Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Elamarna]

Steve,

I believe the skill assumed could be attributed to the methodology used to obtain was can be perceived as his objectives. In Annies case, no "meaningless" cuts. The target was assumed to be the item he took cleanly and efficiently. Is that the case with Kate? That he knew where to look is evident, but a butcher would know that. Again, medical grade knowledge and skills were sought out in September, and at no other time.

Michael,

I do not believe there were any targets myself, I believe he just took what he did, the kidney was taken by chance.


The reported variations in method and cut are due to differing interpretations of the medics.

One can also argue the different conditions during the attacks would lead to a degree of variation anyway.


I know many do not agree with any of that, however there is nothing to back EITHER view strongly in my opinion.



Of course if you are correct and the organs were specifically targeted, your argument is greatly strengthened.



With regards to the search: well if they had done a full search a few weeks before and found nothing, the idea of doing it again may have been rejected if there was no new evidence which could be used.


all the best



Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

I do not believe there were any targets myself, I believe he just took what he did, the kidney was taken by chance.


The reported variations in method and cut are due to differing interpretations of the medics.

One can also argue the different conditions during the attacks would lead to a degree of variation anyway.


I know many do not agree with any of that, however there is nothing to back EITHER view strongly in my opinion.



Of course if you are correct and the organs were specifically targeted, your argument is greatly strengthened.



With regards to the search: well if they had done a full search a few weeks before and found nothing, the idea of doing it again may have been rejected if there was no new evidence which could be used.


all the best



Steve

Hi Steve,

The first 2 murders were in this sequence...pose as client, unexpected and sudden subduing of target, deep double throat cuts, proceed to abdomen, if possible, remove abdominal organs.

Can we say that is a sequence that was adhered to from that point on? Liz of course should be exempt from this list to begin with, but when did he cuts Kates nose? Or the colon section? Why did he trace around the navel? What about the mutilations on her cheeks? When did he cut and tear the apron? And in what sequence or order did he mutilate Mary?

I think in the first 2 cases you could say that he knew what he wanted and knew how to access it. I agree with you that Kate may have been an accidental discovery, but in those first 2 cases...based on the assumption that since both murders were so similar,... the object the killer wanted were organs of regeneration.

[Fisherman]

I do not believe there were any targets myself, I believe he just took what he did, the kidney was taken by chance.

Steve

I disagree with that - being covered by a membrane, the kidney is not visible from the front. So either you just happen to cut the membrane away and think "By gully, there is something down there!" or you very deliberately decide on taking the kidney out, and you remove the membrane in order to enable you to achieve it.

Personally, I would go with the second interpretation, and I would make the guess that the Ripper was rather knowledgeable about the positions of the different organs in the abdominal cavity.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

The first 2 murders were in this sequence...pose as client, unexpected and sudden subduing of target, deep double throat cuts, proceed to abdomen, if possible, remove abdominal organs.

Michael, while that may be correct, there is no way of being sure of the first step you propose as being accurate. probably; but there are other options.

Can we say that is a sequence that was adhered to from that point on? Liz of course should be exempt from this list to begin with,

I personally have my own doubts about Liz; but not as strongly as you.

However there are arguments in favour and I am not fully convinced enough to exclude her.

but when did he cuts Kates nose? Or the colon section? Why did he trace around the navel? What about the mutilations on her cheeks? When did he cut and tear the apron?

We have no real idea to the answers to those questions of course; and remain unlikely to, unless of course we suddenly know her killer's ID, whom I gather you believe was different to the first two murders

And in what sequence or order did he mutilate Mary?

Same as above

I think in the first 2 cases you could say that he knew what he wanted and knew how to access it.

Michael obviously that is what you believe however at present it is just an educated guess, it is just unprovable at present.
Knowing his Id may give some idea of his/their (if more than one killer) motivation, maybe?

However we don't know that ID do we?

I agree with you that Kate may have been an accidental discovery, but in those first 2 cases...based on the assumption that since both murders were so similar,... the object the killer wanted were organs of regeneration.

I personally am unconvinced of that theory, although it is certainly not impossible.

Sorry if all of that sounds negative, however I am not saying any of what you propose is impossible, just that I am currently not convinced.

I find the ideas you have certainly intriguing.



Steve

[Elamarna]

I disagree with that - being covered by a membrane, the kidney is not visible from the front. So either you just happen to cut the membrane away and think "By gully, there is something down there!" or you very deliberately decide on taking the kidney out, and you remove the membrane in order to enable you to achieve it.

Personally, I would go with the second interpretation, and I would make the guess that the Ripper was rather knowledgeable about the positions of the different organs in the abdominal cavity.

Hi Fish,

yes he may have had some knowledge, but i am not convinced!
Guess it will depend on who the killer was, If it is the Torso man, then i agree, however as you know, i am far from convinced about the two being the same.

Maybe we will know one day.
Perhaps Pierre will surprise us all in a day or two.


Have a good Xmas


Steve

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

yes he may have had some knowledge, but i am not convinced!
Guess it will depend on who the killer was, If it is the Torso man, then i agree, however as you know, i am far from convinced about the two being the same.

Maybe we will know one day.
Perhaps Pierre will surprise us all in a day or two.


Have a good Xmas


Steve

He either had knowledge, or he happened to remove that kidney membrane as collateral damage. Just how reasonable is that?

I think the important factor is how he removed the kidney from the front, in conflict with how a surgeon would have done it. So he is no medical man, but he is well enough read up on anatomy to know where to find the kidney.

Make of that what you will.

PS. I have so far not seen any reason at all to care about what Pierre does or says. It has saved much valuable time.

Season´s greetings to you too, Steve!

[Elamarna]

I think the important factor is how he removed the kidney from the front, in conflict with how a surgeon would have done it. So he is no medical man, but he is well enough read up on anatomy to know where to find the kidney.

Fisherman,


We agree on the first point, and he may have had knowledge, all I am saying is that it is possible he did not.

If the killer of Kate is torso man, he certainly had knowledge of that I am convinced.


steve

[John G]

From Dr Brown:.."It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long".

On the skill:

"[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes."

Now compare that with the assumptions made about the skill of Annies killer based on the the fact that the police sought out info on doctors and medical students after Annies murder.

But this was only the opinion of the 19th GPs, none of whom were forensic experts. And, of course, their opinions differed anyway, particularly as regards the skill of the perpetrator.

The modern experts, engaged by Trevor Marriott are also somewhat divided , however, this is what Paul Harrison, who assisted Ian Calder, had to say about Eddowes:

"To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened level of awareness and prospect of being caught makes it even more difficult...only a person with an expert knowledge of anatomy would be able to remove the organs on the manner described and would find it difficult if not impossible in almost total darkness."(Marriott, 2013).

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,


We agree on the first point, and he may have had knowledge, all I am saying is that it is possible he did not.

steve

It´s a question of probabilities. If we find it just as likely that the removal of the membrane was a fluke cut, then we have a fifty/fifty distribution.

If we are reluctant to believe that a fluke is as likely as no fluke, the odds change.

I ascribe to that view myself, and I am therefore of the meaning that just as he MAY have had no prior knowledge of where to find the kidney, it is significantly more likely that he DID have such knowledge.

Anybody with a sound argument against that is welcome to disagree.

[Elamarna]

But this was only the opinion of the 19th GPs, none of whom were forensic experts. And, of course, their opinions differed anyway, particularly as regards the skill of the perpetrator.

The modern experts, engaged by Trevor Marriott are also somewhat divided , however, this is what Paul Harrison, who assisted Ian Calder, had to say about Eddowes:

"To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened level of awareness and prospect of being caught makes it even more difficult...only a person with an expert knowledge of anatomy would be able to remove the organs on the manner described and would find it difficult if not impossible in almost total darkness."(Marriott, 2013).

Good Points John

The thing Trevor did was to use more than a single expert, on this particular issue. That is something I always ask for.

Has you say there is some disagreement in their views, however what that says to me is what should be obvious to all that while all are experts they all have different degrees of skill, and what is difficult or impossible for one may not be for another person.

I see the same issues possibly at work in 1888 over the opinions of the medics.


Steve

[Qlder]

Cutbush gets dismissed too easily

Fisherman: "I think the important factor is how he removed the kidney from the front, in conflict with how a surgeon would have done it. So he is no medical man, but he is well enough read up on anatomy to know where to find the kidney."

I find it interesting that Cutbush is so easily dismissed by so many. The Sun (not the same as the modern Sun newspaper) articles of 1894 which inspired MM's notorious memo included the fact that Cutbush had in his possession an anatomical textbook. I think he remains a viable and interesting suspect.

I think Lechmere/Cross is also a viable and interesting suspect. Although, in thinking of the pair of them, it should be considered that Cutbush was known to be able to vault/swing himself over walls and high fences, so it is within the realms of the possible that Cutbush vaulted over a fence or wall to get out of sight just as Lechmere was coming along to discover the still bleeding victim, Nicholls.

[Joshua Rogan]

I don't know how much stock Phillips put into that theory, it seems more like it was Baxters idea to link the 2 based on a valid report that the previous year someone had approached a teaching facility to purchase organs.

True, but the police were duty bound to investigate it thoroughly.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman: "I think the important factor is how he removed the kidney from the front, in conflict with how a surgeon would have done it. So he is no medical man, but he is well enough read up on anatomy to know where to find the kidney."

I find it interesting that Cutbush is so easily dismissed by so many. The Sun (not the same as the modern Sun newspaper) articles of 1894 which inspired MM's notorious memo included the fact that Cutbush had in his possession an anatomical textbook. I think he remains a viable and interesting suspect.

I think Lechmere/Cross is also a viable and interesting suspect. Although, in thinking of the pair of them, it should be considered that Cutbush was known to be able to vault/swing himself over walls and high fences, so it is within the realms of the possible that Cutbush vaulted over a fence or wall to get out of sight just as Lechmere was coming along to discover the still bleeding victim, Nicholls.

It is possible that Cutbush vaulted over a fence as Lechmere arrived, that Druitt scuttled round the schoolhouse corner as Lechmere arrived, that Kosminski scaled the wall of said house and crept in through an open window as Lechmere arrived, that James Kelly crept down into the sewers as Lechmere arrived and that Jacob Issenschmid jumped down to the railroad tracks as Lechmere arrived. Many things are possible per se.
For example, it is possible to prove that Lechmere was found in Bucks Row with the freshy killed body of Polly Nichols. And it is possible to prove that to date, none of the other suggested killers have been placed anywhere near that murder scene.

So I keep asking myself why we must crowd the scene with so very, very many alternative killers who we do not know where they were, when we have a man who changed his name, who disagreed with the police about what was said and who fits the blood evidence? What is it that is so very, very wrong with Charles Lechmere?

Not that you are saying he´s the wrong guy - on the contrary. But you seem to prefer Cutbush nevertheless, which is a bit of a riddle to me. Anatomical interest or not.

I am tired, and I get grumpy when I am. Goodnight to you!

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;403866

It is possible that Cutbush vaulted over a fence as Lechmere arrived, that Druitt scuttled round the schoolhouse corner as Lechmere arrived, that Kosminski scaled the wall of said house and crept in through an open window as Lechmere arrived, that James Kelly crept down into the sewers as Lechmere arrived and that Jacob Issenschmid jumped down to the railroad tracks as Lechmere arrived.

Were all those people policemen? Or did you just forget the testimony of PC Mizen?

[c.d.]

"I think in the first 2 cases you could say that he knew what he wanted and knew how to access it. I agree with you that Kate may have been an accidental discovery, but in those first 2 cases...based on the assumption that since both murders were so similar,... the object the killer wanted were organs of regeneration."

Hello Michael,

I have never understood this argument at all. Are we to assume that a killer who would cut a woman's throat and remove her uterus would never even dream of taking out a kidney or a heart? That seems absurd to me.

It always reminds me of the old and somewhat crude joke:

A farmer is hauled into court and charged with bestiality. He seems a bit confused by the charge and so the judge attempts to explain it to him.

Judge: You know it would be a person having sex with say a horse.

Farmer: Uh-huh

Judge: Or a sheep.

Farmer: Uh-huh

Judge: Or you know, a duck.

Farmer: A duck? Ooh gross.

c.d.

(Apologies if anyone's sensitivities were offended here although considering the makeup of these boards I have my doubts that this is the case).