The Canonical Five

[John G]

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.

Thanks for this Stan. I agree about Brown, however, I wouldn't completely rule out Austin as a victim.

[John G]

There 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.

Where does Dr Phillips expressly say that there was less skill apparent in the Eddowes murder than Chapman's? Where does he say they were not by the same hand? Where does he say that there was less skill apparent in the Eddowes murder than in Nichols? Where does he say they were not by the same hand? When did Dr Phillips examine Nichols' body? Assuming he didn't, how could he comment authoritatively on whether her murderer exhibited more skill and knowledge than Eddowes' murderer?

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Actually Phillips said that he believed that anatomical knowledge was present based on Chapmans wounds and was perhaps compromised due to haste, and that he could not have done the mutilations in less than 1/2 hour. He also saw Kate and thought that her killer didn't have any particular skill or knowledge...which is substantiated by even a laymans review of the wounds and the collateral damage he caused when doing certain actions.

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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Harry D]

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?

[Ausgirl]

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?

Depends 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.

[John G]

Depends 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.

The destruction wrought on Kelly's body is arguably unprecedented in British criminological history. Therefore, whomever murdered her was clearly a seriously disturbed individual, as was JtR. I therefore think it pretty much untenable that anyone would inflict such injuries just for purposes of misdirection.

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.)

[Rosella]

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.

[John G]

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.

Yes there are. However, they don't all emerge from the same tiny district within the same few months. And they certainly don't copy each other's signature. It's worth pointing out that murder itself was hitherto uncommon in Whitechapel, i.e. no murders in the previous two years. As was throat cutting: only one other example, outside the C5, on 1888 for instance.

[lynn cates]

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

[lynn cates]

addendum

Hello (again) John. Bond saw only ONE of the victims--hardly enough to be authoritative.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skill vs knowledge

Hello (yet again) John.

"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"

This hardly suggests someone less skilled, or knowledgeable, than Chapman's killer"

Let's not conflate "skill" with "knowledge." One may know every nuance of anatomy but still be unable to make a clean cut. Conversely, an expert knifesman may know NOTHING about anatomy.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

point

Hello Harry.

"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?"

This question would have import if these killers were serialists or merely killing for sport. But I assume there was a point to their killings. If so, your question is moot.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

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

Hello Lynn,

But that's just the problem:the medical reports on Eddowes do not suggest a perpetrator lacking in skill; quite the reverse in fact. As Paul Harrison points out: "To remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2015), the emphasis is mine.

He added:

"The uterus was also removed without damaging any underlying tissue. This is also very difficult especially as the report says that the sigmoid colon was invaginated into the rectum very tightly."

And let's not forget, the perpetrator achieved all of this with a Victorian knife, in poor lighting conditions, and under serious time pressure. Therefore, if the reports are to be relied upon, a cut and slash method was clearly not employed. In fact, the perpetrator may well have been an experienced surgeon.

However, apparently, Chapman was eviscerated by someone demonstrating an even greater level of skill! Nonetheless, as I noted in my earlier post, Paul Harrison expressed the view that to "remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible." Marriott, 2015).However, as Dr Phillips seems to suggest that this exactly what happened this obviously raises serious questions about his credibility.

And, as I also noted, Dr Brown seemed to believe Eddowes' perpetrator was a medical student, so if Chapman's perpetrator actually did exhibited much greater skill then we must surely be looking at an experienced surgeon at the very least.

Of course, all of this presupposes the medical reports can be relied upon.

Finally, Dr Phillips' comments at the McKenzie inquest clearly implies that, by this time at least, he believed all of the "Whitechapel murders" to be linked, whatever his provisional assessment may have been.

[John G]

Hello Harry.

"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?"

This question would have import if these killers were serialists or merely killing for sport. But I assume there was a point to their killings. If so, your question is moot.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

What is also moot is that all of these murderous individuals apparently emerged from the same tiny district, and in the same year.