Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    thanks jeff
    totally agree.
    interesting note: what are the only two direct sources of evidence that explicitely implicate a jew? the GSG and George Hutchinson. and there he is right in the primary zone. and right smack dab in the middle of the kill zone too. hmmmm
    Hi Abby Normal,

    Well, there's also Long, if you believe she saw Capman and JtR, who describes the man as "foreign looking", which apparently at the time indicated Jewish. And of course, the whole Leather Apron aspect early on was looking for Pizer, who was Jewish as well. However, much of that suspicion may reflect anti-Jewish sentiment at the time rather than any real evidence that JtR was Jewish. He might have been, but then, he might not have been. Hutchinson, like most named suspects, has what I would call "peripheral support", meaning there's one or two of his behaviours that draw attention to him making him a lead worth exploring, but in the end, there are so many "not JtR" ways to explain his behaviour (including his overly detailed description) that he's just one more on the list. We have, unfortunately, leads but there are far fewer ways to follow them up compared to a current case.

    Think Dennis Rader, if he had never been caught. A century later, he would look like a family man, employed at ADT and later for Park City, and active in his Church and Boy Scouts. There would be nothing that would raise any red flags. So maybe Hutchinson is similar? Or maybe, the vast majority of people that don't raise red flags are simply those without flags to raise? Hutchinson's behaviour can range from "JtR, inserting himself into the investigation" (which is not uncommon behaviour for serial killers) to "genuine witness who tries to be overly helpful and contaminates his own memory with his efforts to recall details" (which is also not uncommon) and even to "genuine witness and Astrakhan Man is real and Hutchinson had a photographic memory" (which is uncommon, and in my view, highly unlikely, but I'm just covering all bases here).

    Also, Hutchinson lives east of the GSG, which means, if he made it home, then went back out to get rid of the apron, he went back west towards the crime scene (towards increasing risk). But, he doesn't head that far West, so while it would be risky it's not a long journey and JtR is certainly not the best at situational risk assessment. All of the crime locations are so over the top in terms of risk that arguments that he must have been really astute to recognize he could get away with it, implying good situational awareness, are all attributing luck with intention - the crime locations are all so risky that his getting away was by luck not design in my view, and his willingness to commit the offenses where he did imply poor, rather than good, risk assessment. Of course, that's just my interpretation/opinion, and others certainly draw a different one.

    I'm in the process of testing out a slightly different algorithm for part of the analysis. Initial testing shows some improvement, but I think it's mostly for cases where the offender is located a bit further from zone 1 (so reducing the larger errors). There could be, however, a bit of a drop in the number of cases that fall in zone 1 (Rader drops to zone 3 or 4, for example; that's still within 7.5-10% of the total search area, which is still a good result). I'm still working on it, and trying to work out better estimates for some of the probability distributions, so the below is more for interest's sake. Basically, it favours the northern hot spot, so isn't splitting zone 1 into a north and south version (though the southern portion is still an area of high interest). Hutchinson is in Zone 8 (worthy of note). Interesting, the pub at the west end of Dorset Street is in the peak area of Zone 1 (the pinkish section in the yellow region), and I believe there were "sightings" from there. Also, and this is just me, I find it interesting that the high interest area extends up towards and beyond Hanbury Street. That area intrigues me, as I tend to think JtR must have been awfully close to home after the Chapman murder as the sun was coming up - the longer he was in the street the greater the chance he would have been spotted post murder - assuming he had to have some blood on him that would have been visible. Also, again if we trust Long, she came from Brick Lane and JtR was backon to her - so if that indicates he too had originally come from the East, that area looks good - but of course, people's position in a conversation is not always indicative of their original direction of travel). It's also interesting that it appears to be the area where no suspects have been identified, and given that the case is unsolved, maybe that's why? This is all very speculative, and no, I don't "believe" it, rather, it's one of the many hypotheses that I like to consider at times.

    Anyway, I've got a lot more number crunching to do, but I wouldn't expect a dramatic change in the general pattern. And I've got another approach to test out as well, and that could end up being the best option. Sigh, it's a complicated problem to solve, but in some ways, that's what holds my interest. ha ha


    - Jeff


    Attached Files

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      I am well aware that there are people who think the Torso Killer was also the Ripper. I am well aware that there are people who add other murder victims to the C5. So far, none of them have attributed every period murder in or near Whitechapel to the same killer. The idea that there were "multiple killers working within a small geographic area at around the same point in time" is the default assumption, held by virtually everyone who has posted here.

      So again, who are you having these debates with? Who is claiming that every period murder in or near Whitechapel was done by the same killer?
      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.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        130 years of trying has not connected the murder of one Canonical with another, nor with any solo killer
        That means nothing; the case is so cold that we can't unequivocally find anyone guilty of these unsolved crimes, or any other for that matter. What chance do we have, if the contemporary police didn't succeed in doing so either? The fact that no-one has been indisputably connected to the crimes doesn't mean that there wasn't a serial killer at work.

        ALL of it is presumed, assumed and therefore relegated to theory
        ..."relegated" to theory? If theory is good enough for Newton, Einstein or Feynman, then it's good enough for me.

        Im not about to name all the names here who do so, read any thread and youll see the biases rise.
        If a handful of women are killed in the same small area within barely two months, with their throats deeply cut and their bowels extruded with organs removed, the most parsimonious explanation is that they were killed by the same hand. That might not be correct, but it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

        It is emphatically not "bias".
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

          That means nothing; the case is so cold that we can't unequivocally find anyone guilty of these unsolved crimes, or any other for that matter. What chance do we have, if the contemporary police didn't succeed in doing so either? The fact that no-one has been indisputably connected to the crimes doesn't mean that there wasn't a serial killer at work.



          ..."relegated" to theory? If theory is good enough for Newton, Einstein or Feynman, then it's good enough for me.



          If a handful of women are killed in the same small area within barely two months, with their throats deeply cut and their bowels extruded with organs removed, the most parsimonious explanation is that they were killed by the same hand. That might not be correct, but it is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.

          It is emphatically not "bias".
          thank you sam for mentioning american physicist richard feynman! it warms my heart . if i may just add another great american theoretical physicist who nobodies heard about but even einstein referred to as " the greatest Mind in history".

          josiah willard gibbs
          1839-1903

          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post


              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.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                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

                Comment


                • 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.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    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

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      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

                      Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 11-19-2019, 11:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          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.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            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.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              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."

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                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.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X