A Human Tiger

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre.

Might be reading into your thread, but are you under the impression that every one of his cuts were made with an intent in mind?

I keep going back to Polly Nicholls. Her abdominal wounds don,t indicate that he had any intent on cutting her abdominal wall into portions nor splitting her down the middle as in the case of Catherine Eddowes. For me, the 4 cuts on her right side seem more like perversions, or cuts with no general purpose. I would compare these with the cuts made on Mary Jane Kelly,s chin and arm, the cuts made under Mackenzie,s navel and possibly the oblique cuts made on Annie Chapman,s liver.

Robert

Hi Robert,

I havenīt studied the cuts on a micro level. I donīt think that is very important to do.

Regards, Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Pierre.

Might be reading into your thread, but are you under the impression that every one of his cuts were made with an intent in mind?

I keep going back to Polly Nicholls. Her abdominal wounds don,t indicate that he had any intent on cutting her abdominal wall into portions nor splitting her down the middle as in the case of Catherine Eddowes. For me, the 4 cuts on her right side seem more like perversions, or cuts with no general purpose. I would compare these with the cuts made on Mary Jane Kelly,s chin and arm, the cuts made under Mackenzie,s navel and possibly the oblique cuts made on Annie Chapman,s liver.

Robert

[MsWeatherwax]

Impossible to tell, the skin from the forehead could be pulled down and across the eyes. all we can see is a mess.

I had always assumed that was what I was looking at (the skin flap, I mean).

Either way, I completely agree. Other than for a general feel for what happened to her, the picture is not of diagnostic quality.

[Elamarna]

Dear Pierre and Fisherman

The close up of MJK proves nothing, the quality is so low that even with photo manipulation software it is in my opinion impossible to tell what we are looking at.

Are we seeing a fully skinned faced?
Impossible to tell, the skin from the forehead could be pulled down and across the eyes. all we can see is a mess.
If we had the original plate it may be a different case, however we are looking at a copy of a copy or a copy and so on..

These comments are based on nothing to do with Ripperology but with having used photo software for almost 16 years.

The photo does not prove if the eyelids were removed or not, if it did this discussion would have stopped around post 2 or 3 surely!

regards

steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383257]

Yes, it seems there will always be space for journalists in the field of ripperology. It is good for the aspect of entertainment.

Regards, Pierre

Do you have any data for that?

Honestly, Pierre, you cannot wind me up, and you are not very good with sarcasm. Surely there must be wiser ways to spend your time...?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383253]

Of course I dont! And that is why you are left in your own playground, where you can wallow in "data", "historically correct methodology" and "principles" to your heartīs delight!

Iīm sure you will make all the progress your rules allow for.

Yes, it seems there will always be space for journalists in the field of ripperology. It is good for the aspect of entertainment.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383250]

Of course you donīt.

Regards, Pierre

Of course I dont! And that is why you are left in your own playground, where you can wallow in "data", "historically correct methodology" and "principles" to your heartīs delight!

Iīm sure you will make all the progress your rules allow for.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383248]

That picture is not of a quality that allows for any certain conclusions. Nor am I saying that it supports what I say. Hebbert tells us that the killer cut off the eyelids, and that is normally rather a delicate operation. It also seems that the eyes were left more or less undamaged, supporting the idea that the eyelids were removed carefully.

If you have not understood it before, I am not doing my work so as to answer to your requirements for "data". I thought I may need to once again mention that.

Do you understand that, Pierre...?

Of course you donīt.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383246]

Hi Fisherman,

"I think" is an hypothesis, so thatīs OK. But it still needs data to support it.

You also write: "He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region...".

In what ways do you think that this picture of the face of Kelly shows that?

Also, I think that it looks as if the eyelids are cut off in the picture. Do you see the cut angles over the eyes?

What do others think?

Regards, Pierre

That picture is not of a quality that allows for any certain conclusions. Nor am I saying that it supports what I say. Hebbert tells us that the killer cut off the eyelids, and that is normally rather a delicate operation. It also seems that the eyes were left more or less undamaged, supporting the idea that the eyelids were removed carefully.

If you have not understood it before, I am not doing my work so as to answer to your requirements for "data". I thought I may need to once again mention that.

Do you understand that, Pierre...?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383245]

One thing only: That I wrote "I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged" for a reason.

Hi Fisherman,

"I think" is an hypothesis, so thatīs OK. But it still needs data to support it.

You also write: "He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region...".

In what ways do you think that this picture of the face of Kelly shows that?

Also, I think that it looks as if the eyelids are cut off in the picture. Do you see the cut angles over the eyes?

What do others think?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383243]

Hi Fisherman,

Absence of X (in this case damage) is not historical evidence of presence of intent.

Let me give you some examples from the cases:

The killer of Polly Nichols did not do any damage to the eyelids of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the eyelids and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The killer of Annie Chapman did not do any damage to the nose of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the nose and that he had a motive for not doing so ?

The killer of Catherine Eddows did not do any damage to the legs of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the legs and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The principle is simple. For every undamaged part of the body of each victim, you can postulate an hypothesis that the killer intentionally abstained from damaging that specific body part. But you can not do it on NO SOURCE(S). Absence of x does not imply intent and intent from a motive.

Do you understand? You must go from absence of x to a source giving indication of intent and if you shall explain the intent you must use a source giving the motive for the intent.

Do you understand how difficult that is?

Do you understand that you need data from the life of the person on a micro level to do it?

And you have no such source, because if you did, you would very quickly have discussed it here in support for your hypothesis. You have already presented Lechmere as your suspect. There are no ethical aspects standing in the way for you. But still you can not produce one single scrap of data for the hypothesis that the eyeballs were intentionally undamaged because Lechmere had a motive to actively do so.

And another thing. If the killer cut away the eyelids, that may very well have been a result of making cuts in other parts of the face. What do you say about that?

Regards, Pierre

One thing only: That I wrote "I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged" for a reason.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383230]

You are correct - I should have worded myself differently: He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region, and I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged.

Hi Fisherman,

Absence of X (in this case damage) is not historical evidence of presence of intent.

Let me give you some examples from the cases:

The killer of Polly Nichols did not do any damage to the eyelids of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the eyelids and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The killer of Annie Chapman did not do any damage to the nose of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the nose and that he had a motive for not doing so ?

The killer of Catherine Eddows did not do any damage to the legs of the victim. Does this mean that his intention was to not damage the legs and that he had a motive for not doing so?

The principle is simple. For every undamaged part of the body of each victim, you can postulate an hypothesis that the killer intentionally abstained from damaging that specific body part. But you can not do it on NO SOURCE(S). Absence of x does not imply intent and intent from a motive.

Do you understand? You must go from absence of x to a source giving indication of intent and if you shall explain the intent you must use a source giving the motive for the intent.

Do you understand how difficult that is?

Do you understand that you need data from the life of the person on a micro level to do it?

And you have no such source, because if you did, you would very quickly have discussed it here in support for your hypothesis. You have already presented Lechmere as your suspect. There are no ethical aspects standing in the way for you. But still you can not produce one single scrap of data for the hypothesis that the eyeballs were intentionally undamaged because Lechmere had a motive to actively do so.

And another thing. If the killer cut away the eyelids, that may very well have been a result of making cuts in other parts of the face. What do you say about that?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383192]

Hi DID damage the eye region. So it was his intent to do that.

Regards, Pierre

You are correct - I should have worded myself differently: He worked meticulously and carefully in the eye region, and I think he did so because he was intent on leaving the eyeballs undamaged.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;383169]

A very good post, making a number of very good points. The organs were carefully cut loose and taken out. Compare this to how he seemingly took a lot of care not to damage the eye-region. Same thing, same basic reason.

Hi DID damage the eye region. So it was his intent to do that. Your interpretation of the killer not wanting to damage the eyes has very low validity.

More or less all the cuts will fit into this thinking. It is really by far the most focused of all the Ripper killings. We need to look at the Torso murders, where he had even more time and privacy on his hands, to find something that surpasses Kelly. It arrived in the shape of the 1873 "death mask", cut from the face, eyelids and -lashes included, in one single piece.
Same thing again - extreme care, a clear focus, exact cutting.

You are mixing Kelly with the torso case in 1873. Kellyīs face was not cut off in one single piece. The substantial significance of the comparison is very low.

But he is not reproducing the slaughter of a pig (or any other animal) if you ask me. He may have had he skill and experience, and it may have coloured what he did. But it was not the underlying reason - once again, if you ask me...

The methods are one thing, the motive(s) another. I think most people here understand that those are different things.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pig slaughterer was on a short list of professions that I could think up on the fly, Pierre. Jack the Ripper killed Mary Jane Kelly by cutting her throat and bleeding her out, which shows a comfort level with killing. He removes her organs and butchers her leg. And, ears and nose made me think of how the snout and ears are used for dining.

He displays organization because he reveals anatomical knowledge. As prior posted, the detectives didn't find chunks of her spleen, liver, bladder mixed together and flung around the room because he was chopping maniacally at her like an amateur. When we were debating MJK3, I wondered if the white scratch marks on her pelvis were made by the point of his knife as he removed that particular muscle (I can net an image of that pelvic muscle but not the name). Overall, it gave me the impression that her body parts were removed with a purpose which indicates organization.

You were connecting my 2nd post to his motive, which I am not entirely set on yet because I don't know if Mary Jane Kelly was special to him. If I slaughtered pigs for a living and you asked me to cut open a human body, I might refer back to my profession. My skillset is not my motive; it's just part of my instinctual knowledge.


In order to ruin Lord Mayor's Day, Jack the Ripper killed:
A. Mary Jane Kelly
B. A prostitute with an apartment

If it is Option B, then the motive is Lord Mayors Day, and he could have been using a set of skills that were familiar to him to accomplish that task. Mary Jane Kelly would be nothing more than a means to the end. If it is Option A, then maybe there was something ritualized to the event.

Which do you think it is?

R.St.D.

Hi Robert,

B. I share the understanding of the crime with the author of the article "A Human Tiger". Or rather, the article illustrates that understanding in many details.

Regards, Pierre