Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[caz]

Lynn too has a very valid point. It is a well know fact that pigs were/are used by medical students, so I do not think you can rule out a butcher for anatomical knowledge. This does not mean the killer was, at the time, a butcher, simply that at some point in his life he could have worked with or as one.

Hi Sox,

Isn't that the wrong way round? Pigs and humans would have been practised on by medical students, but how many apprentice butchers would ever have practised on a human - or for instance got into the habit of avoiding a sheep's navel to make it easier to sew up afterwards?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

And so where are we? Left arguing about trifles...and that's about as far as things ever get...that's the real frustration.

Mike

On the contrary, Mike, I can think of few things less frustrating than arguing about trifles.

Personally, I would happily argue until the cows come home for the sherry and raspberry variety with vanilla custard and double cream.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

On the contrary, Mike, I can think of few things less frustrating than arguing about trifles.

Personally, I would happily argue until the cows come home for the sherry and raspberry variety with vanilla custard and double cream.

I'm more of a truffles man.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. A cord or such might help explain some of the killings, but in the first two cases, it seems to make the strangling a bit redundant?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

I'm not convinced a 19th century killer should be limited to using the same methods on every escapade. Our Yorkshire Ripper is testimony to that likelyhood.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the cord making the strangling redundant"?

The cord is the strangling, or in Stride's case perhaps the scarf was used?
Both Chapman & Eddowes wore a scarf, though I think Chapman's scarf was the one item of clothing that was removed from her body (if I recall correctly).

So, the scarf was readily available in some cases, and with Polly we have no word on whether she wore one or not.
Pulling the scarf tight until they lose consciousness is more efficient and less of a task for the killer when compared to strangling with the bare hands.
The scarf as a garrott is eminently more practical.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Your admirable common sense will not make you popular, you know.

Add to all this the possible alcohol factor, and all that adrenaline pumping through his body, and who knows what positive or negative effects it could have on each occasion regarding accuracy, concentration, determination, physical strength, powers of reaction etc etc. My daughter is currently working on a dissertation towards her MA in Linguistics at UCL, which involves exploring how speech is affected by alcohol intake - just speech. Every bodily function must be affected in some way or another, and in 1888 the water wasn't particularly fit to drink, so most people drank alcohol on a regular basis. Why would our killer be any different? Yet few people seem to want to take this into account when looking at the injuries found on the victims and arguing for a different killer each time, with a different 'goal'. I don't see why a mutilating serial killer would necessarily have a single goal; he could have none in particular or several, and not all might be achievable. I certainly don't see how it can be ascertained that Chapman's killer (to take Mike's example) had one goal in mind, or that it was to take a uterus away with him.

Love,

Caz
X

Absolutely Caz! And excellent, EXCELLENT point about the effects of alcohol on the killer. Obviously this too could effect greatly the type of wounds inflicted.


And congrats on your daughter!

[Hunter]

The cord is the strangling, or in Stride's case perhaps the scarf was used?
Both Chapman & Eddowes wore a scarf, though I think Chapman's scarf was the one item of clothing that was removed from her body (if I recall correctly).

By someone at the mortuary it seems.

[caz]

To Caz in response to Abby,

Because that's what Wynn Baxter thought. The murderer of Annie Chapman was after her uterus. The other collateral damage was a ruse, a foil, to hide the murder's real intentions. And if not for the careful examination by Mr. Phillips, the murderer might have succeeded. The lack of such in Nichols' case was due to interruption.

Then more murders happened that changed that perspective...except for Baxter, who was stuck with what he created.

Hi Cris,

Indeed so. Baxter had invested in his uterus-harvesting theory, so he seemingly felt obliged to carry on with it regardless, despite the post-Chapman murders refusing to play ball. One almost wonders if Eddowes's killer could have been intentionally trying to make a fool of Baxter by proving him wrong.

What I don't understand is why anyone today, with an open mind, no axe to grind and the benefit of hindsight (not to mention all the more recent mutilation murderers to look at, eg Robert Napper, who took bodily trophies from his badly mutilated indoor victim, Samantha Bisset), would still find Baxter's original theory in any way appealing.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

minutiae

Hello Michael. Thanks. That's a pretty good summary.

Would disagree, however, about their being trifles. I think that it's the minutiae which are most revealing.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

Would disagree, however, about their being trifles. I think that it's the minutiae which are most revealing.

Trifles because they never get settled. No one wants to give up whatever they're hanging onto for what ever reason of insane stubbornness, for fear of losing their imagined game.

Mike

[lynn cates]

cutting edge

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Did you mean about the "technique" of body entry on Kate? Of course. Although Errata pointed that out some months back, it is still a good point.

I do hope, however, that you are not conflating his body entry techniques with his cutting skills? Very different. Kate's killer's cutting techniques (oops, I alliterated) looks like--if I may use my venerable mum's dictum--"a piss ant hunting a hill."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

butcher

Hello (again) Caroline.

". . . for instance got into the habit of avoiding a sheep's navel to make it easier to sew up afterwards?"

Excellent reason to believe that Kate's killer was NOT a butcher. Heartily concur.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

remarks

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"I'm not convinced a 19th century killer should be limited to using the same methods on every escapade. Our Yorkshire Ripper is testimony to that likelihood."

Ah! My mistake. Didn't know he was a 19th c serial killer.

"I'm not sure what you mean by "the cord making the strangling redundant"?"

Why use a cord, then use your hands?

"The cord is the strangling. . ."

Whence, then, the bruises on Polly and Annie?

". . . or in Stride's case perhaps the scarf was used?"

OK. For take down, anyway.

"Both Chapman & Eddowes wore a scarf, though I think Chapman's scarf was the one item of clothing that was removed from her body (if I recall correctly)."

I can live with this.

"So, the scarf was readily available in some cases, and with Polly we have no word on whether she wore one or not.
Pulling the scarf tight until they lose consciousness is more efficient and less of a task for the killer when compared to strangling with the bare hands.
The scarf as a garrott is eminently more practical."

This is all OK by me.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Michael. Thanks.

"No one wants to give up whatever they're hanging onto for what ever reason of insane stubbornness, for fear of losing their imagined game."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Whence, then, the bruises on Polly and Annie?

Hi Lynn.

Polly had bruises on her jaw & cheek consistent with her head being held down. Are there any other bruises you care to mention?

Annie? much the same except for the (vertical?) scratches on her neck, possibly by her own hand?
Which bruises do you mean?

[lynn cates]

por que?

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, those. Could be from strangling; could be from clamping.

But why ANY bruises if you are using a scarf or cord?

Cheers.
LC