Surgical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

This fun. I believe the verse to be a genuine article

I'm almost tempted to ask, on what grounds?, but its way off topic for this thread.

Regards, Jon S.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

What fun?

In fact, when he described his activities to the police, he indicated he had been selling animal heads and entrails at market. Of course, he was delusional.

Cheers.
LC

This fun. I believe the verse to be a genuine article

Eight little whores, with no hope of heaven,
Gladstone may save one, then there'll be seven.
Seven little whores beggin for a shilling,
One stays in Henage Court, then there's a killing.
Six little whores, glad to be alive,
One sidles up to Jack, then there are five.
Four and whore rhyme aright,
So do three and me,
I'll set the town alight
Ere there are two.
Two little whores, shivering with fright,
Seek a cosy doorway in the middle of the night.
Jack's knife flashes, then there's but one,
And the last one's the ripest for Jack's idea of fun.

Mr Holmes

[lynn cates]

for sale

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

What fun?

In fact, when he described his activities to the police, he indicated he had been selling animal heads and entrails at market. Of course, he was delusional.

Cheers.
LC

[Sherlock Holmes]

I actually meant a physical pattern. Cuts on the left mirroring cuts on the right, horizontal cuts between the two sets of vertical cuts. It's not random. It's a pattern. There's a reason he cut that way, whether he meant to or not. Nichols had like, 20 times more injuries than Chapman had, but her organs weren't taken. But they could have been at any time. He had successfully opened her up, so it wasn't for lack of time or access. So how does a killer get from a dozen abdominal wounds to one big one and removing an organ? It's not the obvious next step. But for him it was. So assuming he didn't kill anyone in between Nichols and Chapman, Nichols had to be a step towards taking a uterus. Maybe after killing her he realized he could get it. Maybe she was a dry run, a way to practice and find out what works and what doesn't. It could be a lot of things. But Nichols certainly wasn't less mutilated than anyone else. I just think figuring out why he cut her just that way, and not randomly, would answer some questions.

Interesting indeed a "dry run" as you put it would imply that these crimes were premeditated and not spur of the moment opportunistic crimes as I have seen suggested and i must confess once thought myself. Yes figuring out why he "did what he did" the way he did it would answer a lot of questions.

Mr Holmes

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

No, not a ritual. One cut to bleed; one cut to decapitate.

Cheers.
LC

Oh but why decapitate? he'd had his "fun"

Mr Holmes

[Errata]

What pattern? If you don't mind my asking

Mr Holmes

I actually meant a physical pattern. Cuts on the left mirroring cuts on the right, horizontal cuts between the two sets of vertical cuts. It's not random. It's a pattern. There's a reason he cut that way, whether he meant to or not. Nichols had like, 20 times more injuries than Chapman had, but her organs weren't taken. But they could have been at any time. He had successfully opened her up, so it wasn't for lack of time or access. So how does a killer get from a dozen abdominal wounds to one big one and removing an organ? It's not the obvious next step. But for him it was. So assuming he didn't kill anyone in between Nichols and Chapman, Nichols had to be a step towards taking a uterus. Maybe after killing her he realized he could get it. Maybe she was a dry run, a way to practice and find out what works and what doesn't. It could be a lot of things. But Nichols certainly wasn't less mutilated than anyone else. I just think figuring out why he cut her just that way, and not randomly, would answer some questions.

[lynn cates]

delusions, etc.

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"I'm agreeing that the usual theory 'no organs were removed, therefore the killer was interrupted' is an example of putting the cart before the horse."

Very well. It is indeed.

"Was there a dead body near every knackers-yard? or just the two closest to home perhaps?"

Very close to the murder sites, in fact.

"I think I agree, the horses would have been disemboweled at some point, but were they throttled first?"

Not at all. But when the ladies were throttled, I doubt the delusion was of an animal. Rather, it was of a wife who was perceived as thwarting the killer's object of getting a living.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

assumptions

Hello (yet again) Mike. Milk? In a Darjeeling? Blasphemy.

At any rate, I think you can see why I am on about assumptions.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

instinctive

Hello (again) Mike.

"One presumes Mr Holmes that the killer sought to be sure he had severed both major arteries in the neck because it facilitated a very fast death and a rapid bleed out of the body. Which makes organ extracting and handling far easier."

Precisely. And I believe that this was nearly instinctive at this point in the assailant's life.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

goal

Hello Mike. Thanks.

"If we assume that murder 1 and 2 were committed by the same person, which I do...and all of the Canonical believers also believe,..then either the killer acquired a taste for internal organs within 10 days, or the first kill wasnt representative of the killers ultimate goal."

One further assumption is required for this--you must assume that the killer had a goal.

I don't really make that assumption.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

a cut above

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

No, not a ritual. One cut to bleed; one cut to decapitate.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

As for the first part, this is true. But I wouldn't think it would be enough movement to look disemboweled. I mean, I assume one guy grabbed her arms, one her legs, and they just hoisted her into a cart, and got her out of it the same way. That would be compression movements on the area of interest. Not the kind of motion most likely to cause the organs to bloop out (yes, that is totally the medical term. Don't ask me how I know, it's not a fun story), but then again, if say, they dropped her at some point, that would totally do it.

Hi Errata

It depends on what the witnesses were meaning by the 'intestines protruding' phrase, perhaps it was only a minor bloop out?

[Sherlock Holmes]

One presumes Mr Holmes that the killer sought to be sure he had severed both major arteries in the neck because it facilitated a very fast death and a rapid bleed out of the body. Which makes organ extracting and handling far easier.

Cheers

About how quick do you think the bleed out would have been?

Mr Holmes

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

I take it you are agreeing about not knowing intentions.

No, sorry, not at all. I'm agreeing that the usual theory 'no organs were remove, therefore the killer was interrupted' is an example of putting the cart before the horse.

There was a Harrison and Barber near each of the first two murder sites. Horses were killed there. At some point, they were disemboweled.

Was there a dead body near every knackers-yard? or just the two closest to home perhaps?
I think I agree, the horses would have been disemboweled at some point, but were they throttled first ?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Errata.

"If we assume that the man who killed Nichols is the same as the man who killed Chapman, then I think we have to assume he used that pattern for a reason. Not necessarily a well thought out one, I don't think it was somehow a clue, or significant to the killer on some psychological level."

I think of it as the way he would normally cut up an animal. We do not normally think about how we pour tea from a pot to a cup, but we usually use the same hand to do it. Just routine.

Cheers.
LC

And if I came into your kitchen and found it empty,.... but with the kettle warm, a tea bag in the cup or pot, and some milk out on the table...I would assume that you intended to have tea but were interrupted for some reason.

You need not have the tea steeping to see that.

Cheers mate.