Eddowes by a different hand?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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..

[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