Three cases of interruption?

[Monty]

Monty writes:

"To me that sounds like he took time to cover her up. Hardly the act to do if you have been interuppted."

If he was NOT interrupted, Monty, why did he not go through with procuring organs? I don´t think that he would settle for just opening her up. And the covering up - if it was there - could amount to simply throwing the side of her coat up over her wounds, in order not to have them seen at first glance.

Then again, no effort was made to cover the throat wound, and she was left in a position that caused Cross/Lechmere and Paul to rearrange her clothing in a more decent fashion, so I am everything but convinced that there were any real efforts on behalf of the killer to conceal his deed.

The best, Monty!
Fisherman

Fisherman,

Youre assuming the organs were the intention, I assume this is based on the subsequent murders as no organs had been obtained in any of the previous, yes?

In order not to have them seen (Nichols wounds) at first glance? Erm, why? He wasnt too fussy at Chapmans scene, or Eddowes.

He didnt leave Nichols abdomen exposed, an odd act which is out of step with those he did mutilate, Chapman, Nichols and Kelly.

And, just for the record, I too believe Nichols murderer was interrupted. Im just not certain he was after an organ.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Just a side note, David; have you read Tom Wescott´s dissertation "Old wounds" on these boards? It is an examination of how Nichols wounds would have appeared and how they would have come about, and it has helped me form my opinion why the Ripper was NOT finished with Nichols as he left her lying in Bucks Row.

The best, David!
Fisherman

PS. Just seen your last post, and my suggestion of Wescotts text works admirably as an answer to it!
PPS. I can´t see him bent on organ-procuring, only to give up the idea due to hesitation, David. I f you are ready to kill to achieve it, and put your own life on the line for it, I don´t think he would have come up with the idea "Oh, well - perhaps some other time" unless he was disturbed/interrupted.

[DVV]

I see the opening up of the stomach as a means instead of as a goal.

I agree with that, Fish.
But it doesn't necessarily discard the "no-disturbance" theory.
We could then picture an almost mature killer, who had intended to perform a "Chapman-like" evisceration, but who, at the last moment, hesitated and finally gave up.
That could also explained the short gap between the two murders. As could do the "disturbance-theory" as well - of course (the killer resenting the same frustration after what he would consider a half deed).

Amitiés,
David

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Incidentally, the killer could not have been interrupted by both Lechmere and Cross

I wouldn't argue.

Amitiés,
Clay and Ali

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

The three alternatives you mention cover it all, I´d say. But I make another choice than the one you do, mainly because I see the opening up of the stomach as a means instead of as a goal. But it can be argued both ways, of course.

Incidentally, the killer could not have been interrupted by both Lechmere and Cross - they were one and the same...

The best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish and all,
so the reason why Nichols wasn't mutilated like Chapman could be:

1-the killer was interrupted by Lechmere and Cross
2-the killer was interrupted or disturbed by someone or something else
3-the killer wasn't interrupted at all, and what he did was somehow enough to him that night

Possibilities 1 and 2 show a mature, prudent and fast killer (throat "canonically" cut, no witness before the murder in Buck's Row, no witness of any "escape", etc), while the third leaves us with a killer at the end of his beginnings.

I really can't decide between 2 and 3, finding 1 a bit less likely. But had I to choose, I'd go for 3.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"To me that sounds like he took time to cover her up. Hardly the act to do if you have been interuppted."

If he was NOT interrupted, Monty, why did he not go through with procuring organs? I don´t think that he would settle for just opening her up. And the covering up - if it was there - could amount to simply throwing the side of her coat up over her wounds, in order not to have them seen at first glance.

Then again, no effort was made to cover the throat wound, and she was left in a position that caused Cross/Lechmere and Paul to rearrange her clothing in a more decent fashion, so I am everything but convinced that there were any real efforts on behalf of the killer to conceal his deed.

The best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

What I am saying is basically that since the killer was in all probability interrupted with both Tabram and Nichols, without letting these interruptions lead him to go in search of another victim - then the supposition that he must have done so in the Stride/Eddowes case is rendered much less viable. It is one of many pointers that strengthens the suggestion that Strides killer and Jack were not one and the same, in other words.
In the Nichols case, having opened her up without having claimed any of her organs is as good a pointer to an interruption as we are going to get. The suggestion that the approaching steps of Cross/Lechmere scared him away is a very appealing one to my mind.
With Tabram, I dont dispute that she may have been stabbed standing up, at least to some extent. Maybe she was. But my wiew is that the Ripper was not the stabber - he only arrived after the client (which may well have been that soldier) had had his eruption of frenzy and stabbed Tabram 37 times, leaving her for dead. This took place on the landing of a house where there were galleries opening up to the back of the house, as evinced by John Bennetts find of a photo of the back of George Yard Buildings. Therefore i entertain the suggestion that the Ripper actually took part of what was going on from a distance, and after the stabber had left, he approached Tabram and cut her on the lower abdomen with the intent to open her up and procure organs. He would have been conviced that he was dealing with a silent corpse and an easy task - but since Killeen asserts us that Tabram was ALIVE throughout the stabbing, he may have been in for a nasty surprise. My guess is that Martha squealed/screamed/moved as the Ripper cut her in the lower abdomen, and that this sent him into a panic, realizing that he could be exposed in any second by somebody opening a door on the landing. Therefore he dealt the blow through the heart, and therefore that blow was not dealt with the same weapon as the stabs. And of course, the cut to the lower abdomen would NOT give avay the shape of the blade that produced it, obscuring that it was not to be ascribed to the stabber, but to the Ripper.
If I am right here, Mike, it means that he actually became a killer on that landing, and that he learn an all-important lesson as he did: Never give your victim the opportunity to cry out. And how could this be achieved? Exactly: By cutting the throat before you set about eviscerating. It will ensure silence and death and the safest position possible on behalf of a man who needed to eviscerate women in the open streets of East end.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Guys,

I too feel that he was disturbed during the Nichols murder however she wasnt left exposed.

To me that sounds like he took time to cover her up. Hardly the act to do if you have been interuppted.

Monty

Hi Fisherman,

Im not quite sure what you're driving at here. Particularly with the 3 cases of interruption as the premise. Theres no indication even if he killed Martha that that particular murder was "interrupted", in fact there is evidence that indicates she was probably standing when the stabs occurred, so...no pending organ extraction data present....I do see the rationale in Mary Ann's case, and Im not surprised that the next killing fulfilled the promise that I believe he had for the Nichols murder...(he did do everything but the extraction of abdominal organs as "take-away').

There is no evidence, as we both know, that Liz's wounds were singular because of an interruption of the killer by the cart and pony.

I believe the sequence 1-2-and 4 with an asterix does allow for a supposition that 1 may have been an intended organ donor, it demonstrates a logical increase in activity due to increased proficiency in time and location management, and perhaps an ever deepening madness,.. but it would show a focussed series of escalated attacks on womens abdomens post mortem.

Victims 3 and 5 tend to skew the that possible killers profile, because its fairly clear that those two murders were not focussed attacks on womens abdomens, post mortem. Since a readable logical sequence exists if a single killer killed 1, 2 and probably 4, I personally dont see the evidence to warrant the inclusion of any of the other Canonicals or preceding kills. If one man did those three, I think there is a reasonable chance he did Alice McKenzie as well.

But I just dont see a good argument for including Martha and assuming it was an interrupted organ extraction attempt.... .....and there is no evidence that suggests either Annie or Liz were not completed acts in and of themselves.

Cheers Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

That, Limehouse, amounts to numerous questions!

...but here are some answers for you:

"by the time he came to Stride, had he not already mutilated Nichols and Chapman? "

Yes - but he head procured organs only from the latter.

"Wasn't Chapman quite badly mutilated compared with Nichols?"

That she was.

"Is it possible that if Tabram was a victim, the killer had not yet gained the nerve (and perhaps underestimated the strength needed) to fully mutilate the lady? "

Absolutely. But other things may have played equally influential parts; such as the level of his experience and the stage at which he was disturbed/interrupted.

"Also, compared to the others, wasn't Tabram quite large?"

Yes, she was.

"Maybe it was just too difficult to attempt much mutilation due to the amount of body fat around the abdomen? "

Not really, I would think - but inexperience may have made him misjudge the necessity of cutting deep.

"are you saying that Tabram was at first a victim of the killer, who performd the two knife wounds - and she was then further attacked by someone who came along later?"

Reverse it, Limehouse, and you will find what I suggest; the Ripper took over after the initial stabber had left the stage, having provided our man with something he had long wanted - a woman ready to cut up and eviscerate.

The best!
Fisherman

[Limehouse]

Hmm, interesting indeed. However, by the time he came to Stride, had he not already mutilated Nichols and Chapman? Wasn't Chapman quite badly mutilated compared with Nichols? And wasn't Eddowes even more sadly mutilated? Is it possible that if Tabram was a victim, the killer had not yet gained the nerve (and perhaps underestimated the strength needed) to fully mutilate the lady? Also, compared to the others, wasn't Tabram quite large? Maybe it was just too difficult to attempt much mutilation due to the amount of body fat around the abdomen?

Having said that, are you saying that Tabram was at first a victim of the killer, who performd the two knife wounds - and she was then further attacked by someone who came along later? That's a very interesting thought.

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Since I ascribe to Tabram being Jacks first victim, and since I suggest that he only produced two of the knife-wounds on Marthas body - the cut on the lower portion of the body and the thrust through the heart - I think that we come up with a very interesting thing in relation to Strides death, especially if we add Nichols to it all.
Here it is:
It has always been assumed that Jack was interrupted in Dutfields Yard, and that this led him to search another victim, in order to enable him to eviscerate. The intended main course became an irresistible appetizer, so to speak.
But if Jack was the man who cut into the lower portion of Tabrams body, then it seems apparent that he in this case, as well as in the case of Nichols, came agonizingly close to his goal of eviscerating and procuring organs from the female abdomen. Seconds away in both cases, I would suggest.
I think that this lowers the credibility significantly that he would feel the urge to fulfil his task after Stride - in that case he never even got around to cutting her open, and thus he would reasonably not have been at as high a point of excitement as he would have been in the Tabram case and with Nichols.
Nor was it the case of a dream of finally achieving his ultimate goal, if this is a true description of the organ-procuring thing - that had already been achieved in Hanbury Street.
So - if just having cut a woman open (Nichols) or at least having cut the lower abdomen did not produce the unstoppable urge to find another, eviscerable, victim - why should a botched job on Stride produce it?

Fisherman