Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two knives, two people?

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    True - the cut there was, was to the private parts, not to the upper body. And that is why we do speak of a cut.

    Of course, Nichols is an other proposition entirely, but maybe that was on account of how a smallish penknife blade would not lend itself to the kind of cutting sustained by Nichols?
    This is my thinking, I think! Both knives involved were not really cutting blades. So even if the murderer want to cut her, his instruments would not allow it. Evidence that this murder was not as premeditated as the later ones? A spur of the moment affair where he had to use the 'tools' he had on his person maybe?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

      This is my thinking, I think! Both knives involved were not really cutting blades. So even if the murderer want to cut her, his instruments would not allow it. Evidence that this murder was not as premeditated as the later ones? A spur of the moment affair where he had to use the 'tools' he had on his person maybe?
      Precisely so. Either that, or it was another killer altogether, and our boy drew inspiration from the strike to take his own business into the streets, possibly for an increased press and public interest.

      Comment


      • #93
        I think its fairly clear that anyone carrying a penknife would be doing so as a utility, I don't imagine anyone would plan to cut anything substantial with it, other than some leather from a boot sole like Richardson did with a table knife, or to cut small rope or string. That's why it was a poor weapon to use, and why 37 stabs wasn't enough to kill Martha outright. 1 stab with the bayonet was....so, why is a killer carrying a useless blade for his purposes and 1 blade that would in almost every circumstance, equate with overkill when used?

        Suggesting someone intent on cutting people carried a pen knife for the job isn't reasonable at all.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          I think its fairly clear that anyone carrying a penknife would be doing so as a utility, I don't imagine anyone would plan to cut anything substantial with it, other than some leather from a boot sole like Richardson did with a table knife, or to cut small rope or string. That's why it was a poor weapon to use, and why 37 stabs wasn't enough to kill Martha outright. 1 stab with the bayonet was....so, why is a killer carrying a useless blade for his purposes and 1 blade that would in almost every circumstance, equate with overkill when used?

          Suggesting someone intent on cutting people carried a pen knife for the job isn't reasonable at all.

          It`s interesting that you bring up John Richardson, Michael.
          Here we have an example of someone who had two knives. One knife a blunt penknife, the other a sharp one that can cut through leather.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post


            It`s interesting that you bring up John Richardson, Michael.
            Here we have an example of someone who had two knives. One knife a blunt penknife, the other a sharp one that can cut through leather.
            Yes he did Josh, one from inside from his own table. He didn't carry 2.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Suggesting someone intent on cutting people carried a pen knife for the job isn't reasonable at all.
              That will depend on the type of cutting intended, of course. But I agree that is does not seem like him having pondered organ extraction and such matters that night if the deed was premeditated. Not that I think it was, if our boy was the perp.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                Yes he did Josh, one from inside from his own table. He didn't carry 2.
                Sorry, I should have been replying to you, Jon.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                  That will depend on the type of cutting intended, of course. But I agree that is does not seem like him having pondered organ extraction and such matters that night if the deed was premeditated. Not that I think it was, if our boy was the perp.
                  In historical terms, the overwhelming majority of cases where stabs numbering in the 10's or dozens link to a very angry and out of control person. I do not see anger present in many of these other cases. Cold, and clinical I do see. Marys attack is also angry, but it appears that abates and mindless cutting takes over. I think the authorities were correct in assuming the killer went mad in that room, I just think they missed the boat assuming it was Jack the Ripper doing it.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    In historical terms, the overwhelming majority of cases where stabs numbering in the 10's or dozens link to a very angry and out of control person. I do not see anger present in many of these other cases. Cold, and clinical I do see. Marys attack is also angry, but it appears that abates and mindless cutting takes over. I think the authorities were correct in assuming the killer went mad in that room, I just think they missed the boat assuming it was Jack the Ripper doing it.
                    Marys attack obviously seems like rage and anger, but in my book, it was nothing of the kind. To me, the killer arrived with an agenda, and then he took great care to carry that agenda out. It was all about disassembling Mary Kelly, and if my hunch is correct, the Kelly murder is one of two archetypical murders in the combined series, the other one being the 1873 torso slaying.

                    I have no problems whatsoever to follow your thinking, Michael, and it is logical enough. Its just that I think that it is wrong.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      In historical terms, the overwhelming majority of cases where stabs numbering in the 10's or dozens link to a very angry and out of control person. I do not see anger present in many of these other cases. Cold, and clinical I do see. Marys attack is also angry, but it appears that abates and mindless cutting takes over. I think the authorities were correct in assuming the killer went mad in that room, I just think they missed the boat assuming it was Jack the Ripper doing it.
                      Maybe he didn't go out that night intentionally looking to murder someone? He was trying to keep the lid on his emotions and was ultimately unsuccessful, so ends up murdering MT. The number of stab wounds indicating the rage/pressure relief involved and the type of weapons involved indicating his unpreparedness. There are lots of examples from contemporary serial killers, who try their hardest to suppress their impulses, only to end up failing, with some pretty gruesome results. Could this be what happened here?

                      Tristan

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        Marys attack obviously seems like rage and anger, but in my book, it was nothing of the kind. To me, the killer arrived with an agenda, and then he took great care to carry that agenda out. It was all about disassembling Mary Kelly, and if my hunch is correct, the Kelly murder is one of two archetypical murders in the combined series, the other one being the 1873 torso slaying.

                        I have no problems whatsoever to follow your thinking, Michael, and it is logical enough. Its just that I think that it is wrong.
                        I appreciate the concessions Fisherman. In Marys case the facial slashes..indicated by the back and forth knife marks and skin flap on her forehead, can only be interpreted as having been made in an angry state for me. The component present in Marys case that is not present in any other Unsolved murder of the period is the high probability that her killer was known to her...intimately. That little bit of information can be used when looking at the facial slashes and defensive wounds...passion. Punishing someone implies disapproval with something...I think Marys death was in part someone close to her venting his passions, his anger. Punishing her for "making" him do this maybe? I do think that since that murder includes mindless useless actions taken with a knife, and that whomever killed her did lose some of his identity in the room that night. He crossed over into monster.The emotional temperature in the case of Annies murder is a stark contrast to that, cold, dispassionate and almost clinical. I also believe that the facial markings on Kate were intended to brand her, or mark her, in death.

                        Its not the What, its the Why.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Back to specific posts...As I indicated I believe the fact that the large weapon was used only once and that it was the final stab indicates a desire to conclude the attack. Stabbing someone that many times in close quarters, while they likely slump against you, must be hard work. Whoever used the dagger or bayonet intended to have the attack end, and to finally end the womans life. If someone came across a mortally wounded animal, and had any compassion, they would at least consider a mercy killing. Maybe some men considered street prostitutes expendable as well. When you add a comrade in arms being the one that will get blamed for the killing...and rightfully so....if the woman should miraculously survive the attack, you add another level of indecision.

                          1 swift stab and they hightailed it out of there, the woman would be considered yet another victim of the street violence in the area, and the 2 men would have a heinous act to deal within their respective consciences, along with possibly other conscience crushing heinous acts one sometimes commits while a soldier in battle. Soldiers can do things in war that they will never speak of again, things that you do when in war, but as a regular, moral human being in civilized society, you would never do. I think that might be why neither of them ever confessed.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • I seemed to have halted the discussions with my previous post, my hope is that is because people are considering the ramifications of what I suggested. The order of the knife usage tells us that the last stab using the larger weapon was intended as a final gesture. If the killer who stabs 37 times with a pen knife also uses that larger blade...how come only 1 stab? And why would he use it last?

                            I think its clear that the pen knife stabber was venting, he stabs her all over her midsection, no one stab intended to inflict mortal injury. He's angry. The last stab seems clear in its intent, to end her life with one fatal stab. Does that seem compatible with someone who is in the throes of an angry moment?
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              I seemed to have halted the discussions with my previous post, my hope is that is because people are considering the ramifications of what I suggested. The order of the knife usage tells us that the last stab using the larger weapon was intended as a final gesture. If the killer who stabs 37 times with a pen knife also uses that larger blade...how come only 1 stab? And why would he use it last?

                              I think its clear that the pen knife stabber was venting, he stabs her all over her midsection, no one stab intended to inflict mortal injury. He's angry. The last stab seems clear in its intent, to end her life with one fatal stab. Does that seem compatible with someone who is in the throes of an angry moment?
                              I think people can't read minds. No matter how reasonable their assumptions are.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by TheCuriousCat View Post

                                I think people can't read minds. No matter how reasonable their assumptions are.
                                Reading minds...of someone long dead, Id agree. Impossible. But reading the evidence and interpreting it back to understand some event sequencing can be done. Once you understand what was actually done, you may have a shot at why it was done in the first place. Many people like to use modern serial killer analysis here to argue points, how about studies that involve inordinate amounts of single stabs. Im quite confident that the majority of those cases involve a rage style killing, emotional. I personally do not see any real emotion present with most of the other murders we look at, save Mary Kelly's....., and perhaps a brief rage case with Liz Stride.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X