Kelly's Killer

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Perhaps such a suitor was also quite mentally ill. Perhaps, too, some other exacerbating factors?

Cheers.
LC

It's possible, though ( and maybe it's just where I live) I've seen any number of spectacular injuries and deaths simply due to some ex boyfriend or husband who believes that no one should get to play with his toys. Like, some of these guys aren't even angry. They just think that their possession is ruined now and they decide to get rid of it. Most guys aren't like that, most abusers aren't even like that. But every couple of years we get that one guy who slashes up his wife's face and then sets his kids on fire while still alive. Or ties up his ex and slowly pours acid on her face and pelvic region until she's unrecognizable. And that guy was a doctor, so he kept her alive to live with what he did to her. Intubated her and everything.

I mean, I know people are fond of the mentally ill theories, and that may be true. But we see it a couple of times a year. A guy does not have to be insane to do this stuff. He just has to want to do it more than he is afraid of doing it.

[lynn cates]

got it

Hello Errata. I think I see what you mean. Chilling.

But I wonder whether societal strictures against such behaviour in the LVP were not a trifle stronger than now? I mean that the "average" bloke were perhaps not that way.

As I write this I think of the many examples of violent assault in the LVP papers. OK, cancel my silly comments. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

". . . we can't be dealing with a lone serial killer because this kind of thinking has got us nowhere over 120+ years."

Haven't seen that one. This is far too strong, containing, as it does, the modal word.

I, however, would suggest for a few researchers to look in a new direction--try to find the needle in a different haystack, if you will. After all, our results could hardly be more dismal.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Well I did try to explain why, logically, we'd be less likely to get results if the Whitechapel victims were attacked by a stranger just for the hell of it, than if several killers each wanted a specific woman dead. Look in any direction you like - it is only my personal opinion that the results are unlikely to be any more fruitful.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

some day

Hello Caroline. OK. Give me another 125 years first?

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Lynn,

I would say the Chapman and Nichols mutilations were just as unskillful. He may have become proficient with the knife, but only insofar as he acquired that proficiency "on the job" of killing prostitutes.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

If you think about "canon" in other contexts, you will find that it does not always imply "same hand." (Eg, "canon of scripture.")
LC

Are you suggesting that Beréshit and John aren't from the same hand ?
Je me signe et j'éteins l'ordi.

[lynn cates]

B & B

Hello Ben. Thanks. I was thinking of Baxter and Bagster's take.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

canon

Hello David. The basic idea of a canon is to sort things into two groups--that which belongs, that which does not.

And keep crossing yourself. Ash Wednesday is just around the corner.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Are you suggesting that Beréshit and John aren't from the same hand ?
Je me signe et j'éteins l'ordi.

Centuries separate them so, what do you think.

Jon

[DVV]

Centuries separate them so, what do you think.

Jon

I think you should have understood I was just kidding, my dear.
Now these centuries that separate them could also explain how the same writer could shift from Hebrew to Greek at some point. Looks like he had plenty of time to learn foreign languages.

[DVV]

Hello David. The basic idea of a canon is to sort things into two groups--that which belongs, that which does not.

And keep crossing yourself. Ash Wednesday is just around the corner.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn, I'm not sure I can go ahead with that discussion with the three English words I possess, as fascinating is the topic.
It's not only about the basic idea of a canon, I believe. This basic idea is indeed what you said ("to sort things into two groups") but when applied to our field, we must also take into account its possible antonyms.
And between "canonical" and "apocryphal", you'll find embarrassing but most useful concepts such as "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" - that could well qualify some murders (from February 1888 to February 1891).

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'm suspicious that there was a componant of showmanship & a "challenge to society" in these murders, rather than any motive of revenge, or mania, and with Chapman he almost tipped his hand.
I'm not suggesting he was a doctor, but he was not some uneducated lunatic with a knife either.
Eddowes was scaled back in so far as apparent 'skill' was displayed, or he was just pushed for time, but his 'signature', to the medical profession, was the kidney.

Regards, Jon S.

Stride tells us he was instinctive and his desire to kill rendered his desire to escape of little consequence. In today's world that probably would place him somewhere near the lunatic category.

But, I suppose you have to factor in the value placed upon life in those times. Today, life is cheap in some countries with serious poverty issues. Perhaps in those days, a life at sea, for example, wasn't too far removed from a life in prison; and it follows thus any fully-functioning, non-lunatic, with a desire to kill, from the lower working classes, would have taken that risk. Although hanging is a different matter.

He certainly took huge risks, which would suggest to me that he had little to lose or he was a lunatic.

[lynn cates]

yes!

Hello David. I'm proud of you. Now you are singing my song.

Embarrassing? It is never embarrassing to make a well thought out distinction.

Proposals vis-a-vis the WCM?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello David. I'm proud of you. Now you are singing my song.

"I'm just so proud when I'm with you
The way you wear that cute hair-do
And when you blush I love that too
I'm just so proud of you"
(Eddie Cochran)

Embarrassing? It is never embarrassing to make a well thought out distinction.

Agreed - my bad choice of words. Just meant it may look a byzantine and endless discussion to some. Whereas, on this subject, I think it should just be the beginning.

Proposals vis-a-vis the WCM?

I'd say that "canonical" should qualify a period (from August to November) rather than a list of murders, although my opinion is that the man who killed the Macnaghten 5 also killed Millwood and Smith, and attacked Ada Wilson. Still in my opīnion, Coles is definitely out of the picture, while I don't know what to do with McKenzie.
As for Tabram, it's up to anyone to put her in late Antiquity or early Middle Ages - it was the same murderer anyway.
Which would give, to answer your question :

Milwood, Wilson, Smith : protocanonicals
Tabram : protocanonical or canonical
Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly : canonicals
McKenzie : deuterocanonical or apocryphal
Coles : apocryphal

From Byzantium
Canonize me when you can

[lynn cates]

Kelly

Hello David. Canonisation for you? Show me first your miracles. (heh-heh)

Not a bad listing. Of course, unfortunately, the canon was fixed by others and must, therefore, abide.

But you see Kelly as CORRECTLY in the canon and that is the idea of this thread.

So, until we meet again and the case is solved'.

Cheers.
LC