Striking after being seen?

[Addy]

I agree with Malcolm, I don't think she would have gone with him if the pulled her by the hand, hard enough to cause bruising. Perhaps Mary Ann Nichols would not have become suspicious, but with the full Ripper scare going on a woman following a man who forcefully pulled her to a dark spot? I don't think so.

I also agree with the idea that the women chose the spot, not the Ripper. They would have preferred that and they would have known more remote, quiet spots from experience than he would.

Greetings,

Addy

[Malcolm X]

People bruise differently depending on their diets and health. I believe a person could have been pulled along but not have been hurt enough to scream. She was probably unhappy with him rushing her, but perhaps accustomed to more abuse than that.

when you pull someones hand, your hand envelopes all of theirs; like a glove, it squeezes, but not normally anywhere near tight enough to bruise, unless that person is very old.

but you have to ask yourself, would JTR have forced his victim to go with him ? not a hope in hell, it's way too risky and clumsy, he would say ``not here love, lets go somewhere quet``

Eddowes might have had sex at this murder sites quite often, it is quite possible that this area was a ``favourite patch and her patch only``... i've never thought of this before.

[Phil H]

I don't think there is any question of "Jack" taking (fast or slow) Eddowes to the dark corner of the Square. In all probability, SHE took him.

As at Buck's Row and 29 Hanbury St (even perhaps at Dutfield's Yard) the woman lay next to a wooden fence, or gates. They were behind Eddowes head as she lay dead. These would have provided "give" during the sex act and would have been more comfortable for the woman leaning against them that solid brick.

I think Eddowes chose the place, he took the opportunity.

Phil

[curious]

no, to cause bruising that would show later on after death, would mean that the woman would scream when it happened, or at the very least; be very unhappy with him, i also dont think a woman would be too happy with him leading her forcefully.

People bruise differently depending on their diets and health. I believe a person could have been pulled along but not have been hurt enough to scream. She was probably unhappy with him rushing her, but perhaps accustomed to more abuse than that.

[curious]

Hi,
I have always been in favour that Eddowes was initially accosted by her killer where Lawende and friends stated, however was reluctant to his advances note.. her hand on his chest[ almost a back off sailor].
I also believe she relented[ foolishly] and was led tightly by her left hand into the square,
I still cant discount Mrs Cox,s [ albeit oral history] nieces account of Mary Kelly alleged words 'All right my love, don't pull me along' . it would have been accomplished by grasping her left hand , in order to lead her up the passage.
Which could explain the bruising on Eddowes left hand of recent origin, as the same situation could have happened down church passage..
Note, Mary Kelly obviously remarked upon her hand being grasped, as by a punter in a hurry, and Kate no doubt had the same attitude, no need to scream out.
The hand bruising is important, although could have happened during her being arrested...we shall never know.
Regards Richard.

The bruises on the hands have always interested me, along with Mary's remark about being pulled along.

In the section on Annie Chapman, here on Casebook, is:
following the post mortem examination:
"There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. "

Interesting . . .

[Malcolm X]

but JTR grabbed Stride too didn't he ?

did he, are we sure that's JTR, or just a semi drunk punter, because i'm very suspitious of a spiteful/ fully loaded comment, that goes something like, ``you'd say anything except your prayers wouldn't you``.

i know this is way off topic, but it seems like:-

1...... Stride, sailor boy chats up a victim....... she dies later
2.......Eddowes, sailor boy yet again.............. she dies later

i wouldn't put all your money on Broad shoulders BEN, because there's a hell of a lot going against him too ! because if you've got chalk in your pocket and your mind is fixated on Dutfields, then sailor boy has the best tactics......BS is too much of a careless **** up, i mean; he hasn't even noticed Shwartz following him....... no way man, JTR would not make a **** up like this would he.

you have what looks like a group of 3 men that are maybe together and watching Dutfields, a couple of these are real idiots and maybe one of these is semi drunk too, the 3rd is JTR..... I DONT KNOW, but i'm suspicious of Pipeman too, it looks like a chaotic bunch of street vigilante thugs.

now go back to the Tabram murder, because this definitely looks like a couple of idiots as well..... the problem we have with all of this is, the clothing the suspects wore was very common back then, you didn't see the variation in fashion amongst the working class that you do nowadays, it was all hats, moustaches, jackets and all dull colours etc, all looking like a bunch of shipyard workers clocking off at 5pm!

just food for thought that's all

[Malcolm X]

...the face mutilations are strange, very odd indeed and always have been..... there are symbols in the cut marks that can be interpreted as the occult, but probably arent...

IT has been VERY plausibly suggested that the V shaped cuts on the cheeks were a side-effect of a simpler attempt - to cut off the nose. There is an excellent post with convincing illustrations somewhere on casebook.

It convinced me and - other than the slits to the eye-lids, don't concern me anymore. Not occult, just accidental.

Phil

yea maybe, as said, i dont think there's any mileage in this anyway.

[Malcolm X]

Hi,
I have always been in favour that Eddowes was initially accosted by her killer where Lawende and friends stated, however was reluctant to his advances note.. her hand on his chest[ almost a back off sailor].
I also believe she relented[ foolishly] and was led tightly by her left hand into the square,
I still cant discount Mrs Cox,s [ albeit oral history] nieces account of Mary Kelly alleged words 'All right my love, don't pull me along' . it would have been accomplished by grasping her left hand , in order to lead her up the passage.
Which could explain the bruising on Eddowes left hand of recent origin, as the same situation could have happened down church passage..
Note, Mary Kelly obviously remarked upon her hand being grasped, as by a punter in a hurry, and Kate no doubt had the same attitude, no need to scream out.
The hand bruising is important, although could have happened during her being arrested...we shall never know.
Regards Richard.

no, to cause bruising that would show later on after death, would mean that the woman would scream when it happened, or at the very least; be very unhappy with him, i also dont think a woman would be too happy with him leading her forcefully.

sorry, i dont agree with any of this, JTR only got violent in the last moments, when he suddenly grabbed her throat to strangle her and maybe her face/ jaw too by mistake.

bruises to the jaw, thumb/finger marks to the face/ jaw area, all point towards JTR suddenly grabbing her and quite clumsily too

finally, if she was trying to push him away, the eyewitnesses would have definitely noticed this, because this looks nothing like touching a mans chest

[Phil H]

...the face mutilations are strange, very odd indeed and always have been..... there are symbols in the cut marks that can be interpreted as the occult, but probably arent...

IT has been VERY plausibly suggested that the V shaped cuts on the cheeks were a side-effect of a simpler attempt - to cut off the nose. There is an excellent post with convincing illustrations somewhere on casebook.

It convinced me and - other than the slits to the eye-lids, don't concern me anymore. Not occult, just accidental.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

Exactly that is what I am thinking!
On the other hand, "Jack" was fast. That is probably the reason why he was not caught. Had he stayed longer on any murder site, the risk of being seen would have grown exponentially.

the reason he wasn't caught is that he was cool and calm and looked like joe average/sailor boy, either one will do, or better still both

it doesn't take long to gut someone, an Eddowes would take no longer than about 7 mins; the face mutilations are strange, very odd indeed and always have been..... there are symbols in the cut marks that can be interpreted as the occult, but probably arent so i wouldn't bother studying these too much.

i would say that there is no sadism shown, these women are killed as quickly as possible, they have to be, so this is nothing like Sutcliffe, bundy etc.... be it a baseball bat or a claw hammer, the initial murder is always savage and very barbaric with these two

why JTR mutilates is therefore very odd, because this is definitely not about hatred, he's doing it in a semi-hypnotic trance, it's very immature, imbecilic and quite twisted.

[jason_c]

Hello Phil,
Yes affection/ Familiarity, has to be in the mix, but it has been suggested that Kate was not a prostitute , indeed her and kelly were a item. and I would doubt if she offered herself at that time of the morning, to someone who appeared a randy client, at least initially, hence my interpretation of ''back off..not tonight some other night''... [does that not ring a bell with Strides attitude in Berner street.]?
Regards Richard.

Except that kind of encounter usually brings with it a raised voice or two. No witness claimed a scuffle with this sighting, nor a conversation of any sort(i believe).

Familiarity and "affection" is what prostitutes do best. If a drunken woman had her hand gently on my chest at 2oclock in the morning i'd pretty much know what was being propositioned.

[Phil H]

I was also thinking of the possibility that Kate KNEW her killer. Had she made pre-arrangements to meet?

There are claims (I know questionable) that she had said she thought she knew who the killer was. Can we rule out at least acquaintanceship between the two?

This assumes, of course, that the couple Lawende saw were Kath and "Jack".

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hello Phil,
Yes affection/ Familiarity, has to be in the mix, but it has been suggested that Kate was not a prostitute , indeed her and kelly were a item. and I would doubt if she offered herself at that time of the morning, to someone who appeared a randy client, at least initially, hence my interpretation of ''back off..not tonight some other night''... [does that not ring a bell with Strides attitude in Berner street.]?
Regards Richard.

[Phil H]

A hand on the chest can, of course (depending on other body language), be an indication of affection and familiarity.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have always been in favour that Eddowes was initially accosted by her killer where Lawende and friends stated, however was reluctant to his advances note.. her hand on his chest[ almost a back off sailor].
I also believe she relented[ foolishly] and was led tightly by her left hand into the square,
I still cant discount Mrs Cox,s [ albeit oral history] nieces account of Mary Kelly alleged words 'All right my love, don't pull me along' . it would have been accomplished by grasping her left hand , in order to lead her up the passage.
Which could explain the bruising on Eddowes left hand of recent origin, as the same situation could have happened down church passage..
Note, Mary Kelly obviously remarked upon her hand being grasped, as by a punter in a hurry, and Kate no doubt had the same attitude, no need to scream out.
The hand bruising is important, although could have happened during her being arrested...we shall never know.
Regards Richard.