Ripper Victim?

[Ben]

I think it should also be borne in mind that we have no evidence that any of the organs were excised "intact and unharmed". The kidney could have been cut and poked considerably before it found it's way out of the corpse.

[Lozle]

Hello,

"I think it should also be borne in mind that we have no evidence that any of the organs were excised "intact and unharmed". The kidney could have been cut and poked considerably before it found it's way out of the corpse."

Ok, valid enough point, though wasn't the murder and mutilation of Annie indicating that the murderer knew where to go to locate and extract the organ(s) in a methodical manner. Doing what he wanted with ease and in a way which was least messy as possible for the murderer and the victim. He didn't rip her open and leaving a gaping hole reaching all across her body in all directions. The murderer went straight to where he needed to be to get what he wanted.

Martha's murder was not calculated or planned in any shape or form. I personally still hold the belief Martha's killing -whether by JTR or not- was motivated by rage. Not part of JTR's process.

All the best.

[Ben]

Ok, valid enough point, though wasn't the murder and mutilation of Annie indicating that the murderer knew where to go to locate and extract the organ(s) in a methodical manner

Not really, Lozle, since there was never any evidence that Chapman's killer targetted specific organs. Dr. Phillips, who was inclined to highlight the supposed medical knowledge evinced by the Chapman murder, was also of the opinion that Eddowes fell victim to a different killer. I can't see how it could possibly be argued that miminal "mess" was exacted upon the corpse of Annie Chapman, and the men that discovered the body would doubtless be the first to disagee! Similarly, if he "went straight to where he needed to be to get what he wanted" one has to wonder why he also severed the neck all the way down to the spinal column in an apparent failed attempt to sever the head, or what reason he had for deliberately targetted only a portion of the bladder.

whether by JTR or not- was motivated by rage. Not part of JTR's process

If Tabram was killed by JTR, then rage would be part of JTR's process, not that there wasn't an element of rage exhibited in some of the later murder, most notably Mary Kelly's.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lozle]

Hello again,

Nice to be having this debate with you again Ben =oP. Hope you are well.

If anger and rage was part of JTR's process then why is it not as noticeable in Polly, Annie, and Liz than what it is in Martha, to some extent Kate, and finally Mary Kelly? IF Martha was a Ripper victim, then why would JTR go to the extent of stabbing her numerous times and not the other women? There's an element of control somewhere for him to have the nerve to kill in public and extract organs. There is no control in stabbing someone over 30times.

All the best.

[Ben]

Hi Lozle,

All well here thanks! Hope you're doing well yourself.

I think we need to make allowances for the fact that most serial killers don't latch on to a "process" that they stick rigidly to. JTR could easily have harboured more rage in one attack than he did in subsequent murders. If anything, rage is more likely to be a by-product of frustration and inexperience, and a haphazard and unplanned attack is likely to have more of an appearance of explosive rage than later, more sophisticated attacks from the same offender. The "element of control" is far more likely to have been learned on the job than something he started out with.

All the best,
Ben

[Lozle]

Hi Ben,

"The "element of control" is far more likely to have been learned on the job than something he started out with."

Would that not imply he learned to contol himself from Martha to Polly and then go a bit nuts again on Annie? I understand, one day, he could've had a really bad week, gone out and unleashed Hell and all his anger on a woman. But holding this ideology implies this murderer was up and down all the time. However, throughout the murders of Polly, Annie, Liz and Kate there is a degree of contol. Martha's killer is holding nothing back. And if JTR killed Martha and the apparent interrelated 5canonical victims, I would imagine he would exert some of his knife skills from the beginning, regardless of circumstances.

All the best.

[Ben]

Hi Lozle,

Would that not imply he learned to contol himself from Martha to Polly and then go a bit nuts again on Annie?

The Chapman murder and mutilations were obviously more experimental than their immediate predecessor, but I wouldn't describe the former as any more "nuts" necessarily. As such, there is very little to indicate that he went up and down in terms of criminal sophistication. He continued to "improve" in that regard, whilst at the same time ehancing on his depravity as he progressed.

And if JTR killed Martha and the apparent interrelated 5canonical victims, I would imagine he would exert some of his knife skills from the beginning, regardless of circumstances.

But this presupposes that he had the knife skills to begin with, rather than acquiring them "on the job" of killing prostitutes. In terms if historical predecent, I can assure you that the "learning by doing" model crops up with far more frequency than the "has all the skills already and gets it right the first time" model.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lozle]

Hi Ben,

"Learning by doing"? He must've been a quick learner to go from a stabbing frenzy on Martha, to cool and calculated cutting Polly's throat and keeping it simply as that 3weeks later, to then a calculated killer and with slight irate emotions coming into the mix to inflict such wounds to Annie. Though, “learning by doing” would not explain Liz – if she was a Ripper victim. If Liz’s murderer was JTR, he regressed to the earlier stages of his methodology which he desired to progress from. And then in the case of Catherine, jump back to “upgrading” his methodology, and doing a bit of a number on her, then leading up to his great finale, Mary Kelly, who he made a complete mess of. To me, JTR seems to waver every now and then whilst intensifying his attack on the Unfortunates.

However, that’s off topic.

For me, IF Martha was a JTR victim, the protocol does not fit with JTR, even when considering the theory of evolving his methods to acquire the gratification he desires. If he is skilled in, and knowledgeable in the world of knives, I doubt he would have been able to resist such temptation to not exert those skills. And I (personally) highly doubt he was an amateur with a knife around recent times he began his rampage and just learnt as he went along.

I can see the murderer tweak his methods between Polly and Annie, however I do not see any indication of “tweaking” between Martha and Polly. The primary methodology is completely different; stabbing to slitting / slashing and cutting. Stabbing indicates suffering, slitting someone’s throat is to get the job done quickly and quietly so he can get on with what he wants to do. Also, less messy, allowing him to blend in to a crowd and not looking like he’s just walked away from a blood bath.

And admittedly, in later murders, on the odd occasion, one could claim that some form of emotion is inflicted onto the women (e.g. Annie, Catherine), but not to such an extent evident in Martha’s murder except in Mary Kelly’s case.

All the best. =o)

[Fisherman]

My own feeling, when discussing Mary Kelly as a parallel to Tabram and the frenzy, is that I do not think that we are looking at a frenzy in Kellys case at all. I see no reason at all to believe that her killer "lost it" the way it seems Tabrams assailant did.
We are dealing with cuts, as described by doctor Bond, and it can be argued that the killer more or less "sculpted" her final shape. The breasts were removed by thorough circular incisions, her leg was filleted etc.
I am not saying that the killer would have entered her room with a finished map of what he wanted to do. But I see no reason to believe in a rushed job. Though there may well have been deep feelings involved in his work, it never presented itself in the shape of a random, frenzied hacking away like what struck Tabram.
Therefore, I do not regard Kelly as linked to Tabram methodologically or psychologically in any other way than by that cut to the latters lower abdomen.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Ben I have to correct you on the point regarding skill and knowledge. Not only were both of those qualities suggested by the man who surveyed Annies wounds, they were also suggested with Pollys killer. In the strongest terms possible......one medical expert even suggests that Annies killer could not have learned what he did from being a butcher or slaughterhouseman, he suggests the man must have learned that in an operating room...even if postmortem surgery.

I dont claim that Jack was at Doctor or Surgeon level skill like they did, but I certainly wouldnt ignore the comments made by the physician that attended Annie. He extracted the uterus complete....with "a single swoop of the knife"...he extracted Kates kidney through her midsection from the front...in darkness....a doctor friend that we used to see here, Tutto, suggested that Kates extraction was by someone with both skill and knowledge.

What skill and knowledge bring to the table is what frightens people off believing the medical experts own words...those are not traits we are likely to see from a desperately poor uneducated man. But they are traits we would expect from someone who writes in "good schoolboy hand"......ok, Ill just push one button at a time....lol.

That he should have knowledge of where to look, where to cut, and what to move aside suggests more knowledge than 90% of the general public would have.

Its a fact Ben,. sorry to say that so strongly, but its a fact that the men who saw Polly and Annie saw skill...and knowledge...and said so.

None of which would be required to kill Martha, Liz or perhaps other supposed victims.

All the best folks.

[Ben]

Hi Lozle,

"Learning by doing"? He must've been a quick learner to go from a stabbing frenzy on Martha, to cool and calculated cutting Polly's throat and keeping it simply as that 3weeks later

I'm really not sure what it is that's convincing people that three weeks is somehow too short a time to increase criminal sophistication or change from slashing to stabbing, but I can assure anyone who wishes to advance such an idea in the future that it is most assuredly not true, and wholly unsupported by what shoud have been learned from other serial cases. A serial killer doesn't require five minutes to come up with the idea that slashing might afford him a bit more depraved satisfaction, let alone three weeks. Many, if not most serial killers' first attacks will appear relatively unplanned and haphazard, but in the majority of cases this will quickly develop into comparative criminal sophistication and control.

Try to put all those assumptions about anger and "irate emotion" on the back burner for now. What you're interpreting as anger might be nothing more noteworthy that the chaos engendered by inexperience.

If Liz’s murderer was JTR, he regressed to the earlier stages of his methodology which he desired to progress from.

Unless:

A) She was interrupted, or

B) She wasn't killed by the same person.

In either scenario, there would be no "jumping back" involved.

For me, IF Martha was a JTR victim, the protocol does not fit with JTR

But since I've taken the time to provide you with such compelling and, frankly, irrefutable evdience (including other serial killers from history) to the contrary, you've been given an excellent reason to revise your opinion about "JTR" and his alleged "protocol". Most of the talk you hear about Jack's "MO", technique or protocal is generally advanced by people with very limited knowledge of serial crime and their perpetors. Martha Tabram fits perfectly "when considering the theory of evolving his methods to acquire the gratification he desires" but I'm sure you have considered it - at least I'd hope so.

If he is skilled in, and knowledgeable in the world of knives, I doubt he would have been able to resist such temptation to not exert those skills.

Ah, but if he is NOT skilled or knowledgable in the word of knives, there is every reason for assuming that he learned those skills - albeit whatever he had of them - on the job of killing prostitiutes, which would once again tally with what we should have learned about serial killers.

And I (personally) highly doubt he was an amateur with a knife around recent times he began his rampage and just learnt as he went along.

And I personally don't think you've been given any good reason to harbour any such doubt, and would respectfully submit that if you read up on the topic of serial crime a bit more, you would be quickly disabused of such doubt.

The primary methodology is completely different; stabbing to slitting / slashing and cutting.

No it isn't, Lozle.

Simple as.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but when you consider the criminal diversity exhibited by the vast majority of known serial killers, stabbing to slashing is an irrefutably minor alteration. Consider the Zodiac killer who, despite being otherwise remarkably consistent in his method of shooting people in cars, decided to stab another victim to death. Serial killers are just as capable as consistency of diversity as they are of diversity. They're just not as robotic as popular perception (and possibly Hollywood) has led us to believe.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Not only were both of those qualities suggested by the man who surveyed Annies wounds, they were also suggested with Pollys killer.

There are two crucial problems though, Mike, as I see them:

1) The man who "surveyed Annie's wounds" stated that there were no "meaningless cuts", which couldn't possibly be true, because a throat cut that attempted to sever the spinal column clearly had nothing meaningful to do with excising specific organs. The same man also decided that Kate Eddowes was felled by a different hand, a position which practically everybody rejects.

2) The only observation made about Polly's killer is that he had some "rough " anotomical knowledge, which tells us what, exactly? I have some rough anatomical knowledge, and so does pretty much everyone else in the word, and most people don't have medical or anomtoical training.

So I'm really not sure what it is you're correcting me about.

He extracted the uterus complete....with "a single swoop of the knife"...he extracted Kates kidney through her midsection from the front

I don't know if that "single swoop of the knife" remark is verbatim, but I can assure you that such a statement is patently impossibel, unless of course the "swooper" was in possession of a knife-chainsaw combo. He also botched the bladder extraction, just as Kate's eviscerator heavily botched the uterus extraction. In the latter case, bear in mind that Brown was outnumbered effectively three to one when it came to the level of skill evinced by the mutilations. Drs. Phillips. Sequeria and Saunders detected little to no knowledge.

What skill and knowledge bring to the table is what frightens people off believing the medical experts own words

Not sure quite why it would have that effect, seeing as the preponderance of medical evidence suggested that the killer had little to no skill or knowledge.

those are not traits we are likely to see from a desperately poor uneducated man. But they are traits we would expect from someone who writes in "good schoolboy hand"......

I think you'll find a lot of semi-literate local men attended a school of some description and would have learned, consequently, how to write in a "good schoolboy hand".

That he should have knowledge of where to look, where to cut, and what to move aside suggests more knowledge than 90% of the general public would have.

But unfortunately, the weight of evidence strongly suggests that he did not have this degree of knowledge, and the argument that JTR had more amatomical knowledge than "90% of the general public" is generally unsupported by the preponderance of medical knowledge.

Its a fact Ben,. sorry to say that so strongly, but its a fact that the men who saw Polly and Annie saw skill...and knowledge...and said so.

It certainly isn't a fact in the case of Polly Nichols, Mike. Nobody detected any appreciable "skill".

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Ben -

This is an interesting discussion.

Can I ask you to what extent - if indeed at all - you think the possession of/lack of anatomical knowledge can be ascertained by the presumable fact that the killer was working in dark, wet conditions (the weather, I mean... ) under a number of pressures?

Do you think that the physical circumstances surrounding the mutilations were taken into account by those attributing various degrees of knowledge to the Ripper? In other words, might that have influenced their opinion?

Thanks!

Best regards

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

There are two crucial problems though, Mike, as I see them:

1) The man who "surveyed Annie's wounds" stated that there were no "meaningless cuts", which couldn't possibly be true, because a throat cut that attempted to sever the spinal column clearly had nothing meaningful to do with excising specific organs.

It may have had everything to do with effecting a rapid death, Ben, by cutting the throat as deeply and swiftly as possible. Let's not forget that Phillips' suggestion was just that - a suggestion; "it appeared that an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck" - it's quite possible that the two cuts were echoes of those inflicted on Polly Nichols a week earlier.

Had Llewellyn, rather than Phillips, examined Chapman's body - or had Nichols been "one of" Phillips's in the first place - the idea of Annie's attempted decapitation might not have arisen. Having said all that, if Phillips' suggestion of the attempted decapitation was correct, then the notched vertebrae are no longer "meaningless" anyway - they are meaningfully indicative of the killer's trying to remove the head.

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

The darkness and weather conditions may well have had an effect. What amazes me is when some people claim that the killer's apparent ability to work quickly in the dark points to medical knowledge" I'm not sure quite how that's supposed to work, considering that trained surgoens are accustomed to working in decent lighting conditions and at a cautious, methodical pace. I haven't heard anyone suggest as much for some time, but it crops up on occasions.

It may have had everything to do with effecting a rapid death, Ben, by cutting the throat as deeply and swiftly as possible.

Could well be, Gareth, which - again - would militate against an experienced assailant, since anyone trained in butchery or medicine would know that it isn't necessary to sever all the down to the spinal column to ensure death - they'd simply target the key areas. It would be analogous to the amateur astronout who presses all the buttons because one of them must be the lift-off button!

All the best,
Ben