Galloway and the Blotchy Faced Man

[perrymason]

It's a good analogy irrespective of that, Mike - at least in terms of pointing out what naughty boys might do if the circumstances were right. A naughty boy would not walk into a poorly-supervised sweetshop only to walk out with a single stick of gum... and Jack was decidedly a naughty boy. I can't imagine for one second that he'd have hesitated to "treat" himself, if confronted with an opportunity like Miller's Court.

Thats a fundamental difference with our approach Sam....because I dont think Jack the Ripper was after any kind of "treats", just the ones we can be safely sure of had his interest specifically..... based on the first, and perhaps only, killings he is responsible for.

Polly he cuts open, Annie he cuts open to take things from, within the region he opens,... someone kills Liz, Kate is cut open and treated much like the first 2 and organs were taken from where she was cut open...Mary is taken apart. After resisting her attackers knife with her left arm, and likely after he has scored her face beyond recognition.

Kate was also badly cut facially, but she was identifiable.

I do not embrace a philosophy that says anyone cut with a knife during that Fall was likely Jacks doing....because I see valid interpretations that suggest the motivations for the murders C3, C4 and C5 were not the same as the ones shown in C1 and C2.

You disregard the opinions of the medical experts who examined both those 2 women, thats your prerogative, .... but I must conclude based on what Ive read that his demonstrated and confirmed "talents" the medical experts saw on his first 2 victims were left outside the gates to Dutfield's Yard Club, and were nowhere to be seen in room 13. That makes me believe that lesser "talents" were also working that Fall, not that Jack had amnesia for victims 3 and 5. Martha may be an example of one of their victims.

3 Medical students were investigated based on the first 2 killings and the professional, medical opinions of the killers likely motives.....yet no-one saw anything resembling that kind of accumen in Liz's or Marys murder.

Bond is the only one that says categorically that the killer killed only those 5 women and that he had not even the skill of a butcher, slaughter houseman, ....certainly not a med student or professional. However, he inspected the wounds of only one victim to make that determination...the one that shows the least amount of knowledge or skill, the 5th....suggestive of a curious amateur modeling his behavior.

The drooling feeb slashing women open and basking in the blood and guts should have been a notion that was retired before the Great Wars, instead, it still has support from those who are looking for that kind of man despite the early opinions and evidence.

Im looking to try and figure out why the women may have been killed.....which to me is a far more important element in who killed them than the resulting cuts are.

Mary was probably killed by someone who hadnt explored the interiors and organs of a human before...hence the myriad of inexplicable, completely bizarre actions.

The Ripper cut open womens abdomens to take organs from within that region. Thats the evidence on murders 1 and 2. From that point on.....its just storytelling. Nothing links Liz or Mary to those motives.

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

You disregard the opinions of the medical experts who examined both those 2 women, thats your prerogative, .... but I must conclude based on what Ive read that his demonstrated and confirmed "talents" the medical experts saw on his first 2 victims were left outside the gates to Dutfield's Yard Club, and were nowhere to be seen in room 13.

Which "Medical Experts" voiced that particular opinion? And what has the "outside" of Dutfield's Yard got to do with anything?

However, he inspected the wounds of only one victim to make that determination...the one that shows the least amount of knowledge or skill, the 5th....suggestive of a curious amateur modeling his behavior.

What was NOT amateurish about the slicing through of the poop chutes of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes? (I could go on...)

Im looking to try and figure out why the women may have been killed.....which to me is a far more important element in who killed them than the resulting cuts are.

How are you going to do that, unless you use the evidence of the mutilations themselves?

Mary was probably killed by someone who hadnt explored the interiors and organs of a human before...hence the myriad of inexplicable, completely bizarre actions.

Slicing the tops off wombs, or severing colons, is somehow neither bizarre nor amateurish, then? (Again, I could go on...)

The Ripper cut open womens abdomens to take organs from within that region.

How easy is it to open a thorax in four minutes?

Thats the evidence on murders 1 and 2.

What about Eddowes?

Sorry about all the questions, but if you're clearly not prepared to ask them yourself, I thought I'd better do it for you.

[perrymason]

Which "Medical Experts" voiced that particular opinion?

You know that the evidence is in the first 2 Inquests. And in comments made by the parties afterwards. There is no mystery here Sam, the initial murders were met with professional supposition of surgical skill and knowledge of anatomy by the killer.

And what has the "outside" of Dutfield's Yard got to do with anything?

I said if it was Jack there, he left all that he showed us in kills 1 and 2 outside the gates. Nothing about Liz Strides murder is reminiscent of either victims 1 or 2.

What was NOT amateurish about the slicing through of the poop chutes of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes?

Conversely, what amateur could extract a kidney through the victims front in the dark? Or remove a uterus with a "clean sweep" of a knife. Im not 100% sold on Kates inclusion myself, so I could vacillate either way on this point with a good argument to study.

(I could go on...)......so could I Sam.

How are you going to do that, unless you use the evidence of the mutilations themselves?Slicing the tops off wombs, or severing colons, is somehow neither bizarre nor amateurish, then?

As I said, there are some elements of Kates murder that are suggestive of the same man that killed C1 and C2. there are also some that are not. And some suspect circumstantial evidence. The final outcome isnt the "Jack" barometer....at least it shouldnt be. Why they were killed is......and neither Mary or Liz was evidently killed for the reasons that Mary Ann and Annie were. Which were abdominal mutilations ideally leading to extraction of some of their abdominal organs.

Sorry about all the questions, but if you're clearly not prepared to ask them yourself, I thought I'd better do it for you.

And sorry for replying in a manner you detest ...but thats what you get when posting a bunch of questions to answer.

The real truth is that there was considerable attention paid to the level of talent...........based on the conditions, the results and the speed with which they happened. And the truth is that the Burke and Hare philosophizing at that early stage wasnt conjecture without merit.

So what happens to the man who wanted those objectives?.....according to you and some others, he starts just killing women, taking any organ even the hard to get ones, or slicing them up in pieces....cause the evidence in later "Canonical murders" says so.

Jack doesnt change after Annie, people just become lenient about the standards when attributing a death to Jack.....thats all.

Best regards Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

The real truth is that there was considerable attention paid to the level of talent.

That doesn't alter the validity, or otherwise, of the conclusions... or rather, the subsequent interpretation thereof.

So what happens to the man who wanted those objectives?.....according to you and some others, he starts just killing women, taking any organ even the hard to get ones

He didn't take particularly hard-to-get ones in the first three eviscerating murders. On the contrary, he (literally) went for the soft underbelly.

or slicing them up in pieces....cause the evidence in later "Canonical murders" says so.

What happened later in the series can have no bearing on what happened earlier. Each murder has to be taken on its own merits.

I didn't respond to your other points, because you responded within the quote. That makes it unnecessarily difficult to quote in response, which is a very good reason for my detesting that method

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

Subsequent iinterpretations.....are you referring to a review of autopsy notes by Bond, or do you have a reference that says the professionals who suggested the skill and talent later withdrew their remarks? I know of the first, and can fairly comfortably putting that with other remarks by the same source that contradicts his own opinion at times, as well as every opinion put on paper for the examinations of the women he did not examine, ..he believes his own opinions are superior, clearly, and thats not based on anything but arrogance, his creds do not put his opinions above those of many of the men he disparaged.... and I have no knowledge of any incident that could support the second.

Its clear to me that they were not setting up a premise.....as I suggest is being done with many of the facts when they are twisted or discarded...they saw skill and talent. In some cases, they emphasized those points.

And that man follows up Annie with a single throat slit? And makes a mess of room 13 and Mary without any motive for the murder in evidence, save the stolen heart....which then brings all the things done to her that didnt contribute to taking that heart even more pronounced.

In Annies case, cuts were made to kill, to open, and extract. It appears to me that in Marys case, cuts were made to self entertain, just out of curiosity, and in the case of the face wounds, out of anger.

I dont see a skilled and knowledgeable killer suddenly becoming a failure acting prematurely in Dutfields Yard, or a lost soul with a knife but without a compass or plan in room 13.

All the best as usual Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

In Annies case, cuts were made to kill, to open, and extract. It appears to me that in Marys case, cuts were made to self entertain, just out of curiosity

Mike - he extracted everything from her abdominal cavity, systematically cutting out organ after organ. Having done so, he cut through the diaphragm and pericardium in order to gain access to her heart - tearing away a handful of lung tissue, one presumes, in his desire to do so. That's not entertainment - on the contrary, if Kelly's isn't the mother of all "cutting and extracting" murders, I don't know what is!

[perrymason]

Mike - he extracted everything from her abdominal cavity, systematically cutting out organ after organ. Having done so, he cut through the diaphragm and pericardium in order to gain access to her heart - tearing away a handful of lung tissue, one presumes, in his desire to do so. That's not entertainment - on the contrary, if Kelly's isn't the mother of all "cutting and extracting" murders, I don't know what is!

Sam, so my context is clear, had the killer cut off her breasts, broken open her ribcage, then sliced out her heart...that would remind me of the facillitating mutilations that I see in the first few cases. As you say, instead he empties her organ by organ leaving them under her head, between her legs or at her feet.

Had Kates killer gone after her kidney with her being face down, that might suggest the same kind of objective oriented mindset as seen in killings one and two.

Had Liz's killer been in enough control of himself so as not to slice a womans throat with the sound of a cart and horse approaching, I might see something of the same commitment to objectives that is present in 1 and 2.

All we have is that he did all that he did in room 13, apparently, so he could take her heart. Place a breast under her head. Strip her thighs of tissue. Slash her face randomly.

I understand fully why Jack cut Annie and Pollys midsections open, he wanted to extract things from there.

I have no idea what type of progression the killer in room 13 imagines will help him get that heart best....I only know he needed no talent to do anything in there. Only the motivation and the guts......and the motivations can be both spontaneous and orchestrated. Temporary Insanity is what its called today in many cases. Nuts enough to kill and maybe still clean up afterward....or throw evidence away. Or plant evidence.

Or perhaps you believe that the heart was an afterthought.

In which case I would ask, then why did he kill her in the first place? Just for the jolly? Personally, at that point in time I cannot see Jack the Ripper becoming completely self indulgent, inept and unfocussed. He avoided getting caught until that point because he consciously avoiding getting caught. He was clever. Who knows how smart, but clever. There is no argument with weight that one could make to suggest otherwise. He knew he was being sought, and knew time was something that people who dont commit murders can be luxurious with.

He killed to act. He needed the act more than the murder. And he only killed so he could do what he wanted...and in C1 and C2, that was to put his hands inside a just murdered womans belly and take organs.

Thats actions to achieve objectives..... something impossible to see in the room 13 murder.

Best regards again mate.