Kates Cuts

[Sam Flynn]

"No meaningless cuts..".

Try telling that to Annie's bladder or colon. Or the totally unnecessary three chunks of flesh that were hacked out of her abdominal wall, when a couple of well-placed incisions would not only have sufficed to open her up, but would have been quicker.

That kind of comment doesn't appear in any other medical review of the evidence

Those weren't Phillips' words, but Wynne Baxter's. So not a medical review, but those of a flamboyant non-medic who didn't hesitate to introduce his own opinions and ridiculous pet theories into proceedings.

[Michael W Richards]

You mentioned that the idea that Kates uterus was targeted wasn't put forward, I think its obvious why. If he targeted it and only was able to excise it partially, hes not very good. And a butcher or hunter would work. But it contrasts what is seen with Annie. Phillips did suggest that Annies killer sought to obtain exactly what he took...albeit with some extra bits..and that he cut into her with that objective in mind. "No meaningless cuts..". That kind of comment doesn't appear in any other medical review of the evidence in any other Unsolved case of the period. Annies murder is for my money THE murder that creates a Ripper, and it can be married with the murderer less that 2 weeks prior in almost every pertinent category.

[JeffHamm]

But your explanation falls down for two reasons, the first being that with the evisceration of the body of Kelly there was clearly no anatomical knowledge shown by her killer, which is in complete opposite to Chapman, and I would also say Eddowes, which suggests she was not killed by the same hand as Chapman and Eddowes.

Secondly for your explanation to stand up it has to be accepted that Kelly`s heart was taken away, and that is not an ascertained fact by a long chalk.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The contemporary views concerning anatomical knowledge, skill, was all over the place, ranging from no evidence even of the knowledge of a butcher on up to familiearity with the disecting room. While Pillips hinted at medical knowledge for Chapman, he also stated that the knowledge and skills of a butcher/slaughterman would be sufficient. While he thought Eddowes' uterus was targeted, other medical professionals saw no indication of targeting any particular organ, and so forth. Also, they argue that the taking of her kidney required some level of anatomical knowledge. With regards to Chapman, the only real pointer was the removal of the uterus, which is in the end, just one thing he did (and damaged the bladder, and apparently the colon, in the process). As for Eddowes, there have been other killers who have removed kidneys from victims (Chase did this), with no anatomical knowledge/training. As for Kelly, some have argued that removing the heart the way it was done required anatomical knowledge (and by "anatomical knowledge" I don't specifically mean medically trained, just the knowledge of where things are generally found in a body). And we unfortunately don't know if any skill was shown in how her other organs (liver, spleen, etc) were removed. I would suggest that since there is no reports of feacal matter at her crime scene, that some level of skill was probably required, but not sure how much that might require really.

Basically, there is no consensus with regards to what skills or level of anatomical knowledge the killer had to have, so the fact that one might argue there's more here and less here, etc, is just noting the variation that happens between events.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree with respect to Kelly's heart. I know you view the reports as ambiguous, and as you know, they read to me as being quite clear and to the point, so we're not going to make any headway on that. So, while I understand why you think my argument falls down from your perspective, you can see why I think it holds firm. If we disagree on the evidence, then it is not surprising we'll end up at different conclusions.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

ELA 6 Oct '88
"The rumour, at most, appears to have been an idle one, and in respect of the sum mentioned to the coroner - namely, £20, as the price offered, and the object of the American, as stated by him - the story is discredited. At the Middlesex Hospital the official who on other points refused to elucidate the matter; characterised the tale, as far as the above details are concerned, as a silly story. Furthermore, at University College, where pains were taken to return an unqualified answer of "no information," it was hinted that the story as it has been made public had in some way, become mixed with error, and that it was very certain that it provided no explanation of the motive of the crime."

From Wynne Baxter, Inquest summation, Daily Telegraph, Sept 27...

"...I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was told by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give œ20 for each, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. Although he was told that his wish was impossible to be complied with, he still urged his request. He desired them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this request was repeated to another institution of a similar character. Now, is it not possible that the knowledge of this demand may have incited some abandoned wretch to possess himself of a specimen. It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but unfortunately our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible."

I don't believe that this quote reflects your opinion, and the matter not being discussed by University College doesn't mean they couldn't validate it.

[Sam Flynn]

Chapman's bladder was damaged

Chapman's colon was partly cut through as well, although that interesting nugget of info doesn't usually feature in most accounts of her death.

[Joshua Rogan]

Im suggesting that the story put forth in context with Annies murder does have seem to have some small basis in fact when it comes to someone seeking uteri. A bounty placed, for one,.. or a reward if you will, could explain why that particular organ. We have a documented request for one the year before.

ELA 6 Oct '88
"The rumour, at most, appears to have been an idle one, and in respect of the sum mentioned to the coroner - namely, £20, as the price offered, and the object of the American, as stated by him - the story is discredited. At the Middlesex Hospital the official who on other points refused to elucidate the matter; characterised the tale, as far as the above details are concerned, as a silly story. Furthermore, at University College, where pains were taken to return an unqualified answer of "no information," it was hinted that the story as it has been made public had in some way, become mixed with error, and that it was very certain that it provided no explanation of the motive of the crime."

[Michael W Richards]

The opinion that JtR specifically was after the uterus was based upon Annie Chapman's murder, the 2nd of the C5. It should be noted that JtR also appears to have taken a piece of the belly flesh away, and yet nobody focuses on that as being his specific purpose, only the uterus. Now, if JtR had the intention of taking the uterus that needs to be weighed against the alternative of "he just happened to take the uterus because taking part of the body appealed to him". He did not take anything from Nichols, so if JtRs goal was to harvest the uterus, that would seem to break that link. But the other similarities forge the link between those murders, and by so doing are more consistent with the alternative.

Eddowes murder, where again the uterus was taken, is also consistent with the goal of harvesting the uterus in particular, but likewise fit the alaternative. The addition of facial mutilations, however, are unnecessary with respect to harvesting the uterus, as is the taking of the kidney. The taking of the kidney, along with the uterus, however, is consistent with a killer who has some desire to take body parts with him (trophies is the typical jargon). The placement of intestines and other internal parts, is similar in nature between Chapman and Eddowes, forging a strong link between the crime scene behaviors of their killers - he's doing things in the way he does things despite there being other options with how one could remove and place viscera. There is also evidence he rifled through their belongings. The difference between Eddowes murder and Kelly's is situational, he's now standing beside a body raised upon a bed rather than crouching over a body on the street, he's been taken to a room rather than a public location, and yet, we see again the removal of organs, the uterus left behind but the heart was taken (refuting the "uterus was the goal" hypothesis but entirely consistent with the "taking body parts" alternative), we see facial mutilations again, and so forth. All 4 of those crime scenes are locations a prostitute would take a client, with only Kelly having the option of her room, which she was known to use for that purpose.

The idea that the goal was to target the uterus is just that, an idea that must be evaluated with regards to it's validity, it is not a fact that can be used to decide if two murders are related or not - the theory is not evidence. Of the C5, only for Stride is there sufficient reason to question her inclusion, all of the others are only questioned by starting from the conclusion and then looking at the evidence rather than drawing the conclusion from the evidence. The murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, are so similar to each other, with differences entirely situational, that there is no support to suggest they are not by the same killer at this time, other than to keep in mind it is, of course, possible - but that doesn't mean probable.

Now, should some new evidence come to light that seriously challenges the link between one or more of those 4 murders, then the conclusion I've presented here may become untenable because, as I've said, the evidence drives the conclusion, not the conclusion drives the evidence. And if that happens, I will be more than willing to adjust my view to that. However, at the moment, weighing the two competing hypotheses (the uterus was a specific target vs body part trophy collector), it is the latter that currently wins the day.

- Jeff

On your discussion of the uterus specifically, I agree that Eddowes murder incorporating that element is compelling. Its a partial take, and no doctor concluded that the cuts made on Kate were specifically to access and excise that particular organ, but suggestive, yes. Its why I have trouble with this one. I don't have trouble excluding Stride, and that small change alters the overall perspective. That makes, roughly, 1 a month. The first 2 might represent a heightened passion for his hobby after the first effort...perhaps abbreviated based on the next victims more invasive wounds. The lapse could be geographical difficulties during those intervening weeks, or it could be a fox crouched, waiting in the bush, until the "perfect" situation appears. But for me, it does draw a picture that could suggest a single killer more effectively than current theorizing does...1 a month, maybe an out of towner during these other weeks....

It occurs to me that Tumblety need not be the American seeking uteri the previous year for the teaching hospital, if he did have his own specimen collection or not. Im suggesting that the story put forth in context with Annies murder does have seem to have some small basis in fact when it comes to someone seeking uteri. A bounty placed, for one,.. or a reward if you will, could explain why that particular organ. We have a documented request for one the year before.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

With Chapman, the sun was apparently rising and with Eddowes it was in a dark corner. In both cases extraneous damage was done (Chapman's bladder was damaged, Eddowes bowels and incomplete removal of the organ). Nothing more than situational differences in lighting needs to be considered to remove any mystery as to why the job in the dark was done worse than the job most likely done in the light.

Also, to turn the tables as well, since you see no reason to argue for different killers between Chapman and Eddowes, then if, as you say, he had a perfect specimen why take a second if that was his objective? One could argue this two ways, either he wanted more than one specimen (but that falls down with Mary Jane Kelly, where he left the uterus behind - unless he only wanted 2, which begs the question of why then murder Mary Jane Kelly in the first place) or the uterus was not specifically his objective (which fits with taking the kdney and leaving Mary Jane Kelly's uterus but taking her heart).

And yes, let's not go into your third alternative here, that's sufficiently complex that it would really deserve it's own thread.

- Jeff

But your explanation falls down for two reasons, the first being that with the evisceration of the body of Kelly there was clearly no anatomical knowledge shown by her killer, which is in complete opposite to Chapman, and I would also say Eddowes, which suggests she was not killed by the same hand as Chapman and Eddowes.

Secondly for your explanation to stand up it has to be accepted that Kelly`s heart was taken away, and that is not an ascertained fact by a long chalk.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I am going to play devils advocate here and say that if the killer did remove the organs from Chapman, then it is clear that organ was the target. because not only did he take the uterus, but the fallopian tubes which are attached to the uterus, in effect a perfect specimen of the female reproductive organs.

Now if the same killer murdered Eddowes and i have no reason to believe he did not. I will raise some relevant questions.

Why did he not remove the uterus in the same way with the fallopian tubes attached?, Because medical evidence shows that her uterus was removed in a different way to that of Chapman, and it would seem not such a profession job in doing so.

Why did he need a second uterus when he had the full set from Chapman? This does not make sense, as he suposedly then took a kidney.

So two different types of removal, two killers both seeking out organs? I think not !!!!

Or one killer who on the Eddowes murder made a pigs ear of the removal of the uterus yet seems to have done a much better job with the kidney, which is I would say is the most difficult organ in the body to locate, and the most difficult to take hold of an remove.

I am going to refrain from reiterating what i have said before on this topic of the organ removals, and hope that posters digest the above ambiguities raised.

There is more to the Eddowes murder other than those who keep telling us the killer had the time to do all that he is purported to have done. One has to look at the bigger picture and include Chapmans murder and everything connected to her murder. Then the full facts will be come clear, to those who want to see, but those who don't will still bury their heads in the sand as normal.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

With Chapman, the sun was apparently rising and with Eddowes it was in a dark corner. In both cases extraneous damage was done (Chapman's bladder was damaged, Eddowes bowels and incomplete removal of the organ). Nothing more than situational differences in lighting needs to be considered to remove any mystery as to why the job in the dark was done worse than the job most likely done in the light.

Also, to turn the tables as well, since you see no reason to argue for different killers between Chapman and Eddowes, then if, as you say, he had a perfect specimen why take a second if that was his objective? One could argue this two ways, either he wanted more than one specimen (but that falls down with Mary Jane Kelly, where he left the uterus behind - unless he only wanted 2, which begs the question of why then murder Mary Jane Kelly in the first place) or the uterus was not specifically his objective (which fits with taking the kdney and leaving Mary Jane Kelly's uterus but taking her heart).

And yes, let's not go into your third alternative here, that's sufficiently complex that it would really deserve it's own thread.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The opinion that JtR specifically was after the uterus was based upon Annie Chapman's murder, the 2nd of the C5. It should be noted that JtR also appears to have taken a piece of the belly flesh away, and yet nobody focuses on that as being his specific purpose, only the uterus. Now, if JtR had the intention of taking the uterus that needs to be weighed against the alternative of "he just happened to take the uterus because taking part of the body appealed to him". He did not take anything from Nichols, so if JtRs goal was to harvest the uterus, that would seem to break that link. But the other similarities forge the link between those murders, and by so doing are more consistent with the alternative.

Eddowes murder, where again the uterus was taken, is also consistent with the goal of harvesting the uterus in particular, but likewise fit the alaternative. The addition of facial mutilations, however, are unnecessary with respect to harvesting the uterus, as is the taking of the kidney. The taking of the kidney, along with the uterus, however, is consistent with a killer who has some desire to take body parts with him (trophies is the typical jargon). The placement of intestines and other internal parts, is similar in nature between Chapman and Eddowes, forging a strong link between the crime scene behaviors of their killers - he's doing things in the way he does things despite there being other options with how one could remove and place viscera. There is also evidence he rifled through their belongings. The difference between Eddowes murder and Kelly's is situational, he's now standing beside a body raised upon a bed rather than crouching over a body on the street, he's been taken to a room rather than a public location, and yet, we see again the removal of organs, the uterus left behind but the heart was taken (refuting the "uterus was the goal" hypothesis but entirely consistent with the "taking body parts" alternative), we see facial mutilations again, and so forth. All 4 of those crime scenes are locations a prostitute would take a client, with only Kelly having the option of her room, which she was known to use for that purpose.

The idea that the goal was to target the uterus is just that, an idea that must be evaluated with regards to it's validity, it is not a fact that can be used to decide if two murders are related or not - the theory is not evidence. Of the C5, only for Stride is there sufficient reason to question her inclusion, all of the others are only questioned by starting from the conclusion and then looking at the evidence rather than drawing the conclusion from the evidence. The murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, are so similar to each other, with differences entirely situational, that there is no support to suggest they are not by the same killer at this time, other than to keep in mind it is, of course, possible - but that doesn't mean probable.

Now, should some new evidence come to light that seriously challenges the link between one or more of those 4 murders, then the conclusion I've presented here may become untenable because, as I've said, the evidence drives the conclusion, not the conclusion drives the evidence. And if that happens, I will be more than willing to adjust my view to that. However, at the moment, weighing the two competing hypotheses (the uterus was a specific target vs body part trophy collector), it is the latter that currently wins the day.

- Jeff

I am going to play devils advocate here and say that if the killer did remove the organs from Chapman, then it is clear that organ was the target. because not only did he take the uterus, but the fallopian tubes which are attached to the uterus, in effect a perfect specimen of the female reproductive organs.

Now if the same killer murdered Eddowes and i have no reason to believe he did not. I will raise some relevant questions.

Why did he not remove the uterus in the same way with the fallopian tubes attached?, Because medical evidence shows that her uterus was removed in a different way to that of Chapman, and it would seem not such a profession job in doing so.

Why did he need a second uterus when he had the full set from Chapman? This does not make sense, as he suposedly then took a kidney.

So two different types of removal, two killers both seeking out organs? I think not !!!!

Or one killer who on the Eddowes murder made a pigs ear of the removal of the uterus yet seems to have done a much better job with the kidney, which is I would say is the most difficult organ in the body to locate, and the most difficult to take hold of an remove.

I am going to refrain from reiterating what i have said before on this topic of the organ removals, and hope that posters digest the above ambiguities raised.

There is more to the Eddowes murder other than those who keep telling us the killer had the time to do all that he is purported to have done. One has to look at the bigger picture and include Chapmans murder and everything connected to her murder. Then the full facts will be come clear, to those who want to see, but those who don't will still bury their heads in the sand as normal.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

If we want to match apples with apples Jeff, which I presume is one of your goals as it should be for everyone trying to make a determination as to how many victims were killed by the same man, ...with the same motivators evident,..then the most relevant factors are the first line of questioning. Methodology. Victimology. Method of Acquisition, Cutting skills. Anatomical Knowledge. Actual Physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence...etc.

That being said, the murders of Polly and Annie are by far the most equally matched in all the relevant characteristic areas, despite the fact that Annie is more severely assaulted. They match in virtually every category, they are the ONLY 2 women who stated themselves that they were actively soliciting to acquaintances, they were acquired by the killer acting as a client, and they were executed in very similar fashion with very similar motivations evident PM. In Annies case it was determined by the physician who examined her that her killer cut in such a fashion as to complete what was eventually done,.. to take her uterus. "There were no meaningless cuts".

In no other cases, Catharine's included, can these same things be said.

The conclusion we can legitimately makes based on the cases as a whole...whole Canonical Group as it were...is that it is almost certain that the first 2 women of the presumed series were killed by the same killer, doing the same posing as client pretense, and he was committing the murder to facilitate some pm cutting.

There is your Canonical Group, based on legitimate factors. Not guesswork, theory, presumptions, assumptions or confined specificity with respect to overall damages inflicted.

As a footnote....there is absolutely no evidence in existence, known to this point in time, that would lend credence to a guess that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed.

The opinion that JtR specifically was after the uterus was based upon Annie Chapman's murder, the 2nd of the C5. It should be noted that JtR also appears to have taken a piece of the belly flesh away, and yet nobody focuses on that as being his specific purpose, only the uterus. Now, if JtR had the intention of taking the uterus that needs to be weighed against the alternative of "he just happened to take the uterus because taking part of the body appealed to him". He did not take anything from Nichols, so if JtRs goal was to harvest the uterus, that would seem to break that link. But the other similarities forge the link between those murders, and by so doing are more consistent with the alternative.

Eddowes murder, where again the uterus was taken, is also consistent with the goal of harvesting the uterus in particular, but likewise fit the alaternative. The addition of facial mutilations, however, are unnecessary with respect to harvesting the uterus, as is the taking of the kidney. The taking of the kidney, along with the uterus, however, is consistent with a killer who has some desire to take body parts with him (trophies is the typical jargon). The placement of intestines and other internal parts, is similar in nature between Chapman and Eddowes, forging a strong link between the crime scene behaviors of their killers - he's doing things in the way he does things despite there being other options with how one could remove and place viscera. There is also evidence he rifled through their belongings. The difference between Eddowes murder and Kelly's is situational, he's now standing beside a body raised upon a bed rather than crouching over a body on the street, he's been taken to a room rather than a public location, and yet, we see again the removal of organs, the uterus left behind but the heart was taken (refuting the "uterus was the goal" hypothesis but entirely consistent with the "taking body parts" alternative), we see facial mutilations again, and so forth. All 4 of those crime scenes are locations a prostitute would take a client, with only Kelly having the option of her room, which she was known to use for that purpose.

The idea that the goal was to target the uterus is just that, an idea that must be evaluated with regards to it's validity, it is not a fact that can be used to decide if two murders are related or not - the theory is not evidence. Of the C5, only for Stride is there sufficient reason to question her inclusion, all of the others are only questioned by starting from the conclusion and then looking at the evidence rather than drawing the conclusion from the evidence. The murders of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, are so similar to each other, with differences entirely situational, that there is no support to suggest they are not by the same killer at this time, other than to keep in mind it is, of course, possible - but that doesn't mean probable.

Now, should some new evidence come to light that seriously challenges the link between one or more of those 4 murders, then the conclusion I've presented here may become untenable because, as I've said, the evidence drives the conclusion, not the conclusion drives the evidence. And if that happens, I will be more than willing to adjust my view to that. However, at the moment, weighing the two competing hypotheses (the uterus was a specific target vs body part trophy collector), it is the latter that currently wins the day.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

If we want to match apples with apples Jeff, which I presume is one of your goals as it should be for everyone trying to make a determination as to how many victims were killed by the same man, ...with the same motivators evident,..then the most relevant factors are the first line of questioning. Methodology. Victimology. Method of Acquisition, Cutting skills. Anatomical Knowledge. Actual Physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence...etc.

That being said, the murders of Polly and Annie are by far the most equally matched in all the relevant characteristic areas, despite the fact that Annie is more severely assaulted. They match in virtually every category, they are the ONLY 2 women who stated themselves that they were actively soliciting to acquaintances, they were acquired by the killer acting as a client, and they were executed in very similar fashion with very similar motivations evident PM. In Annies case it was determined by the physician who examined her that her killer cut in such a fashion as to complete what was eventually done,.. to take her uterus. "There were no meaningless cuts".

In no other cases, Catharine's included, can these same things be said.

The conclusion we can legitimately makes based on the cases as a whole...whole Canonical Group as it were...is that it is almost certain that the first 2 women of the presumed series were killed by the same killer, doing the same posing as client pretense, and he was committing the murder to facilitate some pm cutting.

There is your Canonical Group, based on legitimate factors. Not guesswork, theory, presumptions, assumptions or confined specificity with respect to overall damages inflicted.

As a footnote....there is absolutely no evidence in existence, known to this point in time, that would lend credence to a guess that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed.

[JeffHamm]

The first part in bold disregards the major differences from Polly to Annie, the choice of victimology, the venue, the severity of the attack....the fact that we only have evidence in 2 of those cases that the women were actively soliciting, and that we have 2 murders within a fortnight almost identical in every aspect, and a month between each of the next "Canonicals". In the case of Liz Stride there is no evidence she was soliciting, there is no trademark double cut, and there is no evidence that any further insult to the body was intended or interrupted.

Its a rough bit of speculation Jeff, at best.

You seem to think that the same murderer will do exactly the same thing each time, which is not true. The "trademark double throat cut", as you call it, includes a very shallow and superficial cut with regards to Eddowes, yet the mutilations on Eddowes, with the way the viscera are removed and placed, womb taken, etc, are a clear link to Chapman, the depth and severity of the throat wounds between Nichols and Chapman provide a link there, and while Nichols' mutilations were less severe, she was also at the beginning of the series and there's a good chance Cross entered Buck's Row as JtR was still present. And Kelly's murder is Eddowes on steroids, and given she had a room to take clients to, then there's no need for him to flee the scene. Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly are all reported as soliciting, Nichols and Chapman both went out to get their doss money and were known to solicit, Barnett left Kelly as she had started soliciting again as he was out of work (and there's Blotchy, etc). Eddowes had no money, ended up drunk, and when she left the police station headed towards Houndsditch, which would take her directly to St. Botolph's Church, which was known as the prostitute's church (woman hung out there to find clients as they could walk around it and not get shooed away for loitering apparently). Soliciting was an unfortunate necessity for many woman in the area at that time, it wasn't necessarily something they did all the time but many had to as a last resort. Stride had a record in Sweden for prostitution, and the location suggests she was as there is no reason that we know of for her to be in that area. So basically, the evidence in the case of Stride, as with all things Stride related, is weaker but not entirely absent.

Speculation, therefore, is a pejorative description for all the cases except Stride. In fact, it's an inaccurate descriptor for the other cases. Speculation is when one offers a conclusion with little to no evidence, while the case for the victims being engaged in solicitation is, in fact, well supported from the known data for the 4 other cases, so it's more of a reasoned inference, and in the case of Polly, Annie, and Mary Kelly, and to a lesser extent Kate as well, as provable as one can get. You may be of the opinion that the inference is not sufficiently backed by the evidence, which is of course, a defendable argument for Stride, but it leaves a real hole in explaining why she was there in the first place (any explanation offered to fill that hole would be speculation, while one might argue she wasn't there to solicit the counter proposal one should be arguing for is that "we don't know why she was there" and not an attempt to fill that "space" with an even more speculative claim).

There is a great deal of sophistry in JtR discussions, where pejorative descriptions are used in place of argument and evidence. But if we call the tail a leg, that doesn't mean a horse has 5 legs because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. And disagreeing with the inferences drawn from the evidence we have is one thing, but failing to recognize that inferences other than one's own are, in fact, still rational inferences puts one in danger of overestimating just how strongly supported their own inferences are, which can blind us.

In the end, there is more evidence that Stride was soliciting than there is for the club to have set up Schwartz with a false story, as the former is not inconsistent with the evidence while the latter creates a paradox within the evidence. The former remains possible, the latter is refuted.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

My own view, for what its worth, is that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly are sufficiently similar, with no real meaningful differences, that these are highly probable to be by the same person, whom we call JtR. Stride, is questionable. She's killed at a time and location that would give JtR sufficient time to also meet and murder Eddowes. She was obviously killed without alerting anyone, similar to all the other victims. She appears to have been soliciting, also similar to the other victims (but also a common activity at the time). The wound to her throat is of a similar description, to the main throat wound of Eddowes (though the latter was slightly deeper; I posted a comparison of the medical reports pertaining to the C5 throat wounds in a thread somewhere so I won't go into all that again), and the location for her murder is a risky outdoor location, as per all the victims until Kelly. Major differences, of course, is the lack of mutilations, or of any further knife injury at all. A number of explanations are possible, though, leaving us only to perpetually turn and twist the evidence about, looking for something new to hopefully tip the balance one way or the other, but it never stays put.

- Jeff

The first part in bold disregards the major differences from Polly to Annie, the choice of victimology, the venue, the severity of the attack....the fact that we only have evidence in 2 of those cases that the women were actively soliciting, and that we have 2 murders within a fortnight almost identical in every aspect, and a month between each of the next "Canonicals". In the case of Liz Stride there is no evidence she was soliciting, there is no trademark double cut, and there is no evidence that any further insult to the body was intended or interrupted.

Its a rough bit of speculation Jeff, at best.

[JeffHamm]

I disagree with you on the bold point above, there are many posters who believe that the Canonical Group, which is the victims presumed to be by the single killer known as jack the Ripper, should also include Martha, Emma, Alice and as you noted what I said, the Torsos...some which preceded the alleged series.

The problem for me is this....before anyone adds anything to this mythological kills list, they should be able to prove the ones most readily assumed were also by the same one man. As you know, or don't, 130 years of trying has not connected the murder of one Canonical with another, nor with any solo killer. ALL of it is presumed, assumed and therefore relegated to theory.

Im not about to name all the names here who do so, read any thread and youll see the biases rise.

Well, there are a few that believe JtR and the torso murders are connected, but I wouldn't say that's a majority view. Similarly, I haven't noticed many claiming Emma was a victim of JtR, though I know some have suggested that, even those who do are far far more likely to present it as "to be considered" rather than state they believe she's definately part of the series. Same for Tabram, there are reasons to consider the possibility she was an early victim, mostly based upon the frenzied nature of the overkill employed, but arguments against tend to be the marked difference in the lack of throat cutting and mutilations despite the opportunity (countered but the fact if she is by the same killer then she's possibly the first victim and he's not settled on "what works" for him yet. Some, like myself, see some similarities with the earlier, non-fatal attack on Millwood, and suggest that if one views Tabram as a potential JtR victim (which also has contemporary supporters after all), then one should also look closely at the Millwood attack (though one isn't obliged to include her attack, they should not forget to consider it first). And of course, there are never ending debates concerning Stride, and some of the other victims like Eddowes and Kelly as well.

My own view, for what its worth, is that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly are sufficiently similar, with no real meaningful differences, that these are highly probable to be by the same person, whom we call JtR. Stride, is questionable. She's killed at a time and location that would give JtR sufficient time to also meet and murder Eddowes. She was obviously killed without alerting anyone, similar to all the other victims. She appears to have been soliciting, also similar to the other victims (but also a common activity at the time). The wound to her throat is of a similar description, to the main throat wound of Eddowes (though the latter was slightly deeper; I posted a comparison of the medical reports pertaining to the C5 throat wounds in a thread somewhere so I won't go into all that again), and the location for her murder is a risky outdoor location, as per all the victims until Kelly. Major differences, of course, is the lack of mutilations, or of any further knife injury at all. A number of explanations are possible, though, leaving us only to perpetually turn and twist the evidence about, looking for something new to hopefully tip the balance one way or the other, but it never stays put.

Basically, I don't see more than a few people insisting they know how many of the murders are linked, and of those few, the numbers of linked murders probably ranges from "no two by the same hand" to "All the C5, plus Martha Tabram, Alice McKenzie, and others I'm sure". And since even those few differ from each other, well, they can't all be right can they? So, apparently "Knowing" isn't really enough, is it? It's being able to present a logical presentation of why one thinks a particular set are connected based upon the evidence we have, and then people can decide if that presentation is both internally consistent, and derived from all of the evidence we have to work with and doesn't require a great deal of "culling". In other words, we can't prove who JtR was, we can't prove which murders were absolutely by the same hand, but we can present well supported, well reasoned ideas, otherwise known as "theory".

- Jeff