Elizabeth Stride ..who killed her ?

[Tom_Wescott]

I also don't think Phillips would have seen Nichols, although Dr. Haslip and Dr. Killeen might have done so as they were the doctors in the Smith and Tabram cases, which were believed connected to Nichols at the time. Haslip thought the man who killed Nichols had also killed Emma Smith.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

And that's why I posed the question to Mike the way I did. He has repetitively posited that Phillips linked the Nichols and Chapman murders. He did not. When coerced by Baxter to do so he refused because he had not seen or examined Mary Ann Nichols. It was Baxter and Baxter alone who linked the two murders and he had a theory to peddle... Imagine someone making assumptions based on a theory. Certainly not when it comes to this subject.

I wondered if you were alluding to the second-hand report that Phillips did not believe Stride & Eddowes were killed by the same man.

"Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority."
London Evening News, Oct. 1, 1888.

[Tom_Wescott]

I wondered if you were alluding to the second-hand report that Phillips did not believe Stride & Eddowes were killed by the same man.

"Dr. Phillips who was called to Berner-street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr. Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it as his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr. Phillips is an authority."
London Evening News, Oct. 1, 1888.

This was Dr. Gordon Brown's opinion, who thought Eddowes was a copycat murder, and the reporter gives Dr. Brown as the source. Medical opinion does seem to favor Liz Stride as the more likely of the two to have been a Ripper victim. Although the doctors were probably wrong about Eddowes not having been related to the other murders, it does go to show that investigators were far more open-minded to such things, contrary to what some modern commentators state.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

I can certainly see how differences in knife cuts can carry weight as evidence of different killers but I can just not see how that conclusion can be reached automatically as in an if A then B argument.

Can anyone who favors the idea that different knife cuts equal different killers put forth an argument that eliminates any other explanation for why there might be a difference in the cuts?

Also, it would seem if we have any other cases where different knife cuts turned out to be done by one killer that that would go a long way to putting this whole argument in the proper perspective. Can anyone site such evidence?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

This was Dr. Gordon Brown's opinion, who thought Eddowes was a copycat murder, and the reporter gives Dr. Brown as the source. Medical opinion does seem to favor Liz Stride as the more likely of the two to have been a Ripper victim. Although the doctors were probably wrong about Eddowes not having been related to the other murders, it does go to show that investigators were far more open-minded to such things, contrary to what some modern commentators state.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Given the fact this is second/third-hand we don't know if it is trustworthy, but taken at face value, yes Dr. Brown is given as the source, and yes this opinion may have been held by Brown also.
However, the sentence clearly attributes this opinion to Dr. Phillips.

[Rosella]

Hello, I'm a newbie on this Forum!

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello CD. Well, it cannot be reached automatically--as you say. A killer may be experiencing a bad night and may have lost control of his hand. He might also DELIBERATELY use less skill.

But the main idea is that, IF one engages in certain behaviours habitually, then such are performed routinely and mechanically, and should hence exhibit a certain sameness.

Many of us, I suppose, have unwrapped packages since we were wee ones. I always tear into the paper and leave it in shreds. My wife, on the other hand, always cuts neatly and ends by folding up the paper into a rectangle. So, holding all other variables constant, IF one saw a package that was entered by either myself or my wife, a quick glance would ascertain which.

And it seems to be the case that this is why Brown, Baxter and perhaps Phillips thought Kate was done by someone else--she was a hack and mangle job, unlike the skillful cuts shown before. These led some to believe that perhaps a surgeon or butcher were involved.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Can someone post the source for this supposed opinion of Gordon Brown?

[Hunter]

I hear crickets.

[Dr. Brown was] inclined to think that he [the murderer] was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butcher’s cuts.

Reckon whose nose that was?

[Michael W Richards]

How is it that butcher cuts are thought to be synonymous with medical student or better knife skills, anyone who could butcher a pig might pass for someone with knowledge of "human anatomy", considering the similarities.

Yes Hunter, without any disagreement from Dr Phillips who was present at the time on the matter, it was Baxter who vocalized the theory that both Nichols and Chapman were committed by the same skill and knowledge level killer, as Phillips later confirms by vocalizing his suspicions that 3 of the Canonical Five were killed by someone with those attributes.
Phillips did not see either component in the Stride murder, and has been pointed out by you quoting Jon, he didn't see any correlation of the Eddowes wounds to the first 2 women's wounds.

What all the hot air has been about is a challenge to the idea that Liz Strides wounds did not reveal any skill or knowledge of her killer...not about who believed what about Eddowes, or Chapman, or Nichols. Hell, Its clear from the physical evidence to even a layman that the first 2 women were killed in almost identical fashion and by someone who possessed better than butcher skills. He knew how to kill very quickly, to access internal organs that he intends to take, and to do it very fast and in little or no light. Its marginally a case for the Eddowes inclusion too...if it weren't for that butcher grade knife hand he used.

The similarities of these two murders establish skill and knowledge precedents for the investigation going forward, and judging by the police reaction... immediately contacting medical schools, hospitals and clinics, they seemed inclined to feel the importance of that information.

There is no other time in the investigations, that being September in 1888, that the focus was put on seeking individuals with greater than average "surgical" abilities.

The reason we have a Canonical Group at all is because of the investigators straw grasping, comments and theories, not the medical opinions formed by overwhelming physical evidence. And that's too bad. I think the medical exams are very important clues as to the abilities of the respective killers.

Because now people can argue that murders that do not appear alike in any respect can be legitimately grouped under one mans knife, because the contemporary investigators couldn't solve anyone of them.

Cheers

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

Regarding your first question about butcher cuts and such, I don't know. I posted this excerpt of a BMJ article kindly provided by Stewart Evans to make a point that Frederick Gordon Brown apparently believed that the murder of Catherine Eddowes was part of a series perpetrated by a single individual - since others are seemingly under the assumption that Brown thought differently.

As to your second paragraph and point, you now claim that Baxter made the assertion of skill evidenced in both the murders of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman without any disagreement from Phillips. That is not what you had been presuming. Phillips refused to enter an opinion when asked because he was not involved in the Nichols murder investigation which had occurred in J Division territory. He would not comment on what he had not witnessed. Wynne Baxter is alone here as to this opinion concerning these two murders.

Also, when Baxter made such an assertion during his summary, the reason why Phillips offered no disagreement at the time is because he wasn't there. He had just returned from Birtley where he had been involved in the Beatmore murder investigation for a few days. He arrived at the inquest at the tail end and was not aware of anything said during the proceedings that day.

Phillips was questioned by a Press Association reporter as he arrived, but the questions centered upon any linkage to the murder at Birtley Fell and the Whitedhapel murders, and Baxter's organ specimen theory, which Phillips heard about for the first time from the reporter himself.

As far as Phillips vocalizing "his suspicions that 3 of the Canonical Five were killed by someone with those attributes,"... where did you get that from? Phillips never said how many murders he believed were committed by the same hand (at least nothing has surfaced.) That was Percy Clark in 1910. Now since Clark was Phillips' associate during the time of the murders, it could be argued that he was reflecting the views of his former boss, but Phillips still actually never said what you are crediting him with.

These are the facts. Some people need to get that straight first or it can be construed as intentionally trying to mislead people to promote an agenda. Imagine that in this field.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

Regarding your first question about butcher cuts and such, I don't know. I posted this excerpt of a BMJ article kindly provided by Stewart Evans to make a point that Frederick Gordon Brown apparently believed that the murder of Catherine Eddowes was part of a series perpetrated by a single individual - since others are seemingly under the assumption that Brown thought differently.

As to your second paragraph and point, you now claim that Baxter made the assertion of skill evidenced in both the murders of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman without any disagreement from Phillips. That is not what you had been presuming. Phillips refused to enter an opinion when asked because he was not involved in the Nichols murder investigation which had occurred in J Division territory. He would not comment on what he had not witnessed. Wynne Baxter is alone here as to this opinion concerning these two murders.

Also, when Baxter made such an assertion during his summary, the reason why Phillips offered no disagreement at the time is because he wasn't there. He had just returned from Birtley where he had been involved in the Beatmore murder investigation for a few days. He arrived at the inquest at the tail end and was not aware of anything said during the proceedings that day.

Phillips was questioned by a Press Association reporter as he arrived, but the questions centered upon any linkage to the murder at Birtley Fell and the Whitedhapel murders, and Baxter's organ specimen theory, which Phillips heard about for the first time from the reporter himself.

As far as Phillips vocalizing "his suspicions that 3 of the Canonical Five were killed by someone with those attributes,"... where did you get that from? Phillips never said how many murders he believed were committed by the same hand (at least nothing has surfaced.) That was Percy Clark in 1910. Now since Clark was Phillips' associate during the time of the murders, it could be argued that he was reflecting the views of his former boss, but Phillips still actually never said what you are crediting him with.

These are the facts. Some people need to get that straight first or it can be construed as intentionally trying to mislead people to promote an agenda. Imagine that in this field.

I double checked your statement about Phillips attendance at the time of the summation and you are correct, I had forgotten that the coroners summation was made on a day when no witnesses were called. As to Phillips alleged statement concerning his feelings about how many Canonicals were linked by killer, I have seen a statement quoted from him on that issue. Ill try to find where I saved it in my db.

As for any agenda you and/or others may have assumed I have, its just that the urban legend of Jack the Ripper must be challenged in order to have any hope of discovering what really happened to any of the women. Almost anyone who has studied these crimes recognizes that there is actually no evidence of any kind that links these five women by killer, and that there is very little evidence that suggests any murder after the murder of Annie Chapman was committed by the same individual.

Without the rhetoric, and the theorizing, and the explanations, there is no clearly defined series at all.

So Im trying to dispel the notion that by solving one crime you solve all of them, and that serial killers profiles would be of interest if only 2 Canonical murders could first be linked. Id love to see no more Cart before the Horse or Canonical Groups.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Almost anyone who has studied these crimes recognizes that there is actually no evidence of any kind that links these five women by killer...


In the immortal words of tennis great John McEnroe "you cannot be serious."

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello CD. Well, it cannot be reached automatically--as you say. A killer may be experiencing a bad night and may have lost control of his hand. He might also DELIBERATELY use less skill.

But the main idea is that, IF one engages in certain behaviours habitually, then such are performed routinely and mechanically, and should hence exhibit a certain sameness.

Many of us, I suppose, have unwrapped packages since we were wee ones. I always tear into the paper and leave it in shreds. My wife, on the other hand, always cuts neatly and ends by folding up the paper into a rectangle. So, holding all other variables constant, IF one saw a package that was entered by either myself or my wife, a quick glance would ascertain which.

And it seems to be the case that this is why Brown, Baxter and perhaps Phillips thought Kate was done by someone else--she was a hack and mangle job, unlike the skillful cuts shown before. These led some to believe that perhaps a surgeon or butcher were involved.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Have those packages ever fought back and did you open them while knowing that at any time you could be caught and hanged for doing so?

I don't see how there were enough murders to make the killer's methods anywhere near habitual.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Almost anyone who has studied these crimes recognizes that there is actually no evidence of any kind that links these five women by killer...


In the immortal words of tennis great John McEnroe "you cannot be serious."

c.d.

If you believe that there is hard evidence in existence that connects the Canonical Five to each other cd, then I now understand why you fight for Strides inclusion. But....amigo.... There isn't any. None. Zero. Nada. The fact a knife was used is hardly evidence all were killed by one man, and there is evidence that different knives were used. The fact all were killed within a small area isn't proof one man killed them, the East End was accessible to all of London, and therefore, many, many identified and unidentified criminals. And we are talking about the center of street crimes of that period....and the location of many criminals.

The fact that contemporary investigators believed the five were connected isn't evidence of anything but their opinions.

That's the crux cd. You may believe you see a pattern, so do many others, you may also believe that you see evidence that the same techniques were employed...but that isn't the case with all 5 is it? You may believe that the chances of other killers committing these acts is slim due to the nature of the crime, that would suggest that all other violent criminals known and those unknown in the area took a 2 1/2 month break while just one ran amok. You may believe that slitting throats is uncommon, when there are many people, men and women, who were killed in just that fashion during that LVP. Knives were abundant....evil people living in a ghetto were many.....and known criminals in that area at that time prove that there were more than one man willing to commit murder.

You may believe that the motives are consistent in each murder, that of a mad killers desires to kill strangers, but there is no evidence at all that we can use to be certain of why these women were murdered....OR whether these were murders of strangers at all.

So..to believe that the Canonical Group is a sound evidence based grouping is a fallacy...its an assumed series by an assumed unknown killer for assumed reasons. Guesses.

Maybe mere assumptions are enough for some, but they don't answer any questions definitively.

If we stick only to the realities..that 5 women were killed in Londons East End in the fall of 1888 which brought the unsolved attacks/murders for that district and year to over 10, then you have a true picture of what we have here. Unsolved murders without determined motives.

Cheers