Striking after being seen?

[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

[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]

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

[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 . . .

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

I’m surprised none of the newer posters noticed this and replied. The work Phil is referring to was published some years ago in Ripperologist magazine by Gareth (Sam Flynn) Williams, if I remember correctly, and largely endorsed by Monty and others. It was subsequently discussed on the boards. If only taking the V’s on the cheeks into the equation, I agree with Phil that it’s a compelling argument. However, the theory overlooks the other, smaller inverted V’s, made intentionally on her face with the tip of the knife blade. On Eddowes’ left cheek, there is a cut, not too deep. I think this may be the only wound inflicted that was not intentional. The Ripper was communicating something to the police, and us, but that’s not to say it was occult by any means.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

{...} other, smaller inverted V’s, made intentionally on her face with the tip of the knife blade. On Eddowes’ left cheek, there is a cut, not too deep. I think this may be the only wound inflicted that was not intentional. The Ripper was communicating something to the police, and us, but that’s not to say it was occult by any means.

Now you're getting all D'Onstonian on us. :-) There was no communication or “secret message“ in the cuts. Most plausibly he was playing with his knife, like drawing random shapes on sand. Even people that cut themselves draw random shapes on their skin. (Or so I've seen.)

[Tom_Wescott]

That's a form of communication, Maria. If the cuts were intentional, then they meant something to the killer and say something about him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Now you're getting all Freudian, Tom! :-) If someone draws random shapes on the sand with their fingers or a stick, or randomly carves shapes on a bank with a knife, it doesn't necessarily contain a message. Unless someone ends up writing a message – like the GSG. Most plausibly he was simply moving his knife upwards from left and right, or possibly the inverted V shapes appealed to him. There's no Vesica Piscis or a satanic pentagram on Eddowes's face (or on MJK's wall).

[Tom_Wescott]

Want to know what he put on Eddowes face?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The cuts to Eddowes cheek were discussed way back in 2004, long before Gareth published his version of the same argument.

This is the right-side flap of cheek highlited in red...



Created, in my opinion by one sweep of the knife which cut both cheeks and also passed through the bridge of the nose...



At the time I had no idea why the killer would slit the upper & lower eyelids and my argument was not considered all inclusive because of this. However, it is possible that the killer knew of the police interest in photographing the eyes of the deceased so he slit her eyes vertically.

The killer may have assumed he had also slit the eyeballs but Eddowes eyes were closed at the time so he was not to know that he had only slit the eyelids.
That is one possible solution without entertaining 'messages' or strange 'occult designs'.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

However, it is possible that the killer knew of the police interest in photographing the eyes of the deceased so he slit her eyes vertically.

Wow, that's a new idea. It would seem absurd to us today, but as doctors and educated men of the time humored the notion that our eyes record the last thing we see, like a photo, why wouldn't a killer think it possible? As for the cheek/nose theory, unless the Ripper went to work with a sword and made very long strokes, I don't see it as feasible. And again, that doesn't explain the smaller, clearly intentional inverted V's.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott