Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

5 Questions With : Lynn Cates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 5 Questions With : Lynn Cates

    Many thanks to Lynn for responding to the call of the Q !!!

    1. Prior to positing the theory that Jacob Isenschmid may have been the murderer of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, were you a believer in the lone killer, 5 victims and 5 victims only theory or perhaps even more than 5?

    2. What in your opinion is the likelihood of one man being responsible for the Stride, Eddowes, or Kelly murders ?

    3. Being married to a Ripperologist might be tough at times on the non-Ripperologist partner. As a married man and Ripperologist, is your wife pretty supportive of your interest in the Case ?

    4. Are there any other aspects of the Case that you intend to write about and get into print ?

    5. Which of the witnesses in the Case do you feel are the most reliable ?

    6. Any advice for fledgling Ripperologists ?


    ***************************************


    1. Yes indeed. My first interest in the case, if I recall properly, was after watching the Baker and Berman film where Ewen Solon gets crushed under the lift. Concerning the movie, my mum commented that, “That’s the way it was. After a murder, he disappeared without a trace.” She also had me to understand that he killed many women. I wondered what kind of man would do such a thing.

    In the 1970’s, there was an excellent “Reader’s Digest” article about the ripper. The author marveled how Jack could kill Kate when most of the people near her were police officers and vigilance people.

    Back then, the theory was that someone had contracted syphilis and was bent on revenge. Made sense to me.

    Soon I became a Dr. Cream supporter. I had a psychological need that someone would confess and say he was sorry for being a naughty boy. After all, did he not say, “I am Jack” when he was hanged?

    I followed the case for years without spending much time on the details. But it was always with the idea that there was only one killer. I recall watching an old “Night Stalker” episode where it was insisted that there were exactly five women killed. I began doing research and (you’ll love this one) became a D’Onston supporter (his psychology seemed right). I gave him up when I found out he had been shot in the leg. I then plumped for Druitt (again, I imagined a kind of personality that he had and which was needed to be the ripper).

    So, yes, a serial killer and taunting monomaniac were necessary ingredients for me at the time--only one man; only certain kinds of women, and of a definite number.

    2. Very unlikely, in my mind. Tom Wescott and Rob Clack’s idea of a club member or attendee killing Liz is rather attractive. And if I ever come to embrace the Schwartz story, I would say, look no further, BS man killed Liz.

    Any explanation of the Eddowes killing must begin with a plausible account of John’s prevarication in his two interviews and inquest testimony. It could be something as simple as a tryst on his or Kate’s part, but I simply must be satisfied about why he is fibbing before I can be comfortable with a solution.

    As for “MJK,” I am still trying to find out all the members of Sir Ed Jenkinson’s old spy ring. If and when I do, I think her case will become much clearer.

    Short version: I see three quite disparate murders here.

    3. My wife has little interest in the case, but she has been a good sport—even allowing herself a banged up knee playing Liz Stride.

    4. Well, of course I have a paper submitted on “Leather Apron” and another on Kate Eddowes’s “Final Hours.” I also plan, eventually, to say something quasi intelligent about Piotr Rachkovski and his Vasilliev story. Long term, I hope I can do justice to my notion that Best wrote the “Dear Boss” and “Saucy Jacky” whilst Bullen wrote the “Moab and Midian” missive.

    5. Well, apart from a mistake about a striking clock, I think Mrs. Long was most accurate. What she described is precisely what one would have expected, given my theory of Chapman’s death. If Isenschmid were really the party who killed Annie, his talking loudly with her, and being oblivious of his surroundings, time of day, etc, would have fitted his condition.

    Of course, it would be redundant to point out that her description seems to do justice to my lad.

    (Don’t mean to go off topic, but I think it was Jon Smyth or Cris Malone who tied the scratches on Annie’s neck to her nails as she tried to fight off her assailant. I daresay this poor, sick woman fought valiantly to live. Interestingly, when Isenschmid was pinched, the admitting officer at Grove Hall indicated he had a bruise on his forehead and a black eye.)

    6. If you are new to ripper studies, don’t become extravagant—especially where new theories are concerned. Stay with the C5 unless and until you find the pieces cannot fit. Take advise from those who have been around for a good while. Read the classics, as Sugden or Begg, and don’t forget Evans and Skinner’s “Ultimate Companion.” Subscribe to all the ripper journals; read and post on the boards. Above all, be respectful of all opinions—the one you harangue today might prove correct tomorrow.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

  • #2
    Yes I realize its a little off topic but I do find the reasoning that because Jack used a different MO in each murder that they must have been committed by different people somewhat odd.

    Statistically everything points to a lone serial killer.

    Having looked at the Hammersmith Nude Murders in some detail, I'd suggest that the Jack the Ripper murders are far more alike then the Stripper murders or even the Yorkshire Ripper murders for that matter.

    Serial killers simply don't kill like robots and they are very rare.

    More to the point I cant think of a serial killing sequence which proved to be several killers.. (Thats not to say there are not, I believe there was some thing like this once in Mexico City ie more than one opperating) But Serial killers per ce are fairly well documented and their crimes stick out like giant blips in any statistical comparison.

    Can anyone provide a documented example of a series of prostitutes killed that turned out to be murdered by different people?

    Yours Jeff

    Hi Lyn

    I'm rather busy on an edit so I hope you dont mind me quickly reposting the whole question as you have request here..

    As you might know I've been following the Hammersmith Nude murders closely over the last few years but have recent become increasing struck by major differences.

    To some extent I'm with you that the Jack the Ripper murders are notably different but I seem to be drawing a very different conclusion ie I've added to my kill tally as a result certainly adding Tabram and McKenzie but now also Emma Smith

    So the question above stands. I'm interested if you can provide answers

    Yours Jeff

    Comment


    • #3
      respondeo quod

      Hello Jeff. Thanks.

      “because Jack used a different MO in each murder that they must have been committed by different people somewhat odd.”

      Of course, that is NOT the claim.

      1. There is no, “Must have been”—rather, I began with a could have been.

      2. I see no difference in his MO in Polly and Annie’s cases—except that he actually removed the intestines and took an organ (cf. the difference in “blowing open a safe” and actually taking the contents.

      “Statistically everything points to a lone serial killer.”

      Yes, and some find great motivation in statistics; I do not. I recall one year in which there were two (admittedly rare) forecasts calling for 100% chance of rain. Both days were dry. Recall, also, a 0% chance (yes, again rare) in which rain fell in buckets.

      “Having looked at the Hammersmith Nude Murders in some detail, I'd suggest that the Jack the Ripper murders are far more alike then the Stripper murders or even the Yorkshire Ripper murders for that matter.”

      I daresay—with respect to the WHAT; perhaps, not the HOW.

      “Serial killers simply don't kill like robots and they are very rare.”

      I agree. But:

      “1. A serial killer was at work in Whitechapel, 1888."

      should be a conclusion. If it is used as a premise, one commits the fallacy of petitio principii.

      “More to the point I cant think of a serial killing sequence which proved to be several killers.. (Thats not to say there are not, I believe there was some thing like this once in Mexico City ie more than one operating) But Serial killers per se are fairly well documented and their crimes stick out like giant blips in any statistical comparison.”

      Vide supra.

      “Can anyone provide a documented example of a series of prostitutes killed that turned out to be murdered by different people?”

      Again, the assumption is made that all C5 were soliciting at TOD. Doubtless true of Polly and Annie. But I am sure you are au fait with the arguments involved with the other three.

      Thanks for the questions and a most pleasant and civilised exchange.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
        Hello Jeff. Thanks.

        “because Jack used a different MO in each murder that they must have been committed by different people somewhat odd.”

        Of course, that is NOT the claim.

        1. There is no, “Must have been”—rather, I began with a could have been.
        Yes but where you start with a 'Could have been possible' surely you need to be able to demonstrate where this has happened before. And it doesnt appear to be the norm.

        That said of course we do have a tight powder cegg of an environment. And we know Chapman is in the area, even if he's not a serial killer yet and that we also have torso's.. But as I say, the probability if we look at other srial killer cases is that Jack acts alone and is responsible for a large part of the statistical blip.

        Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
        2. I see no difference in his MO in Polly and Annie’s cases—except that he actually removed the intestines and took an organ (cf. the difference in “blowing open a safe” and actually taking the contents.
        I think your correct that these two murders are most alike. Both almost certainly attacked from the front. Theres a few minor differences. The time of day, Chapman possibly being later and then the escalation as you point out.

        Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
        Yes, and some find great motivation in statistics; I do not. I recall one year in which there were two (admittedly rare) forecasts calling for 100% chance of rain. Both days were dry. Recall, also, a 0% chance (yes, again rare) in which rain fell in buckets.]
        Lies and damn Statistics

        But seriously if your a business farmer do you plant on the most statistically probable days for rain or do you just guess? Lets face it theres no such thing as a poor book maker.

        Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
        “Having looked at the Hammersmith Nude Murders in some detail, I'd suggest that the Jack the Ripper murders are far more alike then the Stripper murders or even the Yorkshire Ripper murders for that matter.”

        I daresay—with respect to the WHAT; perhaps, not the HOW.

        “Serial killers simply don't kill like robots and they are very rare.”

        I agree. But:

        “1. A serial killer was at work in Whitechapel, 1888."

        should be a conclusion. If it is used as a premise, one commits the fallacy of petition principii.
        Yeah but if it walks like a duck, has feathers and goes quack, its probably a duck..

        We've established a serial killer is at large because of the Poly and Chapman murders. The odds of another serial killer coming along to murder Eddows and Kelly are pretty small even if you dismiss Stride as a domestic.

        Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
        “More to the point I cant think of a serial killing sequence which proved to be several killers.. (Thats not to say there are not, I believe there was some thing like this once in Mexico City ie more than one operating) But Serial killers per se are fairly well documented and their crimes stick out like giant blips in any statistical comparison.”

        Vide supra.
        Backing the outsiders again. Lets hope your doing the National..

        But seriously. The odds of two serial killers with almost identical MO in the same place and time? The odds are simply out there.

        Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
        “Can anyone provide a documented example of a series of prostitutes killed that turned out to be murdered by different people?”

        Again, the assumption is made that all C5 were soliciting at TOD. Doubtless true of Polly and Annie. But I am sure you are au fait with the arguments involved with the other three.

        Thanks for the questions and a most pleasant and civilised exchange.

        Cheers.
        LC
        I dont think theres any real doubt they were soliciting, its the most probable conclusion given what is known and their financial position. But I donbt think they were killed because they were prostitutes. They were killed because they were vonerable. Sutcliff mainly attacked prostitute but it was easy targets he was after

        Your welcome it is your thread after all

        Yours Jeff

        Comment


        • #5
          Good morning Lynn,

          We discussed your Isenschmidt Rip article on CB. I pointed out that you included in your article a newspaper report about Mrs. Fiddymont's crew, the sighting there in Spitalfields that morning was of following a man with a long neck. Or a very long neck. Something like that. We discussed this briefly, but I wonder, did you get a chance to go back over that? And if so, how do you reconcile it? Because it appears that was not him. It was someone else. Isenschmidt didn't have a long neck.

          Roy

          Comment


          • #6
            continued

            Hello Jeff. Thanks.

            “Yes but where you start with a 'Could have been possible' surely you need to be able to demonstrate where this has happened before. And it doesn’t appear to be the norm."

            In which case, the first element of ANY series is abrogated. That would not bode well for our system of integers.

            “That said of course we do have a tight powder keg of an environment. And we know Chapman is in the area, even if he's not a serial killer yet and that we also have torsos. But as I say, the probability if we look at other serial killer cases is that Jack acts alone and is responsible for a large part of the statistical blip."

            Well, it is not unreasonable that, caeteris paribus, there might be a serial killer working at location X. Of course, it is better established in the end, than assumed in the beginning.

            “I think you’re correct that these two murders are most alike. Both almost certainly attacked from the front. There are a few minor differences. The time of day, Chapman possibly being later and then the escalation as you point out.”

            I may quote you later on this. (heh-heh)

            “Lies and damn Statistics"

            Hmm, you read my mind.

            “But seriously if you’re a business farmer do you plant on the most statistically probable days for rain or do you just guess? Let’s face it there’s no such thing as a poor book maker.”

            Indeed. I would have used a gambling casino as example.

            “Yeah but if it walks like a duck, has feathers and goes quack, it’s probably a duck.”


            Or a witch? (heh-heh)

            “We've established a serial killer is at large because of the Polly and Chapman murders.”

            Actually, taking the strict definition, you are one killing short.

            “The odds of another serial killer coming along to murder Eddowes and Kelly are pretty small even if you dismiss Stride as a domestic.”

            Agreed. But I don’t think Kate had ANYTHING to do with “MJK.” And I most certainly do not posit a second serial killer—nor even a first.

            “But seriously. The odds of two serial killers with almost identical MO in the same place and time? The odds are simply out there.”

            Vide supra. Zero serial killers.

            “I don’t think there’s any real doubt they were soliciting, it’s the most probable conclusion given what is known and their financial position.”

            Forgive me, but I have grave doubts—especially about Kate fresh out of gaol.

            “But I don't think they were killed because they were prostitutes. They were killed because they were vulnerable. Sutcliff mainly attacked prostitutes but it was easy targets he was after.”

            Good!

            Again, thanks for an intelligent, well mannered response. We may disagree. No problem—especially when done in an agreeable way.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • #7
              Hi Lynn

              I just wanted to note how much I appreciated your answers to Howard's initial five questions as well as your useful replies to Jeff. You have been very forthcoming about your ideas on the case, as well as about your "in press" articles on different aspects of the case. I thought your advice to new Ripperologists to keep their options open was on the mark.

              Best regards

              Chris
              Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
              https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

              Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
              Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

              Comment


              • #8
                thanks

                Hello Chris. Thanks. You are most kind.

                Much appreciated.

                Cheers.
                LC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lynn Cates View Post
                  [LEFT][LEFT][FONT=&quot]
                  [LEFT][LEFT][FONT=&quot]Actually, taking the strict definition, you are one killing short.
                  Your splitting hairs here. Two women unconnected, found with deep throats to the neck and there stomachs cut open

                  This is not an every day happening by any means, I doubt you could find Five such murders on the streets of Whitchapel since then.

                  But we do know that there are other examples of Serial killers at work. They exist.

                  And dispite the Monty Python gag...evreything says we have a duck here. You don't need to be Agather Christie to figure this out. These are all very distinctive nastie crimes..

                  There is know conection between Nichols and Chapman except they were killed at random almost certainly by the same person in the STYLE of a serial killer... Eddows and Kelly are both unconected also killed in a bizarre manor similar to the other two.

                  We have a Serial killer at large

                  Yours Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    And then there's . . .

                    Hello Jeff. Thanks.

                    “You’re splitting hairs here. Two women unconnected, found with deep cuts to the neck and their stomachs cut open.”

                    Actually, I’m merely insisting on the correct definition.

                    “This is not an every day happening by any means, I doubt you could find five such murders on the streets of Whitechapel since then.”

                    I agree that it is not an everyday happening—thank God. And, yes, I certainly HOPE we find no more such examples, whether in Whitechapel or elsewhere.

                    “But we do know that there are other examples of serial killers at work. They exist.”

                    Yes, in the world’s history there have been serial killers. Sadly, there may be one at work somewhere even as we chat. Sadder still, there may be such tomorrow. But tell me, how do we get from:

                    1. Serial killers exist.

                    to

                    2. This group were serially killed?

                    In logic we call this a hasty generalisation.

                    “And despite the Monty Python gag...everything says we have a duck here.”

                    Don’t think so. Other birds have feathers too. And that was no quack, it was a honk.

                    “You don't need to be Agatha Christie to figure this out. These are all very distinctive nasty crimes.”

                    Indeed. So, since they were nasty, they were the work of one hand?

                    “There is no connection between Nichols and Chapman except they were killed at random almost certainly by the same person in the STYLE of a serial killer.”

                    Well, they were killed, And, I think, by the same hand. What is a serial killer’s style?

                    “Eddowes and Kelly are both unconnected, also killed in a bizarre manner similar to the other two.”

                    How similar? Actually, they DID have cut throats.

                    “We have a serial killer at large.”

                    Perhaps. But I seriously doubt it.

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What we are talking about here is crime linkage. This involves looking at multiple factors in the crimes to see similarities, for example in MO, approach, victimology, timing of attacks, location of attacks, signature and wounds. It would be possible to note the similarities in the C5 in all the above factors. For the time being, I will post a comparison of the wounds:

                      Body position:

                      All of the canonic victims, with the exception of Elizabeth Stride, were found on their backs, with the head turned to the side, the legs open, and bent at the knees. All of the victims except Eddowes had a hand across the torso. As the head of Scotland Yard’s Homicide Prevention Unit Laura Richards states, “The body has been displayed, intentionally, and left in that way for a purpose. He’s interested in people’s reaction, and the impact of what he’s done.”

                      Kelly: “left forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen”
                      Chapman: “left arm was placed across the left breast”
                      Stride: “The right arm was over the belly”

                      Kelly: “The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk and the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.”
                      Eddowes: “Right leg bent at the thigh and knee.”
                      Chapman: “The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards”

                      Disarrangement of clothes:

                      Most of the canonic victims, including Martha Tabram, were found with their clothes pulled up, exposing the abdomen and groin. This is a common feature of serial murder, as noted in Ressler et al, “Many victim’s bodies are left in what might be termed sexual disarray.” Martha Tabram, for example, was lying on her back in what PC. Barrett thought was a position for sexual intercourse, despite the fact that Dr. Killeen did not seem to think that intercourse had recently taken place. Note that in the case of both Martha Tabram and Kate Eddowes, the upper portion of the dress was torn away, apparently to expose the breasts.

                      Tabram: “The victim's clothes were thrown upwards, completely disarranged, and the bosom of the dress was torn away.” “The woman's clothes were thrown up so as to expose the lower part of the body”
                      Nichols: “The clothes were up to her groins.”
                      Chapman: “Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees.”
                      Eddowes: “Her clothes were thrown up.” “The upper part of the dress had been torn open.”
                      Kelly: “The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed.” “The legs were wide apart.”

                      Comparison of throat cuts:

                      All of the victims (with the possible exception of Mary Kelly) had their throats cut from left to right, and the resultant cause of death was severence of left cartoid artery. In the case of Kelly, her neck was so severely slashed that it was difficult to determine the direction of the throat cuts, but the cause of death was determined to be severence of right cartoid artery. Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman all had notches cut into in the vertibrae of the spine at the neck.

                      Kelly: her throat was cut “down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched”
                      Eddowes: “the knife marking intervertebral cartilages”
                      Chapman: “There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine”
                      Nichols: “That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae.”

                      Comparison of abdominal mutilation Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman:

                      In all cases, with the exception of Polly Nichols and Liz Stride, the abdomen was entirely “laid open,” the intestines removed and placed by the side of the body, and organs removed (sometimes taken, sometime not), with a focus on the cervix, kidneys, liver, & uturus. In the case of Mary Kelly, there were much more extensive mutilations (skin flaps removed, breasts removed etc). Note that different organs are taken from each victim: Kelly (heart), Eddowes (kidney), Chapman (uturus). In all three cases the uterus was removed from the abdomen.

                      Note: Nichols does not have the same extent of abdominal mutilation, although the abdomen is clearly targeted. Her wounds seem almost more stab-like in nature, which presents a similarity to Tabram. No organs were removed.

                      Kelly: “The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed”
                      Eddowes: “We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes”
                      Chapman: “The abdomen had been entirely laid open:”

                      Kelly: “the intestines by the right side”
                      Eddowes: “The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder”
                      Chapman: “the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse”

                      Kelly: “uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head” “heart absent.” “the liver between the feet”
                      Eddowes: “kidney carefully taken out and removed.” “uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.”
                      Chapman: “uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.”

                      Comparison of facial mutilation Kelly and Eddowes:

                      The facial mutilation began with Eddowes, and may be seen as an elaboration of the mutilations performed by the Ripper.

                      Kelly: “The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed.”
                      Eddowes: “The face was very much mutilated.” “tip of the nose was quite detached” Cuts to eyelids, nose, upper lip divided, flaps cut in both cheeks.

                      In summary, the overall picture is one of escalating mutilation. There are some differences clearly, but overall there is a lot of consistency. The throat wounds are very similar, and the abdominal mutilation is fairly consistent (in general signature and intent) - the sexual organs are targeted and largely the entire abdomen is fair game. Body positioning is consistent.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        reply

                        Hello Rob. Thanks.

                        “What we are talking about here is crime linkage. This involves looking at multiple factors in the crimes to see similarities, for example in MO, approach, victimology, timing of attacks, location of attacks, signature and wounds. It would be possible to note the similarities in the C5 in all the above factors."

                        Yes, all well noted.

                        “ For the time being, I will post a comparison of the wounds:

                        Body position:

                        All of the canonic victims, with the exception of Elizabeth Stride, were found on their backs, with the head turned to the side, the legs open, and bent at the knees. All of the victims except Eddowes had a hand across the torso.”

                        I agree. Short version—all were the same EXCEPT for those who differed. And, yes, if the killer/s needed to cut between the legs, I daresay they were open.

                        “As the head of Scotland Yard’s Homicide Prevention Unit Laura Richards states, “The body has been displayed, intentionally, and left in that way for a purpose. He’s interested in people’s reaction, and the impact of what he’s done.””

                        So then Stride and Eddowes were not displayed since, by your reckoning, they differed?

                        “Kelly: “left forearm flexed at a right angle and lying across the abdomen”
                        Chapman: “left arm was placed across the left breast”
                        Stride: “The right arm was over the belly”

                        Kelly: “The legs were wide apart, the left thigh at right angles to the trunk and the right forming an obtuse angle with the pubes.”
                        Eddowes: “Right leg bent at the thigh and knee.”
                        Chapman: “The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards””

                        You’ll forgive me if I observe that the dead must be in some position or other. If all 5 had, say, their hands clasped over their heads with fingers locked, I might be impressed. But in each example you give, there are differences. I could describe several sleepers as similar; ALL are supine, ALL, but one, are on their sides, ALL have eyes closed, ALL but two are snoring. But what are we to infer from that?

                        “Disarrangement of clothes:

                        Most of the canonic victims, including Martha Tabram, were found with their clothes pulled up, exposing the abdomen and groin. This is a common feature of serial murder, as noted in Ressler et al, “Many victim’s bodies are left in what might be termed sexual disarray.” Martha Tabram, for example, was lying on her back in what PC. Barrett thought was a position for sexual intercourse, despite the fact that Dr. Killeen did not seem to think that intercourse had recently taken place. Note that in the case of both Martha Tabram and Kate Eddowes, the upper portion of the dress was torn away, apparently to expose the breasts.

                        Tabram: “The victim's clothes were thrown upwards, completely disarranged, and the bosom of the dress was torn away.” “The woman's clothes were thrown up so as to expose the lower part of the body”
                        Nichols: “The clothes were up to her groins.”
                        Chapman: “Deceased's legs were drawn up, and the clothing was above the knees.”
                        Eddowes: “Her clothes were thrown up.” “The upper part of the dress had been torn open.”
                        Kelly: “The body was lying naked in the middle of the bed.” “The legs were wide apart.””

                        I am astonished that ANYONE who believes in the C5 would mention clothing. Yes, Polly and Annie BOTH had skirts lifted for mutilation. But look at the sketch of Kate (and her inventory at inquest). Her clothes were cut through. But I DO appreciate your honesty in not suppressing this major difference.

                        “Comparison of throat cuts:

                        All of the victims (with the possible exception of Mary Kelly) had their throats cut from left to right, and the resultant cause of death was severance of left carotid artery.'

                        And so it is quite likely that the killer/ was/were right handed. Are right handers still in the majority?
                        “In the case of Kelly, her neck was so severely slashed that it was difficult to determine the direction of the throat cuts, but the cause of death was determined to be severance of right carotid artery. Kelly, Eddowes and Chapman all had notches cut into in the vertebrae of the spine at the neck.”

                        You’re almost correct. First two were deep enough to notch the bone; Kate, deep enough to notch the cartilage.

                        “Kelly: her throat was cut “down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched”
                        Eddowes: “the knife marking intervertebral cartilages”
                        Chapman: “There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine”
                        Nichols: “That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae.”"

                        By the way, why did Polly and Annie have two distinct cuts; the others, not?

                        “Comparison of abdominal mutilation Kelly, Eddowes, Chapman:

                        In all cases, with the exception of Polly Nichols and Liz Stride, the abdomen was entirely “laid open,” the intestines removed and placed by the side of the body, and organs removed. . .”

                        Ah, those exceptions again.

                        “(sometimes taken, sometime not)”

                        Not impressive.

                        “with a focus on the cervix, kidneys, liver, & uterus. In the case of Mary Kelly, there were much more extensive mutilations (skin flaps removed, breasts removed etc)."

                        And intestines?

                        “ Note that different organs are taken from each victim: Kelly (heart), Eddowes (kidney), Chapman (uterus). In all three cases the uterus was removed from the abdomen.'

                        Well noted. Is this difference supposed to establish sameness?

                        “Note: Nichols does not have the same extent of abdominal mutilation, although the abdomen is clearly targeted. Her wounds seem almost more stab-like in nature, which presents a similarity to Tabram. No organs were removed.”

                        Indeed. Again, you are giving me a difference, not a similarity.

                        “Kelly: “The whole of the surface of the abdomen and thighs was removed”
                        Eddowes: “We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes”
                        Chapman: “The abdomen had been entirely laid open:”"

                        Yes, and the vast majority of surgeons open up body cavities before surgery.

                        “Kelly: “the intestines by the right side”
                        Eddowes: “The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder”
                        Chapman: “the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse”"

                        Would you forgive me if I were to observe that I have read what remains of the PM reports many dozens of times? In fact, it was in reading these reports that I became convinced that there were multiple hands involved.

                        “Kelly: “uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head” “heart absent.” “the liver between the feet”
                        Eddowes: “kidney carefully taken out and removed.” “uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.”
                        Chapman: “uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.”’

                        Again. I have read this MANY times.

                        “Comparison of facial mutilation Kelly and Eddowes:

                        The facial mutilation began with Eddowes, and may be seen as an elaboration of the mutilations performed by the Ripper.

                        Kelly: “The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed.”
                        Eddowes: “The face was very much mutilated.” “tip of the nose was quite detached” Cuts to eyelids, nose, upper lip divided, flaps cut in both cheeks.”

                        And this has a bearing on Polly and Annie—how?

                        “In summary, the overall picture is one of escalating mutilation.”

                        Except for Liz.

                        “There are some differences clearly”

                        Oh, quite clearly.

                        “but overall there is a lot of consistency.”

                        Especially, if Liz is not counted.

                        “The throat wounds are very similar,”

                        Yes, all are fairly deep.

                        “and the abdominal mutilation is fairly consistent (in general signature and intent)”

                        You’ll forgive me if I ask, How does one know another’s intent?

                        “the sexual organs are targeted”

                        Except for Liz. And Kate's kidney is NOT sexual.

                        “and largely the entire abdomen is fair game.”

                        Except Liz.

                        “Body positioning is consistent.”

                        Yes, ALL were lying down.

                        My summary. All were the same except where they differed.

                        Possible reply: Jack wasn’t a robot, was he? He didn’t have to act the same did he?

                        Answer, Of course not. But are not similarities both supposed and adduced to indicate sameness? Given major differences, “Jack” may well have poisoned some women.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Good morning Lynn,

                          We discussed your Isenschmid Rip 125 article on CaseBook. I pointed out that you included in your article a newspaper report (Star Sept 10) about Mrs. Fiddymont's crew, the sighting there in Spitalfields the morning of the Chapman murder. Joseph Taylor followed the man and said "His shoulders were very square and his neck rather long." We discussed this briefly, but I wonder, did you get a chance to go back over that? And if so, how do you reconcile it? Because it appears that was not him. It was someone else. Isenschmid didn't have a long neck.

                          Roy
                          Last edited by Roy Corduroy; February 20, 2013, 09:53 AM. Reason: neck rather long

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            profiling

                            Hello Roy. Thanks.

                            Yes, I have. Take a look at Isenschmid's photo (in profile) on his last committal to Colney Hatch.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lynn,

                              My position on this is quite simple.

                              1. I believe that there was interruption in the case of Stride... BEFORE the murder. By Schwartz. Th man attacking her knew he had to kill her (so she would not identify him), but he had also been seen (by Schwartz) so he could not hang around and mutilate. I also believe it is possible that the killer was interrupted in the Nichols murder.

                              2. This is apart from the fact that there was a general escalation in the degree of mutilation as the series progressed. Although to an extent, the degree of mutilation had probably more to do with the killer's level of feeling comfortable (in the sense of feeling that he will be safe, not interrupted). But escalation will account for some of the differences.. the facial mutilations in the later murders for example. This is also why we may see similarities in murders that are closer to each other... Tabram and Nichols for example.

                              3. I am looking at broad similarities between the murders. You point out that there are differences. Yes, well of course.. there are ALWAYS differences in every murder performed by a serial killer.

                              4. The similarities between Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly are scarcely deniable. That said, there are other factors that link Chapman and Nichols. The one stand-out, admittedly, is Stride. This one murder is different in several factors (timing, mutilation, approach) etc. I would argue that this was a crime of opportunity... it was more spontaneous than the others.

                              RH

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X