"I think I know him"

[Sam Flynn]

Doubt she was visiting Mitre Square.

Indeed, I doubt that she was "visiting" anywhere. Or anyone in particular, for that matter.

If Jack's bolt hole was in Mitre Street,number 6 for example,a lot of the timing makes sense.

But not the disposal of the apron in Goulston Street.

[etenguy]

Suppose I was a little peeved last post Josh, not good form. I do intend to fade away shortly because Ive determined that this myth is far to ingrained to topple. And because any ideas that are thrown against the wall for discussion are mocked or ridiculed...despite the fact that the posters doing so know very well I am well versed in these cases, as are other Canonical dissenters, and we are not incapable of logical and reasonable ideas.

Kate may well have tried to blackmail someone with more at stake than being tried for some street prostitute murders in the ghetto, and she may well have been mutilated so that the investigation would be pointed away from any real motive and onto an unknown, suspected mad, serial killer. Whom the police knew nothing about. Those are real possibilities, as are others. The only real impossibility is that a killer thought to have medical grade knife and anatomy skills in the beginning of September loses both with a month.

Nothing at all preposterous about your speculation - a very real possibility. It goes against where my thinking is at the moment - as the canonical 5 (and perhaps others) seem to fit a pattern of escalating extreme mutiliation and if Catherine was not part of that progression the jump is a little drastic.

Ripperologists do not fade away - they cut and run. I hope you do neither.

[Sam Flynn]

The only real impossibility is that a killer thought to have medical grade knife and anatomy skills in the beginning of September loses both with a month.

The good news is that this didn't happen, because he never had those skills to begin with. What was done to Eddowes was every bit as "skillful" as what happened to Chapman, and it's just unfortunate that different doctors were involved at the respective inquests, and different coroners for that matter. We'd have seen a greater consistency of opinion if that had not been the case.

[DJA]

Indeed, I doubt that she was "visiting" anywhere. Or anyone in particular, for that matter.
But not the disposal of the apron in Goulston Street.

Especially the timing of the GSG and apron.

You actually need to think the scenario through

Same goes for the movements and addresses of the CV5 in September and August.

[Sam Flynn]

Especially the timing of the GSG and apron. You actually need to think the scenario through

I have, and - based on an Occam's Razor approach - Goulston Street is in the wrong direction for a killer who lived or had a bolt-hole in Mitre Street.

[DJA]

I have, and - based on an Occam's Razor approach - Goulston Street is in the wrong direction for a killer who lived or had a bolt-hole in Mitre Street.

Well,not if you think about it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bolt-hole

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

[Michael W Richards]

The good news is that this didn't happen, because he never had those skills to begin with. What was done to Eddowes was every bit as "skillful" as what happened to Chapman, and it's just unfortunate that different doctors were involved at the respective inquests, and different coroners for that matter. We'd have seen a greater consistency of opinion if that had not been the case.

That's not the way the wounds were characterized Sam, there was great emphasis on this point with Annie. They sought out medical skilled potential suspects after her murder. They don't do that with Kate, or any other Canonical.

[Sam Flynn]

That's not the way the wounds were characterized Sam, there was great emphasis on this point with Annie. They sought out medical skilled potential suspects after her murder. They don't do that with Kate, or any other Canonical.

We're talking about the opinions of different doctors and (more to the point, in Annie's case) coroners. It's impossible to make a direct comparison of their opinions, so we must calibrate them by the injuries inflicted. Annie's abdomen was sliced open in three hunks of flesh like the crust of a pie, whilst Eddowes' was cut almost-neatly down the middle. Annie's bladder was cut through in a 33:66% ratio, evidently accidentally, whereas Eddowes' bladder was left entirely intact. Both women sustained damage to their colons, and in Eddowes' case the killer dissected a whole length of colon and extracted it from the body. Eddowes' kidney was removed.

Eddowes self-evidently underwent a "neater", more "thorough" dissection than Annie Chapman, in poorer light and arguably under greater time-pressure. If there was any skill involved at all, the killer did a better job at Mitre Square than he did at Hanbury Street. On balance, precisely the same "anatomical knowledge" was exhibited in both cases, regardless of what Phillips, Baxter or the Lancet's inky-fingered journalist had to say about the earlier murder.

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

The key word being "opinion" not established fact. And when we don't know how that opinion was arrived at or what factors were considered or not considered should tell us that we should respect that opinion but not take it as the word of God. And as you point out, it was simply one opinion among others.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

Suppose I was a little peeved last post Josh, not good form. I do intend to fade away shortly because Ive determined that this myth is far to ingrained to topple. And because any ideas that are thrown against the wall for discussion are mocked or ridiculed...despite the fact that the posters doing so know very well I am well versed in these cases, as are other Canonical dissenters, and we are not incapable of logical and reasonable ideas.

Kate may well have tried to blackmail someone with more at stake than being tried for some street prostitute murders in the ghetto, and she may well have been mutilated so that the investigation would be pointed away from any real motive and onto an unknown, suspected mad, serial killer. Whom the police knew nothing about. Those are real possibilities, as are others. The only real impossibility is that a killer thought to have medical grade knife and anatomy skills in the beginning of September loses both with a month.

No worries Mike. I can be a trifle abrasive on occasion so apologies for rubbing you up the wrong way. For the record, I don't have any problem with your theory as such, in fact I think it would make a cracking plot for a novel. Where my issue lies is with the claim that the nebulous chain of possibilities involved is somehow more likely than that the killer of two women could kill some more. But hey, this would be a very boring site if everyone saw things the same way, so in the spirit of the season I shall call a truce, and maybe suggest a game of footie in no-mans-land. Play up!

[Joshua Rogan]

New jacket? Don't think I've ever heard of that before. Please fill me in.

curious

Hey Curious,

According to Sugden's Complete History, he mentions the purchase on the way back from their hopping expedition;

"At Maidstone our couple certainly had enough money for Kelly to buy a pair of boots from Mr Arthur Pash in the High Street and for Kate to invest in a jacket from a shop nearby, but by the time they got back to London, on Thursday, 27th September, they were flat broke."

I'm not sure the items were brand new, but more likely simply new to Kelly and Eddowes.
And I'm not sure the mystery of how or where Kelly obtained yet another pair of boots, after subsequently pawning these, was ever solved.

[curious]

Hey Curious,

According to Sugden's Complete History, he mentions the purchase on the way back from their hopping expedition;

"At Maidstone our couple certainly had enough money for Kelly to buy a pair of boots from Mr Arthur Pash in the High Street and for Kate to invest in a jacket from a shop nearby, but by the time they got back to London, on Thursday, 27th September, they were flat broke."

Thank you, Josh. I don't remember ever hearing/seeing this before, but it is possible I passed it out of my mind since the source of the new jacket was known. I have always had a bee in my bonnet about nearly all the victims having something new. Wondering if the pattern is important.

Hope your holiday season is bright!

[Michael W Richards]

We're talking about the opinions of different doctors and (more to the point, in Annie's case) coroners. It's impossible to make a direct comparison of their opinions, so we must calibrate them by the injuries inflicted. Annie's abdomen was sliced open in three hunks of flesh like the crust of a pie, whilst Eddowes' was cut almost-neatly down the middle. Annie's bladder was cut through in a 33:66% ratio, evidently accidentally, whereas Eddowes' bladder was left entirely intact. Both women sustained damage to their colons, and in Eddowes' case the killer dissected a whole length of colon and extracted it from the body. Eddowes' kidney was removed.

Eddowes self-evidently underwent a "neater", more "thorough" dissection than Annie Chapman, in poorer light and arguably under greater time-pressure. If there was any skill involved at all, the killer did a better job at Mitre Square than he did at Hanbury Street. On balance, precisely the same "anatomical knowledge" was exhibited in both cases, regardless of what Phillips, Baxter or the Lancet's inky-fingered journalist had to say about the earlier murder.

Im talking about the 1 physician that saw the Most Canonicals in death Sam. The fact that section of colon was removed and introduced feces into this matter, is something not desirable Im sure and an error. A monkey could have cut her nose, likely injuring her cheeks in the process. Anatomical knowledge is not what Im talking about, nor has it ever been. Medically trained grade knife skills and knowledge is what I am talking about.

The fact that Teaching hospitals, colleges, medical practioners and students were investigated after Annies murder, and not continued in any subsequent murder investigation, should be sufficient to delineate the differences. yeah, Lizs killer knew where the throat was, and Kates killer seems to have sloppily sliced his way through Kate...and her apron, but ONLY Annies murder arouse the type of suspicion that suggests a skilled man as the culprit.

NO MEANINGLESS CUTS is self explanatory. Facial cuts, sectioned colon, cutting the clothing.....they are certainly meaningless.

[Sam Flynn]

NO MEANINGLESS CUTS is self explanatory.

The words of Wynne Baxter, not those of a medical man, and not to be relied upon.

What's "meaningful" about hacking through two-thirds of Chapman's bladder, or nicking her colon, or apparently trying and failing to sever her head, or making a hole in her belly by means of three entirely superfluous flaps of flesh when one cut would have sufficed?

No, despite what Baxter said, we may rest assured that there were plenty of "meaningless" cuts in Chapman's case.

[c.d.]

If it appears that the killer in the murders subsequent to Chapman did not exhibit surgical skills does it necessarily mean that he did not possess them or simply that for whatever reason he did not feel it necessary or desirable to employ them? Maybe rage took over.

I am sure that there is a comparable analogy somewhere but I can't think of one at the moment.

c.d.