Lipski

[c.d.]

"Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement."

Hello Michael,

Doesn't it seem quite remarkable that in the Fall of 1888 two murderers appeared on the streets of Whitechapel both of whom killed prostitutes by cutting their throats except that one of them was quite precise in his cutting while the other was somewhat sloppy?

c.d.

[John G]

I would disagree with that John. I think when a cut is made by someone who has training in the manner in which cuts are to be made when performing surgery on human anatomy, not only the cut but also the evidence left by the tool used can be helpful when making a final determination.

Are we talking very sharp longish blade, or a pen knife? Are the incisions and... if present..., are the excisions done confidently or are the cuts ragged? Things like that.

Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement.

I am suggesting that the methodology used on Annie should be present in varying degrees in later kills. Some would agree citing the stomach flaps taken from Mary, but that specific action had been in print in large circulation shortly before the act in Room 13 took place, and therefore it cannot be ruled out as having perhaps inspired it.

Hello Michael,

Where does Dr Phillips say that Chapman's killer was a medical professional? On the other hand Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes' killer was probably a medical student.

And Trevor's experts were also impressed by the level of skill demonstrated by Eddowes' perpetrator. Thus, Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, concluded, "To remove the kidney from its membrane as documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

You say there was no "superfluous cutting" in respect of Chapman. Really? Phillip Harrison would certainly disagree with that statement: "There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus" (Marriott, 2013.)

I would also point out that Doctors involved in these cases were mainly Victorian GP, and not modern day forensic experts. Therefore, a degree of caution is required when considering their opinions. For instance, Dr Biggs, an expert forensic pathologist, pretty much ridiculed the idea that it was possible to determine the length of blade, or whether the perpetrator was left or right-handed: see Marriott, 2013.

By the way, can you cite a reference where any medical professional at the time stated they believed Chapman and Eddowes may have been killed by different people?

[Michael W Richards]

"Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement."

Hello Michael,

Doesn't it seem quite remarkable that in the Fall of 1888 two murderers appeared on the streets of Whitechapel both of whom killed prostitutes by cutting their throats except that one of them was quite precise in his cutting while the other was somewhat sloppy?

c.d.

For one cd, only Polly and Annie were soliciting at the time, ergo, they are the only 2 Canonicals on record who were acting as "prostitutes" at the time of their murders. If you have some information that the same evidence exists for the remaining 3 victims, by all means share it...because there is no such evidence known to anyone.....than perhaps you... at this moment in time. And with a district filled with violent men, and someone already making Torsos before that Fall, it would seem ridiculous to simply assume only one man could have cut women up. Have you seen the number of reports of women having men draw knives on them in 1888, or 1889? Read through the Old Bailey and youll get some information that is far better than assumptions.

[Harry D]

Hello Michael,

Doesn't it seem quite remarkable that in the Fall of 1888 two murderers appeared on the streets of Whitechapel both of whom killed prostitutes by cutting their throats except that one of them was quite precise in his cutting while the other was somewhat sloppy?

You either have one killer or killers working together.

But multiple killers with the same MO/sig operating independently in the same square mile in the same timeframe is beyond belief. Also, Michael suggests that Cate's injuries were a deliberate red herring to pin it on the Ripper, which is even more preposterous.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Where does Dr Phillips say that Chapman's killer was a medical professional? On the other hand Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes' killer was probably a medical student.

And Trevor's experts were also impressed by the level of skill demonstrated by Eddowes' perpetrator. Thus, Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, concluded, "To remove the kidney from its membrane as documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

You say there was no "superfluous cutting" in respect of Chapman. Really? Phillip Harrison would certainly disagree with that statement: "There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus" (Marriott, 2013.)

I would also point out that Doctors involved in these cases were mainly Victorian GP, and not modern day forensic experts. Therefore, a degree of caution is required when considering their opinions. For instance, Dr Biggs, an expert forensic pathologist, pretty much ridiculed the idea that it was possible to determine the length of blade, or whether the perpetrator was left or right-handed: see Marriott, 2013.

By the way, can you cite a reference where any medical professional at the time stated they believed Chapman and Eddowes may have been killed by different people?

I didn't say Phillips said Annies Killer was a medical professional John, and I really detest when posters inaccurately synopsize what is being said... I said that after Annies murder and based on Phillips statements....some of which I posted,...the authorities chose to look for medically trained suspects in September. They did not continue that pattern after the Double Event, because clearly those kills did not fit that profile. Instead, like so many of our treasured serial killer advocates do, they just assumed that the lesser skilled subsequent kills and mutilations were poorly executed but explainable....like Lizs killer was interrupted, Kates killer was in too dark an environment and was acting too hastily, or Marys killer took a long time taking her apart because he was indoors. They forget, or ignore, that Liz Strides murder shows no evidence at all of being interrupted, that the lack of skill evident on Kate might just be a lack of skills...which contrasts Annies killer,... or that Marys murder while in bed had nothing at all to do with a killer who killed and mutilated middle aged women while they actively solicited outdoors..

Whatever Trevors modern day experts believe they see in notes taken is of interest to them I'm sure, but as I said earlier, Phillips saw 4 Canonicals in the morgue...he inspected the wounds with his eyes and hands, not with his aptitude for interpreting more than century old doctors notes. He didn't see the skills with Liz, and when asked later if he thought Kate should be included in the list that contemporary investigators created for kills they wanted to attribute to a single maniac, he stated he didn't see that Kates wounds were the same as the earlier 2 women he examined.

Its simply the reality that matters to me, fictional ideas about why the subsequent murders didn't look anything like the first 2 are entertaining but hardly convincing.

[c.d.]

For one cd, only Polly and Annie were soliciting at the time, ergo, they are the only 2 Canonicals on record who were acting as "prostitutes" at the time of their murders. If you have some information that the same evidence exists for the remaining 3 victims, by all means share it...because there is no such evidence known to anyone.....than perhaps you... at this moment in time. And with a district filled with violent men, and someone already making Torsos before that Fall, it would seem ridiculous to simply assume only one man could have cut women up. Have you seen the number of reports of women having men draw knives on them in 1888, or 1889? Read through the Old Bailey and youll get some information that is far better than assumptions.

Hello Michael,

You still seem to be adhering to the idea that only women who we can be certain were actively soliciting at the time can be victims of the Ripper. But as it has been pointed out time and time again all of these women had some connection to prostitution and therefore we have no way of knowing what there response would be to a generous offer of money for sex at the time which makes the idea of ACTIVE solicitation moot.

Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, with respect to there being no apparent signs of interruption with respect to Liz, it all depends on when the interruption (regardless of what it was) took place. If it occurred right at the time of the murder and the killer got scared off there would be nothing to indicate that that it was what took place. It is not like the killer would leave a note to the effect that he meant to mutilate her but got scared off before he could do so. Being scared off is a very reasonable explanation of why Liz's killer might not have proceeded any further despite wanting to do so. It is a common everyday event that does not require the intervention of aliens or a violation of the laws of physics. It is a common, every day occurrence.

As for bad men being present in Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888, I think that is a very safe assumption. But the mere presence of bad men in a city does not mean that those same men are going to remove a woman's internal organs. That is what makes these murders unique and not common throughout history in every city on earth where bad men existed.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You either have one killer or killers working together.

But multiple killers with the same MO/sig operating independently in the same square mile in the same timeframe is beyond belief. Also, Michael suggests that Cate's injuries were a deliberate red herring to pin it on the Ripper, which is even more preposterous.

Polly and Annie were the same age, they were both less than 100% physically, they were both working as prostitutes at the time they met their killer, they were both subdued quietly and had their throats cut twice, almost to decapitation, then, after being laid flat on their back, their legs were spread and raised, raising the hemlines past the lower torso, and their privates and abdomens were mutilated.

How is it both Liz and Mary differ from that established pattern MO/sig and yet you still want to marry them with women who actually matched that pattern? Why people want to look for patterns then completely disregard them is a mystery to me.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi cd

You still seem to be adhering to the idea that only women who we can be certain were actively soliciting at the time can be victims of the Ripper. But as it has been pointed out time and time again all of these women had some connection to prostitution and therefore we have no way of knowing what there response would be to a generous offer of money for sex at the time which makes the idea of ACTIVE solicitation moot.

I can be certain that the 2 women who have been designated as Canonical Victims 1 and 2, therefore the first murders assumed to be by a single individual, are virtually identical in most every aspect of a Locate/Obtain/Subdue/Engage pattern. Victimology, Method of Accessing, Initial overpowering and Fatal cutting, focus on Abdominal mutilation...all essentially a match with those 2 victims. Then we have a woman cut once after being choked with her scarf, we have a woman who has numerous superfluous cuts and no abdominal focus, and then we have a woman at home in bed half the age of any other assumed Ripper murder, being taken apart. Unless you have some evidence that someone offered these other 3 women money for sex on the nights they were killed, then we are just guessing or speculating aren't we?

Again, as has been pointed out numerous times, with respect to there being no apparent signs of interruption with respect to Liz, it all depends on when the interruption (regardless of what it was) took place. If it occurred right at the time of the murder and the killer got scared off there would be nothing to indicate that that it was what took place. It is not like the killer would leave a note to the effect that he meant to mutilate her but got scared off before he could do so. Being scared off is a very reasonable explanation of why Liz's killer might not have proceeded any further despite wanting to do so. It is a common everyday event that does not require the intervention of aliens or a violation of the laws of physics. It is a common, every day occurrence.

Again, as has been pointed out to you over and over, the lack of evidence for such an event makes any claim it happened anyway pure speculation. I though we were past pure speculation here. There is not one single iota of evidence that Liz Strides killer had any intentions aside from cutting her throat.

As for bad men being present in Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888, I think that is a very safe assumption. But the mere presence of bad men in a city does not mean that those same men are going to remove a woman's internal organs. That is what makes these murders unique and not common throughout history in every city on earth where bad men existed.

Anyone who can use a knife can cut open bodies and anyone can reach in and grab something and cut it out. What makes these people different from the average person is some form of mental illness. Not all mental illness makes people go out and kill strangers, but some can make people unusually violent and cruel under certain circumstances. Like someone who blows up women and children to further a political agenda. cd.

[Harry D]

Polly and Annie were the same age, they were both less than 100% physically, they were both working as prostitutes at the time they met their killer, they were both subdued quietly and had their throats cut twice, almost to decapitation, then, after being laid flat on their back, their legs were spread and raised, raising the hemlines past the lower torso, and their privates and abdomens were mutilated.

How is it both Liz and Mary differ from that established pattern MO/sig and yet you still want to marry them with women who actually matched that pattern? Why people want to look for patterns then completely disregard them is a mystery to me.

We've been through this before, Michael. You live in this fantasy world where the killer must be locked into the exact same victim profile and method every single time. This isn't a movie, serial killers have been known to deviate from certain ritualistic behaviour, and in the Ripper's case he didn't so much deviate as escalate in violence. As for the victimology, most serial killers are opportunists who will seek out whatever vulnerable prey they can find. On the first two occasions it happened to be two middle-aged prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that he would eschew from killing a younger victim should be the circumstances avail themselves of one.

[c.d.]

On the first two occasions it happened to be two middle-aged prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that he would eschew from killing a younger victim should be the circumstances avail themselves of one.

Exactly. If there had been twenty victims all of whom were the same age and then one much older or younger then I might have doubts but here we are only dealing with five victims hardly enough to establish any sort of pattern let alone to say it is set in stone.

c.d.

[GUT]

Exactly. If there had been twenty victims all of whom were the same age and then one much older or younger then I might have doubts but here we are only dealing with five victims hardly enough to establish any sort of pattern let alone to say it is set in stone.

c.d.

And surely the same applies to the wounds inflicted.

[Michael W Richards]

We've been through this before, Michael. You live in this fantasy world where the killer must be locked into the exact same victim profile and method every single time. This isn't a movie, serial killers have been known to deviate from certain ritualistic behaviour, and in the Ripper's case he didn't so much deviate as escalate in violence. As for the victimology, most serial killers are opportunists who will seek out whatever vulnerable prey they can find. On the first two occasions it happened to be two middle-aged prostitutes, but that doesn't mean that he would eschew from killing a younger victim should be the circumstances avail themselves of one.

Harry,
This is really much simpler than its been made out to be....when we have the first 2 consecutive Unsolved murders assumed to be Jack the Rippers victims almost identical in every important aspect, why would we assume he changes after that murder? Because he was interrupted with Stride? There is no evidence that happened. The evidence suggests the murder was a completed act. Because Kate was mutilated after the throat cuts? Her mutilations were done by someone who had less skill, and clearly no focal point on her physiology. We also have evidence that she may have intended to give police a name of a local man for the unsolved killings...which if true,...the story she was going to the police I mean,...then that's a motive for murder. We then have a woman who was in her mid twenties, in her own room and bed, inside a tiny courtyard, being taken apart with clear evidence of anger exhibited. We also have the victims admission, again in story form, that she was in a love triangle. Again...possible motive for murder...if the party on the outside is dangerous. We have evidence that this man named Joe "mistreated' Mary in the past.

Remember, the contemporary "opinion" was that Five women were connected by killer, but the evidence available links zero of them with any killer.

My question to you and my naysayer following is this....on what grounds do we disregard evidence from the first 2 murders that suggests the same killer, the same methodology, the same Victimology and the same signature?

[Abby Normal]

Harry,
This is really much simpler than its been made out to be....when we have the first 2 consecutive Unsolved murders assumed to be Jack the Rippers victims almost identical in every important aspect, why would we assume he changes after that murder? Because he was interrupted with Stride? There is no evidence that happened. The evidence suggests the murder was a completed act. Because Kate was mutilated after the throat cuts? Her mutilations were done by someone who had less skill, and clearly no focal point on her physiology. We also have evidence that she may have intended to give police a name of a local man for the unsolved killings...which if true,...the story she was going to the police I mean,...then that's a motive for murder. We then have a woman who was in her mid twenties, in her own room and bed, inside a tiny courtyard, being taken apart with clear evidence of anger exhibited. We also have the victims admission, again in story form, that she was in a love triangle. Again...possible motive for murder...if the party on the outside is dangerous. We have evidence that this man named Joe "mistreated' Mary in the past.

Remember, the contemporary "opinion" was that Five women were connected by killer, but the evidence available links zero of them with any killer.

My question to you and my naysayer following is this....on what grounds do we disregard evidence from the first 2 murders that suggests the same killer, the same methodology, the same Victimology and the same signature?

I'm actually interested to know why you think Polly and Annie were the same man now but none of the others.Polly had no organs removed but both chapman and eddows had the uterus removed.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm actually interested to know why you think Polly and Annie were the same man now but none of the others.Polly had no organs removed but both chapman and eddows had the uterus removed.

Both were middle aged, both were compromised physically, both were actively soliciting, both were subdued quietly and had their throats cut twice, both were on their back with legs akimbo and clothing pulled up to expose abdomen as mutilations took place, both had the focus of the mutilations on their abdomens.

I am on the fence with Kate as Ive said before, but the lack of skill exhibited combined with the superfluous injuries and the possible murder motive make me hesitant to include her.

For me this isn't about matching exact organs taken, or whether the women were occasionally driven to solicitation for survival, its about the manner in which the victims were accessed and the step-by-step processes that followed.

[Abby Normal]

Both were middle aged, both were compromised physically, both were actively soliciting, both were subdued quietly and had their throats cut twice, both were on their back with legs akimbo and clothing pulled up to expose abdomen as mutilations took place, both had the focus of the mutilations on their abdomens.

I am on the fence with Kate as Ive said before, but the lack of skill exhibited combined with the superfluous injuries and the possible murder motive make me hesitant to include her.

For me this isn't about matching exact organs taken, or whether the women were occasionally driven to solicitation for survival, its about the manner in which the victims were accessed and the step-by-step processes that followed.

OK-thanks. I still think eddowes has more similarities to chapman than Polly does but whatever.