Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kates Cuts

    In the murder of Kate Eddowes her killer took some extra time to do somethings that seem irrelevant to the task at hand, which evidently was killing the woman then opening her abdomen and taking organs from that region. In the case of Annie Chapman it was suggested by the coroner that her killer only cut where he needed to in order to obtain what he eventually took. "There were no meaningless cuts". Its clear that no such evident goals are applicable in the case of Liz Stride. Or Kate Eddowes. Or Mary Kelly for that matter.

    So why did Kate have extra cuts? Why did he try and cut her nose off, or at least severely damage it. Were the cuts on her cheeks just collateral damage from the nose wound? Why did he find himself cutting a 2 foot colon section off, and why would it be placed between her arm and her body..why not placed out of the way like the intestines? Why would he also need a section of apron from her, one that he tore and cut free. If he was Annies killer and intended to take something away again, wouldn't he be prepared to do so?

    The murder of Catharine Eddowes is very similar in most aspects from the previous victims, (excluding Stride), but the anomalous elements within the physical evidence, in addition to the marked deviation from what we are told were her regular habits, make this a slightly awkward fit with Annies killing.

    Im interested to see how people justify these differences, but to start off, this may have bearing on the facial wounds...

    From the Star, Oct 3rd;

    The services of "noses" - that is to say, people who are hand in glove with persons of indifferent character, are frequently called into play, and they are deputed to go to the low lodging-houses and other places that are the resort of low characters, and keep their eyes and ears open for anything likely to give a clue to the individual or individuals wanted. Women often act as "noses."

    This kind of work could be dangerous as well one might imagine, and there are historical records for the area that state that some murder victims in the years leading up to the Ripper crimes were found to have cuts to their nose, if not removed entirely.

    When one considers that, in essence, Kates claim that she intended to give a name of someone she knew who she felt responsible for the recent murders, in order to receive a reward, is very much like acting as a "nose" would. If Kate was the person seen with Sailor Man by Lawende, might she be out doing just this kind of work, or perhaps reporting something to him.
    Michael Richards

  • #2
    Since no-one took the bait on this premise, Ill expand it somewhat....since the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate share so many features, are there real, fundamental differences in the way Kate was opened, and the way Annie was. For many,many years Ive been on the fence about Kate. Primarily due to 2 new additions that for me don't represent the killer of Annies "purpose" if you will. The goal was not to kill a street walking Unfortunate...the deep throat cuts ensured quick deaths...it was not to stab a corpse, or to randomly chop it up...like it seems in Mary Kellys case. The opening of the abdomen shows us that the killer sought to remove internal abdominal organs. In 3 of the first 4 Canonicals anyway. It doesn't seem to be about symbolic goals, like terrorists would have.

    I kept thinking about this over the weekend, my position has been dictated the past few years by the belief the man in the pub down the street from Annies murder, bloodied, in the early morning...was probably her killer, and by logical inclusion, Pollys. That man was probably Isenschmidt. He isn't free when the remaining Canonicals are killed. But that doesn't adequately address the many similarities between Kate and Polly. They are there, and 1 of the reasons I personally don't see the same knife and anatomy skills in this murder may be understandable... considering the quick nature and dark location for this attack.

    Kates facial cuts for me still represent a branding, a mark with symbolic meaning, Im at a loss to understand why, if Kate is killed by Pollys killer, some sort of symbolic message might be absent in Pollys murder. Killed for different reasons, but by the same man/men?

    How much should that specific abdominal mutilation done to Kate be considered when assessing whether or not this was Pollys killer?
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • #3
      Go on then.

      The concept of mutilating the face of an informant is certainly not speculative, take the current phrase "snitches get stitches". So I think tying in the markings on Kate Eddowes with your theory that she was going to turn in the killer and paid the price doesn't stretch credibility providing you already accept said theory.

      Whoever killed Kate, regardless of whether they killed any or none of the C5, probably had done that kind of thing before. And there are not so much steps as giant leaps between roughing up a "grass", slashing their face, murder, post mortem disfiguration and disembowelment, or in Kate's case, all of them. So assuming her killer was already a violent individual who had killed before, my personal opinion tends to err towards the facial mutilation being for internal reasons that, without actually being able to interview him, probably served some purpose to serve his own Psyche.

      With regard to the lack of facial mutilation in previous canonicals, is it a case of justifying the differences or accepting them? If you believe in escalation, it's not hard to explain, the killer did more and more, culminating in the horror of Millers Court. So, in keeping with the theme of your post, my take is that if Polly and Kate were killed by the same hand, the reason for the facial mutilation in Kate's case is because the killer was confident, more experienced and needing more from his crime.

      Still, like I said, as an aspect of your own theory I don't think the facial markings would need much explanation. If she was killed specifically because of what she knew and threatened to do, then cutting her face would serve both his internal desire to put her in her place and to serve as a warning to others.
      Your evening of swing has been cancelled.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
        Go on then.

        The concept of mutilating the face of an informant is certainly not speculative, take the current phrase "snitches get stitches". So I think tying in the markings on Kate Eddowes with your theory that she was going to turn in the killer and paid the price doesn't stretch credibility providing you already accept said theory.

        Whoever killed Kate, regardless of whether they killed any or none of the C5, probably had done that kind of thing before. And there are not so much steps as giant leaps between roughing up a "grass", slashing their face, murder, post mortem disfiguration and disembowelment, or in Kate's case, all of them. So assuming her killer was already a violent individual who had killed before, my personal opinion tends to err towards the facial mutilation being for internal reasons that, without actually being able to interview him, probably served some purpose to serve his own Psyche.

        With regard to the lack of facial mutilation in previous canonicals, is it a case of justifying the differences or accepting them? If you believe in escalation, it's not hard to explain, the killer did more and more, culminating in the horror of Millers Court. So, in keeping with the theme of your post, my take is that if Polly and Kate were killed by the same hand, the reason for the facial mutilation in Kate's case is because the killer was confident, more experienced and needing more from his crime.

        Still, like I said, as an aspect of your own theory I don't think the facial markings would need much explanation. If she was killed specifically because of what she knew and threatened to do, then cutting her face would serve both his internal desire to put her in her place and to serve as a warning to others.
        The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          In which case, Eddowes was not incapacitated. Strange how no one heard this struggle taking place. Also, the nature of those injuries does not speak to defensive wounds.

          Btw, do you always have to be so edgy and contrarian?

          There was no Ripper.
          The killer never took organs.
          The apron piece was a menstrual rag.
          The facial wounds weren't deliberate.
          etc etc.

          It's all so tiresome and one-note. Questioning the status quo, regardless of the evidence, doesn't make you a special snowflake, Trevor.

          Comment


          • #6
            The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !
            I find it astonishing that you actually belive this .

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !
              No they weren't. The very idea is preposterous.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                Go on then.

                The concept of mutilating the face of an informant is certainly not speculative, take the current phrase "snitches get stitches". So I think tying in the markings on Kate Eddowes with your theory that she was going to turn in the killer and paid the price doesn't stretch credibility providing you already accept said theory.

                Whoever killed Kate, regardless of whether they killed any or none of the C5, probably had done that kind of thing before. And there are not so much steps as giant leaps between roughing up a "grass", slashing their face, murder, post mortem disfiguration and disembowelment, or in Kate's case, all of them. So assuming her killer was already a violent individual who had killed before, my personal opinion tends to err towards the facial mutilation being for internal reasons that, without actually being able to interview him, probably served some purpose to serve his own Psyche.

                With regard to the lack of facial mutilation in previous canonicals, is it a case of justifying the differences or accepting them? If you believe in escalation, it's not hard to explain, the killer did more and more, culminating in the horror of Millers Court. So, in keeping with the theme of your post, my take is that if Polly and Kate were killed by the same hand, the reason for the facial mutilation in Kate's case is because the killer was confident, more experienced and needing more from his crime.

                Still, like I said, as an aspect of your own theory I don't think the facial markings would need much explanation. If she was killed specifically because of what she knew and threatened to do, then cutting her face would serve both his internal desire to put her in her place and to serve as a warning to others.
                That's encouraging to read ABE. The precedent for the nose cutting is there is the press of the period, and "noses" were something that was within a common understanding at the time. The thing for me now is.....since there are so many similarities with Annies murder as well as differences, how do I connect someone who kills Kate because she tried to blackmail him, with the killer of Annie. There doesn't seem to be a rational explanation for the abdominal mutilations, even if there are some possible rational explanations for the murder itself.

                Does a mad serial killer also kill because he is threatened, or for other more comprehensible reasons? Or is it just when impulse meets opportunity.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  lol. trevor strikes again!
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Are you sure they weren't done in the mortuary?

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Aside from Trevor then there seems to be a belief that at the very least the nose cut was intentional. The chevrons, maybe not so much. Jury is still out on those. So if this killer, this mutilator of women he almost decapitates, takes even 2 seconds to make that nose cut, it has some meaning, at least to him. Spontaneously coming from him I see as less plausible, I think he planned to do that, that's why he took the extra moment.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        He'd have needed extra moments to score the rest of the face, lop off one earlobe and nick the eyelids. Personally I believe the chevrons were deliberately sliced, albeit not "carved" into the skin according to some grand plan. Amongst all these other cuts, the hacking off of the tip of the nose seems like just another "playful" improvisation, and little more.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          He'd have needed extra moments to score the rest of the face, lop off one earlobe and nick the eyelids. Personally I believe the chevrons were deliberately sliced, albeit not "carved" into the skin according to some grand plan. Amongst all these other cuts, the hacking off of the tip of the nose seems like just another "playful" improvisation, and little more.
                          Playful Sam?...like this guy was feeling no immediate threat? I think they represent a deliberate choice to make those marks, not a "just for the jolly".
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Playful Sam?
                            NB: I put the word in quotation marks deliberately. I mean "playful" to mean something like "mucking about with her face". Improvising. Making it up as he want along. Having (Jack's idea of) fun. That kind of thing.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              NB: I put the word in quotation marks deliberately. I mean "playful" to mean something like "mucking about with her face". Improvising. Making it up as he want along. Having (Jack's idea of) fun. That kind of thing.
                              Ok, gotcha. I believe its far more likely that he did make those marks for a specific reason myself, a warning to others not to "stick their nose where it didn't belong", or signifying her as a "nose". There are historical precedents for that specific wound being made for specifically that reason. Whether Kate is a victim in that kind of scenario isn't yet clear.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X