John Gill

[Monty]

Ally is quite right,

The fact remains that Eddowes ear was not sliced completely off. Whereas Gill unfortunately had both quite deliberately removed.

Sorry to cast doubt on your connecting evidence AP, but logically speaking Eddowes ear was not sliced off, and therefore not in the same manner as Gills.

Cheers
Monty

[silverstealth]

Ally is quite right,

The fact remains that Eddowes ear was not sliced completely off. Whereas Gill unfortunately had both quite deliberately removed.

Sorry to cast doubt on your connecting evidence AP, but logically speaking Eddowes ear was not sliced off, and therefore not in the same manner as Gills.

Cheers
Monty

Whilst both of Gill's ears were removed one of them was removed by slicing around the ear creating a cone effect behind allowing the ear to literally scooped out..

[Tom_Wescott]

It's rare I read something on Casebook that grosses me out, but...

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Silverstealth writes:

"Johns body was completely drained of blood and his chest cavity was noted to be so clean it was presumed it had been washed out."

This is intriguing - it brings to mind not the Rippers deeds, but another case altogether; that of the Black Dahlia.
She too had been drained of blood and washed, and she too had been dismembered, in her case cut in half, actually. And just like you suggest that John Gill had had his legs cut off to facilitate transportation, the same has been suggested in relation to Elizabeth Short´s having had her body cut straight off at the middle.

BUT - and this is an important but - in the Black Dahlia case, a logical reason could be presented for the washing of the body: it would erase any fingerprints. This, though, would not apply in John Gill´s case, since fingerprinting was not in active police force use.

So, was Gill´s killer just extremely cautious, or are we dealing with a ritualistic element or something along those lines? And, of course, it can also be asked if Short´s killer was NOT cautious - but ritualistic?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

BUT - and this is an important but - in the Black Dahlia case, a logical reason could be presented for the washing of the body: it would erase any fingerprints. This, though, would not apply in John Gill´s case, since fingerprinting was not in active police force use.

Interesting thoughts, Fisherman. And it gives one pause to think that if this behavior were taking place before fingerprinting were common, then maybe we're wrong in thinking that was the motive in the Black Dahlia case. Just because fingerprinting was common then, doesn't mean that's what motivated the killer. Sorry for the digression.

Could the body have been transported to the stable from elsewhere? Cleaning it would make sense if the killer planned to transport the body. Can't very well have blood leaking everywhere.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cap'n Jack]

Monty, let's just not make assumptions here, but stick to the facts as provided by Dr Brown when he examined the body:

'the lobe and auricle of the right ear was cut obliquely through.'

Now make of that what you will.

When the body was placed in the Golden Lane mortuary he commented:

'the clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing'.

[Cap'n Jack]

Regarding the paucity of blood in Gill's body, one does think of the Halal method of slaughter... the same as the Jewish method.

[Tom_Wescott]

I would love to see AP and Monty debate Eddowes, but there's probably a different, more suitable thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Tom W writes:

"Could the body have been transported to the stable from elsewhere? Cleaning it would make sense if the killer planned to transport the body. Can't very well have blood leaking everywhere."

I would have thought it proven that the body MUST have been transported, Tom, since the blood was not to be found at the manure pit. But it is obviously an unproven issue whether the boy was kept alive for some time inbetween his disappearance and the recovery of his remains. This, of course, would have had bearing on the question of leaking blood.
We know that Gill was not in place at the pit sometime earlier, as a policeman testified to having searched the very premises. Therefore, if he had been killed directly after his abduction, there would have been no practical need for the killer to fear for any leaking blood - it would have dried up. The only scenario where leakng blood would apply is a scenario where the boy is killed close in time to the tranport to the manure pit.
Cap´ n Jack offers an interesting addition with the Halal slaughter method, I think!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Sorry, haven't had a chance yet to read the most recent long posts. Will go back and do so. But I would imaging that the draining of the blood would throw off the doctor's estimate of when death occurred. But since the body was transported, I'd say the draining was just a matter of practicality and not some sort of ritual.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Monty, let's just not make assumptions here, but stick to the facts as provided by Dr Brown when he examined the body:

'the lobe and auricle of the right ear was cut obliquely through.'

Now make of that what you will.

When the body was placed in the Golden Lane mortuary he commented:

'the clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing'.

Yes AP, lets stick to facts.

Gills ears were cut in a completely different way to Eddowes.

If Eddowes ear was cut through and detached at the scene Brown would have reported this, as he did with the intestine. However he didnt, stating it was found to be detatched at the mortuary, indicating it came away either whilst the body was in transit or during the clothes removal at Golden Lane.

Whichever fact you look at, one of Eddowes ears were partially sliced through whereas both of Gills were sliced off. Two different methods.

The facts are there, two differing injuries.

[Cap'n Jack]

Tom is quite right, elsewhere is better.
However I will say that for my current purpose and argument the fact that Eddowe's ear was detached from her body and then later rediscovered at the mortuary serves me well and true.

[Fisherman]

Tom writes:

"I'd say the draining was just a matter of practicality"

Could well be, Tom - but it is the washing that interests me in particular.

The best,
Fisherman

[Marlowe]

Hi,

I don't know if this has been mentioned before or if it's even meaningful, but there was a Ripper letter dated November 8, 1888, which stated:

.....Now first of all I am going to settle 4 of Barratts girls at woodgreen next
month/ and then after I have done this I am going to slay 2 boys and 3 girls between 14 and 15 years of age.....

Letters From Hell, page 247.

There was another letter which mentioned the name Pearcey. In that letter he says his next victim lives in Frimley St. Mile End. (wouldn't that have been very near to where Lusk lived?)

Marlowe

[Ally]

I think that the ears are largely irrelevant. Whether the Eddowes ear was deliberately or accidentally sliced off, what is clear is that it wasn't an object of desire for her killer, unlike John Gill's killer. It was sliced obliquely meaning only part of it was cut, John's was removed around the circumference taking the entire ear. No correlation in my opinion.