Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[lynn cates]

quote

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"Specifically, what "skill" is evidenced in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Ann Nichols?"

Don't know. That was a Baxter quote. You may be right that he was talking through his, umm, hat; or, it may refer to clean cuts.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I believe it did in Chapman's case. But he seemed to link Chapman and Nichols together by default, rather than actual physical evidence. Then he presumes to use physical evidence to debunk Eddowes while once again ignoring it with Stride.

One of the first Ripperologist... or a least an early prototype.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Cris. Thanks.

He was indeed.

Wish we could see the original notes.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Prosector. Thanks.

". . . only the last one but his case that they were all by the same person was based on his psychological profile of the killer . . ."

Yes. And such profiles are, in my humble opinion, the problem.

"I personally think he was barking up the wrong tree when he said that the killer had no anatomical knowledge. . ."

Agree again. The first two showed indications of skill.

". . . but then he only saw the last body which, by anyone's assessment, was a work of frenzied butchery - in my opinion deliberately as there was personal vindictiveness involved."

Agreed yet again.

Cheers.
LC

Jack required no medical knowledge. He may have had some. But it was all a wild sweep in the dark. Jeff

[DVV]

Jack required no medical knowledge. He may have had some. But it was all a wild sweep in the dark. Jeff

Hi Jeff

I don't get you. Does it mean darkness prevents us to decide whether he had some medical knowledge or none ?

[Hunter]

Choice of suspects does.

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

You may notice that I make no claims of medical knowledge--only clean cutting skills. And that comes from the coroner.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

I don't get you. Does it mean darkness prevents us to decide whether he had some medical knowledge or none ?

No just that Jack operated largely in the dark, especially if the gas lamp in Bucks row wasn't there.

It could well have been day break when he chopped chapman but at best it was a dull over cast day.

Eddows…Dark, apart from a candal in the opposite window.

Kelly…light candal, fire and time.

But as I said earlier nearly every suspect in the case Tumbelty, chapman, Druitt, Kosminski, Gull, Cream, etc etc is said to have had some medical knowledge there are very few who do not. Just read a rather amusing book on Donston and guess what yes he had medical knowledge.

Its all rather a red herring therefore as whether he had medical knowledge or not it was dark and not under surgical conditions and all the suspects had some medical knowledge or may have done..

So I don't quite see where the various postulation actually takes anyone.

Trusting you are well

Yours Jeff

PS Hi Lynn trusting you are well. Thanks for clarity but I would again ask don't almost all of our suspects have the possibility that they either new how to use a knife and were psychotic enough to use a knife with considerable force…he was after all Jack the Ripper lol

[DVV]

Hi Jeff,

I'm fine, thanks. The suspects you name proves me right in a recent discussion I had with Jon about Abberline...

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I'd hazard a guess that if you put 'medical knowledge' in the search criteria, chances are you'll find a suspect with some medical knowledge.

PS. Wasn't Kozminski 16 when he arrived in England?
How much medical training would he have had?

[Michael W Richards]

I believe it did in Chapman's case. But he seemed to link Chapman and Nichols together by default, rather than actual physical evidence. Then he presumes to use physical evidence to debunk Eddowes while once again ignoring it with Stride.

One of the first Ripperologist... or a least an early prototype.

He linked those first 2 deaths because they were murders that followed the exact same routine and methodology. Pick up a somewhat incapacitated street woman working for her doss, cuts her with 2 deep throat cuts, and then proceed to abdominal mutilations. One had substantial cuts to the abdomen, one did not. That's because one was in the street and offered little security for extra time with the body, hence the move to a backyard next kill....less than 10 days later.

Phillips concluded that any deviation from the precise cuts that he saw on Annie was due to haste, not light. He acknowledged that the killer had some education with anatomy, and that he had some skill with a knife.

Its no surprise that of the suspects looked at after Annie death and before Liz Strides, medical students and physicians were most prominent.

Changing your MO is one thing, however becoming less skilled and less knowledgeable isn't in that realm. Particularly when he gained experience with every kill.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

secure

Hello Mike. Do you think #29 Hanbury more secure than Buck's Row?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

OK Mike, then why did Wynne Baxter conclude that Stride was probably killed by the same individual as the one he concluded killed both Mary Nichols and Annie Chapman? And if you believe one theory of his to be true, why not all if them? How about some consistency here?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. Do you think #29 Hanbury more secure than Buck's Row?

Cheers.
LC

Absolutely Lynn. You have many windows looking out into that yard, and the hallway from the street to worry about, but if he sees or hears someone coming down the hallway he can bolt over the fences, and with the very poor light available at that time of day, the hour and the ambience may have suited his needs. He may only have been with her 10-15 minutes I think, including the special attention with some cuts. But I think he was crude only when the cutting needn't be so precise in favour of speed.

Bucks Row, open ended and on the street...very impetuous.

Cheers mate, nice to see you.

[Michael W Richards]

OK Mike, then why did Wynne Baxter conclude that Stride was probably killed by the same individual as the one he concluded killed both Mary Nichols and Annie Chapman? And if you believe one theory of his to be true, why not all if them? How about some consistency here?

Hi Hunter,,

That probably only suggests that based on that single wound that Baxter found no damning reason to rule out the killer at large. The size differential in the knives is compelling, so is the fact that Liz has only one artery almost completely severed with a single swipe, but if Baxter supposed an interruption, as everyone seems to believe despite any evidence of one , then he may have been inclined to tentatively group Stride with the previous women. Remember that its also Baxter who is responsible for propagating a belief that the killer was after the first 2 womens uteri, again without evidence in Pollys case, which is why he may have favoured the interruption thesis. A position he withdrew himself later.

But that isn't the position that Phillips takes though. The man who examined, or was present, for 4 of 5 Canonicals PM's personally.

Phillips on the question of similarity between Stride and the previous victims wounds......."There is very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."

That, and his opinion on Eddowes, for me, makes him a very reliable and valuable source,..Ive never suggested Baxter was the go-to guy anyway, its been Bagster for me.

The thread question assumes what the Canonical Group also does, that the killer was someone who must have altered how and why he killed within those five murders. He obviously must have since the only victims within the Five that, on the surface, greatly resemble each other, are Polly, Annie and Kate. For me that's arriving at a conclusion that negates the most obvious answer,... that different styles of murder and possibly very diverse motives that we have not yet uncovered suggest that not all 5 of the Canonicals were killed by the same person.

We all need to remained focused on the only fact from that era that has any real weight or bearing on what kind of case existed in their minds for a single killer, is that all the Canonicals are in a file with more than 5 additional unsolved murders and that there is no Ripper/Canonical file in existence. Five women were not linked by any evidence to one killer,...not then, and not now. They were linked by opinions.....in some cases these opinions were provided by the most senior intelligence officers in the country, primarily charged with National Security, Espionage and National Defense. What they stated, and what they actually had any evidence of, are clearly very separate in reality.

Using that as a measurement tool, is it really so outrageous to point out the obvious significant differences in the Stride murder...from any other Canonical murder.

Cheers