addendum
Hello (again) John. Bond saw only ONE of the victims--hardly enough to be authoritative.
Cheers.
LC
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The Canonical Five
Collapse
X
-
hands
Hello John. Thanks.
Yes, that was stated at the Stride inquest; and, yes, Baxter saw only one perpetrator. But the point was skill level.
Actually, as Howard Brown has pointed out (by posting a snippet), the medicos determined more than one hand as early as the first week in October.
The difference was between one who knew HOW to use a knife properly and one who did not.
Could expert opinion be wrong? Certainly. But IF we go that route, then we had better close up the inquest accounts and completely disregard them.
Cheers.
LC
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Rosella View PostThere are seriously disturbed individuals in any era though. Take the case of Fanny Adams, a child killed in the hop fields of Kent in August 1867. Her murderer, Frederick Baker, severed her legs and head, removed her eyes and threw them in a nearby river. Her torso was dismembered, especially her head and pelvis and her internal organs were slashed and mutilated and scattered. Quite obviously Baker's urge to kill and mutilate just surged up. He wasn't imitating anyone, he just wanted to mutilate and kill and it was probably the same with Johnnie Gill's murderer.
Leave a comment:
-
There are seriously disturbed individuals in any era though. Take the case of Fanny Adams, a child killed in the hop fields of Kent in August 1867. Her murderer, Frederick Baker, severed her legs and head, removed her eyes and threw them in a nearby river. Her torso was dismembered, especially her head and pelvis and her internal organs were slashed and mutilated and scattered. Quite obviously Baker's urge to kill and mutilate just surged up. He wasn't imitating anyone, he just wanted to mutilate and kill and it was probably the same with Johnnie Gill's murderer.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Ausgirl View PostDepends on how you define "multi-killer theorist", really.
I mean, Stride had her throat cut. So did a lot of women all over England at the time. Feasibly, a coincidence, and possibly a fortunate one for whoever killed her, if it wasn't JtR. Does thinking Stride was killed by somebody else make one a "multi-killer theorist"?
But essentially this is a good point, Harry, and one of the reasons I can't get too skeptical about the existence of "JtR" the serial killer.
As for copycats, there's whoever killed John Gill. Okay, a bad copycat.. but I think it could have been an example of somebody making a murder look "Ripper-like" to throw off the real cause of death, the real motive and suspicion. Could Kelly's killer have done the same? Idk, of course, but I like to think about it.
Of course, that's without considering the probability that two such disturbed individuals would emerge from the streets of the same tiny district, in the same year. (John Gill was murdered in Bradford, about 200 miles from London, and the signature was also different-his body was dismembered and dumped.)Last edited by John G; 04-21-2016, 11:19 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Harry D View PostFor the multi-killer theorists, I'd love to know why there wasn't another "copycat" killing until some eight months after the last victim. We have whoever killed Tabram, then Isenschmid takes care of Nichols & Chapman, Stride's dead, shortly followed by Eddowes, and someone else butchers Kelly. Where were all these savage murderers popping up from and why did they all seem to go on hiatus around the same time?
I mean, Stride had her throat cut. So did a lot of women all over England at the time. Feasibly, a coincidence, and possibly a fortunate one for whoever killed her, if it wasn't JtR. Does thinking Stride was killed by somebody else make one a "multi-killer theorist"?
But essentially this is a good point, Harry, and one of the reasons I can't get too skeptical about the existence of "JtR" the serial killer.
As for copycats, there's whoever killed John Gill. Okay, a bad copycat.. but I think it could have been an example of somebody making a murder look "Ripper-like" to throw off the real cause of death, the real motive and suspicion. Could Kelly's killer have done the same? Idk, of course, but I like to think about it.Last edited by Ausgirl; 04-21-2016, 05:00 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
For the multi-killer theorists, I'd love to know why there wasn't another "copycat" killing until some eight months after the last victim. We have whoever killed Tabram, then Isenschmid takes care of Nichols & Chapman, Stride's dead, shortly followed by Eddowes, and someone else butchers Kelly. Where were all these savage murderers popping up from and why did they all seem to go on hiatus around the same time?
Leave a comment:
-
With all due respect to the doctors and their opinions, due we really know how qualified they were to give such an opinion? Was wound analysis part of their basic medical school training? Did they take any special courses in wound analysis related to their police work? How many times previously had they been asked to give such an opinion in a high profile case? What considerations went into reaching their conclusions? Ultimately, their responses and their conclusions at the inquest were related to Baxter's ability to ask the right questions and draw them out. It is important to keep in mind that this was an inquest and not a trial. We have no way of knowing if their conclusions or their confidence in the accuracy of their conclusions could have stood up to a vigorous cross examination as might be conducted in a trial setting.
So I think the bottom line is that their opinions need to be given weight (how much so is up to each of us) but I think it should be quite obvious that their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt and not treated as the word of God and most certainly not as the final authority on the C5.
c.d.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John G View PostI would also point out that Dr Brown was of the opinion that Eddowes' killer was, or had been, a medical student, i.e. because he "undoubtedly had knowledge of human anatomy" : see The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins (1912) http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html
This hardly suggests someone less skilled, or knowledgeable, than Chapman's killer: Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the perpetrator in that case had "a certain amount of anatomical knowledge".
The emphasis is mine.
The simple fact is that with Kate, we have no idea exactly how long the killer had with her...much is merely assumed by Lawendes possible sighting. If Kate was not with Sailor Man then she could have been in that square for a half hour...which makes the sloppy navel tracing, cervical stump and the obviously accidental colon sectioning more questionable.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostThere are people who question the expertise of the contemporary physicians when determining whether skill or knowledge is present in the Canonical victims wounds. I would say that comments by any physician who did not see the wounds first hand should indeed be questioned.
We do have someone however who saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in death, and as such, he is THE most reliable source for comparative data in this regard. Phillips.
He saw the same hand in C1 and C2, he didn't see that in C3, and he didn't see the same level of skill or knowledge in C4.
When you have contemporary sources stating that there were 5 or more murders that they felt should be grouped under one killer, one must understand the position that these unsolved murders put the police in. The same police who were hated by the Whitechapel residents for the strong arm tactics of Bloody Sunday in '87.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by sdreid View PostCertainly not a canonical but I thought I'd mention the 125th anniversary of Carrie Brown's murder is this Sunday; the 24th. I think her murder is the last that is commonly connected to the Ripper Case.Last edited by John G; 04-21-2016, 02:21 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Certainly not a canonical but I thought I'd mention the 125th anniversary of Carrie Brown's murder is this Sunday; the 24th. I think her murder is the last that is commonly connected to the Ripper Case.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Michael W Richards View PostThere are people who question the expertise of the contemporary physicians when determining whether skill or knowledge is present in the Canonical victims wounds. I would say that comments by any physician who did not see the wounds first hand should indeed be questioned.
We do have someone however who saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in death, and as such, he is THE most reliable source for comparative data in this regard. Phillips.
He saw the same hand in C1 and C2, he didn't see that in C3, and he didn't see the same level of skill or knowledge in C4.
When you have contemporary sources stating that there were 5 or more murders that they felt should be grouped under one killer, one must understand the position that these unsolved murders put the police in. The same police who were hated by the Whitechapel residents for the strong arm tactics of Bloody Sunday in '87.
Leave a comment:
-
I would also point out that Dr Brown was of the opinion that Eddowes' killer was, or had been, a medical student, i.e. because he "undoubtedly had knowledge of human anatomy" : see The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins (1912) http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html
This hardly suggests someone less skilled, or knowledgeable, than Chapman's killer: Dr Phillips was of the opinion that the perpetrator in that case had "a certain amount of anatomical knowledge".
The emphasis is mine.Last edited by John G; 04-21-2016, 10:42 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Robert St Devil View PostJack the Ripper
"The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured. The bladder was healthy and uninjured...The other organs were healthy."
Thus, this hardly suggests the killer was employing a cut and slash method, as would be expected of, say, a slaughterman.
In fact, Dr Calder, a modern expert, noted: "To remove the uterus without adjacent damage is technically very difficult, even with a sweeping motion of the knife...."(Marriott, 2015).
And Philip Harrison, another expert, 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." (Marriott, 2015).
And yet, apparently, Eddowes killer achieved such an incredible feat with a Victorian knife, in appalling lighting conditions, and whilst under serious time pressure.
For completeness, a master butcher consulted by Trevor stated: "I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove the kidney". (Marriott, 2013).Last edited by John G; 04-21-2016, 08:40 AM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: