Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[FrankO]

Im glad you asked because I never said or intimated that. What Ive said ad infinitum is that these are still individuals murdered without attribution to any killer, therefore if you use details from any victim before Mary to explain Marys death as part of a "ripper" series, you have not looked at Marys death as unconnected to any others. Which it technically still is, unconnected.

Technical, schmecnical, Michael! No, there is no proof that they were connected, nobody is even claiming there is, but any homocide squad worth its salt would include Kelly's case into the series. Furthermore, there's no proof either that they weren't all part of a series. So, there you go.

But even taking Kelly's murder in isolation, the sheer butchery/decimation performed on her would definitely not suggest the average "Jealous Joe", but rather someone obsessed with her who found out she wasn't interested at all, someone with a severe mental problem rather than anything else.

[The Rookie Detective]

The killings were either connected or not connected; it's a binary answer and there's a 50% chance of being right or wrong.

There's a difference between possibility and probability and it comes down to whether you believe there were multiple serial/spree killers operating in the East End at that time with a penchant for...

Attacking the womb
Inflicting 2 wounds to the same area of the neck
Placing intestines over the right shoulder
Using strangulation as the initial point or attack to control and reduce blood flow
Attacking various other organs as part of the ritual
Displaying the bodies in similar poses (except Stride)
Attacking the face to varying degrees
Carrying a parcel or similar package
Varying location of attack - bottom of stairwell, street, garden, yard, square, bedroom, railway arch

It's personal preference as to what we believe is the reality of what is the truth.

There's also the possibility of a Copycat killer, but it would be hard to imagine a copy cat of a copy cat of the killer.

What is more likely? A solo serial killer hunting prostitutes or a group of serial killers working independently to see who can perform the best kill?

[Michael W Richards]

Technical, schmecnical, Michael! No, there is no proof that they were connected, nobody is even claiming there is, but any homocide squad worth its salt would include Kelly's case into the series. Furthermore, there's no proof either that they weren't all part of a series. So, there you go.

But even taking Kelly's murder in isolation, the sheer butchery/decimation performed on her would definitely not suggest the average "Jealous Joe", but rather someone obsessed with her who found out she wasn't interested at all, someone with a severe mental problem rather than anything else.

So, you and cd cant say it was a series because there is no proof, you can only say what it wasnt even though you have no proof of that either, have I got it now?

Your assessment of how disturbed the killer was in room 13 is appropriate, your decision that those acts were beyond someone who Mary knew well isnt. In fact the evidence for that murder suggests that the killer didnt break in, he was there because she allowed it. In her demeanor when attacked, that is most obvious. But I suppose I should stop using the word "obvious" since folks like you and cd dont seem to want to use logic or reason when figuring things out. I really dont care what you think, or what cd thinks, you are not people I can debate with about these issues. But other people read our posts, and often I see sound thinking from some of those posts.

Anyway, back to the thread premise, in Annie Chapmans case there is skill and knowledge evident and so stated by the man who examined her. There were "no meaningless cuts". If you want to group Mary with that murder, then what happened to the skill, the knowledge and as few as cuts as required? I dont think that defleshing her thighs or slashing her face aided in accessing her heart, but you know better about that than I no doubt.

[Michael W Richards]

Technical, schmecnical, Michael! No, there is no proof that they were connected, nobody is even claiming there is, but any homocide squad worth its salt would include Kelly's case into the series. Furthermore, there's no proof either that they weren't all part of a series. So, there you go.

But even taking Kelly's murder in isolation, the sheer butchery/decimation performed on her would definitely not suggest the average "Jealous Joe", but rather someone obsessed with her who found out she wasn't interested at all, someone with a severe mental problem rather than anything else.

I forgot to mention that line above in bold. Thats pure BS, any argument I see here is invariably based on comparing one "ripper" victim with another "ripper" victim, like it has been established who the phantom killed already. And how many he killed.

Just so you have the record straight on that, there is no established series nor victim count. Its just guesses by contemporary sources and from folks like you. Forgive me if I dont agree with those guesses.

[FrankO]

So, you and cd cant say it was a series because there is no proof, you can only say what it wasnt even though you have no proof of that either, have I got it now?

No. There’s no proof that it was a series, just as there’s no proof there were multiple killers. So, using ‘no proof’ (either way) as an argument doesn’t amount to much.

Your assessment of how disturbed the killer was in room 13 is appropriate, your decision that those acts were beyond someone who Mary knew well isnt.

Your opinion or is there any proof of that?

In fact the evidence for that murder suggests that the killer didnt break in, he was there because she allowed it. In her demeanor when attacked, that is most obvious.

That’s one of the possibilities, yes. The killer either broke in, he was someone she knew (either well or otherwise) or he was someone who posed as a punter. That she was found nearly naked doesn’t necessarily point to someone who knew her well. For whoever killed her it would have been most practical if she was naked.

But I suppose I should stop using the word "obvious" since folks like you and cd dont seem to want to use logic or reason when figuring things out.

I can’t speak for CD, but it’s not a matter of not wanting to, it’s just that I clearly use another type of logic or reason than you do.

I really dont care what you think, or what cd thinks, you are not people I can debate with about these issues. But other people read our posts, and often I see sound thinking from some of those posts.

Well, in all the years that I’ve been on these boards, no one has ever accused me of not arguing with sound thinking or lacking logic or reason. Go figure. But I'm glad you often see your type of sound thinking from some posters.

Anyway, back to the thread premise, in Annie Chapmans case there is skill and knowledge evident and so stated by the man who examined her. There were "no meaningless cuts". If you want to group Mary with that murder, then what happened to the skill, the knowledge and as few as cuts as required? I dont think that defleshing her thighs or slashing her face aided in accessing her heart, but you know better about that than I no doubt.

You’re assuming things here that have not been proven. Even Phillips’ opinion that the whole object of killing Chapman (and Nichols) was to obtain the womb, was just that: his opinion. But how did he or would you, for that matter, explain the fact that, other than the womb, two thirds of the bladder and a piece of belly wall including the navel were also cut off and taken away? What purpose would those have served? How were these done for the sole purpose of taking the womb? As long as we don’t know the killer’s motive for doing what he did, it’s rather useless stating that Kelly was killed by another killer than Chapman’s on account of there being far too ‘meaningless’ mutilation done to her. Overkill is a normal thing in serial killing.

[FrankO]

I forgot to mention that line above in bold. Thats pure BS, any argument I see here is invariably based on comparing one "ripper" victim with another "ripper" victim, like it has been established who the phantom killed already. And how many he killed.

I wasn't aware that saying that "nobody is claiming there is proof of a series" would or even could be classified as pure BS when, in fact, no body is actually claiming that there is any proof of that.

Just so you have the record straight on that, there is no established series nor victim count. Its just guesses by contemporary sources and from folks like you. Forgive me if I dont agree with those guesses.

Aren't we all here to discuss matters exactly because there are hardly any facts to stand on?? So, in that sense, isn't everybody out here guessing to greater or lesser extents?

[Michael W Richards]

No. There’s no proof that it was a series, just as there’s no proof there were multiple killers. So, using ‘no proof’ (either way) as an argument doesn’t amount to much.


Your opinion or is there any proof of that?


That’s one of the possibilities, yes. The killer either broke in, he was someone she knew (either well or otherwise) or he was someone who posed as a punter. That she was found nearly naked doesn’t necessarily point to someone who knew her well. For whoever killed her it would have been most practical if she was naked.


I can’t speak for CD, but it’s not a matter of not wanting to, it’s just that I clearly use another type of logic or reason than you do.


Well, in all the years that I’ve been on these boards, no one has ever accused me of not arguing with sound thinking or lacking logic or reason. Go figure. But I'm glad you often see your type of sound thinking from some posters.


You’re assuming things here that have not been proven. Even Phillips’ opinion that the whole object of killing Chapman (and Nichols) was to obtain the womb, was just that: his opinion. But how did he or would you, for that matter, explain the fact that, other than the womb, two thirds of the bladder and a piece of belly wall including the navel were also cut off and taken away? What purpose would those have served? How were these done for the sole purpose of taking the womb? As long as we don’t know the killer’s motive for doing what he did, it’s rather useless stating that Kelly was killed by another killer than Chapman’s on account of there being far too ‘meaningless’ mutilation done to her. Overkill is a normal thing in serial killing.

The response above merely confirms what I said previously. Your saying that Marys killer knowing her is "one of the possibilities" when its very clear there was no break in. But you throw that opinion in again anyway. Your statements about Phillips "opinion" seems to denigrate the man who actually examined the dead woman and her injuries. And you think thats just his opinion. A man with a degree that Im not aware that you have, and with the added benefit of actually seeing the womans injuries first hand. And to finish you explain Marys injuries away by stating its normal to see that excess in serial killing. Again with the series presumption. I could cite lots of cases where excess is present in standalone murders, not that it would matter to you.

Its pretty clear that you probably wouldnt be able to solve 1 case let alone 5 unsolved murders, so maybe its best to just stick to 1 at a time.

[c.d.]

Your statements about Phillips "opinion" seems to denigrate the man who actually examined the dead woman and her injuries. And you think thats just his opinion.

Of course it is his opinion. Unless he himself were the actual killer how could he possibly determine intent? Saying that it is his opinion in no way denigrates it as if he simply pulled it out of a hat with no basis for his conclusion. Yes, it should be given weight but ultimately it is an opinion not a definitely ascertained fact.

c.d.

[FrankO]

The response above merely confirms what I said previously. Your saying that Marys killer knowing her is "one of the possibilities" when its very clear there was no break in. But you throw that opinion in again anyway. Your statements about Phillips "opinion" seems to denigrate the man who actually examined the dead woman and her injuries. And you think thats just his opinion. A man with a degree that Im not aware that you have, and with the added benefit of actually seeing the womans injuries first hand. And to finish you explain Marys injuries away by stating its normal to see that excess in serial killing. Again with the series presumption. I could cite lots of cases where excess is present in standalone murders, not that it would matter to you.

Its pretty clear that you probably wouldnt be able to solve 1 case let alone 5 unsolved murders, so maybe its best to just stick to 1 at a time.

My major beef against your posts isn't so much the fact that you're suggesting the possibility that Mary was killed by someone other than the Ripper, but rather the way in which you seem to want to teach us (and others) that we're approaching the whole case completely in the wrong way, along the way continuing to stress that there's no proof that there ever was a series. That there’s no proof really is an empty argument, as there’s hardly any proof of anything in this whole case and nobody is claiming there is any proof. After that, the argument drops dead in its tracks.

So, it’s not so much about the content of what you write, but rather your attitude. There really is no need for arrogance, much less for being offensive or getting personal (even though you don’t know anything about who I am or what I’m about, other than that I post here). It’s just opinions that differ, and not on any life-saving important topic for that matter, just Jack the Ripper.

Then, one last thing. As you yourself have said, motivation is the key to these series of connected or unconnected murders and I agree with you. But since we don’t know the motivation, we can’t assume any motivation, however appealing one may seem and even though a medical man who examined one or more of the victims was convinced about the killer’s objective in one case based on knife skill and anatomical knowledge.

I honestly wish you the best, Michael.

[c.d.]

Excellent post, Franko. You pretty much nailed it.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Your statements about Phillips "opinion" seems to denigrate the man who actually examined the dead woman and her injuries. And you think thats just his opinion.

Of course it is his opinion. Unless he himself were the actual killer how could he possibly determine intent? Saying that it is his opinion in no way denigrates it as if he simply pulled it out of a hat with no basis for his conclusion. Yes, it should be given weight but ultimately it is an opinion not a definitely ascertained fact.

c.d.

You or I have opinions about these cases. We do not have the benefit of his medical training, his field experience and most importantly, the first hand knowledge. He made his "assessment" based on all those factors, and he believed that he saw evidence that to him suggested that "there were no meaningless cuts", and that he believed that the killer sought what he eventually took. Unless there is some information that I am not aware of putting his expertise in question, I think his "opinion" has serious weight that the word doesnt address.

I accept his findings, and Bonds, who saw nothing in Marys remains that to him indicated any medical training or anatomical knowledge beyond that of a butcher. He certainly never suggested that "there were no meaningless cuts" on Mary, likely due to the fact that almost all the cuts did not serve the purpose of accessing and extracting her heart. Marys killer did butcher her, Annies killer murdered her effectively and, with some degree of professionalism, extracted her uterus. Only in September of that year did the authorities actively seek out medical students and contact teaching hospitals. Based on Phillips "opinion".

[FrankO]

Your statements about Phillips "opinion" seems to denigrate the man who actually examined the dead woman and her injuries. And you think thats just his opinion.

Of course it is his opinion. Unless he himself were the actual killer how could he possibly determine intent? Saying that it is his opinion in no way denigrates it as if he simply pulled it out of a hat with no basis for his conclusion. Yes, it should be given weight but ultimately it is an opinion not a definitely ascertained fact.

c.d.

That's how I see it, too, CD. I have no doubts about Phillips' view on the saw knife skill and anatomical knowledge, but he just couldn't know the killer's motivation. Having no experience at all with these type of murders, I think he was only trying to make sense of the murders of Nichols and Chapman and, so, he came up with the notion that it must have been the culprits object "to obtain possession of the womb" in that case. A very logical notion, but a correct one? I can't tell.

[c.d.]

You or I have opinions about these cases. We do not have the benefit of his medical training, his field experience and most importantly, the first hand knowledge.

I agree completely but it seems that you also want to give him psychic powers of some sort. And yes, I agree that he gave his opinion based on evidence. And yes, I agree it should carry weight. But ultimately it is still an opinion not an ascertained fact unless you can demonstrate that he also had the ability to read minds.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

My major beef against your posts isn't so much the fact that you're suggesting the possibility that Mary was killed by someone other than the Ripper, but rather the way in which you seem to want to teach us (and others) that we're approaching the whole case completely in the wrong way, along the way continuing to stress that there's no proof that there ever was a series. That there’s no proof really is an empty argument, as there’s hardly any proof of anything in this whole case and nobody is claiming there is any proof. After that, the argument drops dead in its tracks.

So, it’s not so much about the content of what you write, but rather your attitude. There really is no need for arrogance, much less for being offensive or getting personal (even though you don’t know anything about who I am or what I’m about, other than that I post here). It’s just opinions that differ, and not on any life-saving important topic for that matter, just Jack the Ripper.

Then, one last thing. As you yourself have said, motivation is the key to these series of connected or unconnected murders and I agree with you. But since we don’t know the motivation, we can’t assume any motivation, however appealing one may seem and even though a medical man who examined one or more of the victims was convinced about the killer’s objective in one case based on knife skill and anatomical knowledge.

I honestly wish you the best, Michael.

I appreciate your sincere post Franko. Let me return the favour. I have nothing personal against you, I do however take it personally when a well crafted, knowledgeable, logical and reasonable post is summarily dismissed. cd does this with every post Ive made over the years, despite the fact that people with greater credibility in this study than him or I, publicly, or privately, consider my thoughts and want to discuss them further. Beacuse of that he has become irrelevant to me as a result of that history, I believe he wouldnt know a reasonable, logical suggestion if it slapped him in the face. Sorry to say that, but its years of this..not a few posts.

The arrogance you see, and Im not denying it comes out that way, is based on that premise. Lets take one specific point from your post and see what happens....Motivation. I dont know what motivated the killer or killers in any of these murders, but I do take seriously Dr Phillips statement that he felt Annies injuries were a result of specifically seeking to obtain her uterus. Thats a motive. In Liz Strides case the hard evidence suggests her killer wanted to mortally wound her, to kill her. In Marys case it seems highly probable that the damage he inflicted on her had to do with some imagined or real grievance with her, or women in general. It was monstrous and cruel. In just those 3 cases we see a variety of actions, but only Annies resulted in the inference of medical skills. Saying Liz was also skilfully cut is not correct, unlike Polly then Annie, Liz had only 1 major artery completely severed and it seems a single stroke was used. In both the priors a double cut was inflicted. Better to subdue the woman quickly and drain the blood quickly if you had other intentions. And there is zero evidence.....(other than sheer speculation about interruptions which are not indicated in the evidence at all)....that the killer intended to do more. Not so in the case of the 4 others grouped under JtR.

As to who you are Franko and what youre about, I can say that you participate in a forum, like I do, that is about discussing some terrible crimes with knowledgeable people. Im sure you are trying to figure out what went on there. So am I. So whatever differences we might have we have that in common.

[Michael W Richards]

You or I have opinions about these cases. We do not have the benefit of his medical training, his field experience and most importantly, the first hand knowledge.

I agree completely but it seems that you also want to give him psychic powers of some sort. And yes, I agree that he gave his opinion based on evidence. And yes, I agree it should carry weight. But ultimately it is still an opinion not an ascertained fact unless you can demonstrate that he also had the ability to read minds.

c.d.

If youll note the tone and language Franko with this above, youll understand my rebuttal posts better. He says he agrees then casts doubts on the information and suggests that reading minds has anything to do with this suggestion. Its his stature cd, his experience, his first hand knowledge. Maybe read and absorb before you post argumentative rebuttal. There is no reason that I am aware of that Phillips findings should be, or need to be, questioned 130 years later.