Did Jack kill more than three?

[NOV9]

Well, I guess you need to go look up what signature even means, because every expert on signatures who has looked at the case says it most certainly is there in the Kelly murder.

Dan,

Comic books do not make your expert's right, and you need to look up signature, because so far as your understanding of it goes, you do not even come close to it.

[c.d.]

Hi Nov 9,

When you describe Jack's signature, you are simply stating your opinion are you not? No offense intended. I work in the legal profession and it is not uncommon to see both sides in the litigation present an expert witness. Now these expert witnesses are usually equally matched in terms of education, experience and reputation. Yet they give completely different opinions. And that is all they are, opinions, and not facts.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nov9,

What may seem irrational to us is not irrational to the killer

As a general point, I think that the "irrational" card is in overplayed - the Ripperologist's Deus ex machina?

every cut means something to him or he would not waste his time doing it. He is trying to complete his fantasy and he is going over a script in his head while he is hacking away.

With one or two possibly contentious exceptions, I don't think that the cuts show that the Ripper invested very much meaning into them at all. As far as the external wounds were concerned, the majority seem to indicate little more than a desire to mutilate and to get at the victim's innards as quickly as possible.

[Tom_Wescott]

Body position:
All found on their back, head turned to side. All (except Stride?) have the legs open, bent up at knees. All except Eddowes have a hand across the torso.

Nichols did not have a hand across her torso.

Note: Nichols does not have the same extent of Abdominal mutilation, although the abdomen is clearly targeted. The wounds seem almost more stab-like in nature. No organs removed.

There was one 'stab' and a number of eratic gashes. I believe these were the result of the Ripper trying to maneuver his knife under Nichols' stays. He learned from this and the same awkward display is not evident in later victims. These wounds should not be viewed as similar in any respect to the blatant and intentional stabs found in abundance on Martha Tabram's body.

Other than these minor quibbles, that was a very good list, Rob.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[perrymason]

Rob,

That was a well thought out list, however it deals with only one aspect of those crimes...what specifically was done with a knife by the killer, and the resulting injuries. If it were as simple as it is portrayed often here, which is... well, she has similar wounds....we wouldn't need to still be asking the thread question at all 120 years later.

Im sure that the fact that is possible that almost every aspect of Marys murder may have defied earlier conventions in terms of Method of Acquisition and Killer Behaviour hasn't escaped you..nor the fact that the "abdominal focus and abdominal objectives" you mentioned are A), not clear at all in Marys case, and B) he leaves every organ extracted from that region behind, something that the killer has never done....and puts them in odd places.

I think the notion that this particular killer killed in a way that no other would repeat, or be able to match, is debunked easily by considering the majority of the non-canonicals.

In the overall "wounds" investigations, Marys specific wounds do not match any previously attributed victims, anymore than the remaining C4 did each others.

Only three had abdominal wounds as a priority, a focus, and a consistent acquisition pattern, and the abdominal cuts came right after the throat cut....and Marys pattern was what,.. cut her throat then peel the thigh?, ..scoop some stuff out and place it about her and the room?,.. then carve her face.?...all actions without objectives seen in any other victim than some done to Kate Eddowes...of which almost all of what was done became public knowledge long before Marys murder.

If Schwartz saw anything, and the club members told the truth, Liz Stride could only be an interruption if Diemshutz arrived at 12:56am instead of 1, or Dr Blackwell was off on his most recent time for cut estimate. I think neither are likely myself.

Unless one of the many changes "Jack" has attributed to him by those seeking C5 validation, is that sometimes he just kills, no more than one cut, and leaves the victim looking as just "peacefully" laid down, ...even when given time alone with a corpse.

So I can be sure.....How many other canonical women were there again,.... with no abdominal cuts, none attempted, no sign of him fussing with her clothes or limbs, and the killer having perhaps as little as 4 minutes, or as much as 14, after the throat cut, alone in a yard with the deceased. And how many were described, or appeared, as gently laid down?

And Im in luck this time on opinions, one of the most respected Ripperologists in the world has voiced his belief that only 3 have been proven to his satisfaction to be linked with one killer....and he was a London Policeman for many years. Seems he doesnt buy anything thats offered either, even a Company line.

I neglected to mention that I once read he has spent roughly 50 years studying and researching these crimes.

Best regards.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

I am assuming that you are talking about Stewart Evans. I read his book and if I recall correctly, he has doubts about Liz and Mary being in the C5. Again, if I recall correctly, he was not adamant about omitting them either which is something that you seem hell bent on doing.

My apologies to Mr. Evans if I incorrectly stated his position.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Hi Michael,

I am assuming that you are talking about Stewart Evans. I read his book and if I recall correctly, he has doubts about Liz and Mary being in the C5. Again, if I recall correctly, he was not adamant about omitting them either which is something that you seem hell bent on doing.

My apologies to Mr. Evans if I incorrectly stated his position.

c.d.

In an exchange with him on the boards last year he posted that he has never been personally satisfied that more than 3 victims were the work of one man. I believe your correct, in that he doesn't insist they should be removed from the Canon, but nor did I say I agreed with his every idea....although I do with quite a few.

Plus Mr Evans has a position in the Ripperology community that demands that his theories are all supportable before giving them...Im just a guy with some ideas.

If someone ever makes a case that isnt full of holes regarding Liz, Ill be all ears.

Cheers cd.

[Barksey]

Im just a guy with some ideas.

If someone ever makes a case that isnt full of holes regarding Liz, Ill be all ears.

Not sure a case for Liz that doesn't contain a few holes is possible; but I'm willing to put forward an argument for her inclusion in the canon:

1) Location of murder: as with Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes (not to mention McKenzie), the Victim was murdered on a policeman's beat, within a short time of that policeman's arrival: "It takes me from 25 minutes to half and hour to go round my beat...At 1 O'clock I went to Berner Street in my ordinary round" (Evans and Skinner, 187). Also like Chapman and Eddowes, she was murdered in an area with limited escape routes; the killer was not observed leaving the area.

2) Cut to the throat: Stride: "It was 6in in length and commenced 2 1/2 in below the angle of the jaw" (Evans/Skinner 177) Eddowes: "The throat was cut to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe" (Evans/Skinner 229) Nichols: "On the left side of the neck, about 1in below the jaw, there was an incision about 4in in length" (ibid, page 38-39).
Stride: "The cut...tailed off about 2 in below the right angle of the jaw (ibid page 177) Eddowes " [the] cut...ectended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear" (Page 229)
Stride ""The cut was very clean and deviated a little downwards...the cut through the tissues on the right side was more superficial" (page 177) Eddowes "The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened" (Page 229).
3) Likely position of body while throat was cut. Eddowes: "There was a quantity of clotted blood on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of the arm...No spurting of the blood on the bricks or pavement around" (Page 228) Stride: "Was the blood in a liquid state?"..."Some was and some was congealed...The part nearest to her throat was congealed?" (Lamb, page 161)."Was there any blood on the side of the house, or splashes on the wall?...No, it was very dark at the time." (Blackwells evidence page 167) and "Were there any spots of blood on the wall?"..."I could trace none." (B.Phillips evidence, page 178).
4) Bruises on Shoulders: Stride: "Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar bone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discolouration" (page 177) Chapman: "There were two distinct bruises, each the size of the top of a mans thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest" (Page 97)

I would suggest that 3) implies that Liz Stride was on the ground when her throat was cut - the absence of blood on the walls suggests this, and the observation that "There was a small amount of mud on the right side" (page 177) implies that she was on her back. This would fit her in more completely with the other victims in the canon; the left side would later become more stained with mud as it becomes moistened by the blood. I think that this gives her a greater commonality with the other victims.

I'm not arguing that there is absolute concrete proof that Liz was a Ripper victim, but I certainly feel that there is enough evidence to suggest that she be included in the canon.

Anyway
Jen

[perrymason]

Hi Jen,

Just had typed a response to you, and had a kernel fault with Firefox.....and Im too tired to retrace my steps.

Lets just say that you again offered wound analysis to use as the barometer for Jacks kills, as did Robert, the only problem is that Methodology is equally important when dealing with victims of varying degrees and types of wounds.

I suspect any able man at that time, 35-38, using a similar knife and under similar circumstances, could leave quite similar wounds.

But for example, Liz could have been cut while falling, not lying down, and we have a witness that says he and at least one other man, Pipeman, saw BS assault Liz between 1 and 11 minutes before her throat gets cut,.. Blackwells Time of Cut estimate,...and feet from the location. And Mary Jane, according to the witnesses of the courtyard, had no light or noise coming from her room from around 1:30 am, until around 3:00am. And none can be attributed specifically to her room after that. If the killer boosted a fire with clothes during that time, or a candle reflected off the 2 story white wall opposite her window...visible to Mary Ann walking by..we would know of it.

So we have one woman witha single wound that may have been inflicted while she fell, and a second who by all apparent data, may have been sleeping when her killer arrives.

Killing wasnt rare...cutting with knives wasnt rare, and almost every aspect of early murder press coverage could have given anyone pre-disposed to kill themselves, a carte blanche invitation. At least 4 women died in similar circumstances and with similar profiles who we believe Jack did not kill....including a victim with 39 stab wounds. Also Torso's. 2 in 88/89, and I believe a few earlier in the decade.

Whats most revealing about the killer who focused on abdominal postmortem mutilations...of which there are 3 in the Canon, I believe is how he got what he wanted, from whom, and where.

Liz Stride is clearly showing us nothing of what we have learned to that point about what Jack intends to do with his victims after cutting their throat, and Mary Jane very possibly was awakened in her room in bed to be killed...by someone who had no desire to take abdominal organs, but an obvious strong desire to just destroy her physical form.

Cheers Jen...before this crashes again.

[Doctor X]

If you let FF crash, restart it, it should recover the page including what you have typed.

At least it does on a Mac . . .

--J.D.

[Barksey]

Lets just say that you again offered wound analysis to use as the barometer for Jacks kills, as did Robert, the only problem is that Methodology is equally important when dealing with victims of varying degrees and types of wounds.

I think you'll find that I used wounds as ONE example of similarities, also noting the location of body and position in which the throat was cut. Neither of these are wounds .

But for example, Liz could have been cut while falling, not lying down,
...So we have one woman witha single wound that may have been inflicted while she fell

I had hoped to argue Against the idea that Liz was cut as she fell. Had there been any such falling/cutting movement, I would have 1) expected a much more ragged cut, conforming to gravitational and directional forces and 2) expected blood on the wall or area around her; there was none, as Phillips testified. As with Eddowes, the blood pooled around her body to the left. This, and the mud found by Phillips on the right of the jacket, suggests a prone position for the cut. It was the methodology that I was arguing suggested a victim of 'jack'.

Liz Stride is clearly showing us nothing of what we have learned to that point about what Jack intends to do with his victims after cutting their throat, and Mary Jane very possibly was awakened in her room in bed to be killed...by someone who had no desire to take abdominal organs, but an obvious strong desire to just destroy her physical form. .

No, the Stride killing can't tell us much about that, but I thought I was arguing for her being part of the canon . As for Kelly, there are differences in her killing, certainly, but at the time of her death, there was a killer who had previously performed cuts to the throat, removal of bodily organs and facial mutilation, as well as placing of the body in an obsene or derogatory manner. These suggest good reasons for keeping Kelly in the canon.

Take care, and just give the computer a kick - that's what I do

Jen

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Michael,

I am assuming that you are talking about Stewart Evans. I read his book and if I recall correctly, he has doubts about Liz and Mary being in the C5. Again, if I recall correctly, he was not adamant about omitting them either which is something that you seem hell bent on doing.

My apologies to Mr. Evans if I incorrectly stated his position.

c.d.

The researcher Michael's talking about has in several lectures omitted both Liz Stride and Martha Tabram and it is no secret that he has serious doubts about Kelly as well and considers it as a possible domestic murder.
But it's perfectly true that he is never adament in his statements, and none of us should be. What he has said is based on his personal opinions and nothing else, and that goes for the rest of us as well, I hope. What he and others who shares similar views (like myself) asks is to ask people to keep an open mind to the possibility and to look beyond what's been generally accepted as well as on other type of evidence than purely the study of the wounds.
Personally, I think he's perfectly correct when he says that we can only be sure of three victims to attribute to Jack the Ripper - but again, it is all a matter of personal opinion and interpretation.

However, as usual, it appears as it is those who supports or the canon or Macnaghten Five who are the really adament ones and who can't even accept to take any other alternative thoughts on the subject into consideration. Nothing new under the sun.

All the best
(P.S. Besides, c.d., I noted that Michael very carefully tried to avoid mention the researcher by name, and as far as I know he the researcher is generally would prefer not to see his name involved in connection with the sometimes very uncontrolled debates on Casebook unless he participates himself.)

[Doctor X]

However, as usual, it appears as it is those who supports or the canon or Macnaghten Five who are the really adament ones and who can't even accept to take any other alternative thoughts on the subject into consideration.

Since no one in this thread has taken that position, I am unaware how "as usual" or "really adament" applies.

. . . generally would prefer not to see his name involved in connection with the sometimes very uncontrolled debates on Casebook unless he participates himself.)

I am unaware how one can control a debate unless to control the outcome--defending against straw "adament" opponents . . . or is it "adamantite straw opponents."

Nevertheless, he is irrelevant: it is his argument, his analysis of the evidence, his assumptions--reasonable or not--his conclusions which prove relevant. Whether or not he enjoys the feng shui of HERE is the least relevant point.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Since no one in this thread has taken that position, I am unaware how "as usual" or "really adament" applies.

Then we obviously haven't read the same posts.
Or threads for that matters.

All the best

[Doctor X]

Then we obviously haven't read the same posts.

Kindly direct me to one of those post in this thread; perhaps I have been overwhelmed by yet another Glorious Red Sox come-from-behind triumph.

Or threads for that matters.

I see no need to consider other threads, other boards, or other extraneous matters.

Yours truly,

--J.D.