Eddowes by a different hand?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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,

[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.

[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]

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?

[GregBaron]

Not the first time...

Hi Errata,

In Rob House's recent book it mentions "two small stabs to the private parts" of Nichols. This was apparently in the report of Inspector J. Spratling. Rob also emphasizes the Victorian taboo of mentioning private parts and how such references were often left out of newspaper reports so as not to offend the sensibilities... I'm not sure of any such stab wounds on Chapman but Tabram certainly had similar cuts in that region. Again, one can deduce escalation but obviously there are other interpretations....

Greg

[Hunter]

The upper part of Chapman's vagina was missing. That, along with the uterus and part of the bladder were removed with 'one sweep of the knife'. Her killer basically cut out a wedge like cutting a piece of melon and took it all as one piece. Phillips was amazed that the rectum was avoided in the process; thus his conclusion of anatomical knowledge or skill. What he seemed to not contemplate (he'd never faced anything like this before) was the reason for the removal of the viscera, which was unnecessary to just remove the uterus.

This, of course, was done to Eddowes and Kelly as well. The way Kelly's abdominal flaps were removed was similar to what was done to Chapman.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

In Rob House's recent book it mentions "two small stabs to the private parts" of Nichols. This was apparently in the report of Inspector J. Spratling. Rob also emphasizes the Victorian taboo of mentioning private parts and how such references were often left out of newspaper reports so as not to offend the sensibilities... I'm not sure of any such stab wounds on Chapman but Tabram certainly had similar cuts in that region. Again, one can deduce escalation but obviously there are other interpretations....

Greg

The Victorian nomenclature for this particular area would be "thighs". Which I imagine is close enough. Although the coroner's report on Eddowes is remarkably candid.

I really can't speak to the information in Rob House's book, which I admit I have not read.

The coroner does not account for such an injury, and I have to be blunt here, I cannot imagine that a Constable is going to be examining the external sexual organs of a disemboweled woman, especially with the guy who is supposed to be doing such checks right there with him.

But maybe he was a hobbyist. What I think may be more true is that she had two stab wounds below the navel, which would be well within Victorian "private parts". Certainly visible without ahh... a gynecologist's eye view.

But again that may also not be true. Just because I don't think a Victorian cop is going to focus on her nethers doesn't mean he didn't.

[Errata]

The upper part of Chapman's vagina was missing. That, along with the uterus and part of the bladder were removed with 'one sweep of the knife'. Her killer basically cut out a wedge like cutting a piece of melon and took it all as one piece. Phillips was amazed that the rectum was avoided in the process; thus his conclusion of anatomical knowledge or skill. What he seemed to not contemplate (he'd never faced anything like this before) was the reason for the removal of the viscera, which was unnecessary to just remove the uterus.

This, of course, was done to Eddowes and Kelly as well. The way Kelly's abdominal flaps were removed was similar to what was done to Chapman.

Well, less the upper portion of her vagina as much as her cervix. Which I think is revealing. And this may be total girl reasoning. Chapman was found in a position that closely mimics that of a woman getting her annual pelvic. The way a GYN (sorry about this guys) checks the cervix is to insert two fingers and press the cervix up towards the abdomen, and palpitates the cervix from outside. I think thats how he located the uterus. I think he inserted a finger and pressed upward, which would make the cervix visible above the pubic arch. I think he then cut above his finger, which would be right at the cervix.
He also took part of the bladder, so it seems that keeping the uterus intact was pretty important. Eddowes vagina was severed lower down, I think.


Removing the viscera is not necessary to remove the uterus, but it makes it easier to sever the mesentaries, if that's what he did. It's a little unclear. And if I were him, and I had perhaps punctured an intestine, I'd get it out of the way, cause thats quite a smell. I also don't know what happened to the ovaries of anyone, and that's something worth knowing.

[sleekviper]

Hello curious.
Yes, I am aware how some may view the events of that night.