Different Killers

[lynn cates]

correlations

Hello Batman.

"Kelly, highest degree of confidence (had all the time he could want)"

Then why LEAST skillful of all?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

technique

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Then one technique would work better with one variety, and the other on the other?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

staked out

Hello Ausgirl. Thanks.

"How do we know a single killer's proficiency wasn't dulled now and then by alcohol or drugs (personally, I doubt this), particularly powerful delusions, uncontrollable psychopathic rage, or some other factor?"

Very well. But why one cut rather than the two parallel ones of before?

"As to what Eddowes was doing there, we don't know that either. It's easy to assume she was selling herself, having drunk all her money away on a bender."

Umm, thought she and John had NO money--as per his story?

"Perhaps she was just wandering by, who knows."

Wandering by Mitre sq? Wrong direction for lodging house and wrong for either casual ward.

"But she is very probably the woman seen by Lawende and co talking to a man."

Well the clothing matched.

"But I do think the killer knew the timing of the police beat very well, and used it to his advantage. I currently suspect the location was not random."

Staked out then? No problem. Of course, once we adopt THIS position, it will do no go to talk about what the killer realised AFTER beginning his work.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

hold on

Hello Harry. thanks.

"Didn't Nichols & Chapman both have their skirts pulled up by the killer, whereas Eddowes' dress had been torn open? That might explain why the cutting appeared 'less skilled' than the previous murders."

Indeed. But isn't this quite a difference already? And note the odd way in which the knife was held. Most unusual.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Batman.

"Kelly, highest degree of confidence (had all the time he could want)"

Then why LEAST skillful of all?

Cheers.
LC

JtR was forensically aware. The lack of prints and likely lack of blood on himself indicates this. Nobody has ever argued that the murders where done skillfully by someone with medical skill. What the argument actually is - is that within the random slashing there is evidence that this at times get replaced by actual aquired medical skill which usually means organ removal in a certain way indicating skill.

I'll side with the surgeon and ripperologist Nick Warren on this. The heart was removed from under the ribcage by severing the top of it. It wasn't cut through the ribs either. Odds are JtR is using an amputation knife also. This is because even the pathologist admit that if it was a butchers knife it had to have been ground down to look like an amputation knife (that itself is a good reason why its isn't Jack the Butcher but Jack the Ripper).

Bond's autopsy misses a lot and says little. It was Phillips who actually said the body had been dragged across the bed due to the way the blood pooled. Bond even described her as naked when she clearly has a chemise on.

IMO her right leg shows signs of a post-civil war amputation preparation reversed with thigh being stripped instead of the lower leg removed. It even looks like a trial circular incision was made around her calf too but not followed up on. I don't think its a stocking. Her other leg doesn't have one on. She has had a double mastectomy and a Hysterectomy, both of which suggest medical skill, but done in a way that I believe was to try and mask the skill which Phillips correcly identified with Chapman. Basically the forensically aware JtR was trying not to reveal his connection to medical skill somehow.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Batman.

"Kelly, highest degree of confidence (had all the time he could want)"

Then why LEAST skillful of all?

Cheers.
LC

Different killer to the one who killed some of the others !

[Harry D]

Different killer to the one who killed some of the others !

Or the killer didn't need to bring his A-game as he was in a private location and had all the time he needed to mutilate the body.

[John Wheat]

Or he was more inebriated than the other murders.

[c.d.]

The skill shown in extracting organs could very well be related to the intended use for those organs. If the use changed, skill (which required time) might no longer be necessary or desired.

c.d.

[Ausgirl]

Very well. But why one cut rather than the two parallel ones of before?

Perhaps he found one cut more efficient? Had a worsening mental condition? A sore knife arm? I've mentioned a lot here that changes to MO aren't a terrific way of excluding crimes from a series, because many such killers have been known to make changes like that. Particularly as they evolve or devolve as killers, but for other reasons as well. It;s not an uncommon thing to happen, at all.

Umm, thought she and John had NO money--as per his story?

Didn't she tell him she was going out to borrow money, though? I can only assume she got it, as she then went on what sounds like an epic bender.

Wandering by Mitre sq? Wrong direction for lodging house and wrong for either casual ward.

Okay. Then perhaps she was headed for the gentleman's club, hoping to make up for the money she drank away.

Well the clothing matched.

It did. And she was found a few minutes later, dead. Do you think it was somebody else?

Staked out then? No problem. Of course, once we adopt THIS position, it will do no go to talk about what the killer realised AFTER beginning his work.

Like what?

What I'm having trouble with here is this: I don't know how often Mitre Square was used by prostitutes a/ in general or b/ during the Ripper murders, when police were on high alert and less likely to overlook that trade.

But it seems to me, with all the the watchmen and policemen about, a poor place for it at that time. And -really- poor for a high-profile murder location, unless the location had a point to it. The killer had to be aware of Watkins' beat. It couldn't be by chance that he employed the exact minutes Watkins was gone. He had a lot to achieve, in that few minutes.

So I lean towards him watching that particular area closely for at least a short time. I can only guess as to why. Perhaps the graffito is a clue.

[c.d.]

"Very well. But why one cut rather than the two parallel ones of before?"

Hello Lynn,

The salient point is that the victim died by having her throat cut just like before. She was not bludgeoned to death by a baseball bat. One cut or two or two hundred they still ended up dead.

c.d.

[Ausgirl]

"Very well. But why one cut rather than the two parallel ones of before?"

Hello Lynn,

The salient point is that the victim died by having her throat cut just like before. She was not bludgeoned to death by a baseball bat. One cut or two or two hundred they still ended up dead.

c.d.

With respect, CD, it wouldn't matter whether he'd bludgeoned her; though I'd be curious about the change, I'd still be inclined to see it as a Ripper murder, due to lack of noise (with potential witnesses nearby), no signs of struggle, indicating a swift blitz attack. And the, you know.. ripping and all.

[c.d.]

Hello Ausgirl,

Yes, I agree. I was just trying to point out to Lynn that he was focusing on differences and therefore missing the essential elements which made the killings the same.

c.d.

[chrismasonic]

I have to doubt the accuracy of the documented police patrol times...I certainly do not believe someone is observing the officers and thinking to themselves ok, I have 17 minutes to do some ripping before that guy comes back...

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Then one technique would work better with one variety, and the other on the other?

Cheers.
LC

Not precisely.

Cutting below an inverted cervix is the same as cutting a regular cervix. The hard part is finding the point to cut at. In a regular cervix, it's lowest point of the tilt is at the top, so you find the ridge on the top of the vagina and cut straight through at that point. The cervix is incredibly difficult to cut, so you don't want to try to cut through the cervix. If the cervix is inverted, the lowest point would be at the bottom where it's tough to feel anything. Or technically it could be anywhere. So without an immediate marker as to where to cut, he is left with two choices. Cut well below the cervix, essentially taking most of the vaginal canal, or cut above. Which he did. Of course the tissue above the cervix is thicker and ropier, so it's tougher to cut. Likely it was ragged. But cutting below would no doubt have severed the colon. Now he did cut it, but he didn't cut through it which would have been inevitable cutting through the vaginal canal. So from his point of view that would have been the right call.

But doctor's know about anatomical variations. Someone with medical training would have known about that, if for no other reason than it can affect childbirth, one of the first things doctors and medics learn how to do. Someone with butcher like training wouldn't be relying on anatomical markers at all, because the ones in animals don't translate. So this would not indicate formal education. More like someone who learned through doing. Which would mean that whoever killed Eddowes had done this before somewhere. This would not be the process of a first timer. But someone experienced needs no process.

Not to mention that if someone has a Plan and goes in and something is different therefor the Plan is flawed, they tend to freak out a little. Sort of fall apart. It feels like flying blind. All serial killers are compulsive, so a variation could really shake one up.

Assuming of course she had some anatomical variation. Statistically one of the c5 did. That doesn't mean one of them actually did.