Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

There is no evidence that the bodies were posed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I would agree with 4 of the Five Trevor, but I think a pretty good case can be made for Mary Kelly. He placed a hand over her empty midsection after he had emptied it. It doesn't appear to be a move based on a convenience. When you have her head aligned to face the rooms entrance, that's suggestive as well.

[Michael W Richards]

When you choose to ignore evidence that Kelly was seen out on the streets then of course you will create a mystery. The mystery is all of your own creation.
I know you don't like the idea she was out after 1:00am. And please don't try promote the idea that a person drunk, tipsy or spreeish would not go out again, especially when said person was known to be in dire need of money. But, Kelly was stated to be out in three sources, yet not one source claimed or suggested that she didn't go out.
Your argument Michael is too devoid of reality to be worthy of entertaining.

To my recollection Mrs Maxwell was the only witness in any of these cases to have her statement directly challenged when giving it to the Inquest, so the actual number of potentially believable witnesses goes down. George Hutchinson is a discredited witness in the history books. Im still amused, although I probably should be pissed, that claims that using the evidence to make an argument is "devoid of reality", but for my money presuming a series of Five women murdered as being by what must amount to be the only man in the East End who acted violently towards women from late Aug to early NOV, without the requisite evidence linking them, isn't a reality at all. This focus on the degree and type of evisceration is I agree prudent, for sure, we cant guess who should be on that list without some sense of what kind of person were looking for, his capabilities and preferences. Based on that "reality" for me there seems to be a good possibility of 4 victims, and not all that same Fall. Alice Mackenzie fits the profile better than some Canonicals, post Tabram.

If Alice Mackenzie can be included, and he is therefore not the same killer the police claim was institutionalized...presuming he was this Jack, of course.....then there are 2 men who did similar things. And what of the 8 or 9 more Unsolved murders of that same period...by this killer of Alice?,.. they got the wrong man in an institution and Jack was still out there?, they never really had any suspect for these crimes in custody at all?, he actually poisons more women later on?, that there seems to be more than 1 person capable and desirous of killing women then cutting into them?

There are obviously other men killing women of this type..Unfortunates...in that same area, around that same period.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nichols' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Chapman's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Strides killer strangled her and cut her throat. That may have been all he intended, but that is assumption.

Eddowes' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Kelly's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Save for Stride, the killings show escalating levels of mutilation, not completely different intentions.

There is no evidence that the bodies were posed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

.........
So,... since we have no evidence that Mary had been walking any streets at all that night for clients, or with any regularity leading up to her death, and since we have no evidence she ever brought a strange man, aside from Blotchy...(one we don't know already) to her room, I guess she wasn't a streetwalker or a "home entertainment" worker that night. Which returns to my original question about her killer. At what point do we see any indication that someone who sought streetwalkers actively working the streets would then try small off street courtyards and private rooms, where he would find no-one walking any streets?

When you add that she was already drunk when she got home, you almost 100% have someone who came to her room for her specifically. Not someone who picks up strangers outdoors while they worked, or who is opportunity activated.

When you choose to ignore evidence that Kelly was seen out on the streets then of course you will create a mystery. The mystery is all of your own creation.
I know you don't like the idea she was out after 1:00am. And please don't try promote the idea that a person drunk, tipsy or spreeish would not go out again, especially when said person was known to be in dire need of money. But, Kelly was stated to be out in three sources, yet not one source claimed or suggested that she didn't go out.
Your argument Michael is too devoid of reality to be worthy of entertaining.

[c.d.]

I just can't imagine a modern day police chief assembling the force and saying "men, we've got a rash of purse snatchers in the area." "I say snatchers plural because even though they all approach a woman from behind and push her apparently one favors brown purses, another favors black purses and another will only take purses with gold buckles."

Draw your own conclusions.

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Nichols' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Chapman's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Strides killer strangled her and cut her throat. That may have been all he intended, but that is assumption.

Eddowes' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Kelly's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Save for Stride, the killings show escalating levels of mutilation, not completely different intentions.

And you could add,
Chapman, took organs.
Eddowes, took organs and slashed face
Kelly, took organs, slashed face, removed flesh from legs.

(with mutilations being modified to abdominal mutilations). Basically, each of the 4 from Nichols to Kelly, is the previous with more added.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

You realize that the "task at hand" referred to extracting and taking her kidney and partial uterus? That's all there is to go by here. The result of any of these attacks is self explanatory if you let it be so. Pollys killer wanted to kill her and mutilate her abdomen, Annies killer wanted to kill her and obtain her uterus..Liz Strides killer wanted her dead, Kates killer wanted to kill her and mutilate her abdomen, take an intact kidney,and mark her face. Marys killer vented on her, then took her apart in ways that had nothing to do with the end result..which was obtaining her heart.

The end result Harry. That all you have to determine what the killers objectives or intentions were. And clearly, they are not all the same.

Like I said, 5 murders equals 5 stories, not just one.

Nichols' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Chapman's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Strides killer strangled her and cut her throat. That may have been all he intended, but that is assumption.

Eddowes' killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Kelly's killer strangled her, cut her throat, mutilated the body, and posed it.

Save for Stride, the killings show escalating levels of mutilation, not completely different intentions.

[Fiver]

If you mean unproven Harry then the premise that Jack the Ripper killed Five women now know as the Canonical Group is by far the longest false or unproven premise this area of study will ever see. Its GIGO situation alright, and when you start by assuming 5 victims without any known connection to each other or a single killer, that's the Garbage IN. The Garbage Out is what people then do with that unproven, or to this date...false...premise.

There is a significant difference between an unproven premise and a false premise. Every theory about the Ripper killings is unproven, but only some are provably false. And among those unproven theories, some are more credible than others.

The idea that the Canon Five were all victims of the same killer is not a false premise, there are clear similarities between the killings and nothing has proven the theory false. At the same time, there are credible reasons to drop some victims from the C5 and/or add others to the list.

You and Fisherman seem to be taking opposite views, both of which disagree strongly with each other and with the Cannon Five theory. Fisherman appears to feel that the Ripper Killings and the Torso Murders were the the work of a single serial killer. You appear to be saying there were no serial killers operating in Whitechapel at the time.

As noted, there are credible reasons to drop some victims from the C5 and/or add others to the list, but the C5 theory is more credible than either your theory or Fisherman's theory. As I have noted in another thread, there are several major differences between the Ripper MO and the Torso MO. These differences are big enough that I cannot see the same person committing both series unless they suffered from multiple personality disorder.

You appear to be arguing that most or all of the Ripper killings were completely unrelated. While this is not provably false, your points are not strong.

You appear to be arguing that acknowledgement that any period murders were not done by the Ripper implies that the Ripper never existed. Even most people who think the Torso Killer was the Ripper don't attribute all of the period killings to one man. The police files examined 11 period murders, in the end concluding only the C5 were the work of the same man. The idea that some period murders were done by people other than the Ripper is not evidence that the Ripper did not exist - that is a false premise on your part.

Implied in that point, you seem to be arguing that the police attributed unrelated murders to the Ripper, though you have provided no motive for why the police would do that. The police only attributed 5 of the 11 murders in the case file to the Ripper, so they certainly were not trying to attribute every vaguely similar murder to the Ripper.

You appear to be arguing that Eddowes, Stride, and Kelly not being known to have been soliciting immediately before their deaths proves they were not Ripper victims. This requires ignoring that Stride and Kelly were known prostitutes, Eddowes was killed in an area frequented by prostitutes, and all three were in need of money. For that matter, serial killers who target prostitutes have frequently also murdered down-and-out women who were not prostitutes. Your idea that Eddowes, Stride, and Kelly not being known to have been soliciting immediately before their deaths proves they were not Ripper victims is also a false premise.

You are definitely arguing that Catherine Eddowes killer tried to cut her nose off. The evidence shows this is a false premise on your part - the only cut to Eddowes nose also cut her upper lip. Also, whether or not Eddowes killer was trying to cut her nose off proves nothing about whether her killer was the Ripper.

You're on much stronger ground when you argue about the lack of mutilation in the Stride killing and the Kelly killing taking place indoors, but even there you appear to be ignoring the similarities that have led most people to place them with the Canon Five. Even that does not prove that there was no serial killer operating in Whitechapel in 1888, it merely reduces the list of victims.

[Sam Flynn]

since we have no evidence she ever brought a strange man, aside from Blotchy...

There's no reason to believe that Blotchy was the only man she ever brought a stranger back home. Indeed, why wouldn't a prostitute with a room of her own take advantage of the privacy, and probably earn more for it, rather than copulate up against a wall in a side-street for three or four pennies?

[Michael W Richards]

Since when did streetwalkers try to find clients by staying in their flats?

Yes, good point Sam. So,... since we have no evidence that Mary had been walking any streets at all that night for clients, or with any regularity leading up to her death, and since we have no evidence she ever brought a strange man, aside from Blotchy...(one we don't know already) to her room, I guess she wasn't a streetwalker or a "home entertainment" worker that night. Which returns to my original question about her killer. At what point do we see any indication that someone who sought streetwalkers actively working the streets would then try small off street courtyards and private rooms, where he would find no-one walking any streets?

When you add that she was already drunk when she got home, you almost 100% have someone who came to her room for her specifically. Not someone who picks up strangers outdoors while they worked, or who is opportunity activated.

[Sam Flynn]

The thing is Sam, since when does the Ripper go looking for women indoors?

Since when did streetwalkers try to find clients by staying in their flats?

[Michael W Richards]

At the risk of sounding tautological, the fact that she was killed in her room was perhaps because she was the only victim who had a room to be killed in.She was in arrears, and the rent was due the next day. Seems a good enough reason to me.

The thing is Sam, since when does the Ripper go looking for women indoors? On the arrears, she was over 2 weeks in arrears and Bowyer was sent Fri morn to "see" if he "could" collect any of that. He acknowledged that once people were occupying a room, it was hard to evict them even with arrears on the table. She didn't have to worry about her room being taken from her, and she had a habit of doing this arrears thing before. She had been evicted for it. So, how come she didn't go out and work...while drunk...and clean up those arrears before being evicted? Likely because she would rather take money from men than earn it from them. Just ask Joe Barnett.

[Sam Flynn]

Mary was younger, had her own room which she was in when she was attacked

At the risk of sounding tautological, the fact that she was killed in her room was perhaps because she was the only victim who had a room to be killed in.

she didn't have any compelling reason to be soliciting at that time

She was in arrears, and the rent was due the next day. Seems a good enough reason to me.

[Michael W Richards]

Jeff, to address one of your counter points for the moment, Mary Kelly was atypical in many ways and the manner in which he went about his business happened to be very similar to what had been in almost every paper since early September. Something is only unique if it is, something that matches what has been done before isn't a telltale clue we have the same man in both cases. Mary was younger, had her own room which she was in when she was attacked, she didn't have any compelling reason to be soliciting at that time, and we have evidence that suggests she didn't leave her room after 11:45ish. We also have no evidence she ever brought anyone home to conduct business, and only had a single night at that address where she could have had the place to herself...Wednesday....she is killed early Friday morning....she was at home, undressed, actually in her bed, facing the partition wall...by the spray evidence,...and she was attacked. She seems to have used her arms to defend herself.

Not outdoors soliciting. So he doesn't have to be a stranger. Not in a public venue. Could be indicative of his choice to find working women in the middle of the night. She was in bed, at home. Virtually half the age of the middle aged co-Canonicals. So he didn't find her the way he has shown us he works, he doesn't have the assumed persona of a stranger-client to hide behind, he attacks her with the knife while she is still able to attempt to fend him off, he takes the time to remove all the flesh from her thighs, he excises and leaves behind the only organ taken twice before, and he leaves the windows and door locked, drapes pulled across.. inhibiting access to the scene...which he has usually left for anyone to see, in spectacularly shocking fashion.

Ill, as you suggest, leave this line of thought aside for now. But I think its important to understand the actual stability of the ideas you stand upon. If none of these murders had post mortem mutilations, would you still feel that they should be grouped? Are post mortem mutilations something that only 1 person in that area at that time would be capable of, or would want to do? Do similar actions mean that 1 person did them? Do dissimilar actions signify someone else?

And most pivotally...why were they killed? Ive suggested some valid reasons why Kates murder could be seen in different context to the Ripper murders, anyone can see that in the case of Liz Stride. So..with so many uncertainties, why would I use that unproven theory that groups 5 women under 1 killer to facilitate my search for truth?

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,

If youre disputing that the Canonical Group is made from anything but presumptions and opinions, then we will never agree. Its guesswork, not science, not based on the existing evidence. The existing evidence alone would have to exclude at least 1 Canonical from that group immediately.

People choose this position, its not that they are compelled by the evidence to accept it. I choose to match the very similar square pegs with the square slots and "presume" that round pegs must belong elsewhere. Polly, Annie and perhaps Kate are square pegs.

And in my assessment, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly are square pegs. The shape of Stride's peg is undermined, and may be square and may be round. Hence, we disagree.

All interpretation of evidence is just that, interpretation. If you want to use pejorative language like presumptions and opinions, as a substitute that's fine but it doesn't strengthen the logic of your argument, sophistry never does.

You do not include Kelly, and you've presented your interpretations of the evidence behind that decision. I could, of course, rephrase that in your words and say your opinion is based upon your own presumptions. Note the difference between effectively stating the same thing, but how it appears to change when pejorative language is used? It carries with it an implied, and unsupported, evaluation, designed to try and convince others (not the person you're discussing things with) without actually giving them valid reasons to be convinced. That was the nature of sophistry, where emotive language rather than rational argument, was considered the primary skill required. It's used to great effect by politicians today, but that's not surprising as the sophists primary form of employment was to train people for political speaking in ancient Greece.

Anyway, we've discussed our interpretations before concerning Kelly, so we don't need to rehash all of those details, as that will accomplish nothing and this thread isn't about Kelly anyway. In fact, I've been a bit naughty with the profiles here as well, particularly as I've digressed to issues concerning Stride, but it was following a side track that Abby and I ended up on at one point, and I only wanted to update him on that with the recent one. I've covered that to the extent it is warranted for this thread though, so will leave it for now. Happy to continue if anyone wants to start a thread for it, but there's not much I feel needs to be added at this point.

- Jeff