Lipski

[Darryl Kenyon]

To be fair to the physicians back then they didn't have the experience of serial killers as there is today. So any differences within the series of murders to them, might make them think different killers.

[John G]

It was Bagster Phillips John. The physician who saw Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate in person during the autopsies. He saw obvious differences with Liz Strides wounds, and differences in the wounds Kate had from those of the first 2 Canonicals. Ill see if I can find it while here at work, if not I have it at home on my pc. Ill get back to you.

Thanks Michael. I'm a little intrigued because Dr Phillips didn't testify at the Eddowes inquest. Nor was he present at Nichols autopsy-that was carried out by Dr Llewellyn.

[c.d.]

Again I would just emphasize that none of the doctors who gave an opinion were experts as we think of the term today nor were they hard pressed with respect to their opinions.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Perhaps someone can answer this -- was Phillips ever asked what could account for those differences other than a different killer?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

It was Bagster Phillips John. The physician who saw Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate in person during the autopsies. He saw obvious differences with Liz Strides wounds, and differences in the wounds Kate had from those of the first 2 Canonicals. Ill see if I can find it while here at work, if not I have it at home on my pc. Ill get back to you.

Who the heck is barrister Phillips John? I swear another name keeps popping up in ripperology every day?!?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Which physician said that Kate's wounds were different in character from Annie and Polly's? Can you cite a reference?

It was Bagster Phillips John. The physician who saw Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate in person during the autopsies. He saw obvious differences with Liz Strides wounds, and differences in the wounds Kate had from those of the first 2 Canonicals. Ill see if I can find it while here at work, if not I have it at home on my pc. Ill get back to you.

[John G]

First off a few things...the uterus wasn't removed carefully, we don't know a 6 inch knife was used, I have to think that the colon sectioning was accidental, as perhaps were the facial marks, the tracing of the navel seems awkward and unneccesary, and the physician who examined both Polly and Annie felt that Kates wounds were different in nature.

I havent excluded Kate as a possibility, I will concede there are sound points on both sides of that fence. But I don't see what I saw with the first 2...a preoccupation with abdominal mutilation...and I certainly don't see a clean uterus extraction, which is something he would have done at least once before in the dark.

Hello Michael,

Which physician said that Kate's wounds were different in character from Annie and Polly's? Can you cite a reference?

[Michael W Richards]

Why do you say there was a "seriously degraded level of knife skills and anatomical knowledge"? You might want to consider the fact that experts engaged by Trevor Marriott clearly considered that Eddowes' killer demonstrated an exceptional level of knife skills, and even Dr Brown thought her killer was probably a medical student.

Thus, in respect of Eddowes, Philip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, opined: "To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened levels of awareness and the prospect of being caught makes this even more difficult." (Marriott, 2013).

First off a few things...the uterus wasn't removed carefully, we don't know a 6 inch knife was used, I have to think that the colon sectioning was accidental, as perhaps were the facial marks, the tracing of the navel seems awkward and unneccesary, and the physician who examined both Polly and Annie felt that Kates wounds were different in nature.

I havent excluded Kate as a possibility, I will concede there are sound points on both sides of that fence. But I don't see what I saw with the first 2...a preoccupation with abdominal mutilation...and I certainly don't see a clean uterus extraction, which is something he would have done at least once before in the dark.

[The Good Michael]

Of course it's used both ways, because Americans are lazy and love to drop syllables and letters from English, even when it makes no sense.

There's only one person being a dick here, and it's the guy who shoved himself into the middle of a debate for a spat about grammar.

Americans are lazy... funny stuff. There was no debate about grammar, by the way. There was a berate however, and that rhymes, so you're partway there, Richard.

Mike

[John G]

If the miniature of the various crime scenes are considered important then surely Alice Mackenzie must be considered as a possible, if not probable, JtR murder. Thus, it has been argued that Nichols and Chapman must have been killed by the same hand because of the "ritualistic" element of the double throat/neck cuts. However, Mackenzie also suffered two stab wounds to the neck "which carried forward in the same skin wound."

And if there is a link to McKenzie, doesn't this perfectly illustrate how the ritualistic element of serial murder can evolve or become more elaborate across victims?

[c.d.]

As has always been the case, it simply boils down to what is more likely -- that there were multiple killers on the streets of Whitechapel at the same time who had a penchant for cutting women's throats and removing their internal organs or that it was a single killer who deviated somewhat in his M.O. for whatever reasons. It is a question that everyone need to decide for themselves. Personally I lean toward the latter explanation.

c.d.

[John G]

Of course, we can't completely rule out the possibility that two or more assailants were operating together: this might, for instance, explain the exceptionally rare sexual assault of Emma Smith and other anomalies in the various "Whitechapel" murders.

Although this would be unusual it certainly wouldn't be unprecedented: http://murderuk.com/serial_john_duff...d_mulcahy.html

It might also explain the various inconsistencies in respect of suspect descriptions.

[Abby Normal]

I'm glad you weren't working on the Yorkshire Ripper case. By your reductive logic, you would've thrown out of Jayne MacDonald, because she was a 16 year-old schoolgirl and not a prostitute in her late 20s-40s like the previous victims. And I'm sure you would've also dismissed his later attacks on Upadhya Bandara & Marguerite Walls because they involved a ligature. None of those victims would've had justice because the methodology and victimology wasn't exactly the same.

You have this deeply flawed perception that the serial killer must be some kind of MurderBot 5000 who's only programmed to kill under set conditions and cannot deviate from those mission parameters. Schlesinger & co's 2010 study on 'Ritual and Signature in Serial Sexual Homicide' found that offenders "...rarely engaged in exactly the same behavior at every murder. Most rituals were not identical, but they were behaviorally similar, thematically consistent, and, in about half the cases, they changed or evolved." This is perfectly congruent with four of the canonical five insomuch that the post-mortem mutilations became more elaborate and violent as the series developed.

Great post harry

[Harry D]

I use it the way you do, but it is used both ways. It is beyond the meaning of the individual words. Your pet peeve is asinine. Join the 21st century. Tell me I'm wrong again. I could care less... oops. Get out and travel the world and see what words people use. Or...sit on your sofa and remain pompous. Your choice. Just don't be a dick.

Mike

Of course it's used both ways, because Americans are lazy and love to drop syllables and letters from English, even when it makes no sense.

There's only one person being a dick here, and it's the guy who shoved himself into the middle of a debate for a spat about grammar.

[The Good Michael]

Wrong. If you could care less, that obviously means you care to some degree, when it's actually supposed to be expressing apathy. But hey, if you don't want to take this pompous Brit's word for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw

I use it the way you do, but it is used both ways. It is beyond the meaning of the individual words. Your pet peeve is asinine. Join the 21st century. Tell me I'm wrong again. I could care less... oops. Get out and travel the world and see what words people use. Or...sit on your sofa and remain pompous. Your choice. Just don't be a dick.

Mike