Faecal matter on apron piece

[Jon Guy]

Mr. Phillips did not see Kate Eddowes' body in situ. Brown did send a dispatch to advise Phillips of the murder and a request for his assistance, only to find that the H division surgeon was involved with a murder of his own. Eddowes was then conveyed to the Golden Lane mortuary with the understanding that Phillips would arrive there as soon as practicable. Phillips arrived some time after 5:20 a.m. with the apron piece found in Goulston St. while Brown's preliminary examination was underway. Phillips did participate in that procedure and agreed to return at 2:30 p.m. for the official post-mortem.

Yes, my error. I thought it would have been a long time before they could move the body. But the burning question was did Baxter see Eddowes?

[Hunter]

I don't think any medico advised with respect to the investigation.

Each medico who prepared a report on the post-mortem of the murder he was involved in would have included recommendations for the investigation at the conclusion of his report. Both Brown and Phillips submitted one on the Mitre Square murder and Insp.. Swanson makes mention of this in his summary report on this murder. The conclusions he relates is very telling.

I would have thought Nichols, Chapman, Edd owes. As you recall, Baxter seems to have allowed Polly through Kate as canonical in SPITE of his misgivings. He remarked the obvious differences in the cutting, but noted the similarities in:

1. Doing the job quickly.

2. Not getting caught.

Baxter was referring to the Stride murder here, not the Eddowes murder, which he considered a possible imitation of the Chapman murder.

I don't think Don will mind me mentioning this, but there is a very long article upcoming in the New Independant Review which addresses all of this. It follows Bagster Phillips throughout the whole skien chronologically and addresses the medical evidence, the anatomical knowledge/skill debate, the views of the various medicos as well as Wynne Baxter's, and why these views were expressed... along with discussing how post-mortem examinations were conducted during that time. I believe it will offer some clarity on a critical aspect of this case that has often been misperceived by Ripperologists for various reasons.

[Phil Carter]

Mr. Phillips did not see Kate Eddowes' body in situ. Brown did send a dispatch to advise Phillips of the murder and a request for his assistance, only to find that the H division surgeon was involved with a murder of his own. Eddowes was then conveyed to the Golden Lane mortuary with the understanding that Phillips would arrive there as soon as practicable. Phillips arrived some time after 5:20 a.m. with the apron piece found in Goulston St. while Brown's preliminary examination was underway. Phillips did participate in that procedure and agreed to return at 2:30 p.m. for the official post-mortem.

Hello Cris,

'Phillips arrived some time after 5:20am with the apron piece'

When did Collard and Halse arrive there again?

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

This document was mentioned on the 'Bury' thread recently :

"The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and ... Murders", Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling " Try googling it and downloading the pdf

It is quite clear and logical that both the MO, and more importantly the 'signature' show that the Canonicals + Tabram were killed by the same hand.

Before anyone sneers and refutes 'offender profiling' -read the document.

The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature ...
angela1simpson.galeon.com/jack.pdf -

Hello Ruby,

All very well and good. An expert view.
Ask 'the public in general' (which I wrote) about Jack the Ripper and invariably the comment you'll get is 'Wasn't he the bloke that killed a load of women in London?' 'They reckon it was some Royal bloke'. Ask a quantity. VERY few will say 5. (or 6).

Again, with respect, I suggest we back to the topic of the thread.

Best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Dr Phillips certainly saw Eddowes in situ and was invited to the post mortem by Brown but I can`t find anything to suggest Baxter saw Eddowes body.

Mr. Phillips did not see Kate Eddowes' body in situ. Brown did send a dispatch to advise Phillips of the murder and a request for his assistance, only to find that the H division surgeon was involved with a murder of his own. Eddowes was then conveyed to the Golden Lane mortuary with the understanding that Phillips would arrive there as soon as practicable. Phillips arrived some time after 5:20 a.m. with the apron piece found in Goulston St. while Brown's preliminary examination was underway. Phillips did participate in that procedure and agreed to return at 2:30 p.m. for the official post-mortem.

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

Now that you have got that personal dig out of your system- Im sure you feel better.
Written with such distain too. Tut tut.

Yes thanks.

Rob

[Rubyretro]

This document was mentioned on the 'Bury' thread recently :

"The Jack the Ripper Murders: A Modus Operandi and ... Murders", Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling " Try googling it and downloading the pdf

It is quite clear and logical that both the MO, and more importantly the 'signature' show that the Canonicals + Tabram were killed by the same hand.

Before anyone sneers and refutes 'offender profiling' -read the document.

The Jack the Ripper murders: a modus operandi and signature ...
angela1simpson.galeon.com/jack.pdf -

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Now that you have got that personal dig out of your system- Im sure you feel better.
Written with such distain too. Tut tut.

The POPULAR view- i.e. WHAT Joe Bloggs and his Missus at 54 Everyman Way, Downtown City THINK that Jack the Ripper was, is a Royal Prince or an Artist.
THAT has nothing to do with official views either.
Joe Bloggs has a view of the Ripper completely unattached to what any person with a degree of knowledge about the case has.
That is what I wrote of. Not OFFICIAL views or expert's views for that matter.
Jack the Ripper has an image in the eyes of Mr Everyman.
It is not a factually correct one.
Back to the topic.

Best wishes

PHIL

[Rob Clack]

Hello Mike,

This is an important side-point that even after 124 years, even though there have been doubts from respected writers and enthusiasts over many years re Stride, and more recently Kelly, the notion of this manic woman killer 'Jack the Ripper' murdered every victim is one of the things that sticks to the myth like the 'tog hat' and 'London fog'.
I think that in some quarters any downgrading of the amount of deeds done is seen to 'spoil' the mystique, spoil the image, spoil the story.

If one takes an extreme that would INCLUDE Tabram, Coles, McKenzie- here we have in 'popularist' views a single man killing 8 women. Take those 3 away, and you have AT LEAST 2 killers of 8 women. It is FAR from certain, infact unlikely the same person killed these 3 women. That means there's a fair chance of 3 different killers of these 3 women. That makes a possible 4 killers of 8 women, take Stride out and you have a possible 5th killer. And I didnt even include Emma Smith.

Popular and unique Jack isnt quite the killing machine anymore if we look at the Whitechapel Murdeq series. So modern comparisons with Bundy, West and the Green River killer for example are as unrealistic as comparing Vlad the Impaler with Jack the Ripper.

It will take a long time before people in general accept as fact that the titleJack the Ripper owes more to an overblown Press and police promotion than it does to what any one man may or may not have done.

Cut away the hype and there isnt a lot to compare with modern serial killers in terms of quantity. Thats before we start on modus operandi.
All of which is another debate in itself. Apologies and back to the thread.

best wishes

Phil

I really can't believe how ignorant and naive this post really is. The popular belief is that Jack killed at least 5 of the 11 (not 8) women listed in the official Whitechapel Murders files.
The rest of the post isn't even worthy of a response.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

quantity

The problem is of course Archaic that the serial killer model is being applied to analyze some killings that we do not have hard evidence to link to one person, any person.

Hello Mike,

This is an important side-point that even after 124 years, even though there have been doubts from respected writers and enthusiasts over many years re Stride, and more recently Kelly, the notion of this manic woman killer 'Jack the Ripper' murdered every victim is one of the things that sticks to the myth like the 'tog hat' and 'London fog'.
I think that in some quarters any downgrading of the amount of deeds done is seen to 'spoil' the mystique, spoil the image, spoil the story.

If one takes an extreme that would INCLUDE Tabram, Coles, McKenzie- here we have in 'popularist' views a single man killing 8 women. Take those 3 away, and you have AT LEAST 2 killers of 8 women. It is FAR from certain, infact unlikely the same person killed these 3 women. That means there's a fair chance of 3 different killers of these 3 women. That makes a possible 4 killers of 8 women, take Stride out and you have a possible 5th killer. And I didnt even include Emma Smith.

Popular and unique Jack isnt quite the killing machine anymore if we look at the Whitechapel Murdeq series. So modern comparisons with Bundy, West and the Green River killer for example are as unrealistic as comparing Vlad the Impaler with Jack the Ripper.

It will take a long time before people in general accept as fact that the titleJack the Ripper owes more to an overblown Press and police promotion than it does to what any one man may or may not have done.

Cut away the hype and there isnt a lot to compare with modern serial killers in terms of quantity. Thats before we start on modus operandi.
All of which is another debate in itself. Apologies and back to the thread.

best wishes

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

The problem is of course Archaic that the serial killer model is being applied to analyze some killings that we do not have hard evidence to link to one person, any person.

In these cases the attacks and wounds have to speak on their own first, unless of course its a new tale from start to finish, provided openly and verified.

In this case the facial wounds may have preceded the thing we most associate with Ripper murders, cutting into the abdomen. Which means even if there was a single man for all 5 murders the Eddowes murder still changes the killers "accepted" MO with respect to the facial cuts.

I say "accepted" meaning, a lone man who acts as a client to get working street whores to take him somewhere private where he cuts their throats and then mutilates their abdomens.

Perhaps those cuts have meaning or significance for the public at large, maybe Kates new wounds are actually a message of sorts.

Any action taken other than to kill and cut abdomens should raise flags, particularly with what appears to be a remarkably short event in Mitre.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Archaic]

Victims and 'Identity'

The relationship between the killer and the victim who has facial mutilations is not necessarily real. It can be perceived or relative. The killer didn't necessarily know Eddowes, or have a personal relationship with her. He could have had a fantasized relationship with her.

Great observation, Errata. I completely agree with you.

The victims of serial killers are often personally unknown "stand-ins" for others towards whom the killer feels rage.

To the serial killer they have no individual identity, no personhood, no life before he came along and 'invested' them with an identity meaningful to himself, then murdered them.

Ted Bundy couldn't even remember the names of his victims. He laughed about it during interviews. He didn't care, they weren't real people with real feelings and real lives and real loved ones.

He dispensed their 'identity' like he was God, then he took pleasure in destroying them.

To him they had no existence before he came along, and none after... they were temporary stand-ins, meaningless objects, and after they served their purpose they were erased.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Michael W Richards]

The relationship between the killer and the victim who has facial mutilations is not necessarily real. It can be perceived or relative. The killer didn't necessarily know Eddowes, or have a personal relationship with her. He could have had a fantasized relationship with her. He could have had a tangential relationship with her, where he knew her by sight. Or she could simply have looked like someone he knew, someone that he either had quite a bit of rage towards, or someone he didn't want "see" him kill. It's entirely possible that he cut her throat, put her on the ground and thought "Oh crap. She looks like my sister. I can't do this if she looks like my sister". So he alters her features while ensuring her face would be a bloody mess. When she no longer looks like his sister, he can proceed. Alternatively, if she looks like someone he harbors a lot of rage towards, she may have seemed like a perfect substitute to vent that rage in a pretty personal way.

Hi errata,

Im sure that there are cases like that, and its a great point, however Im also sure they are in the statistical minority when reviewing these kinds of specific cases. Its almost always linked with some sort of relationship, fantasy based perhaps.. by either party, but nonetheless a connection that existed before the murder between hunter and prey.

The wounds to Kelly's face in conjunction with the intimate surroundings and very informal state of dress support that same kind of conclusion,..in that only someone close and known to her gets in her room, at her bed while she is in her undies, late at night. I know some people assume she turns to inviting men in after Joe leaves, but that wasnt the pre-existing pattern, nor do we have any evidence that she brought any man other than Joe into that room. Other than Blotchy, of course.

This woman may have had reasons for keeping a low profile near her room.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Errata]

Facial mutilations and a relationship of some kind between the killer and his victim are common in murders like this. So....if he was killing a stranger then why the facial cuts before any others?

Best regards,

Mike R

The relationship between the killer and the victim who has facial mutilations is not necessarily real. It can be perceived or relative. The killer didn't necessarily know Eddowes, or have a personal relationship with her. He could have had a fantasized relationship with her. He could have had a tangential relationship with her, where he knew her by sight. Or she could simply have looked like someone he knew, someone that he either had quite a bit of rage towards, or someone he didn't want "see" him kill. It's entirely possible that he cut her throat, put her on the ground and thought "Oh crap. She looks like my sister. I can't do this if she looks like my sister". So he alters her features while ensuring her face would be a bloody mess. When she no longer looks like his sister, he can proceed. Alternatively, if she looks like someone he harbors a lot of rage towards, she may have seemed like a perfect substitute to vent that rage in a pretty personal way.

[lynn cates]

varia

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Without any record of Baxter, or any other, stating that he did see the body I can`t assume that it happened."

Rightly so. Perhaps it was hearsay from Bagster.

"He still had his hands full with the Stride inquest and all his other inquests (wasn`t he sitting in on a surprisingly large number of inquests per day)."

I should think so. Most coroners were (if my press readings are any indication).

"This is similar to the "reasonable assumption" that Schwartz was a member of the club in Berner St when his police and press statements make no mention of this fact . . ."

Well, is that the sort of thing to have mentioned, given what I think was the purpose of the story?

" . . . and the salient edition of the Workers Friend (that you located and translated - great research by the way) . . . "

Thanks. Of course, Chris located; Dr. Turtletaub translated.

" . . . mentions everybody but Schwartz, which I thought put to bed any idea that Schwartz was a club member."

Not quite. There was no listing of club members--wish there had been. There were only a select few who had some part in the ruckus.

"He indeed gave his opinion as an observer, but he could not advise the City Police as that was Brown`s responsibility."

I don't think any medico advised with respect to the investigation.

"Phillips only thought three of the Whitechapel victims were by the same hand and I am assuming they were the three of the four he performed post mortem`s on (Chapman, Stride and Kelly - discounting McKenzie)."

I would have thought Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes. As you recall, Baxter seems to have allowed Polly through Kate as canonical in SPITE of his misgivings. He remarked the obvious differences in the cutting, but noted the similarities in:

1. Doing the job quickly.

2. Not getting caught.

Cheers.
LC