Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kaminski and Eddowes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kaminski and Eddowes

    Hello. Here is a complex problem to consider.

    Let's use Martin Fido's assumptions about Kaminsky/Cohen/Leather Apron for the following.

    1. The "working ladies" of Whitechapel knew of a chap who was threatening them.

    2. The police sought this character under the rubric "Leather Apron."

    3. They seem to have conflated this character with Pizer.

    4. Kaminski (Cohen) was the real Leather Apron and Jack.

    5. Kaminski had contracted syphilis and was likely a former patron of said Ladies.

    6. Ironically, the Ladies were right all along and had it solved BEFORE the police had hardly started.

    7. Kate Eddowes, shortly after her arrival back from Kent proclaimed, "I'm here to get my reward money. I think I know who he (Jack) is."

    8. Kate is shortly thereafter killed and mutilated--the first canonical to suffer facial mutilations.

    Question: was Kate blackmailing Nathan? Could this account for the added vehemence? If so, why was she not more careful on the night of the "double event"?

    LC

  • #2
    Hi Lynn,

    i wonder why should Kate blackmail Nathan? I think the reward was more money than she could ever get from Nathan, wasn't it?

    Best regards,
    Frank

    Comment


    • #3
      nosy

      Hello Frank. A sensible conjecture, especially if only money were involved, and there is no reason to believe otherwise.

      I am still intrigued by the facial mutilations done on Kate. It seems as if it were tantamount to "salt rubbed in the wound" as it were. Needless to say, it makes me wonder what she did different from Polly and Annie that caused her to be treated so.

      Particularly perplexing is the fact that her nose was all but cut off. It's as if one were chastising another for "being nosy." (Of course, it has been suggested that he merely disliked her facial looks.)

      So, given her comments about the Ripper's identity, and, the possibility that "Leather Apron" was known to some of the Ladies, of course I seek a connection, in a rather imprecise manner, I might add.

      Any thoughts on a possible connection?

      The best.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        Lynn

        do you not think the mutilations were just getting more horrific with each murder,Liz Stride apart?(due to being disturb/or not a jack victim)

        Dixon9
        still learning

        Comment


        • #5
          I think Kate's comments about the Ripper's identity and getting the reward are merely remarks like 'Tonight I will win the jackpot'.
          It is probable that there was a lot of gossip within the prostitutes' community about the Ripper's identity. I believe that every single one of them had had special costumers or were troubled by bully boys who were all suspicious to them. Special characters like 'Leather Apron' were then singled out of all the guys because they were suspected by more than one of them. Other prostitutes heard of it and got a vague description and thought their suspect could be the same although he was not. In the end a lot of prostitutes could have been of the opinion that they knew the culprit.

          As for Kate's nose, we should have a look at the cutting direction. I have the feeling that it could be cut off by accident as the Ripper was performing the other facial mutilations. But I haven't had a look at the cuttings so that's pure speculation. But as far as I remember there was only the tip of the nose cut off.

          Why the Ripper mutilated her face at all nobody can say for sure. Maybe he did not like her face or she reminded him of someone special or it was just a new kick for him. Are there any other serial killers who mutilated faces and talked about it afterwards in prison? For the moment I can not remember one, but I will try to find out. This could give a slight clue about the motives of facial mutilations.

          Best regards,
          Frank

          Comment


          • #6
            outliers

            Hello Dixon. That's an old and well received theory. And, of course, it has nothing at all against it.

            Perhaps sometimes it is best to examine and dispense with the recherche before getting down to business. Dealing with the outliers, as it were.

            Thanks!
            LC

            Comment


            • #7
              will take that on board lynn
              thanks
              dixon9
              still learning

              Comment


              • #8
                offhand remark

                Hello Frank. It has been suggested that her remarks were merely offhand comments. If only we could be sure, I'm certain we could save a good deal of spilled ink and fantastic speculation.

                I think a parallel can be drawn between your assessment of the Ladies and the police--"Sir Robert only THOUGHT he knew." (emphasis mine.)

                Accidental cut to the nose? Well, given the darkness, quite possible. On the other hand, he seemed able to do the 2 facial triangles easily enough.

                It has also been suggested that the Ripper did not like her face. That, too, is possible.

                Reminder? Well, if Mr. Fido is correct and Nathan is the man, he may well have been a former client with bad memories of a previous "transaction" with her.

                On the other hand, those who include Liz in the canon tend to think of the facial mutilations on Kate as an extra release of the pent up frustrations due to the non-consummation at Berner st. (I'd offer an analogy here, but modesty forbids.)

                The best.
                LC

                Comment


                • #9
                  Lynn Cates writes:

                  "Accidental cut to the nose? Well, given the darkness, quite possible. On the other hand, he seemed able to do the 2 facial triangles easily enough."

                  There is every possibility that all three damages came about with one sweep of the knife, Lynn. Two efforts, it seems, were made to cut the nose off - the first effort resulted in a cut that seemingly failed to do the job, and stopped after having travelled through the cartilage part of the nosebone into firmer bone structure. After that, he moved the knife a bit further down the nose, and cut again, this time succeeding to cut the nose-tip off.
                  But the interesting part is the first cut, for if we theorise that he held his blade at a ninety-degree angle to the nosebone as he tried to cut, then that will explain how the "inverted v:s" came about too - they were in all probability simultaneous with that cut. If he had been able to follow the cut through, he would have cut loose the parts that were now instead left as triangle-shaped flaps.
                  If you take a look at the contemporary sketch of Eddowes´face, you will see what I mean.

                  The best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The theory of the upside down v:s being collateral damage has been discussed before on the boards, and there is a thread relating to it, called "The 2 upside down v:s" in the Eddowes section. In that thread, post 69 by Wickerman has a very good graphic explanation to how it all came about. Read it, and you will know exactly what I´m talking about. It helped me to see the light!

                    The best,
                    Fisherman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      gratitude

                      Hello Fish. I am grateful for the tip. I shall look at the post. Of course, your explanation is quite clear--it's almost as if he were slicing away the face. Fascinating!

                      It occurs to me that this is weakly analogous to the sliced off thighs in C5's case.

                      Thanks again!

                      The best.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        ah ha

                        Hello Fish. Yes, I see what you mean. I must read all that thread. Hopefully, there'll be no feuds going on and I can learn something.

                        Thanks again!

                        The best.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Lynn Cates:

                          "It occurs to me that this is weakly analogous to the sliced off thighs in C5's case."

                          My guess is that this is all-important in understanding what the Ripper was all about!

                          The best,
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            slicing

                            Hello Fish. Tell me more. Are you linking this slicing to the abdominal flaps in some of the victims? Is it vocationally based (as in a leather worker)?

                            (I read about half that thread. I must be prescient, for indeed there was a feud. Pity.)

                            Thanks again.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Lynn Cates:

                              "Hello Fish. Tell me more. Are you linking this slicing to the abdominal flaps in some of the victims? Is it vocationally based (as in a leather worker)?"

                              I´m not fully prepared to elaborate on all of it as yet, Lynn. But it has to do with the overall motivations and convictions of the Ripper, and not specifically with the abdominal flaps and such. I´ll expand on things in the future.

                              The best,
                              Fisherman

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X