Eddowes by a different hand?

[GregBaron]

Hi all,

Not sure this is thread worthy but I couldn’t find anywhere to slam it on existing threads. Anyway, I’m curious what you all think of the idea that Eddowes was done by a different hand than Nichols/Chapman. I believe Eddowes was cut upward from the private regions to the sternum unlike Nichols/Chapman where the knife travelled downwards. Even though the kidney was removed from Eddowes (which impressed Dr. Brown) the mutilations can be arguably stated as less skillful. I think with Nichols/Chapman we have a working under the clothes whereas with Eddowes the clothes were sliced. Obviously the facial cuts were a different result. One slice to the throat was a new wrinkle. I’m going off the top so if I’m wrong about these particulars feel free to correct. I think you get my point though…and I’m sure this has been discussed before but I may have missed it…is this enough to deduce a different hand? Or is this simply a slightly varied M.O. dependent on circumstances or an evolving technique or something else? Methinks the M.O. differed a bit but the Song Remains the Same…..I’m interested in the thoughts of some smart people………..

Greg

[kensei]

I think that when you have prostitutes being killed and sliced up with a knife within one square mile days or weeks apart, the odds of more than one killer are slim to begin with. Just because the mutilations are not exactly the same every time does not mean we are dealing with multiple assailants. Such things could be dependent on the way in which each victim resists, or just the inclination of the killer. If we think of JTR as a twisted artist, well, DaVinci didn't paint the same picture every time..

[Errata]

Hi all,

I believe Eddowes was cut upward from the private regions to the sternum unlike Nichols/Chapman where the knife travelled downwards.

I am almost certain she was cut sternum downward. Firstly, the jaggedness of the cut would be consistent with the killer cutting toward himself and getting hung up on her many layers of buttons. Secondly I think the sort of random slash from her hip through the crotch severing the labia was a result of a stab bouncing off a button and glancing off to the side. And then that only works if he were cutting towards himself, if he were crouched between her legs. Just a thought.

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

Not sure this is thread worthy but I couldn’t find anywhere to slam it on existing threads. Anyway, I’m curious what you all think of the idea that Eddowes was done by a different hand than Nichols/Chapman.

Hi Greg.
Do you ask this because of Dr. Phillips opinion, or is this your own conclusion?

I believe Eddowes was cut upward from the private regions to the sternum unlike Nichols/Chapman where the knife travelled downwards.

Even though Dr brown stated:
"The walls of the abdomen were laid open from the breast downwards, The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage in the centre of the body" ?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

up

Hello Jon. Dr. Brown stated:

"The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went UPWARDS . . ." (emphasis mine)

This is in Evans and Skinner's "Ultimate Companion."

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Dr. Brown stated:

"The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went UPWARDS . . ." (emphasis mine)

This is in Evans and Skinner's "Ultimate Companion."

Cheers.
LC

Lynn, would you care to check page 222, last line on the page.

I know what you are referring to, that is on page 206, but they are talking about the direction of the stab wound, not the direction of the abdominal cut.

I know it's confusing.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

ups and downs

Hello Jon. Just read it. "Downwards" is being used as "From x down to (ie, all the way to . . .) y."

The top of next page reiterates that the incision goes upwards.

You are right--it is confusing. Of course, one could claim one hand IN SPITE OF the different direction of the knife. Still, Greg DOES have a good point.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

From whence did he rip?

Thanks for the discussion guys and gals......

Hi Greg.
Do you ask this because of Dr. Phillips opinion, or is this your own conclusion?

Neither Wickerman, I've simply heard it mentioned by minds greater than my own and so I've pondered it.....

I've wondered if after the ripper worked on the face of Eddowes if he simply turned and started ripping the abdomen from above and to her right rather than repositioning between her legs as some have suggested....with Nichols/Chapman it seems he probably did work from between the legs......or perhaps lower and to the right of the legs..........but the steps would probably get in the way at Hanbury St......Hmmm

Whether the differences are significant or not is I suppose the million dollar question...........

Greg

[Wickerman]

..... And then that only works if he were cutting towards himself, if he were crouched between her legs. Just a thought.

In most cases when the doctor refers to the side (left or right) of the body he means "of the body" not as you look down on it (I know you know this). So when the doctor describes the direction of the initial stab into the sternum he says, "the point (of the knife) was towards the left side (towards the heart?), and the handle towards the right"

If, as you suggest, the killer was standing between her legs wouldn't that suggest he was left handed?
A number of years back we had a surgeon on Casebook (Dr Ind/Ing?) who thought the direction of the abdominal cuts suggested the killer stood by her right shoulder.
I think the doctor was assuming he was right-handed?

Regards, Jon S.

[sleekviper]

Wouldn't it depend on the ideal of the killer as to what direction he assumed someone may appear? If she is laying with her head facing the direction that he assumes is the most likely location for a witness, he may cut down so he is facing that way. If her feet are in that direction, the cut would be upward. The best way for sight and sound while cutting? Without moving the body, which would bring a plethora of problems from blood covering spots he would not know in the dark, to wasted time and possibly losing the head, wouldn't adjusting his body, and thus his cut, mean a possible different direction to any victim?

[Errata]

If, as you suggest, the killer was standing between her legs wouldn't that suggest he was left handed?
A number of years back we had a surgeon on Casebook (Dr Ind/Ing?) who thought the direction of the abdominal cuts suggested the killer stood by her right shoulder.
I think the doctor was assuming he was right-handed?

Regards, Jon S.

Well, I think it's probably fair to note that whatever JtR's intentions might have been as far as handedness and cut patterns go, Eddowes wardrobe well and truly confounded him. Her abdominal wounds are clearly a mess, and the fact that she was wearing three layers of button on top probably has a lot to do with it.

I know knives, I know cutting and stabbing, point work, blade work, pressure, all of it. And I have no idea whether Jack was right or left handed. Typically you can tell by the angling of the cut, but I got nothing based on his victim's wounds. Could go either way. I think that for his own purposes, he was proficient with either hand. If I had to guess, I would say right handed given the angling as he neared the pubis. But even that is just a guess.

The slash that goes from hip to perineum is the defining cut for me. It was not a purposeful cut, and it does not conform to her clothing in any way that might suggest he cut through her clothes too deeply. It has to be an accident. The knife bounced off something, and slashed across and down. Because it extends to the perineum, it could not have happened if he were at here head or to either side. When he made that slash, he had to be between her legs. Essentially a pulling stab that glanced off a button, and because he was pulling towards himself, the cut worked towards his center mass. It's depth despite being a ricochet (so to speak) indicates to me that he had both hands on the blade.

Did he go through the whole opening of the abdominal cavity that way? I don't know. I know that pulling towards oneself with a knife is stronger than pushing away. And I know she had on at least 1/4 inch of fabric, probably closer to a half inch, and three layers of buttons. It would take hard work to cut through all those layers. I think he had to move between her legs to try and keep the knife moving. He would have to saw up and down, and anytime the motion stops, he would have had to stab again to regain momentum. There is a point on her abdomen where he clearly deviates from her center line and comes in at an angle (from her right if I recall). That is not uncommon when someone gets frustrated with the angle previously used. I think if he didn't start between her legs, odds are that it was that point in the cut that he changed his angle of attack.

The fact is people move around when cutting something on the floor. If you've ever seen someone cut a pattern out of fabric on the floor, you know what I mean. Even a straight line cut, you get to a point where you are stronger facing the opposite way to complete the cut. I think sometimes that people think about it like a surgeon with a patient on a table. Surgeons don't circle the patient, so they don't imagine a killer circling a victim. But the skills required for Jack the Ripper are not too different than outlining someone in chalk. The precision is in the pressure not in the lines. And for that it is extraordinarily difficult to remain stationary.

[lynn cates]

real/imitation

Hello Errata. Excellent analysis. Of course, the description you give sounds at loggerheads with what Dr. Phillips said about Annie at her post mortem. There, virtually every mutilation was purposeful--the assailant had an object. Here, with Kate, you describe (rightly, I think) much that is random and accidental.

Do you suppose that this is PRECISELY what drove Baxter, in his summary of the Stride case, to allude to Kate's killing as "possibly the work of an imitator"?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

I just got done stuffing my clothes into a laundry basket in preparation for doing a load of wash. The clothes are not in the same order as they were the last time or the time before that. In fact, I have no idea how they were in there before nor do I care. My purpose was simply to get them into the basket. I was not working in the dark or trying to control an adrenaline rush. Also, here in the U.S., stuffing clothes into a laundry basket is not a crime for which you will end up with your neck in a rope.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

I'm stuffed

Hello CD. Interesting story. Sounds like any one of several millions of people could have done what you describe.

But then, why on earth ascribe the "laundry stuffing" to one person?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Excellent analysis. Of course, the description you give sounds at loggerheads with what Dr. Phillips said about Annie at her post mortem. There, virtually every mutilation was purposeful--the assailant had an object. Here, with Kate, you describe (rightly, I think) much that is random and accidental.

Do you suppose that this is PRECISELY what drove Baxter, in his summary of the Stride case, to allude to Kate's killing as "possibly the work of an imitator"?

Cheers.
LC

With respect to Dr. Phillips, I think its possible that he would have been right if Eddowes had not been wearing so many clothes. I think her facial mutilations were purposeful barring slips of the knife (one of the cheek cuts I believe was a slip). And I cannot stress (and this is going to sound weird) how impressed I am with Jack's control of the knife. That kind of control speaks of planning, forethought, and goal orientation.

He did not just stab down into her and rip the knife down to her pubis. If he had his victims organs would have been a wreck. He was not just ripping them, he was carefully opening them. With an eye towards trying to preserve the organs (at least in Chapman and Eddowes cases). That's not easy. Cloth does not easily cut with a knife, especially several layers of cloth with different weaves and different wefts. Flesh is also not easy to cut with a knife. A scalpel is designed to cut layer by layer, in order not to damage the structures beneath. A knife has no such advantage.

If we look at Eddowes liver, we see something somewhat singular, in that it is clearly damaged from his attempts to start cutting from the sternum. It had several cuts and stab wounds. When a person is cutting with the point of a knife, the end of the cut is shallower than the beginning. I think this means the cut started at the sternum. But given her post mortem picture, I think the cut was controlled enough that he had to literally rip her open with his bare hands to sever the rest of the connections. Her abdominal flesh appears to have been ripped away from it's supportive structure, and that's the only explanation I have for that.

All due respect to Baxter, the idea that these were "unskillful mutilations" is simply not correct. These mutilations were certainly less skilled than previous ones, and look more disorganized than previous kills, but there is an amazing amount of skill involved in the precision of the depth of his cuts. Jack didn't need to cut it straight neat lines. He needed to cut to a certain depth and no more. My dad the doctor set up a weird test for me to see if I could do it, and I couldn't. Not without quite a bit of practice. Does this mean Jack was a surgeon or a butcher? No. But he had some mad knife skills.

My dad said that the description of Polly Nichols injuries sound exactly like what he would imagine an experiment to look like. He think Jack used Nichols to perfect his technique, trying different methods and different amounts of force to see what was necessary to gain access to the abdominal cavity without ruining the organs beneath. I'm not sure I buy that, but it's interesting to think about.