Example of a serial killer

[Michael W Richards]

There is one thing that can be used emprically to support the overall opinion of skills demonstrated with Annies murder...after her murder medical students, medical teaching hospitals and universities and general practioners were looked into. At no other time in the Canonical series do the investigators look for suspects with that kind of training and those kinds of knife skills, or in a specific field.

[Fisherman]

We may then add what Phillips said as he was recalled on the inquest day:
"I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length - probably more - and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge.
The Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?
Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour."

So Phillips was very impressed with what he saw as a combination of anatomical knowledge and great speed on the killers behalf. And that rhymes totally with the Lancetīs wording about how the killer was able to procure the uterus and its appendages with "one sweep of the knife"; anatomical insight coupled with great speed.

Keep in mind that the Lancets article was published late in September, long after the legal procedures. It is not the kind of article that we see in the daily newspapers, but instead more of a weighing together of the material, commenting on its many aspects. This is the passage in its full wording:

"The revolting tale of the Whitechapel murder has been further embellished by the astounding statements which the coroner deemed fit to make public in his summing up of the case of of the unfortunate woman Chapman. The public have supped full of horrors, and now there is added thereto a suggestion which, in spite of its plausibility, is almost too horrible to be credited. It seems, on the face of it, to dispel all previous theories and explanations of a series of crimes which are happily almost unique in our annals. It supplies a motive for the deed, which has been compared to that of Burke and Hare, but which, in fiendish greed and disregard for the sanctity of human life, almost surpasses the villainies of those miscreants. In presence of this suggestion it is futile to discuss any other hypothesis until this has been thoroughly probed. Mr. Wynne Baxter did not withhold any of the information which came to him from an unexpected source on the day of the publication ofMr. Phillips' evidence respecting the mutilations of the body. It will be remembered that at his first examination, Mr. Phillips did not enter into these details. He acted on his own responsibility in stating only such facts as should enable the coroner's jury to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the cause of death; whilst he took care to inform the police authorities of all those facts which might give them any clue as to the object the murderer had in view, and thus lead to his detection. However, when the coroner insisted upon Mr. Phillips being recalled to add these further facts to his previous evidence, he stated that the mutilation of the body was of such a character as could only have been effected by a practised hand. It was appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long."

There is ample possibility that the reporter (who would reasonably have been versed in medical issues) may have heard Phillips utter the phrasing at a later stage than the inquest, and in that respect, Gareth may be correct - maybe Phillips did not say these words at the inquest per se. But is it reasonable to suggest that a medical journal would invent things on behalf of a medico who was very likely to read the article in retrospect? Or at all?

I donīt think so. Although I would not claim for a fact to know it. I only know it is unlikely in my eyes.

Every time this subject has been brought up, it has caused an infected debate. I can do without it, and so I will say no more but instead leave you to decide for yourself what to think.

[Fisherman]

Woah! So it's got no relation at all to anyone who had even seen the body?

Actually, Gareth Williams (Sam Flynn) does not know that the phrasing is an invention on the Lancets behalf. He thinks it is, but going as far as to elevate it into fact would be very dangerous. Phillips may have used the exact phrasing for all we know. We have the Daily Telegraphs recording from the inquest, for example, and in it, it says:

"Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge."

So Phillips tells us that anatomical knowledge was indicated by the killers work, and he moreover says that he would have expected to see more examples of it, had the killer not been in a haste when cutting. We therefore know that the ground is in place for Phillips to have said what the Lancet quotes him as saying. Moreover, the Lancet was not exactly a sensationalist evening paper, it was - and is - a qualified medical journal of extensive repute.

When saying that the Lancet may well be correct and ad verbatim, I would not go as far as Gareth does when claiming as a fact that he is right on the errand - but I would recommend a significant pinch of salt to swallow that "fact" down with.
Myself, I spit it out.

[Sam Flynn]

Woah! So it's got no relation at all to anyone who had even seen the body?

Indeed. However, there were some detailed press reports available from which much of the information cou have been obtained, albeit not one of them mentioned the "single sweep of a knife". That smacks of artistic licence, and has more than a whiff of melodrama about it.

[Takod]

Beware of that quote. It's often taken to be an official statement by someone who examined Chapman's body, and is usually attributed to George Bagster Phillips, but it is in fact merely an editorial/opinion-piece in The Lancet.

Woah! So it's got no relation at all to anyone who had even seen the body?

[Sam Flynn]

"No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more"

Beware of that quote. It's often taken to be an official statement by someone who examined Chapman's body, and is usually attributed to George Bagster Phillips, but it is in fact merely an editorial/opinion-piece in The Lancet.

[Takod]

Keep taking the podcasts! Unless they're really old, the information on them will often be more up-to-date than you'll find in books or on Wikipedia. And don't worry - the myth that Klosowski lived in the White Hart in 1888 is still widely held, even though it stems from the faulty memory of Wolff Levisohn, witness at Klosowski's trial nearly 15 years later.

Yeah this Chapman one was rather old, I thoroughly enjoy them all as there's always something new to be learned.

The evidence in Martha Tabrams murder is that she was stabbed repeatedly with a knife resembling a "pen-knife"..36 times...and then she was stabbed once in the breast by something like a bayonet

"and then" - bar the wound that was responsible for the cessation of life I don't believe that an order can be attributed to which wounds took place and when, especially in so narrow a timeframe.

The scenario suggests Martha was with someone who got uncontrollably angry with her, or women in general, and as a result she was stabbed repeatedly in a fit of rage with a knife he had in his pocket. A second soldier, likely looking for his mate, came across the scene and knew immediately the woman wouldn't survive. The bayonet stab is essentially a mercy killing in my opinion

There are many ways you can read into this, you could have the single stab first; and the pen knife could have been committed by a sleepwalker, or a sleepstabber, even in George Yard Buildings!

It is surely not overstepping bounds to indicate that a wounded woman lying there wheezing, perhaps thumping the ground to attract attention, would not attract attention. I suppose whilst Lennie ran off to find George with his big strong bayonet to tell him of this violent escapade a horribly wounded woman lay there. Quietly.

I suppose we can bring in Amy Hewitt for her cry of "Murder" but yet; alas; she's too early, whilst everyone else slept just fine.

I believe Mahoney testified "I did not get up till half-past eight in the morning, and during the night my attention was not attracted by a noise or disturbance of any kind."

you are free to buy into any speculation that seems to make sense to you

Aye, and you too!

but I don't see any evidence at all that any Canonical was robbed

I suppose a spooky ghost gracefully removed the rings from Annie Chapman, rather than her herself at knifepoint. There are other evidences, such as the clenched fists around personal items, or the items in relation towards the hands.

I don't see any evidence that Martha was ripped

I agree; she wasn't "ripped" as such as we see in the later killings; that doesn't mean that a lot of the other factors don't make the cut, and there's always the stab wound to the "lower body" that doesn't get enough consideration.

I see no need to marry her, by killer, with any Canonical victim

She was killed quietly [Mahoney, Francis Hewitt] No evidence of a struggle [Killeen] Around the same time - In the same area - The legs were positioned just as they were in the canonical killings -

There have been many people suggesting things that would make a prolonged series by one man more palatable to their own particular tastes

Yes, but what inference can be taken from the facts?

including suggesting that someone who just stabbed Martha was also the same man that killed 2 women in a very specific manner, in nearly identical fashion, and also excised a uterus nearly intact, in near darkness, just over a month later

Darkness is a topic I'm very interested in. I have some doubts as to how much of a big deal it is. After five minutes in near darkness you can see pretty much greyscale. Except, if you're inside with a light, even a small gas lamp and looking out, you'll see pitch black.

Regarding the uterus removal, there are many possible foundations for it; and all of them can lead back and include Tabram a month earlier.

"No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more"

1) Being able to dissect a body, or having knife skills, especially with a carcass, doesn't necessarily make you that much different from a home cook that deals with raw meat. Bodies come apart, just like chicken wings and legs seem to twist off very naturally. It's rather easy to feel your way around what will come off and what won't come off. What's got something behind it, and what has not.
2) Combine this with a book on anatomy and you're a happy person because most of the work has been done for you.
3) If you're good at doing something first time, then you're good at doing something first time. Some people just "get it" , and there are transferable skills that build into this, even something such as gutting a fish would be valuable, because you quickly realise that yanking the stringy connector bits (unscientific name) causes splashing. And jabbing your knife in impatiently causes damage to the fish.

I don't see how it's much of a far cry from doing that to doing that to a person, and if you've the gall to kill somebody then you've the gall to do all kinds of horrendous things. IE. The circular incisions to remove Kelly's breasts. Why circular, why not just straight through? He had a long enough knife to simply cut through the breast. But circular is the common sense answer that avoids the most issues surrounding just lopping them off.

I think your explanation for why the women wouldn't fear someone who joked about killing them is weak

Not an argument, simply a dismissal. If you want it to be an argument then put "because" instead of "and" ~ Let me fix it for you below so I actually feel like responding.

I think your explanation for why the women wouldn't fear someone who joked about killing them is weak, because it flies in the face of the news reports and the panic anytime a woman was confronted by someone who makes a similar claim

Exactly, people were saying it. I'm not exactly ignorant to this; but some probably more seriously than others, others trying to pass something serious off as a joke; and others trying to pass a joke off when they were serious. Again, not a dismissal or an argument. My point still stands because you're not attacking the foundation of my claim and using that as the reason to why you think it is "weak" (which would be the most effective way)

Women without options still went out to solicit strangers, but many started carrying knives themselves. Kate had one on her, for example.

Yes, but I still don't understand what this has to do with these women possibly being disarmed by a coy joke by a clearly comfortable, clearly joking and clearly jovial man (who then killed them). It is not like these women would have pulled a knife on anyone even remotely referencing the scare. After all, it is you who keeps saying that they were without options.

[Michael W Richards]

Unfortunately I'm going to need more than a paragraph to be persuaded exactly why it's obvious. What's obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me. With people like George Chapman living at George Yard at the time.

The evidence in Martha Tabrams murder is that she was stabbed repeatedly with a knife resembling a "pen-knife"..36 times...and then she was stabbed once in the breast by something like a bayonet. We know soldiers were out that night, we know that some travelled in pairs, and at least on soldier was hanging around while his mate was off with a girl, we know that soldiers could carry bayonets legally on Bank Holidays, we know that she wasn't cut, and we know that if someone had 2 weapons, 1 small and 1 large, then if he intended to kill someone he would likely use the large one. The scenario suggests Martha was with someone who got uncontrollably angry with her, or women in general, and as a result she was stabbed repeatedly in a fit of rage with a knife he had in his pocket. A second soldier, likely looking for his mate, came across the scene and knew immediately the woman wouldn't survive. The bayonet stab is essentially a mercy killing in my opinion.

Again, you are free to buy into any speculation that seems to make sense to you, but I don't see any evidence at all that any Canonical was robbed, and I don't see any evidence that Martha was ripped. So I see no need to marry her, by killer, with any Canonical victim. There have been many people suggesting things that would make a prolonged series by one man more palatable to their own particular tastes, including suggesting that someone who just stabbed Martha was also the same man that killed 2 women in a very specific manner, in nearly identical fashion, and also excised a uterus nearly intact, in near darkness, just over a month later.

I think your explanation for why the women wouldn't fear someone who joked about killing them is weak, and it flies in the face of the news reports and the panic anytime a woman was confronted by someone who makes a similar claim. Women without options still went out to solicit strangers, but many started carrying knives themselves. Kate had one on her, for example.

By the time Liz Stride is killed I believe the man who killed Polly and Annie had ceased activities anyway, due to his freedom being revoked.

[Sam Flynn]

Boo! Well that's what happens when I get some of my information from the podcasts~

Keep taking the podcasts! Unless they're really old, the information on them will often be more up-to-date than you'll find in books or on Wikipedia. And don't worry - the myth that Klosowski lived in the White Hart in 1888 is still widely held, even though it stems from the faulty memory of Wolff Levisohn, witness at Klosowski's trial nearly 15 years later.

[Takod]

Klosowski didn't move to George Yard (strictly-speaking, the nearby White Hart) until some two years after Tabram's murder. Indeed, there is some evidence that he hadn't even moved to Whitechapel at that stage, but was still based further east in a different district entirely.

Boo! Well that's what happens when I get some of my information from the podcasts~

[Sam Flynn]

What's obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me. With people like George Chapman living at George Yard at the time.

Klosowski didn't move to George Yard (strictly-speaking, the nearby White Hart) until some two years after Tabram's murder. Indeed, there is some evidence that he hadn't even moved to Whitechapel at that stage, but was still based further east in a different district entirely.

[Takod]

Smith yes..Tabram no. Its pretty obvious to me that a soldier carrying a pen knife ...

Unfortunately I'm going to need more than a paragraph to be persuaded exactly why it's obvious. What's obvious to you is apparently not obvious to me. With people like George Chapman living at George Yard at the time.

The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders

Who says anything other than the last few seconds of their lives that they may have felt menaced? Again, I call upon Wescott's wonderful theory that once in the dark corner the attack started under the guise of being robbed to encourage compliance and hope in the victim - "If I just hand over my things, I can be safe"

Besides, I don't think you're giving the women enough credit here, there's a level of excitement and thrill around toying with death, much the same reason we as people like rollercoaster rides. I'm not saying that this would have continued throughout the whole event, and upon recognition of their imminent mortality any excitement would have been quelled by abject fear, but for the near-misses or nights when nothing happened at all, combined with the gossip (as women so like to do) combined with the feeling of (this would never happen to me) must have made it all rather more interesting than the mundane necessity which it was normally in their day to day.

I think it's wrong to discount this element, because if these women were safety and security first then odds are they would never have been found alone in a dark and secluded place with no witnesses. And by this I mean they would have taken their business, assuming it was prostitution, to slightly more frequented areas, even at the risk of being interrupted, and especially by police.

The only possible objection to this that I can see is "But why would they do that, the threat was real" - and the clear answer is that people in desperate situations make reckless decisions out of necessity, this is merely icing on the cake. I think anyone objecting this is discounting these women's decision making; discounting the killer's ability to make them feel safe and secure; discounting how these women must have interacted with their friends at the height of the scare, made jokes, made light of it; and endured.

The idea that they were huddled together like hens in fear of a fox in the coop is discounting women entirely and has it's place in fiction, not fact.

My point is that it's far more likely that the killer could have joked to one of these women that they would upon sunrise surely be dead and still taken them to darkest, most witness free place and actually killed them than it is that such a joke would have immediately sent off flags in the mind and they'd go and get someone else. ESPECIALLY at the height of the scare because the JOKE HAS CONTEXT.

[Michael W Richards]

HI MR



I said nothing about being "menacing" just a powerful man. Im sure he was actually quite charming.



Theres absolutely no reason to exclude BS man and besides he wasn't the only one described as short and stout. (ie-powerfully built).



IMHO he was crafty as a fox and strong like a bear. : )

OK. I can see someone strong, a skinny butcher could be like that, BSM is a person mentioned in a story that we must conclude has no relevance to the question of how Liz Stride died...someone seen assaulting the victim just before she has her throat cut should be, if the story was believed or found to be truthful,...so, there isnt really any BSM man as far as the Inquest is concerned, and on the last point, I can see both of those too. I also can see someone out for the thrill....killing and cutting someone in the open air, on a street or just off one, could only be done by someone who also got a rush from the danger of the act.

[Abby Normal]

The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders? Maybe the wrestler type might befriend them, as I think Blotchy does with Mary. But I think that if you remove BSM from Berner Street...which is a prudent call considering the way that story disappears, and if Blotchy is someone that Mary thought she could trust, then we only have sailor man, and he isn't to my mind a brutish kind of figure.

Plus, the fellow who killed Polly and Annie must have just strolled away inconspicuously, we have no sightings about someone fleeing. This killer seems to have thought things out a bit, more a fox than a bear I think.

HI MR

The problem I have with that is that would women continue voluntarily taking a menacing type stranger into a dark corner after the first few murders

I said nothing about being "menacing" just a powerful man. Im sure he was actually quite charming.

But I think that if you remove BSM from Berner Street...which is a prudent call considering the way that story disappears, and if Blotchy is someone that Mary thought she could trust, then we only have sailor man, and he isn't to my mind a brutish kind of figure.

Theres absolutely no reason to exclude BS man and besides he wasn't the only one described as short and stout. (ie-powerfully built).

This killer seems to have thought things out a bit, more a fox than a bear I think

IMHO he was crafty as a fox and strong like a bear. : )

[Michael W Richards]

You can include Tabram and Smith in that and have it still make some sort of sense, yes.

But we don't know what the killer's abortion policy was (please no literal) - you can't just go somewhere dark with a potential victim and then be like "oh there's people here..." or "that person's watching" and then call the whole thing off, if anything that would be strange. - unless of course you gave them money anyway and claimed shyness, in which case they'd be happy one way or the other - and then again, they're likely to go somewhere nice and dark with you again should the need arise.

Stride could be taken as one "aborted victim", since I agree with the profile insofar as the mutilations were the primary intention of the attacks.

Smith yes..Tabram no. Its pretty obvious to me that a soldier carrying a pen knife got angry with her and in a frenzy, stabbed away. He didn't target organs, although he hit some, and he may have been trained to do so, but the individual stabs were not intended to definitively end life. One throat cut would have done that. The bayonet was a stab intended to end life, and if the soldier had the bayonet with him, he probably wouldn't have used the pen knife at all. A second person ended that attack with the bayonet...just like the second soldier waiting for his friend who was off with a "woman". Soldiers were permitted to wear bayonets on Bank Holidays.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Strides killer sought, wanted, desired to do anything but what he did. So any speculation about interruptions or abortive attacks is just 100% unsupported speculation.