Coincidence?

[packers stem]

What you have to bear in mind concerning the Whitehall torso guys was that the one torso covered the length of time of the first 4 of the c5 ... it's not an escalation, it's a 'tit for tat' in part .

Someone is killed in the 10 days prior to Nichols ( in all likelihood) .

The arm is dropped into the Thames on the same day as Chapman was killed ( again ,in all likelihood)

The torso was almost certainly deposited in a location of great difficulty but also great significance, on the same weekend as the double event .
Not seeing a possible significance here is criminal in terms of investigation .....
but hey .... it's ripperology and little surprises me

[packers stem]

Herlock, I'm not going to reply to your split post to me ,not because I can't or don't want to but because it will continue to go around in circles and does little for the thread.
All I will say is that I have asked you for evidence of why Eddowes was killed in situ and all you supplied was that people at the time believed she was .
That isn't evidence.
If it was ,we would have to conclude that Nichols was killed elsewhere as they were the thoughts of Llewelyn .
I'll leave it there until you can come back with something more convincing

[etenguy]

Herlock, I'm not going to reply to your split post to me ,not because I can't or don't want to but because it will continue to go around in circles and does little for the thread.
All I will say is that I have asked you for evidence of why Eddowes was killed in situ and all you supplied was that people at the time believed she was .
That isn't evidence.
If it was ,we would have to conclude that Nichols was killed elsewhere as they were the thoughts of Llewelyn .
I'll leave it there until you can come back with something more convincing

Hi Packers Stem

There was blood at the Eddowes murder site. If Eddowes had been killed elsewhere and carried to where her body was found, would there not have been a blood trail?

Also the horrific mutilations were surely carried out the site the body was found, with the intestines removed and placed in order that further mutilations and organ removal could be carried out. Plus the buttons found and the piece of ear that dropped from her clothes. Plus the blood was coagulated and yet the body warm - that couldn't have happened if the body was moved after the mutilations in the timeframe the murder took place.

Or, do you suggest the mutilations were carried out elsewhere and the removed organs and intestines placed back inside the body, to carry it to that corner in Mitre square, and then removed again as she was, placed how she was found without a trail of blood spilt along the way?

I think the above is highly unlikely and if it had happened, surely there would be evidence of that, if only the blood trail.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, I'm not going to reply to your split post to me ,not because I can't or don't want to but because it will continue to go around in circles and does little for the thread.
All I will say is that I have asked you for evidence of why Eddowes was killed in situ and all you supplied was that people at the time believed she was .
That isn't evidence.
If it was ,we would have to conclude that Nichols was killed elsewhere as they were the thoughts of Llewelyn .
I'll leave it there until you can come back with something more convincing

The generally accepted version is, and always has been, that she was killed where she was found. You’re proposing an alternative scenario therefore the burden of proof is with you. I see no evidence that she was killed elsewhere. I believe that she was killed by the same man that killed Nichols, Chapman, Kelly and possibly Stride and that they were all killed where they were found so I see no reason for any difference with Eddowes. I also stress that I believe that she was killed by a single man with no accomplice. There was no trails of blood or blood behind any fences. The police searched but found nothing that lead them to believe other than she was killed where she was found. I can see no logical reason why anyone would want to move her body unless it’s being suggested (or even better, there’s evidence for) that she was killed in someone’s house.

Your argument appears to be to be based on the darkness and the time available. As I said in an earlier post Jeff showed how the killer might easily have had more than the 5 minutes usually suggested. Not a massive amount of extra time but it might easily have been 2 or 3 minutes. Brown saw no issue with her being killed where she was found and in the time available. As we weren’t there it’s difficult to accurately assess the level of darkness or how it might have affected the mutilations but again Brown appeared not be concerned about this.

There can be no issue with raising doubts and I’d be the first to admit that I have an in-built aversion to conspiracy theories. Of course conspiracies and cover-ups have occurred in the past and will occur in the future but I just don’t see one here. And it’s my opinion that when someone gets into the CT frame of mind the temptation is to see something sinister in every single coincidence, error or discrepancy. This is why a conspiracy needs more than this or we would end up explaining everything in terms of conspiracy. So my position is to reject conspiracy until strong evidence surfaces and, as yet, it hasn’t.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers Stem

There was blood at the Eddowes murder site. If Eddowes had been killed elsewhere and carried to where her body was found, would there not have been a blood trail?

Also the horrific mutilations were surely carried out the site the body was found, with the intestines removed and placed in order that further mutilations and organ removal could be carried out.

Or, do you suggest the mutilations were carried out elsewhere and the removed organs and intestines placed back inside the body, to carry it to that corner in Mitre square, and then removed again as she was, placed how she was found without a trail of blood spilt along the way?

I think the above is highly unlikely and if it had happened, surely there would be evidence of that, if only the blood trail.

Hi Etenguy
People are obsessed by blood trails .
She had four layers of clothing including a jacket for blood to soak through before reaching saturation levels where it would be dripping through the jacket ..... and we're only talking a couple of yards of movement .
Yes, the intestines would be dumped on the shoulder after depositing the body and the severed piece ,placed 'by design' as Brown put it .
This would take seconds.

A small amount of clotted blood on the left of the neck means little, the neck would still be oozing blood for some time ,as indeed it was with Nichols, the Pinchin street torso too bizarrely.
When you consider the rain mixing with the blood ,possible guttering flow from the buildings, a tiny bit of blood appears more than it was .
It doesn't compare with the pound of clotted blood next to Stride and the description of a 'river' of blood flowing into the gutter .
Somebody will come along and try the 'strangulation' point and yet there is no evidence of such..... and you have to ask why he didn't strangle Stride ? Blood everywhere there .
Would his initial MO change between Stride and Eddowes?
He hadn't been 'disturbed' at this point in time .

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Etenguy
People are obsessed by blood trails .
She had four layers of clothing including a jacket for blood to soak through before reaching saturation levels where it would be dripping through the jacket ..... and we're only talking a couple of yards of movement .
Yes, the intestines would be dumped on the shoulder after depositing the body and the severed piece ,placed 'by design' as Brown put it .
This would take seconds.

A small amount of clotted blood on the left of the neck means little, the neck would still be oozing blood for some time ,as indeed it was with Nichols, the Pinchin street torso too bizarrely.
When you consider the rain mixing with the blood ,possible guttering flow from the buildings, a tiny bit of blood appears more than it was .
It doesn't compare with the pound of clotted blood next to Stride and the description of a 'river' of blood flowing into the gutter .
Somebody will come along and try the 'strangulation' point and yet there is no evidence of such..... and you have to ask why he didn't strangle Stride ? Blood everywhere there .
Would his initial MO change between Stride and Eddowes?
He hadn't been 'disturbed' at this point in time .

Hi Packers,
If Kate's four layers prevented a blood trail over a few yards, the same could be said for there not being blood sprayed all over Mitre Square?
With regard to Stride, you say there was no strangulation and blood everywhere? Yet the reports state that her scarf was pulled tight, but more pertinently, there was not blood everywhere, Dr Blackwell gives quite the opposite impression.
Are we to assume that whoever killed Kate dumped her and then purposely placed her innards on her?
I totally get what your pointing out, there was far more residual blood in the killing of Stride. That isn't proof that Eddowes was killed elsewhere. We don't know all the variables.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Etenguy
People are obsessed by blood trails .
She had four layers of clothing including a jacket for blood to soak through before reaching saturation levels where it would be dripping through the jacket ..... and we're only talking a couple of yards of movement .
Yes, the intestines would be dumped on the shoulder after depositing the body and the severed piece ,placed 'by design' as Brown put it .
This would take seconds.

A small amount of clotted blood on the left of the neck means little, the neck would still be oozing blood for some time ,as indeed it was with Nichols, the Pinchin street torso too bizarrely.
When you consider the rain mixing with the blood ,possible guttering flow from the buildings, a tiny bit of blood appears more than it was .
It doesn't compare with the pound of clotted blood next to Stride and the description of a 'river' of blood flowing into the gutter .
Somebody will come along and try the 'strangulation' point and yet there is no evidence of such..... and you have to ask why he didn't strangle Stride ? Blood everywhere there .
Would his initial MO change between Stride and Eddowes?
He hadn't been 'disturbed' at this point in time .

The statement by Brown at the inquest (as recorded in the official records) concerning the blood was "...There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of the arm, and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to th eright shoulder - the pavement sloping in that direction." and later "no blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs - no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middel of the body - several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connection. When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. ..."

I think that covers all the statements by Brown concerning blood.

The testimony does not indicate if the amount of blood was large or small, just "a quantity". The area it covered, however, was by the neck and right shoulder, which does not sound like a small amount to me (clearly, opinions will vary). The lack of a blood trail, however, is not simply an inconvenience, it's evidence of absence of the body having been moved after the wounds were inflicted. Neck wounds, and eviscerated abdomens, tend to drip a lot of blood and moving such a body is going to leave a bloody trail, whether you carry it or drag it. There also will be a rather large bloody mess at the location of the throat cutting and disembowelment. The surrounding areas were searched and such a tell tale sign was found to be absent.

There is also no signs of blood running down her clothes, or along her legs, etc, as one would expect if she had been moved and carried after being cut open.

Effectively, the evidence of the state of the body indicates she was mutilated where she was found. I suppose, though, you could argue she was strangled behind the fence, and then brought to that location where her throat was cut and the mutilations took place? That would at least allow for her to have been strangled prior to Watkins patrol, and then as soon as he left the square, she could be brought into the yard to have her throat cut, etc. But that would mean she was killed at 1:30, which is during the rain that held Lawende and company back at the club until 1:33-1:35, and if her throat was cut during the downpour, much of the blood from the initial cutting would have been diluted and washed away, and quite possibly prevented the clot that is mentioned from forming at all (but someone with more medical knowledge than me would be better able to indicate that). So again, the description of the blood around her does not fit with her throat being cut during rain heavy enough to keep Lawende et al from leaving the club for a few minutes.

But perhaps then, she was strangled elsewhere, and after the rain stopped she was brought into the square, etc? But now, there's no more time available than the far more probable, and simpler, explanation that it was when the rain stopped that she and JtR made their way into the square, and he attacked and killed her on the spot.

All the moving about of a pre-mutilated body with the throat cut to the spine on one side leaves a blood trail, and a rather noticeable one at that. It also gets blood all over the body and the clothes, which is also decidedly absent (but it was looked for - not absent because they didn't examine for it).

I can see nothing to support the notion she was killed and mutilated anywhere except where she was found.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,
If Kate's four layers prevented a blood trail over a few yards, the same could be said for there not being blood sprayed all over Mitre Square?
With regard to Stride, you say there was no strangulation and blood everywhere? Yet the reports state that her scarf was pulled tight, but more pertinently, there was not blood everywhere, Dr Blackwell gives quite the opposite impression.
Are we to assume that whoever killed Kate dumped her and then purposely placed her innards on her?
I totally get what your pointing out, there was far more residual blood in the killing of Stride. That isn't proof that Eddowes was killed elsewhere. We don't know all the variables.

HI
Firstly the four layers of clothing wasn't around the neck if she was lying on the ground when her throat was slit so had this happened in the square then ,no ,it wouldn't prevent blood spatter that didn't exist as we know ,nor a great deal of blood spurting onto the pavement.
However, in terms of carrying , the neck would sink lower into the jacket in transit.
Secondly Blackwell confirmed a great deal of blood in Dutfields yard , a pound of clotted blood , as did many other witnesses and the blood was being washed away in the morning .
I've no idea why you think Blackwell gave the ' opposite impression'
As for the scarf ,it's possible she was pulled back by the scarf , but she wasn't strangled and it still shows a change in MO if you're arguing strangulation.
Chapman and Eddowes also wore scarves, they weren't pulled tight

[packers stem]

The statement by Brown at the inquest (as recorded in the official records) concerning the blood was "...There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of the arm, and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to th eright shoulder - the pavement sloping in that direction." and later "no blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs - no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middel of the body - several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connection. When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. ..."

I think that covers all the statements by Brown concerning blood.

The testimony does not indicate if the amount of blood was large or small, just "a quantity". The area it covered, however, was by the neck and right shoulder, which does not sound like a small amount to me (clearly, opinions will vary). The lack of a blood trail, however, is not simply an inconvenience, it's evidence of absence of the body having been moved after the wounds were inflicted. Neck wounds, and eviscerated abdomens, tend to drip a lot of blood and moving such a body is going to leave a bloody trail, whether you carry it or drag it. There also will be a rather large bloody mess at the location of the throat cutting and disembowelment. The surrounding areas were searched and such a tell tale sign was found to be absent.

There is also no signs of blood running down her clothes, or along her legs, etc, as one would expect if she had been moved and carried after being cut open.

Effectively, the evidence of the state of the body indicates she was mutilated where she was found. I suppose, though, you could argue she was strangled behind the fence, and then brought to that location where her throat was cut and the mutilations took place? That would at least allow for her to have been strangled prior to Watkins patrol, and then as soon as he left the square, she could be brought into the yard to have her throat cut, etc. But that would mean she was killed at 1:30, which is during the rain that held Lawende and company back at the club until 1:33-1:35, and if her throat was cut during the downpour, much of the blood from the initial cutting would have been diluted and washed away, and quite possibly prevented the clot that is mentioned from forming at all (but someone with more medical knowledge than me would be better able to indicate that). So again, the description of the blood around her does not fit with her throat being cut during rain heavy enough to keep Lawende et al from leaving the club for a few minutes.

But perhaps then, she was strangled elsewhere, and after the rain stopped she was brought into the square, etc? But now, there's no more time available than the far more probable, and simpler, explanation that it was when the rain stopped that she and JtR made their way into the square, and he attacked and killed her on the spot.

All the moving about of a pre-mutilated body with the throat cut to the spine on one side leaves a blood trail, and a rather noticeable one at that. It also gets blood all over the body and the clothes, which is also decidedly absent (but it was looked for - not absent because they didn't examine for it).

I can see nothing to support the notion she was killed and mutilated anywhere except where she was found.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
Yes, a quantity could mean anything but as it was just by the shoulder and neck its not going very far .
Unfortunately all we have is a sketch of a sketch made where the original was made in the dark .
So we have to look to the other side of the neck .
Browns claim that this was blood serum needs to be taken with the fact that it had been raining , the pavement sloped , there were gutters from the buildings which could be releasing water and that the trail doesn't even appeared to reach the road .
He was going by the light of a bullseye lantern .
It all indicates very little blood .

Which of the empty houses do you have evidence of a search for blood having taken place?
The one in my mind has a shutter a yard from where the body was found.
The yards were searched at the time ( in the dark ) for a person in hiding, not for anything else.

The lack of an imagined blood trail is neither an inconvenience nor evidence of anything at all .
a lack of evidence is not evidence of something else .
For example, in Pinchin Street they found no evidence of cart tracks or footprints. This is not evidence of the torso falling from the sky.

I suspect you are picturing a single person carrying a dead body over his shoulder which is not what is being suggested.

[FISHY1118]

I don’t understand your point Fishy?

Of course you dont , you never do , however now it here for all to see in post 121, you've contradicted yourself, so let people judge it for what it .

Have you tried simulating cutting Chapman throat from left to right from her left hand side with your right hand ? whilst holding her chin up with your left hand. let me know how that works out .

[etenguy]

Hi Jeff
Yes, a quantity could mean anything but as it was just by the shoulder and neck its not going very far .
Unfortunately all we have is a sketch of a sketch made where the original was made in the dark .
So we have to look to the other side of the neck .
Browns claim that this was blood serum needs to be taken with the fact that it had been raining , the pavement sloped , there were gutters from the buildings which could be releasing water and that the trail doesn't even appeared to reach the road .
He was going by the light of a bullseye lantern .
It all indicates very little blood .

Which of the empty houses do you have evidence of a search for blood having taken place?
The one in my mind has a shutter a yard from where the body was found.
The yards were searched at the time ( in the dark ) for a person in hiding, not for anything else.

The lack of an imagined blood trail is neither an inconvenience nor evidence of anything at all .
a lack of evidence is not evidence of something else .
For example, in Pinchin Street they found no evidence of cart tracks or footprints. This is not evidence of the torso falling from the sky.

I suspect you are picturing a single person carrying a dead body over his shoulder which is not what is being suggested.

Hi Packers Stem

Surely if someone eviscerated poor Kate in one of the empty houses, there would be significant amounts of blood in that house. While they may not have looked in that house that evening, at some later date the blood would be noticed, even if completely dried. Given that the murder was common knowledge at the time, someone would surely have reported it.

If I understand your suggestion, Kate was killed in an empty house, mutilated and eviscerated. Then all would be placed back in the body to carry it to the spot where Kate was found and then the intestines removed again and placed over her shoulder. All without spilling blood on the way. Why would the murderer do this? He had no problem leaving Mary Jane Kelly in the house he murdered her in?

Also, what prompts you to think this is even a likely scenario? Is it simply to allow the murderer more time? Do you discount the sighting of Kate by those leaving the club?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Of course you dont , you never do , however now it here for all to see in post 121, you've contradicted yourself, so let people judge it for what it .

I see no contradiction in post #121 (which is your post not mine btw.)

As I’ve stated Fishy, when we originally discussed which side of Annie the killer was on I was talking about for the mutilations and not for the murder. This fact is obvious because we had been talking about the possibility of the killer brushing against the fence. You know very well that it’s my suggestion that the noise was made by the killer brushing against the fence whilst mutilating Annie. So I was making a point about A which you countered by discussing B.

Have you tried simulating cutting Chapman throat from left to right from her left hand side with your right hand ? whilst holding her chin up with your left hand. let me know how that works out .

As has been suggested many times by ripperologists......from behind.

[FISHY1118]

As has been suggested many times by ripperologists......from behind.

:DR Phillips ''From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat''.


So if she was dead from syncope ; i.e being strangled, are you suggesting that the killer held up a dead women up from behind while he cut her throat ?

Ripperologist should probably re think that one for very obvious reasons.


Both throat cutting and the mutilations were done while the killer was on Chapman right side, the evidence clearly points to this happening .

[Observer]

:DR Phillips ''From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat''.


So if she was dead from syncope ; i.e being strangled, are you suggesting that the killer held up a dead women up from behind while he cut her throat ?

Ripperologist should probably re think that one for very obvious reasons.


Both throat cutting and the mutilations were done while the killer was on Chapman right side, the evidence clearly points to this happening .

You beat me to it. Chapman was initially strangled, there's no way her throat was cut whilst she was standing

[Sam Flynn]

So if she was dead from syncope ; i.e being strangled

Syncope doesn't mean being strangled; it means loss of consciousness due to the failure of the heart's action. Dr Phillips said that the cause of death was syncope brought about by the blood lost when Annie's throat was cut. As the quote you supplied says: "death arose from syncope... in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat". Any suffocation or strangulation happened before death ("breathing was interfered with before death") and, whilst it rendered Annie insensible, it didn't kill her.