Eddowes by a different hand?

[Harry D]

Thanks Rosella. Given that Dr Phillips had some doubts whether Eddowes was murdered by the same man that killed Nichols and Chapman, partly because of the degree of 'skill' required, it's interesting to speculate whether the killer's mental state was the reason, rather than a copycat being at large.

I also think that Errata's point about Eddowes' layers of clothing needs to be taken into account when discussing the discrepancy in skill.

As for the idea that the killer took his frustrations out on Eddowes, it isn't by any means a novel theory but it's one that's certainly conceivable. It wasn't the murder or the actual throat-cutting itself that satisfied the killer, it was the post-mortem mutilations. So, if you think of the killer like an addict, and assume the Stride murder was a bungled Ripper job, he would've become even more unstable after missing out on his fix and this may have converted itself into the savage nature of the facial mutilations. I'm not sure if that's how it works in reality, though. Personally, I think there was something about Eddowes that triggered this deviation to the killer's signature.

[Matt Michael]

Just using my imagination here, but yes I can imagine him being filled with rage and frustration at being interrupted at his 'work'. He was determined when he met Eddowes I think, that he wasn't going to be disturbed a second time that night.

Thanks Rosella. Given that Dr Phillips had some doubts whether Eddowes was murdered by the same man that killed Nichols and Chapman, partly because of the degree of 'skill' required, it's interesting to speculate whether the killer's mental state was the reason, rather than a copycat being at large.

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Wickerman
Prior to be taken drunk to Bishopsgate Station P C Robinson saw that she was wearing an apron.
When asked at the inquest by Mr Crawford:
"Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron." -
Robinson: "Yes, she was."

Constable Henry Hutt, on discharging Eddowes, stated at the inquest:
"He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one."

Det. Daniel Halse....." accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Eddowes was wearing the apron.
Done!

Regards, Jon S.

Your witnesses convinced me, Jon.

Especially Halse who seemed particularly observant not just in regard to the apron, but also in regard to the GSG.

Thanks for providing the testimony!

curious

As is normal those who want to believe she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered cherry pick the evidence which supports that view.

The two police officers were not asked those questions until the inquest which was 12 days after the event. If I asked you now if you could recall what you were wearing 12 day ago would you remember?

How could Pc Robinson positively identify a piece of white apron put before him as being part of the one she was supposedly wearing when most of the women in London wore white aprons.

I notice that the station Sgt who booked her in and released her makes no mention of her wearing an apron.

May I suggest you study and examine all the evidence before making your final decision in particular the list of clothing and personal effects written down by Insp Collard as the body was stripped, no mention of an apron.

The rest of the testimony of the witnesses is ambiguous to say the least but do your own research its not as clear cut as you have been led to believe. I am not going to get into arguments again on this issue it has been done to death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Rosella]

Just using my imagination here, but yes I can imagine him being filled with rage and frustration at being interrupted at his 'work'. He was determined when he met Eddowes I think, that he wasn't going to be disturbed a second time that night.

[Matt Michael]

I wondered whether anyone has any thoughts on this theory: IF the murderer had been disturbed / scared off during his attack on Stride, what kind of mental state might he have been in when he met Eddowes? Furious at being denied the pleasure he got from the abdominal attacks? Could this perhaps explain the relative ferocity of the attack on Eddowes: slicing through clothes and even being a bit sloppier about removing the organs than with Chapman because he doesn't want to be interrupted a second time? Even cutting the face (although there could be many explanations for this - Sutcliffe stabbed the eye of one victim because he thought he corpse was 'looking accusingly' at him).

The 'Double Event' has always bothered me in that if the killer was nearly caught on Berner Street, would he really have dared do a second attack the same night? But if he was in some kind of unfulfilled blood lust, and throwing caution to the wind, does this go some way to explain the slight differences?

[Wickerman]

You are wasting your breath Jon,

You'd do better just banging your head against a wall and cut out the wasted time you accumilate persuing this.

Monty

Thankyou Neil, I've had enough head-banging arguments of late.


All the best, Jon

[curious]

Originally Posted by Wickerman
Prior to be taken drunk to Bishopsgate Station P C Robinson saw that she was wearing an apron.
When asked at the inquest by Mr Crawford:
"Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron." -
Robinson: "Yes, she was."

Constable Henry Hutt, on discharging Eddowes, stated at the inquest:
"He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one."

Det. Daniel Halse....." accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Eddowes was wearing the apron.
Done!

Regards, Jon S.

You are wasting your breath Jon,

I had this arguement with Trevor months ago and yet he still peddles his theory, and that's all it is, as fact.

Despites the weight of evidence to the contrary.

You'd do better just banging your head against a wall and cut out the wasted time you accumilate persuing this.

Monty


Cue bold text and a rant

Your witnesses convinced me, Jon.

Especially Halse who seemed particularly observant not just in regard to the apron, but also in regard to the GSG.

Thanks for providing the testimony!

curious

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Greg.

"This I find intriguing. It seems he may have had 5 or 6 minutes if Lawende in fact saw Eddowes and her killer. I believe the doctor thought it impressive if Chapman was done in 15 minutes. That's quite a different amount of time."

I think the difference is that the examiner thought the cuts in Annie's case very precise and methodical; in Kate's case, I believe the word "crude" or "unskillful" came up. It seems like 2 people, each of whom try to carve a fowl. One has lovely large piece; I would have tiny bites, looking like shreds.

I daresay that accounts for the difference of the time estimate, as well as the question regarding "imitation." Roughly, practiced hand versus unpracticed.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Prior to be taken drunk to Bishopsgate Station P C Robinson saw that she was wearing an apron.
When asked at the inquest by Mr Crawford:
"Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron." -
Robinson: "Yes, she was."

Constable Henry Hutt, on discharging Eddowes, stated at the inquest:
"He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one."

Det. Daniel Halse....." accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Eddowes was wearing the apron.
Done!

Regards, Jon S.

You are wasting your breath Jon,

I had this arguement with Trevor months ago and yet he still peddles his theory, and that's all it is, as fact.

Despites the weight of evidence to the contrary.

You'd do better just banging your head against a wall and cut out the wasted time you accumilate persuing this.

Monty


Cue bold text and a rant

[Errata]

This I find intriguing. It seems he may have had 5 or 6 minutes if Lawende in fact saw Eddowes and her killer. I believe the doctor thought it impressive if Chapman was done in 15 minutes. That's quite a different amount of time. Maybe the killer was drunker when doing Eddowes and hence less coordinated. Perhaps his knife or knives were less sharp. Perhaps it had rained and he was slipping and sloshing a bit............just throwing some thoughts out there...

Greg

What is the evidence of a frenzy? I'm not dismissing it, but when I look at the cuts and injuries, I don't see a frenzy. I see a certain amount of emotion in the wounds on the face, but otherwise I just see some mistakes. And understandable ones. A ricochet, cutting too deep in a few places, essentially imperfect knife control. Is it a frenzy compared to his other victims? A frenzy compared to a surgeon?

[GregBaron]

Too much coffee...?

Good point. But would that not preclude a bit of his fancier knife work--cut eyelids, nose removed after 2 tries, etc?

Also a fair point Lynn. But maybe after wasting time on the face he thought "Crikes, I've got to hurry now here comes Watkins"?

If I recall properly, it was stated at inquest that there was sufficient time for him to do his work.

This I find intriguing. It seems he may have had 5 or 6 minutes if Lawende in fact saw Eddowes and her killer. I believe the doctor thought it impressive if Chapman was done in 15 minutes. That's quite a different amount of time. Maybe the killer was drunker when doing Eddowes and hence less coordinated. Perhaps his knife or knives were less sharp. Perhaps it had rained and he was slipping and sloshing a bit............just throwing some thoughts out there...

Greg

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello Greg.

"If we add lighting and perhaps the knowledge that PC Watkins was due in 3 minutes – that might explain the frenzy?"

Good point. But would that not preclude a bit of his fancier knife work--cut eyelids, nose removed after 2 tries, etc?

If I recall properly, it was stated at inquest that there was sufficient time for him to do his work.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Prior to be taken drunk to Bishopsgate Station P C Robinson saw that she was wearing an apron.
When asked at the inquest by Mr Crawford:
"Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron." -
Robinson: "Yes, she was."

Constable Henry Hutt, on discharging Eddowes, stated at the inquest:
"He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one."

Det. Daniel Halse....." accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Eddowes was wearing the apron.
Done!

Regards, Jon S.

[GregBaron]

Any other explanations..?

Hi,

Excellent contributions from all parties. I’m trying to find explanations for the seemingly different style on Kate than Chapman/Nichols. I think Errata made a succint point with the idea of the clothing requiring a different strategy. If we add lighting and perhaps the knowledge that PC Watkins was due in 3 minutes – that might explain the frenzy? In a twisted mind he may have considered Hanbury a leisurely site for his work. Also maybe Kate angered him in some way that the others didn’t. I imagine Buck’s row and Mitre Square were about equally dark – if we go by the 5:30 theory at Hanbury we would have more lighting and hence more “impressive” results. I think this comparative analysis is very important in surmising whether this could possibly be a different killer. I believe the murderer took the missing organs for his own perverse reasons, I don’t believe they disappeared in an infirmary or were consumed by Giant rats. That’s just me and I realize it’s speculative. Anyway, any further ideas of comparison of Mitre Sq. with Hanbury/Buck’s(murders) row could be instructive. I wonder if anyone has ever done a re-enactment on a doll or perhaps through software. I think that would be very interesting.

Greg

[Trevor Marriott]

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 . . .

Now as far as the apron is concerned you have hit the jackpot she wasnt wearing the apron and a piece was never cut from any other piece