Eddowes by a different hand?

[Errata]

Since most people who believe the double event was a Jack event seem to believe he was interrupted with Stride and thus even more intense with Eddowes . . . thus the reason for the increased destruction

Personally, I think the thing that provoked Jack with Catherine Eddowes was not the failure with Stride. I think it was Eddowes face. I think he killed her before he got a good look at her, and she reminded him of someone he could not "perform" in front of.

In my wayward youth a bunch of little delinquents I hung out with used to shoplift candy and stuff all the time. At any store except for the 7-11 by my house, because the guy working there looked exactly like the chief little delinquents Grandfather, who he worshiped. He couldn't do it. Wouldn't let anyone else do it. Despite the fact it clearly was not his Grandfather.

I imagine it's also the reason why people avoid having sex with someone who looks like their parent. A: that's creepy and b: who needs to look down and see mommy's face looking up? That's not good for anyone. And c: did I mention it's creepy?

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

I think you are spot on.

There are definate differences. The other point is that if it had been Jack who had killed Kelly then why did he wait until he got nside her room? She was out in the street soliciting. He could have just taken her there as he supposedly did with all the others.

And I thank you.

Best wishes.

No thank you

But on this point I may have to disagree with you. I've been to London in November. If I'm going to be up to my armpits in victim, I'd rather it be indoors if I had the choice. With a fire.

[Errata]

Amazing theory Errata and thanks for providing.......I think Nichols had a genital stab as did some of the pre-canonicals like Tabram.....very interesting point though..........I guess one could still stick to the idea of more time with MJK to indulge in the various "lust murder" perversions...........


Greg

Well, I feel compelled to point out that amputating the labia is about as time demanding as cutting off an earlobe. And achieved roughly the same way.

I'm actually kind of surprised that the women did not have many wounds in their upper thighs or below the pubic arch. Any slash could easily have terminated in either of those two places, but only the one on Eddowes did. And even that was much more a leg injury than a pubic injury. I would even have assumed that the pubic bone would have been used to stop the knife, and would therefore be cut up or chipped, even cracked. But to the best of my knowledge there is no mention of any damage to the pubic bone on any of the victims. It kinda seems like he is very carefully avoiding that region. Now, if he had a hand on the pubic bone as a guide that would explain it, as he would avoid cutting his own hand, I just don't know why he would bother, especially if he could just keep sawing until he hit the bone, or slicing until the flesh stopped, so to speak.

The whole thing is weird.

BTW: to the best of my knowledge, there is not mention of any groin injuries to Nichols, that I am aware of, but if you know different I would appreciate a source. It could change things.

[curious]

I get a lot of flak for this particular line of reasoning, so here it goes. I am aware that any killer who focuses on the pelvic region is considered a lust murderer. That it is considered a sexual crime. But in this case I disagree.


So that's my theory. Do with it what you will

No flak from me. That's a wonderfully detailed study and an analysis I had not yet considered.

Thanks,

[curious]

If someone has just killed, and is in the process of killing again minutes later, his focus may have changed. On a single kill, there is just the situation at hand to explain, but with not knowing what is happening back with Stride, he has to focus more intently on what goes on around him than at any other time I would think. He has spent time to get her in a prone position, so that time that has passed subtracts from the lead that he has since Stride may have been found seconds after he left for all he knows. Just me, but a shift in detail from the victim, to detail in what goes on around him would happen if he had also killed Stride.

Since most people who believe the double event was a Jack event seem to believe he was interrupted with Stride and thus even more intense with Eddowes . . . thus the reason for the increased destruction

If he were truly driven to mutilate, and DRIVEN is the operative word here, would he not have pulled up the clothing so he could truly release those pent-up emotions?

Would he actually be able to concentrate on his surroundings instead of indulging his mutilations to meet those increased needs?

Is it possible he could have controlled himself to that extent?


I'm not sure that anyone with that kind of "need" would have any control at that point.

curious

[Wickerman]

Hello Errata,

I think you are spot on.

There are definate differences. The other point is that if it had been Jack who had killed Kelly then why did he wait until he got nside her room? She was out in the street soliciting. He could have just taken her there as he supposedly did with all the others.

Maybe because the streets were crawling with undercover police, Vigilance members, and other self-described private detectives.

Regards, Jon S.

[Hatchett]

Hello Errata,

I think you are spot on.

There are definate differences. The other point is that if it had been Jack who had killed Kelly then why did he wait until he got nside her room? She was out in the street soliciting. He could have just taken her there as he supposedly did with all the others.

And I thank you.

Best wishes.

[GregBaron]

Time or focus?

Originally Posted by Errata

I get a lot of flak for this particular line of reasoning, so here it goes. I am aware that any killer who focuses on the pelvic region is considered a lust murderer. That it is considered a sexual crime. But in this case I disagree.

Yes, Jack focused on the pelvic region, and yes he took the uterus of two victims. But there are both internal and external sexual characteristics. The external genitalia of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (barring that bounced cut) are left untouched. The breasts are left untouched. Even the vaginas are only injured due to his desire to pull out the uterus intact. While the uterus may psychologically be considered a sex organ (in a Freudian way), it in fact has nothing to do with the act of sex. It has to do with the act of generation. And nothing that is associated with the act of sex is harmed on these women. To put it another way, I think it is a breeder thing, not a sex thing.

Kelly's external sexual characteristics were... pulped. Her labia, clitoris, part of mons were removed, probably to the bone. Her breasts were removed. Her vagina is removed, possibly missing. Her lips were shredded, but her eyes intact. Her uterus (and possibly the vagina if they were removed as a single structure) and one breast were placed under her head like a pillow. And her heart is missing. That to me is a: intensely personal and b: intensely sexual. Jack had exposed his previous victims. He had the opportunity, and with very little effort, to remove the external sex organs. But he didn't. He certainly didn't need to be indoors to indulge in that. And if he were sexually motivated, I can't understand why he wouldn't.

Amazing theory Errata and thanks for providing.......I think Nichols had a genital stab as did some of the pre-canonicals like Tabram.....very interesting point though..........I guess one could still stick to the idea of more time with MJK to indulge in the various "lust murder" perversions...........


Greg

[sleekviper]

If someone has just killed, and is in the process of killing again minutes later, his focus may have changed. On a single kill, there is just the situation at hand to explain, but with not knowing what is happening back with Stride, he has to focus more intently on what goes on around him than at any other time I would think. He has spent time to get her in a prone position, so that time that has passed subtracts from the lead that he has since Stride may have been found seconds after he left for all he knows. Just me, but a shift in detail from the victim, to detail in what goes on around him would happen if he had also killed Stride.

[Errata]

anyway, a question for Errrata and others, why do you think the MJK murder any more sexual than any other? To me it's just Eddowes without time constraints.

Greg

I get a lot of flak for this particular line of reasoning, so here it goes. I am aware that any killer who focuses on the pelvic region is considered a lust murderer. That it is considered a sexual crime. But in this case I disagree.

Yes, Jack focused on the pelvic region, and yes he took the uterus of two victims. But there are both internal and external sexual characteristics. The external genitalia of Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes (barring that bounced cut) are left untouched. The breasts are left untouched. Even the vaginas are only injured due to his desire to pull out the uterus intact. While the uterus may psychologically be considered a sex organ (in a Freudian way), it in fact has nothing to do with the act of sex. It has to do with the act of generation. And nothing that is associated with the act of sex is harmed on these women. To put it another way, I think it is a breeder thing, not a sex thing.

Kelly's external sexual characteristics were... pulped. Her labia, clitoris, part of mons were removed, probably to the bone. Her breasts were removed. Her vagina is removed, possibly missing. Her lips were shredded, but her eyes intact. Her uterus (and possibly the vagina if they were removed as a single structure) and one breast were placed under her head like a pillow. And her heart is missing. That to me is a: intensely personal and b: intensely sexual. Jack had exposed his previous victims. He had the opportunity, and with very little effort, to remove the external sex organs. But he didn't. He certainly didn't need to be indoors to indulge in that. And if he were sexually motivated, I can't understand why he wouldn't.

So that's my theory. Do with it what you will

[Errata]

But what does Jack slicing through clothing on Eddowes and lifting their clothing to slice Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman say about whether it's the same hand or not?

If a person was killing just in order to mutilate, and liked the feeling of the skin and being better able to control what and where he was cutting, would he really then cut through Eddowes clothing?

For what possible reason would he cut through the clothing instead of lifting the clothing?

Well, it is possible that the skirts were lifted on Nichols and Chapman because he needed to see what he was doing. I think (personally) that Chapman was posed the way she was in order for him to locate the uterus through..ahh... digital manipulation. Much akin to a gynecologist examining the cervix. He may have had more confidence by the time he got to Eddowes.

It is also possible that he simply got frustrated with the sheer number of layers Eddowes was wearing. Her coat appeared to be open in the crime scene drawings, and her skirts shoved up. But her top layers may very well have been fitted enough that he could not just shove them out of the way. It may have just seemed faster to cut through them. Her skirts were cut, but I think that was simply to create a waist opening large enough to push them over her ribcage.

[GregBaron]

Love to peruse...

Hi Lynn,

I'm not sure if I've read that dissertation or not off the top of my head......I briefly looked on Casebook and didn't see it........is it in a Ripperologist magazine? If you can point it out anywhere I'd love to read it....

Perhaps you're right the devil is in the details..........


Greg

[lynn cates]

dissertation

Hello Greg. I don't think it is morbid at all. In fact, you are asking the kinds of questions that I think need to be asked. Once all these kinds of questions are answered, I think we will be much closer to the answer.

Clothing, of course, could have played a role. But, I don't recall whether Eddowes was wearing stays as Polly was.

Have you, perchance, read Gareth's dissertation on Kate's murder? He is convinced that Eddowes was killed by Annie's killer. The article is excellent and I am particularly keen on his including a possible time line. This is the sort of thing that needs to be done--even if I disagree with his conclusion.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

One shouldn't presuppose.........

That's an interesting question. Of course, it already presupposes a "Jack" who was the lone killer of all 3 ladies. Hence, the question will be easier to answer once the presupposition is established

Thanks for correcting my

through

Lynn, you know what hurrying can sometimes do......

Indeed you are correct above and the thread was begun without that presupposition........ I wonder if the clothing itself determined the methodology in each kill? I remember someone gave an interesting description of cutting beneath the stays on Nichols.......this was most likely frustrating.......I'm still unsure how Chapman's clothing was dealt with...was it easier to lift and separate? I find the logistics fascinating but not in a morbid way I hope......


Greg

[lynn cates]

presupposition

Hello Greg.

"I wonder if Jack thought cutting thr[ough] the clothing might save time and degree of difficulty after learning on Chapman/Nichols..........?"

That's an interesting question. Of course, it already presupposes a "Jack" who was the lone killer of all 3 ladies. Hence, the question will be easier to answer once the presupposition is established.

Cheers.
LC