Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Thanks.

As a matter of fact, I DON'T want you on board. (No offense.) I am more than happy to hold an opinion without ANY concurrence from others.

As a matter of fact, the first two sets of neck cuts were quite similar. Each had DEEP double cuts to the neck. Even in my days as a soloist I could not account for this and the sudden turn about with the next two--given a single killer.

For those who cannot see this, well "How 'bout dem Cowboys?"

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

No offense taken. As for being a soloist, so was Druitt so to speak.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I think you are making my point. How one opens a package is instinctive. My wife, always neat, me, always a mess.

If "Jack" were not concerned, then why so skilful in the first two? Did he LOSE his previous work ethic?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Did any of those packages ever fight back?

c.d.

[FrankO]

If "Jack" were not concerned, then why so skilful in the first two? Did he LOSE his previous work ethic?

Hi Lynn,

We don‘t know how skilful or not Nichols was cut, because Llewellyn didn’t give his opinion on that point and we don’t have Phillips opinion on it either. As to Chapman, Phillips’ opinion on the skilfulness of the perpetrator may well have been clouded a bit when he tried to make sense of the two murders. And, as has been suggested, maybe Chapman was more cleanly cut because her killer could see (better) what he was doing as it was getting light.

Cheers,
Frank

[lynn cates]

assumption

Hello Frank. Thanks.

Although Llewellyn did not state that at inquest, Baxter did say (and list) the similarities.

And, yes, as I have stated many times, IF Baxter and Phillips were wrong, then so am I. I proceed on the assumption that they viewed the bodies and knew a bit about their business.

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

Although Llewellyn did not state that at inquest, Baxter did say (and list) the similarities.

I hadn't read the summing up of Nicholls' case in a while, so thanks for pointing me to it again. However, fact remains that coroner Baxter isn't a medical man and that no records have survived in which Llewellyn gives his opinion on anatomical and/or knife skills of Nicholls' murderer. And obviously, he wouldn't even have been able to give it as his opinion that some organ or other had been cut out with surgical skill because no organ was cut out.

And, yes, as I have stated many times, IF Baxter and Phillips were wrong, then so am I. I proceed on the assumption that they viewed the bodies and knew a bit about their business.

Even if Baxter & Phillips were not wrong, you still might be

Cheers,
Frank

[Hunter]

Baxter was promoting a theory. He thought Stride may have been killed by the same person he believed killied Nichols and Chapman, but not Eddowes. And Baxter ended up painting himself into a corner. His logic - as proposed in his summary at the Stride inquest - doesn't even make sense.

And for some reason, Phillips continually gets mixed up with him. No matter what Baxter thought, there is no physical evidence that Nichols' murderer intended to remove organs... None. Baxter stuck himself with a theory that someone was out for a uterus for money that became untenable after the subsequent murders. But he never was going to admit it. Wasn't his nature.

Ripperologists who rely on Baxter to bolster their own theories are making a mistake.

[lynn cates]

shooting

Hello Frank. Thanks.

Do you think that Baxter was shooting from the hip or that he had chatted up the docs?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Yes, he thought Stride may have died by the same hand; but, that was apart from any consideration of mutilation. In fact, that is the view of many ripper students.

"there is no physical evidence that Nichols' murderer intended to remove organs. . ."

Entirely agree. Of course, Baxter noted that he might be in error about his theory.

If Baxter is wrong, and he did NOT use Phillips as his source for Kate's mutilations, then my position is devalued.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I think you are making my point. How one opens a package is instinctive. My wife, always neat, me, always a mess.

If "Jack" were not concerned, then why so skilful in the first two? Did he LOSE his previous work ethic?

Cheers.
LC

I wouldn't say they were skillful. The cut on Stride was far and away the most skillful one, but... insert all attendant problems with that statement here.

When I started making corsets, I needed a pattern. After a while, I didn't. But the cuts in the fabric of the corsets where I didn't make a pattern are frankly sloppy. Because I didn't have a pattern. When I was consumed with making sure I did something right because I didn't know what I was doing, I was careful. Once I knew what I was doing, and once I knew that I had a lot of leeway in cutting the pattern because the final product wasn't so dependent on the perfection of the pattern, I wasn't careful. I didn't have to be. In fact I didn't have to cut a lot at all, I could just rip the fabric along the major pattern lines.

With experience, I knew I could get the result I wanted without care. So I didn't expend the energy using care. Serial killers have a final result they want. They have a pattern to get it. Once they know there is forgiveness in the pattern, which takes experience, that is when the gift analogy comes in. Do they stick with pattern and use care they don't need in order to get what they want, or do they take shortcuts because the end result is what's important? Does the paper matter as much as the present? But the question only comes up once someone knows what they are doing.

I mean, we all know that the throat cuts are overkill. No one in the history of ever has needed an ear to ear cut in order to die, or die quickly. That's not necessary. So we know the throat cut was something he cared about. But not necessarily because he took pride in his work. He may have liked the gush of blood that goes with such cuts. He may have fetishized the neck. He may have been attacking their ability to speak in some Freudian rage. Because he did more than he needed to, it has significance. but is the cut significant, or is the result significant?

For me the pattern never mattered, even though in the beginning they were perfect. A corset that I could wear for 14 hours and not have blisters on my hips was important. I made a couple of perfect ones. I didn't wear them any more than the imperfect ones. They had a job to do. So in summary of an admittedly long winded metaphor, Yeah. He could have lost his work ethic.

[Hunter]

If Baxter is wrong, and he did NOT use Phillips as his source for Kate's mutilations, then my position is devalued.

There's little doubt that Wynne Baxter was familiar with the forensics of the Mitre Square murder, whether he got his information directly from Phillips, or saw the inquest testimony and based his opinion upon that, or had access to the joint report filed by both Brown and Phillips and referred to in a report from Chief Inspector Swanson. The point is, that despite Phillips' opinion about the injuries to Stride as compared to Chapman, he still opted for the same killer being possible - which... if the case, the killer had to be interrupted... again (his theory about Nichols was that) and he's totally disregarding the forensic evidence.

Baxter HAD to suggest Eddowes' murder as that of "an imitator." By leaving the cervix in the body, the killer had rendered the uterus useless as a specimen to be procured for such purposes as Baxter suggested with Chapman. He couldn't give an inch because he was already under the gun from the medical profession and politicians. As I said, he had painted himself into a corner. He takes some information from the medicos and uses it to bolster his theory and then dismisses other information from the same source as irrelevant... Kinda like many Ripperologists... live and die with a theory... no matter what else becomes knowledge.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

Hello Jon. Where on earth did you get that idea about Chapman?

Baxter says: "Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination. . ." ("Ultimate" p. 105)

Don't believe what a few trolls have to say.

Cheers.
LC

Baxter?

Dr. Phillips was the surgeon, he described a circular wound:

"The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch."
Daily Telegraph.

"He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply; that the incisions through the skin were jagged, and reached right round the neck.....
The throat had been severed as before described. The incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct, clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel from each other and separated by about half an inch."
The Times.

I'm not suggesting the killer ran the knife around her neck in one circular movement, for this she would have to be sat upright, wouldn't you think?
I'm merely saying that Phillips described the look of the wound, without committing himself to enumerating the number of cuts. Which may have been impossible to tell, at least two I suppose by the reporters use of the plural.

Dr. F. G. Brown gave his evidence in the same way, not enumerating the cuts (of which I think there were two), but only describing the finished wound as he found it.

[lynn cates]

Wynner

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I daresay you would not, but Baxter did.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

maybe

Hello Cris. Thanks.

You may be right that Baxter said that, given the difference in organ removals.

Of course, all I can do is see his words about the cuts.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ignore

Hello Jon. Thanks. Are you suggesting that Baxter ignored Bagster and dreamed up two cuts?

The forensic evidence seems clear.

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

Do you think that Baxter was shooting from the hip or that he had chatted up the docs?

Hi Lynn,

I think coroner Baxter was very much his own man and in trying to find some rational motive I think he may taken a little too much liberty in translating the medical evidence.


Cheers,
Frank