Eddowes by a different hand?

[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

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 LC,

It shouldn't surprise you when I say that what you gave me here was just a very little piece of that much bigger picture. Now, I'm not going to promise you that I'll agree with your bigger picture, but I'm surely interested in knowing more about it, so I can actually see the complete bigger picture you refer to and form an opinion.

Cheers,
Frank

[curious]

Thanks Frank,

I had seen this before, but didn't run across it again when I was counting layers.

Very strange.

To me, it reads almost as though he cut the layers separately. Does it read like that to anyone else?

chintz skirt -- bloodstained 6.5 inch cut
brown linsey bodice 5 inch "Clean-cut" at bottom

could these maybe be one cut? if so, why no blood on bodice?

grey petticoat bloodstained 1.5 inch cut

could this be part of the two above cuts?

then what appears to be a three-layer cut: green alpaca skirt and blue skirt with lining both -- cut 10.5 inches in a downward direction

sounds to me as though he was slicing through the green skirt and managed to cut through the waistband of blue skirt below below -- but no blood. So was he trying to loosen her clothing?

And something even stranger that I noticed: Frank's number 9: her apron is listed as being in her possessions as as though perhaps she was not wearing it at the time.

Until I processed that, I had considered that Eddowes killer had taken part of the apron for a specific purpose, but if Kake was carrying pieces of her apron as she was also carrying 2 large handkerchiefs, 12 rags, and numerous other pieces of fabric, perhaps he just grabbed a piece of cloth without knowing it could be matched to any of the other pieces. I believe there's a previous thread that debates whether Eddowes was wearing her apron or not . . .

Anyway, Eddowes certainly had more possessions than poor Annie and more layers.

would that be a reason that the clothing was cut?

[Wickerman]

sounds to me as though he was slicing through the green skirt and managed to cut through the waistband of blue skirt below below -- but no blood. So was he trying to loosen her clothing?

Some of her clothing may have been lifted up over her chest as he thrust the knife into her breast and run it downwards. If the knife cut through where her clothes were folded some cuts in her clothes will be longer than others when the clothes were eventually opened out.

And something even stranger that I noticed: Frank's number 9: her apron is listed as being in her possessions as as though perhaps she was not wearing it at the time.

They only noticed that she was wearing an apron when her body was laid out at the mortuary, the piece still attached to her was hidden in the folds of her clothes.
So she was wearing an apron.

Regards, Jon S.

[Colin Roberts]

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

I put little faith in probability.

Yet, ...

I am convinced that, after Isenschmid was sent to Grove Hall, others "took over his work" for their own purposes.

... you are "convinced", Lynn, that Isenschmid was guilty of having committed the murders of Nichols and Chapman, even though there is not a shred of tangible evidence that can 'connect' him to either of those atrocities?

I would contend that you are placing a great deal of faith in 'probability', in this particular instance.

And, what of your statement, ...

... I fully believe that, by 2015, mention of "Jack the Ripper" will be met with guffaws and cries of, "How could people have ever fallen for that one?"

..., which was made within a post that you entitled "I predict . . ."?

Would you care to make a wager?

[lynn cates]

let the evidence show . . .

Hello Colin.

"you are "convinced", Lynn, that Isenschmid was guilty of having committed the murders of Nichols and Chapman, even though there is not a shred of tangible evidence that can 'connect' him to either of those atrocities?"

Well, the only evidence that remains after 123 years is circumstantial. So:

1. Given ALL the suspects, which ones are listed as dangerous?

2. Given ALL the suspects, which one carried a well ground butcher's knife?

3. Given ALL the suspects, which one wandered the streets of London in the early morning hours, autumn 1888?

4. Given ALL the suspects, which one kept trinkets (think: brass rings) thinking they were valuable?

5. Given ALL the suspects, which one was known to have sexual problems (approach/avoidance--"I wear white in my buttonhole because I am all purity.")?

6. Given ALL the suspects, which one was caught choking a female?

I submit that, if even two of these items could be pinned to a major suspect (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) there would be cries of "Case Closed."

I still predict that, once the truth becomes known, this whole affair will look silly.

Do you, perchance, owe me a pint of bitters?

Cheers.
LC