctly, that while you focussed on the individual murders you somewhat neglected the context?
You have very strong convictions about different murderers, so I have to ask: do you have specific individuals in mind as suspects in each case?

[Doctor X]

...does the apparent lack of medical skill shown in the murders mean that any, or even all, medically connected suspects or theories should be dismissed?

No, because then you can imagine a medically connected suspect who is more interested in mutilation and snatching a trophy or two than dissection.

The whole issue is trying to squeeze out as much information from the paucity of data available in the vain hope that it will lead to a viable suspect. I think it unlikely it was a trained, skilled, surgeon. Neat. What do I win? Similarly, I think it unlikely it was some whack-job--too organized.

None of that gives me a suspect.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

This is indeed a strange comment considering half the time when they quote someone they conveniently leave out certain aspects or they re-word them to sound more inline with thier opinions or add in a little something to make it sound just right, this is hardly them providing specific facts, this is more like them altering the facts to suit themselves.

Read ALL the accounts of the Eddowes inquest in the Press Reports section, then read the official transcripts, then get a copy of the "Ultimate JTR Sourcebook" and read the witness statements... just like a few of us here actually have done already. Once you've done so, whilst I acknowledge that you may not be any the wiser, at least you'll be better informed.

Casebook's Press Reports section

The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook

Happy reading... Hopeful comprehension.

It's strange how you describe other people disagreeing with whatever nonsense you cooked up in your head as them supposedly being illogical despite them being able to provide specific facts to show you wrong. You trying to lecture others on these boards about how their logic sucks is like jc007 or NOV9 pretending to know more about sadism than the experts who wrote the diagnostic manual used by professionals to diagnose it.

Go off and read some books for a couple of years (for most people I'd say months, but you've demonstrated yourself to be pretty slow understanding things even when spelled out to you in simple terms) and then come back and try to contribute if you still think you have anything to say. Until then you're just wasting everyone's time.

Dan,

I can always count on your criticisms, but never on an open mind, reason or common sense.

Lets just say in terms of study, Ive stayed away from most of the peripheral exploration into characters and Victorian color that you and others have pursued over the years, but in terms of my grasp of these 5 individual unsolved murders, you probably haven't read much that I haven't read as well. It just seems you buy into things without foundation easier than I do.

I can certainly see why you would wish to perpetuate phantom killers, and serial bloodlust, you cater to that audience, its your job. Me, on the other hand,...I'm just a curious person, and I don't need your approval on any of my ideas,... nor do I need anyones agreement with them.

You can defend arguments without substance all you like...like one unskilled man killed these 5 women, or Mary picked up her killer while street whoring...or Liz's killer surely wasn't the guy seen assaulting her as little as 1 minute before her throat is possibly cut, ...however you see these theories is your business.

My hope is that one day Ill hear or read a theory that addresses the actual facts of these 5 individual murders,... who were only designated a "Canon", by using some of the official opinions offered.

Best regards.

[jc007]

It's strange how you describe other people disagreeing with whatever nonsense you cooked up in your head as them supposedly being illogical despite them being able to provide specific facts to show you wrong.

This is indeed a strange comment considering half the time when they quote someone they conveniently leave out certain aspects or they re-word them to sound more inline with thier opinions or add in a little something to make it sound just right, this is hardly them providing specific facts, this is more like them altering the facts to suit themselves.

[jc007]

Dan, whether you like it or not, there is nothing, nada, not one bit of evidence you can possible show that can conclusivly or even remotely give the impression JtR was a sadist, it is impossible to know for sure, it doesn't matter what modern experts say, they can guess, thats it, much like yourself, Ben and Sam do on a great many thing.

[Dan Norder]

All these arguments suck...they always have. They are not answers to the questions...they are mindsets that avoid the realities. And there are lots more of them in traditional Ripper logic.

It's strange how you describe other people disagreeing with whatever nonsense you cooked up in your head as them supposedly being illogical despite them being able to provide specific facts to show you wrong. You trying to lecture others on these boards about how their logic sucks is like jc007 or NOV9 pretending to know more about sadism than the experts who wrote the diagnostic manual used by professionals to diagnose it.

Go off and read some books for a couple of years (for most people I'd say months, but you've demonstrated yourself to be pretty slow understanding things even when spelled out to you in simple terms) and then come back and try to contribute if you still think you have anything to say. Until then you're just wasting everyone's time.

[Ben]

there are only 2 victims that could have been killed by a complete amateur

That just isn't true, Mike.

They could all have been killed by a complete amateur. Brown was effectively outnumbered three to one on that score with the Eddowes murder, and in Chapman's case, there was only Phillips opinion, and if we're prepared to accept that he was wrong in attributing Chapman and Eddowes to different killers, we should be prepared to accept that he could have been wrong in attibuting too much skill to Chapman's killer.

Its inconceivable that someone without any knowledge would attempt to do this in public with severe time constraints, light and the fear that would cripple an amateur.

Again, not true at all.

If anything, a lack of fear and light is more likely to cripple the professional given that he is accustomed to operating with ample light, and with ample time. An amateur seeking to slash and grab (or vice cersa) obviously isn't going to be phased by an absence or lack of those two things. Similarly, a butcher isn't very likely to attempt a decapitation with a tool that he knows isn't sufficient to take on the job.

The man who killed Annie, and Kate, killed them to get abdominal organs...its not really debatable...thats exactly what happened.

If you're arguing that trophy taking was the primary incentive behind the murders, then it is debatable. Very much so. Other serial killers have extracted organs, but it certainly wasn't the chief motivation. Quite often in those cases, medical knowledge is suggested as having been present, only for the captured reality to paint a very different picture.

Best wishes,
Ben

[jc007]

Hi Sam,

I dont think its wise to use yourself as an example of what lack of specific knowledge might mean in terms of the killers choices....you may not be a Butcher or a Surgeon, ...but you clearly have studied anatomy, and Im sure are capable of using a knife. If you suggest that this killer only needed to have read one book on anatomy..or practiced using a knife by whittling, you have not suggested he was without skill or knowledge at all.....you have actually made a case for a man with limited knowledge and knife skills...not a man who has none.

Skill of at least a butcher is very fair...for 3 victims.

My best Gareth..as always.

Agreed