Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

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

  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    As a footnote....there is absolutely no evidence in existence, known to this point in time, that would lend credence to a guess that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed.

    Even if this were a proven fact all it tells us is that Stride was not soliciting that night. That's it. Period. It does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that she was not a Ripper victim. I don't know why you hammer this point so much. As it has been repeatedly pointed out to you, we have absolutely no way of knowing what her response would be if approached by a potential client even if it were her intention to not actively solicit that evening.

    c.d.
    ... and it would be quite understandable if Stride was taken for a prostitute by the killer if she had taken up a position outside Dutfields yard the way she did. A woman on her own, at that time and in those parts would have signalled prostitution, regardless of what her intentions were.
    Come to think of it, if she was not prostituting herself but was taken for a prostitute by the killer, then that may all work quite nicely as an explanation for what happened: The Ripper tries to chat her up with the intention to take her into the yard and kill her, she protests, he goes "don´t you tell me you´re not a working girl!", and tries to shove her inside the yard and her resistance ultimately earns her a cut throat, while the killer gets cold feet on account of the noise the tussle has produced.
    One possibility of many.

    Comment


    • Im pretty comfortable with labelling someone who randomly kills innocent people as "mad", or mentally ill Fisherman. You've cited "reason" and purpose above, as if there is some rational explanation for what happened to Kates face, or Marys thighs. There really isn't though. Or is there? In Kates case, perhaps as a warning to others who thought of "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong", but you also have someone who kills and cuts his victims open in public, so still an irrational and mentally ill man.

      With Mary almost everything that was done to her served no purpose or objective other than disfigurement. Face slashing, thigh stripping, emptying her entire midsection did not serve obtaining her heart, which was what was eventually taken. The malicious intent is much greater in the case of Mary I believe as well, the facial slashing, while Mary could still try and fend off some assaults. Cutting a persons throat while they have been choked near unconscious must be much different than cutting it while they are still awake and alert.

      In Kates case there is precedent for the wounds to her nose. That type of wound specifically was inflicted on women before Kate. Im sure it would be difficult to find more than a very few cases of it, perhaps because it was such an effective way to scare the crap out of any potential canaries waiting in the wings. But we have Kate having told someone she intended to give a name of a killer in exchange for a reward,... that's classic canary, snitch, "nose", squealer...whatever your preference. And that wound was intended to mark women as such.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        ... and it would be quite understandable if Stride was taken for a prostitute by the killer if she had taken up a position outside Dutfields yard the way she did. A woman on her own, at that time and in those parts would have signalled prostitution, regardless of what her intentions were.
        Come to think of it, if she was not prostituting herself but was taken for a prostitute by the killer, then that may all work quite nicely as an explanation for what happened: The Ripper tries to chat her up with the intention to take her into the yard and kill her, she protests, he goes "don´t you tell me you´re not a working girl!", and tries to shove her inside the yard and her resistance ultimately earns her a cut throat, while the killer gets cold feet on account of the noise the tussle has produced.
        One possibility of many.
        Ive suggested the very same scenario Fisherman, but with it taking place in the passageway, not in the street. Ive even made allowances for Schwartz, he may have been leaving the club via the side door and seen the attack.

        Thug sees Liz dressed nice hanging about the passageway, suggests they take a little stroll back into the yard, she tells him no...based on what we know of Liz, that may have been worded a little rudely, he backs her into the wall just behind the gate...pokes her in the chest..(the bruises?).. for emphasis while warning her about her mouth, she gives him another verbal volley and turns to head out into the street to wait. He grabs her by her scarf, twists in and pulls her back off balance, while still holding the scarf he runs a blade across her throat and drops her. He may not even have intended such a fatal wound. 2 seconds, cut and drop.

        Nothing at all like the previous "attributed" murders.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Liz Stride had been working "among the Jews" in her most recent past, she would have known of and likely been engaged to do some work for them during the impending High Holidays. The predominantly Jewish membership at that club, and the fact that it drew about 200 people for the meeting, would be known to someone working in those circles. Liz asked for a lint brush for hers skirt. She has a flower arrangement on, and mouth refreshers in her hand. The club had let the majority of the attendees out by 11:30, some 20-30 remained inside.

          2 possible explanations based only the above seem quite plausible...Liz is there to meet someone socially, or to work as a cleaner "among the Jews" to help Mrs Diemshitz.

          In which case we have a second degree murder.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • If she knew she would be doing cleaning work, why did she bother sprucing herself up?
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              If she knew she would be doing cleaning work, why did she bother sprucing herself up?
              To make a good impression? An apron over whatever she was wearing would suffice Sam. There is also the possibility she was there socially. I wonder why Eagle retuned to the club?
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                Im pretty comfortable with labelling someone who randomly kills innocent people as "mad", or mentally ill Fisherman.

                The problem is that it paints us into a corner. If a killer does not show any signs of that madness on the surface, your definition becomes useless. I suggest we reserve the term "mad" for those who are apparently so and where it shows clearly. If we use the term "mad" for anybody who kills innocent people in a random way, then the legal definition of madness also becomes useless. So I will stick to the more productive use of the term.

                You've cited "reason" and purpose above, as if there is some rational explanation for what happened to Kates face, or Marys thighs. There really isn't though. Or is there?

                Not by your definition. Madness is all that applies, according to you, right?

                If we use my take on things, other avenues open up. I see a planning killer with a very clear agenda about what he wanted to do to the bodies - and what he did fits that agenda to a tee. Meaning that we can link the murders together and bind them to one man only, encompassing the Ripper murders and the torso ditto.

                In Kates case, perhaps as a warning to others who thought of "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong", but you also have someone who kills and cuts his victims open in public, so still an irrational and mentally ill man.

                The phrase "irrational" really is of no use whatsoever here. What you mean is that the killer was different than the norm, but one can be different than the norm and still totally rational. I think this killer wanted to kill along an agenda, and I think he chose to display what he did to invoke fear/respect. In that sense, he was completely rational, just like how a burglar is rational. Breaking the law is not irrational as such, you know.

                With Mary almost everything that was done to her served no purpose or objective other than disfigurement.

                Sooooooo wrong, if you ask me. You have not seen all there is to see, and you opt for Robert Andersons 131 year old definition of the killer: a madman, revelling in blood. It is victorian psychology and criminology, resting on historys dumping place long since.

                Face slashing, thigh stripping, emptying her entire midsection did not serve obtaining her heart, which was what was eventually taken. The malicious intent is much greater in the case of Mary I believe as well, the facial slashing, while Mary could still try and fend off some assaults. Cutting a persons throat while they have been choked near unconscious must be much different than cutting it while they are still awake and alert.

                What was done to Kelly is no more or less "malicious" than what happened to the other victims, I´m afraid. They are all exponents of the exact same agenda, and that agenda does not become more malicious becausse there are more cuts.

                In Kates case there is precedent for the wounds to her nose. That type of wound specifically was inflicted on women before Kate. Im sure it would be difficult to find more than a very few cases of it, perhaps because it was such an effective way to scare the crap out of any potential canaries waiting in the wings. But we have Kate having told someone she intended to give a name of a killer in exchange for a reward,... that's classic canary, snitch, "nose", squealer...whatever your preference. And that wound was intended to mark women as such.
                No. Nope. Njet. It had nothing to do with snitching. Nor did the earlobe. Nor did the kidney. Nor did the uterus. Nor did the colon section stretched out alongside her.
                What would you propose that neatly laid out section of her bowels meant in the world of East End gangsters? "Shite"?

                If it was all about sending a message and a warning, why not just whack her over the head and cut the nosetip off? Why all the extras? Were they there to obscure the picture?

                You need a fresh start, Michael.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  Ive suggested the very same scenario Fisherman, but with it taking place in the passageway, not in the street. Ive even made allowances for Schwartz, he may have been leaving the club via the side door and seen the attack.

                  Thug sees Liz dressed nice hanging about the passageway, suggests they take a little stroll back into the yard, she tells him no...based on what we know of Liz, that may have been worded a little rudely, he backs her into the wall just behind the gate...pokes her in the chest..(the bruises?).. for emphasis while warning her about her mouth, she gives him another verbal volley and turns to head out into the street to wait. He grabs her by her scarf, twists in and pulls her back off balance, while still holding the scarf he runs a blade across her throat and drops her. He may not even have intended such a fatal wound. 2 seconds, cut and drop.

                  Nothing at all like the previous "attributed" murders.
                  Nothing at all? No cut throat? Eh?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    No. Nope. Njet. It had nothing to do with snitching. Nor did the earlobe. Nor did the kidney. Nor did the uterus. Nor did the colon section stretched out alongside her.
                    What would you propose that neatly laid out section of her bowels meant in the world of East End gangsters? "Shite"?

                    If it was all about sending a message and a warning, why not just whack her over the head and cut the nosetip off? Why all the extras? Were they there to obscure the picture?

                    You need a fresh start, Michael.
                    Must be nice to know so much about something that is for everyone else, still very debatable Fisherman. You obviously didn't note that there was historical precedent for someone having their nose cut as a warning to others about snitching, so at least the theory has precedents. Might be something you may want to look for with your own theories.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                      Nothing at all? No cut throat? Eh?
                      A single cut severing only 1 artery completely is like a double throat cut that nicks spines? Eh?? If you want to try Apples to Apples, have 2 apples.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        A single cut severing only 1 artery completely is like a double throat cut that nicks spines? Eh?? If you want to try Apples to Apples, have 2 apples.
                        A single cut that severs an artery is simply a less severe cut than one that nicks the spine. It is the same weapon of choice applied to the same part of the body, Michael.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Must be nice to know so much about something that is for everyone else, still very debatable Fisherman. You obviously didn't note that there was historical precedent for someone having their nose cut as a warning to others about snitching, so at least the theory has precedents. Might be something you may want to look for with your own theories.
                          The fact that there are examples of people having their noses cut off as a warning about snitching does not mean that ALL people who have their noses cut off are such examples. It would be nice if it was that easy, but it is not.
                          There are lots and lots of OTHER precedents where people have had all sorts of body parts (noses included) cut off because they have been subjected to somebody who takes a delight in doing these things.
                          And there are examples of people who had their nose tips cut away accidentally. For example.

                          So on the surface of things, there is no telling which precedent applied in the Eddowes case, is there?

                          What there is NOT is a precedence case where two eviscerating serial killers were at large in the same city and time, though.

                          And yes, it is always nice to be a step ahead of people knowledgewise.
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 11-26-2019, 06:28 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            To make a good impression?
                            ...but she seems to have been out pubbing earlier in the evening with at least one man, which was probably the reason why she spruced herself up.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                              Im pretty comfortable with labelling someone who randomly kills innocent people as "mad", or mentally ill Fisherman. You've cited "reason" and purpose above, as if there is some rational explanation for what happened to Kates face, or Marys thighs. There really isn't though. Or is there? In Kates case, perhaps as a warning to others who thought of "sticking their nose where it doesn't belong", but you also have someone who kills and cuts his victims open in public, so still an irrational and mentally ill man.

                              With Mary almost everything that was done to her served no purpose or objective other than disfigurement. Face slashing, thigh stripping, emptying her entire midsection did not serve obtaining her heart, which was what was eventually taken. The malicious intent is much greater in the case of Mary I believe as well, the facial slashing, while Mary could still try and fend off some assaults. Cutting a persons throat while they have been choked near unconscious must be much different than cutting it while they are still awake and alert.

                              In Kates case there is precedent for the wounds to her nose. That type of wound specifically was inflicted on women before Kate. Im sure it would be difficult to find more than a very few cases of it, perhaps because it was such an effective way to scare the crap out of any potential canaries waiting in the wings. But we have Kate having told someone she intended to give a name of a killer in exchange for a reward,... that's classic canary, snitch, "nose", squealer...whatever your preference. And that wound was intended to mark women as such.
                              If she had any information to give she had ample time in police custody to do so and she didn’t so let’s not pursue that line of thinking

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                Liz Stride had been working "among the Jews" in her most recent past, she would have known of and likely been engaged to do some work for them during the impending High Holidays. The predominantly Jewish membership at that club, and the fact that it drew about 200 people for the meeting, would be known to someone working in those circles. Liz asked for a lint brush for hers skirt. She has a flower arrangement on, and mouth refreshers in her hand. The club had let the majority of the attendees out by 11:30, some 20-30 remained inside.

                                2 possible explanations based only the above seem quite plausible...Liz is there to meet someone socially, or to work as a cleaner "among the Jews" to help Mrs Diemshitz.

                                In which case we have a second degree murder.
                                And yet another wild speculative theory
                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X