Mary Kelly's men

[Abby Normal]

Always considered Chapman and Eddowes murders to have more in common than Chapman and Nichols personally

Bingo!

[Michael W Richards]

Well, I think the murders of Tabram, Stride and Eddowes, who were also killed in the streets, was equally reckless. As for the Torso crimes: firstly, dismemberment cases are much more common than mutilation cases; secondly, the Torso crimes occurred all over London, during a period of several years, in contrast to the Whitechapel murders which occurred within a small geographical area over a few months; thirdly, there is no proof that the torso victims were actually murdered.

Moreover, if you believe that Whitechapel was swarming with mutilators, why weren't there many more cases over a much longer period? And where's the precedent for such a proposition.

Tabram was stabbed, she was only stabbed, and it was by what seems to be 2 weapons. The Jack of mythology is a cutter, above all else. You cannot believe that all the violent crime in Whitechapel is committed by a single person during any period in time, 2 1/2 months or whatever..., first off because we know for a fact that killers and multiple killers lived within reach of that area at that time. We also know that terrorists were being openly discussed during the Parnell Commission and that it was being revealed that many distinctly evil people had goals which involved killing locals. One might imagine that many secrets were kept at that time, just look to the senior staff looking into these murders and you will find not Homicide specialists, but espionage and counter espionage personelle. Its conceievable that because of Abberlines work mitigating Fenian risks in that area he got the call for this investigation...not for his exemplary work finding civilian murderers.

A look at the Canonical Group from 10,000 feet reveals that some victims within that small group of Five are very questionable inclusions, its not a revelation by any means. And yet serial killer theorists are eager to include even more than Five in that tally because some modern research suggests that they might possibly change not only what they do but how they do it.

For me, understanding the nature of the various threats present in Whitechapel at that time, its inconceivable to imagine all activities save those of a serial maniac to cease for a prolonged period of time. I can imagine many more possible motives for the murders of Kate, Mary and Liz than just that of a lone assassin killing strangers, and I for one do not believe that a skill perceieved as that of a student or practicing surgeon, which was the profile in Septemeber anyway, diminishes to that not even of a butcher within that same short time.

[John G]

Tabram was stabbed, she was only stabbed, and it was by what seems to be 2 weapons. The Jack of mythology is a cutter, above all else. You cannot believe that all the violent crime in Whitechapel is committed by a single person during any period in time, 2 1/2 months or whatever..., first off because we know for a fact that killers and multiple killers lived within reach of that area at that time. We also know that terrorists were being openly discussed during the Parnell Commission and that it was being revealed that many distinctly evil people had goals which involved killing locals. One might imagine that many secrets were kept at that time, just look to the senior staff looking into these murders and you will find not Homicide specialists, but espionage and counter espionage personelle. Its conceievable that because of Abberlines work mitigating Fenian risks in that area he got the call for this investigation...not for his exemplary work finding civilian murderers.

A look at the Canonical Group from 10,000 feet reveals that some victims within that small group of Five are very questionable inclusions, its not a revelation by any means. And yet serial killer theorists are eager to include even more than Five in that tally because some modern research suggests that they might possibly change not only what they do but how they do it.

For me, understanding the nature of the various threats present in Whitechapel at that time, its inconceivable to imagine all activities save those of a serial maniac to cease for a prolonged period of time. I can imagine many more possible motives for the murders of Kate, Mary and Liz than just that of a lone assassin killing strangers, and I for one do not believe that a skill perceieved as that of a student or practicing surgeon, which was the profile in Septemeber anyway, diminishes to that not even of a butcher within that same short time.

Unfortunately, there is conflicting medical opinion as regards the degree of skill demonstrated by the perpetrator. For instance, Dr Phillips opined that Chapman's killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be able to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife." The Lancet, September 29, 1888, concurred:

"Certainly the murderer must have done his work quickly; and this, again, points to the improbability of anyone but an expert performing the mutilation described in so apparently skilful a manner."

Dr Brown also seemed to think that Eddowes killer demonstrated a significant amount of skill:

"He [Dr Brown] was inclined to think that he [the murderer] was a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose etc., were butchers' cuts"

And a modern day expert, consulted by Trevor Marriott, was also impressed by the degree of skill that was apparently demonstrated:

"To remove the kidney from its membrane, as documented, shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

However, in contrast, Dr Bond didn't think the killer of any of the victims even "possess the knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer"

And another of Trevor' experts, Dr Calder, concluded, "In my opinion I do not believe that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman was responsible for removing their organs at the crime scene Even for a highly skilled medical man given all the circumstances it would have been a daunting task." (Marriott, 2013).

And another modern expert, Dr Biggs, stated, "Personally I would discount any contemporaneous comments from observers deducting that specific injuries denote anatomical knowledge." Marriott, 2013).

[Pcdunn]

Presumptions?

OK, so if you think it was another murderer who killed Kelly, then we can forget about the others in this case. But what are the reasons to do so?

The extensive mutilations on Kelly can be explained by the fact that the killer was indoors. That is a better explanation than the idea of another killer, since there are similarities between the mutilations on Kelly and the others.

If someone postulates another killer, or more than another one, you get at totally different theory and can forget about a "Jack the Ripper".

Then one should also be so kind as to explain the choice of such presumptions.

Regards, Pierre

Hello, Pierre.

My question was not intended to be presumptive so much as to really inquire why we think along the same lines of a single killer for the murders on the street as for Kelly. Yes, the contemporary police believed they were all by the same hand, and I've always gone along with their viewpoint.

Lately, however, reading Casebook posts and articles, I've come to wonder if Kelly was indeed killed by the same person as all the others? Remember, her death comes at the end of the string of other horrible murders, all of which received great publicity in the newspapers. People reading these accounts reacted in peculiar ways.

Why couldn't Mary Kelly have had a former lover or acquaintance (Fleming, perhaps?) who had some grudge against her (we're told one of her men was abusive towards her), decided to teach her a final lesson, and imitated the "Ripper's" mutilations?

Yes, it is speculation, perhaps "out of the box" thinking, but why not?

My other question was about what information the police had that made them think the Ripper existed in one evil person? Were they also making presumptions, thinking within the box of their time and place, or did they have evidence (since lost to us) that proved it?

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Pierre.

My question was not intended to be presumptive so much as to really inquire why we think along the same lines of a single killer for the murders on the street as for Kelly. Yes, the contemporary police believed they were all by the same hand, and I've always gone along with their viewpoint.

Lately, however, reading Casebook posts and articles, I've come to wonder if Kelly was indeed killed by the same person as all the others? Remember, her death comes at the end of the string of other horrible murders, all of which received great publicity in the newspapers. People reading these accounts reacted in peculiar ways.

Why couldn't Mary Kelly have had a former lover or acquaintance (Fleming, perhaps?) who had some grudge against her (we're told one of her men was abusive towards her), decided to teach her a final lesson, and imitated the "Ripper's" mutilations?

Yes, it is speculation, perhaps "out of the box" thinking, but why not?

My other question was about what information the police had that made them think the Ripper existed in one evil person? Were they also making presumptions, thinking within the box of their time and place, or did they have evidence (since lost to us) that proved it?

Hi PCdunn
if someone was going to imitate the ripper murders, wouldn't they target her uterus? as with both previous victims?

and taking the heart? wouldn't that symbolic organ point to an ex lover?

besides, copy cat murders are the stuff of Hollywood movies. In the annals of crime there has never been a case of a copy cat murder where the killer tried to implicate (through imitation) another specific killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Unfortunately, there is conflicting medical opinion as regards the degree of skill demonstrated by the perpetrator. For instance, Dr Phillips opined that Chapman's killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be able to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife." The Lancet, September 29, 1888, concurred:

"Certainly the murderer must have done his work quickly; and this, again, points to the improbability of anyone but an expert performing the mutilation described in so apparently skilful a manner."

Dr Brown also seemed to think that Eddowes killer demonstrated a significant amount of skill:

"He [Dr Brown] was inclined to think that he [the murderer] was a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose etc., were butchers' cuts"

And a modern day expert, consulted by Trevor Marriott, was also impressed by the degree of skill that was apparently demonstrated:

"To remove the kidney from its membrane, as documented, shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

However, in contrast, Dr Bond didn't think the killer of any of the victims even "possess the knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer"

And another of Trevor' experts, Dr Calder, concluded, "In my opinion I do not believe that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman was responsible for removing their organs at the crime scene Even for a highly skilled medical man given all the circumstances it would have been a daunting task." (Marriott, 2013).

And another modern expert, Dr Biggs, stated, "Personally I would discount any contemporaneous comments from observers deducting that specific injuries denote anatomical knowledge." Marriott, 2013).

John,

I would think that first hand knowledge is preferable to interpreting second hand notes, so my nod goes to whomever was in the best position to view the victims wounds comparatively. Thats Dr Phillips. He personally saw 4 of Five Canonicals during the autopsies, and his comparison view of Kates wounds and Liz Strides wounds with the first 2 victims tells us that he did not see the same hand at work in the latter 2. He was, in my opinion, the best source for comparative analysis.

Bond saw one victim in death, and the wounds on that victim were neither skillfully done, or with any advanced knowledge of anatomy. Perhaps Bond, like many investigators, was guilty of grouping all five murders based on the premise that you, , many modern students and contemporary officials embrace....just how likely was it that multiple murderers were running loose simultaeneously.

Ill just say this John, to date not one victim within the Unsolved Murders File has been linked with another based on evidence that indicates a common killer. The only cases within the file that seem to make a strong argument for that premise, Polly then Annie, show us that they were both physically diminished, actively soliciting alone, with similar ages and physical characteristics, both had double cuts to the throat, which were followed with abdominal cuts. Annies wounds likely reflect a more private venue than in the streets...he likely had, and took more time, for pm work.

[Pierre]

Hello, Pierre.

My question was not intended to be presumptive so much as to really inquire why we think along the same lines of a single killer for the murders on the street as for Kelly. Yes, the contemporary police believed they were all by the same hand, and I've always gone along with their viewpoint.

Lately, however, reading Casebook posts and articles, I've come to wonder if Kelly was indeed killed by the same person as all the others? Remember, her death comes at the end of the string of other horrible murders, all of which received great publicity in the newspapers. People reading these accounts reacted in peculiar ways.

Why couldn't Mary Kelly have had a former lover or acquaintance (Fleming, perhaps?) who had some grudge against her (we're told one of her men was abusive towards her), decided to teach her a final lesson, and imitated the "Ripper's" mutilations?

Yes, it is speculation, perhaps "out of the box" thinking, but why not?

My other question was about what information the police had that made them think the Ripper existed in one evil person? Were they also making presumptions, thinking within the box of their time and place, or did they have evidence (since lost to us) that proved it?

Hi,

Yes, thinking out of the box is good. But how many times do we have to read about the similarities between the murders to understand that the similarities indicate one serial killer?

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Hi,

Yes, thinking out of the box is good. But how many times do we have to read about the similarities between the murders to understand that the similarities indicate one serial killer?

Regards, Pierre

Painting with broad strokes, Pierre. Its a matter of simply reviewing the physical evidence to see that some Canonical women were not killed in similar fashion to others. Since none are solved, it would be prudent to only group the murders with striking similarities and then review the circumstantial evidence seperately to see if there is potential linkage there.

Example.....when assessing Liz Strides and Kate Eddowes murders as compared with the first 2 which started the whole terror reign, not only are there substantial differences in the physical aspects there is also circumstantial evidence that may act as differentiators. We have victims themselves telling us what their circumstances were at the time they met their killer(s) in the case of Polly and Annie...they were actively soliciting when a stranger, we assume, took them up on their offers. That suggests a motive that is based in psychological mire.

In the other cases, a myriad of possible motivations exists because we dont have the evidence that answers what they were doing when they met their killer(s), a clear view of the circumstances, nor do we have similar repetitive MO or wound patterns.

I suggest that we can say with some comfort that Polly and Annie were killed because while soliciting they met someone who had intentions of murder and mutilating strangers. That killer killed because of defective grey matter.

Just because subsequent women were murdered horribly doesnt mean the reasons were the same.

[John G]

John,

I would think that first hand knowledge is preferable to interpreting second hand notes, so my nod goes to whomever was in the best position to view the victims wounds comparatively. Thats Dr Phillips. He personally saw 4 of Five Canonicals during the autopsies, and his comparison view of Kates wounds and Liz Strides wounds with the first 2 victims tells us that he did not see the same hand at work in the latter 2. He was, in my opinion, the best source for comparative analysis.

Bond saw one victim in death, and the wounds on that victim were neither skillfully done, or with any advanced knowledge of anatomy. Perhaps Bond, like many investigators, was guilty of grouping all five murders based on the premise that you, , many modern students and contemporary officials embrace....just how likely was it that multiple murderers were running loose simultaeneously.

Ill just say this John, to date not one victim within the Unsolved Murders File has been linked with another based on evidence that indicates a common killer. The only cases within the file that seem to make a strong argument for that premise, Polly then Annie, show us that they were both physically diminished, actively soliciting alone, with similar ages and physical characteristics, both had double cuts to the throat, which were followed with abdominal cuts. Annies wounds likely reflect a more private venue than in the streets...he likely had, and took more time, for pm work.

Michael,

Dr Calder, a modern consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that, in respect of both Champan and Eddowes, the killer could not have removed the pelvic organs- with the level of skill suggested by the reports- at the crime scene, i.e. when taking into account the likely time frame and poor lighting conditions.

This suggests to me that Chapman's killer did not exercise a particularly high level of skill, which is what Dr Bond concluded (and as I've noted before Dr Biggs, another modern day forensic pathologist, is of the same opinion. ) This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Chapman's, and Eddowes', intestines were removed, and even a butcher would realise that you don't need to remove the intestines to access the uterus. Frankly, I think you're attaching too much weight to the opinions of 19th C GPs.

When did Dr Phillips say that he didn't believe Nichols, Chapman's, Eddowes and Kelly's murders were not linked? Please cite source material.

Regarding the "parallel cuts." This was discussed at length some months ago, and Jon Guy made the observation that, whilst Nichols had double cuts to the throat, Dr Phillips stated that Chapman's cuts were on the spine. Therefore, any similarities may have been simply coincidental.

The fact that Nichols and Chapman may have been soliciting seems to me to be virtually irrelevant. Unless you have evidence that they were murdered by a mission-orientated killer we are not entitled to assume that their murderer would only attack prostitutes. And, even if they were, it would make little difference: Sutcliffe claimed to have heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes, but he was an opportunist who also attacked non-prostitutes and, in one case, a 14 year old schoolgirl who he assaulted down a quiet country lane.

[John G]

Painting with broad strokes, Pierre. Its a matter of simply reviewing the physical evidence to see that some Canonical women were not killed in similar fashion to others. Since none are solved, it would be prudent to only group the murders with striking similarities and then review the circumstantial evidence seperately to see if there is potential linkage there.

Example.....when assessing Liz Strides and Kate Eddowes murders as compared with the first 2 which started the whole terror reign, not only are there substantial differences in the physical aspects there is also circumstantial evidence that may act as differentiators. We have victims themselves telling us what their circumstances were at the time they met their killer(s) in the case of Polly and Annie...they were actively soliciting when a stranger, we assume, took them up on their offers. That suggests a motive that is based in psychological mire.

In the other cases, a myriad of possible motivations exists because we dont have the evidence that answers what they were doing when they met their killer(s), a clear view of the circumstances, nor do we have similar repetitive MO or wound patterns.

I suggest that we can say with some comfort that Polly and Annie were killed because while soliciting they met someone who had intentions of murder and mutilating strangers. That killer killed because of defective grey matter.

Just because subsequent women were murdered horribly doesnt mean the reasons were the same.

How do you know what the killer's motives were? He was never caught, let alone psychologically evaluated.

[John G]

Hi PCdunn
if someone was going to imitate the ripper murders, wouldn't they target her uterus? as with both previous victims?

and taking the heart? wouldn't that symbolic organ point to an ex lover?

besides, copy cat murders are the stuff of Hollywood movies. In the annals of crime there has never been a case of a copy cat murder where the killer tried to implicate (through imitation) another specific killer.

Hi Abby,

I agree. I think it highly unlikely that Kelly was murdered by someone who just fancied being Jack the Ripper for the day!

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

Dr Calder, a modern consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that, in respect of both Champan and Eddowes, the killer could not have removed the pelvic organs- with the level of skill suggested by the reports- at the crime scene, i.e. when taking into account the likely time frame and poor lighting conditions.

This suggests to me that Chapman's killer did not exercise a particularly high level of skill, which is what Dr Bond concluded (and as I've noted before Dr Biggs, another modern day forensic pathologist, is of the same opinion. ) This conclusion is also supported by the fact that Chapman's, and Eddowes', intestines were removed, and even a butcher would realise that you don't need to remove the intestines to access the uterus. Frankly, I think you're attaching too much weight to the opinions of 19th C GPs.

When did Dr Phillips say that he didn't believe Nichols, Chapman's, Eddowes and Kelly's murders were not linked? Please cite source material.

Regarding the "parallel cuts." This was discussed at length some months ago, and Jon Guy made the observation that, whilst Nichols had double cuts to the throat, Dr Phillips stated that Chapman's cuts were on the spine. Therefore, any similarities may have been simply coincidental.

The fact that Nichols and Chapman may have been soliciting seems to me to be virtually irrelevant. Unless you have evidence that they were murdered by a mission-orientated killer we are not entitled to assume that their murderer would only attack prostitutes. And, even if they were, it would make little difference: Sutcliffe claimed to have heard voices telling him to kill prostitutes, but he was an opportunist who also attacked non-prostitutes and, in one case, a 14 year old schoolgirl who he assaulted down a quiet country lane.

Modern physicians didnt see any Canonicals in death, they saw notes...like Bond did, so.... as I said, Ill defer to the contemporary physician who saw 4 of 5 in death. Phillips linked the first 2 by wounds, dismissed Stride outright and suggested Kates killer lacked skill and knowledge seen in the first 2. I said he saw 4, not 5.

Before you and others summarily dismiss the opinions rendered by distinguished contemporary men I would prefer to see evidence that their abilities to judge the wounds were impaired or suspect.

Frankly I could care less what data you want to use from modern serial killer investigations or posters on this site, because as I said, many many times...and its indisputable.....NOT ONE MURDER HAS BEEN LINKED TO ANOTHER BY KILLER WITHIN THE CANONICAL GROUP. Clearer?

[Michael W Richards]

How do you know what the killer's motives were? He was never caught, let alone psychologically evaluated.

Are you being serious or obtuse? Im gobsmacked when someone challenges madness as a likely motivator for those 2 deaths. If he killed strange women so he could open their abdomens....like the evidence reads...then psychological isues are the only reasonable conclusion for a motive. What they were,.... I dont care. Im not a psychiatrist and am not in this study to pretend I can analyse an unknown killer from 1888. If he wanted the uterus he took from Annie, if he wanted to cut Pollys abdomen...and that was the goal...as it seems it was....then most traditional murder motives are not applicable.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Abby,

I agree. I think it highly unlikely that Kelly was murdered by someone who just fancied being Jack the Ripper for the day!

Imitators imitate....since there are no imitations in the murders of Liz or Mary with Pollys or Annies murder, then "copycat" isnt an accurate conclusion.

Subverting a murder investigation may well be.

You look away when possible motives are discussed and seem content to imagine that anyone who drew blood with a knife was Jack. Ok. Thats your opinion. Seems pretty pedestrian for an investigator, but youre free to close your eyes whenever something challenges whatever bizarre scenario youve created for this.

A murderer who is skilled and knowledgeable and intent on cutting into women after throat cuts suddenly just cuts once, then he starts cutting faces and sections of colon sloppily,.taking clothing samples, ..then he decides to kill someone he knows while she is in bed and take her apart after that. Sure...same guy, no doubt.

[harry]

What is a copycat? The Ripper was one,seeing that he copied a previous crime,albeit with variations. Why he killed his first victim,is a different reason as to why he copied that murder.As the physical characteristics changed,so too did the mental ones. What does that mean?Bugger all if you ask me,as I haven't the faintest idea.Who has?