Eddowes by a different hand?

[FrankO]

Hi Velma,

Here's a list of Eddowes' clothes, including the cuts in them, based on the official list of her clothes, as included in 'The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook' by Evans & Skinner. Hopefully they are of interest.

1. Black cloth jacket: it contained no cuts
2. Man’s white vest: button to match down front, no cuts mentioned
3. Chintz skirt, 3 flounces: brown button on waistband: jagged cut of 6.5 inches from waistband on the left side on the front, edges slightly bloodstained
4. Brown linsey dress bodice with brown metal buttons in front: clean cut on bottom left side, from right to left, 5 inches long
5. Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband: cut of 1.5 inches in front on waistband, edges bloodstained
6. Very old green alpaca skirt: jagged cut of 10.5 inches in front of waistband, made in a downward direction
7. Very old ragged blue skirt: jagged cut of 10.5 inches through the waistband, made in a downward direction
8. White calico chemise: apparently torn in the middle on the front side
9. Old white apron: one piece being cut off and found in Goulston Street

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Errata,

Although you make some interesting points, I still haven’t been able to work out how he got all of those clothes out of the way with the cuts he made in her clothes and the pattern of these cuts. What you propose doesn't quite fit the evidence, nor does what I proposed earlier. One odd thing about this is that the cut in the dress bodice doesn’t correspond with the longest cuts in Eddowes’ skirts, nor with any cuts in her abdomen.

All the best,
Frank

[curious]

So I think I'm left with him starting his abdominal cut through the clothing. At least until the navel where he would have either cut through the garments, or opened them sufficiently to shove them upward. Of course, two layers of buttons would explain the hash he made of the incision.

Really? cut through six layers (maybe more) of fabric on her abdomen?

would that even be possible?

Let's count 'em -- the layers.
According to the victims' section of Casebook, Eddowes was wearing at the time of her murder:

Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.

Let's say that was open and the murderer did not have to cut through it.


*** 1 layer Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
?? Man's white vest, Depends on length whether it was on abdomen or not -- matching buttons down front.
?? Brown linsey bodice, How far down did it extend?black velvet collar with brown buttons down front[/B][/B]
2. Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
3. Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
4 Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, and 5 light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
6 White calico chemise
No drawers or stays


So, for sure 6 layers and perhaps 8 and someone was trying to cut through all this?

He was going to take organs, but started cutting cut through all those layers? Is that believable? or even possible?

Great thread.

I now know what I believe about the question.

[Errata]

It seems that we're in agreement, Errata, but to be sure, let me add that I've always pictured him putting his knife under the clothes and cut them from there towards himself, being positioned between her legs.

All the best,
Frank

For the skirts, once you cut the waistband or the drawstring, you have pretty much completely free movement. With tops however, the same does not hold true.

Ideally, the bodice should fit quite snugly. Almost corset tight, but as it's second hand, it could be very tight, or a little looser (say, about 1/4 inch play). A man's vest being used as a supportive undergarment would be tight, in order to squash the breasts down to immobility. A chemise is very loose, and really gets crammed into bodices (picture fitting a grocery bag into a toilet paper roll). The fit for fashionable ladies would be such that you could not get a coin between the skin and the bodice. For second hand wear, you could probably get a finger between the skin and the bodice, but not a whole hand, and certainly not a fist holding a knife. And of course none of these fabrics are even remotely elastic.

Now the inquest says that her dress was ripped open in the front, but I don't exactly know what that means. She was not wearing a dress, although she was wearing a dress coat that was open according to the crime scene sketches. It seems highly unlikely that he managed to rip open four layers of clothing, even though three of those layers were buttoned. But if he were going to cut down the front of her garments from the top, why didn't he cut down to the hems? So I think they meant that the coat was ripped open, but top layers of clothing were relatively intact.

So I think I'm left with him starting his abdominal cut through the clothing. At least until the navel where he would have either cut through the garments, or opened them sufficiently to shove them upward. Of course, two layers of buttons would explain the hash he made of the incision.

[lynn cates]

back in business

Hello Frank.

"Could you reveal the much bigger picture that you see, Lynn?"

I'd be delighted. I am convinced that, after Isenschmid was sent to Grove Hall, others "took over his work" for their own purposes. I think the "Dear Boss" announced this.

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

That's fine. But there may be a much BIGGER picture than that.

Could you reveal the much bigger picture that you see, Lynn?

I put little faith in probability.

I have no problem with that, Lynn - to each his own.

Cheers,
Frank

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

this, that, other

Hello Frank.

"I'm afraid I don't agree with you, Lynn."

That's fine.

"Theoretically, you may be right."

Thank you.

"There's no proof that one man was responsible."

Completely agree.

"On the other hand, the details of the murders committed by a serial murderer, including the wounds, are hardly ever going to be the same in each murder."

That's quite true. But how do we know that we are dealing with a serial murderer here?

"So I don't think we should look at those details but rather at the bigger picture. Looking at it, I see 3 women murdered, found in similar degrading positions out in the street, with their throats cut and their abdomen cut open."

That's fine. But there may be a much BIGGER picture than that.

"And I think there's very little chance that more than one person committed these crimes."

I put little faith in probability.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm afraid I don't agree with you, Lynn. Theoretically, you may be right. There's no proof that one man was responsible. On the other hand, the details of the murders committed by a serial murderer, including the wounds, are hardly ever going to be the same in each murder. So I don't think we should look at those details but rather at the bigger picture. Looking at it, I see 3 women murdered, found in similar degrading positions out in the street, with their throats cut and their abdomen cut open. And I think there's very little chance that more than one person committed these crimes.

Cheers,
Frank

I think you ought to consider that the abdominal openings referred to were as a result of the mutilations. I think cut and slash comes to mind.

If the killer or killers were targeting the organs then would they have attacked and mutilated the abdomen in such a way that those actions would likley as not damage any internal organs and make it very difficult to remove them with precision.

On another point regarding Eddowes in particular she was subjected to a ferocious attack as the whole spectrum of the wounds suggest. So here we have a killer carrying out a frenzied attack in the first instance and then it it suggested suddenly switches to being cool calm and collective and removes the organs in such a way and all of this in less than 9 minutes.

Come on people stop kidding yourselves.

[FrankO]

It seems that we're in agreement, Errata, but to be sure, let me add that I've always pictured him putting his knife under the clothes and cut them from there towards himself, being positioned between her legs.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

I would have thought proper procedure to compare and contrast the wounds, etc. and then, and only then, to decide just how many lads are involved.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you, Lynn. Theoretically, you may be right. There's no proof that one man was responsible. On the other hand, the details of the murders committed by a serial murderer, including the wounds, are hardly ever going to be the same in each murder. So I don't think we should look at those details but rather at the bigger picture. Looking at it, I see 3 women murdered, found in similar degrading positions out in the street, with their throats cut and their abdomen cut open. And I think there's very little chance that more than one person committed these crimes.

Cheers,
Frank

[Errata]

If we look at the surviving evidence, there is no suggestion that Eddowes’ killer mutilated her through her clothes. Her clothes were mentioned a couple of times by 3 persons, but none of them suggested that he had mutilated Eddowes through her clothes. It seems odd to me that it wasn’t mentioned, especially by Dr. Brown, if he thought it had probably happened that way.

While I certainly agree that her skirts were cut to shove them up, the style of the garments she was wearing on top would not at all lend themselves to such a move. The number of layers and the fitted styles probably meant that her bodice, vest, coat, and chemise were quite tight across the abdomen and lower ribs. I'm not sure he could have pushed them up out of the way. Looking at the sketch from the crime scene, it appears as though her coat was opened, but not the other garments. I don't know the description of her upper body clothes, but all things being equal, I think he had to cut through them at least until about the navel.

[lynn cates]

1 little, 2 little, 3 little murderers

Hello Frank. "I’m not quite sure what exactly you mean by your question, Lynn."

I was just wondering how one could attribute psychological motivation here.

"What I am sure about, though, is that the Ripper, on 3 occasions, risked his life for those abdominal mutilations."

How can you be sure that there IS such a chap? I mean does this not already assume that there is a solo entity out and about?

I would have thought proper procedure to compare and contrast the wounds, etc. and then, and only then, to decide just how many lads are involved.

Cheers.
LC

[FrankO]

Why assume this as the cause of the killing?

I’m not quite sure what exactly you mean by your question, Lynn. What I am sure about, though, is that the Ripper, on 3 occasions, risked his life for those abdominal mutilations. After all, the longer he stayed at the crime scene, the bigger the chance that he got caught and was subsequently hanged. From that viewpoint, I think it’s a safe bet that the cause of the killing lay somewhere in those abdominal mutilations.

But perhaps he didn’t care much for the cutting open of the abdomen (although I’m inclined to believe that’s not true), so I should have written ‘I can very easily imagine it would also have satisfied him far more’ instead of ‘it would also have satisfied him far more.‘

Cheers,
Frank

[lynn cates]

cause

Hello Frank.

"Also, from the killer’s perspective, it wouldn’t just be more practical to cut the bare skin, it would also have satisfied him far more. As you say, he must have liked the feeling of the skin and being better able to control what and where he was cutting."

Why assume this as the cause of the killing?

Cheers.
LC