Kates Cuts

[Fisherman]

Slashing back and forth may have caused that cut Sam, not at all the same thing. Marys killer was angry, Kates was spiteful. That's what the injuries say.

No, that is how your personal interpretation of them looks. Mine differs, for example. "The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed". So he cut away nose, cheeks eyebrows and ears. Sounds kind of a fiddly work to me, nothing that comes about by cutting angrily into a face in a random way. Of course, the rest of the matter makes the exact same impression. The abdominal wall was intentionally cut away in three large flaps. The organs were all taken out and placed in various spots in the room, none of them having suffered any damage as far as we know. they were apparently CAREFULLY removed. An angry killer does not do that. Angry killer stab away, they tear and they scratch and they hit, and pretty muchn everything is turned into mincemeat. Not so in Kelly´s case. A breast was placed under her head, together with both of her kidneys and her uterus, like a form of pillow. Is that what "angry" killers do, Michael?
You have got this very wrong, all of it, if I am not very much mistaken. To me, the Kelly murder involves sign after sign of a careful killer with a set agenda, a killer who even took care not to damage the eyeballs.
Mayhem never looked like that. Ritualistic evisceration murders do, however. And I am not speaking of some sort of Shaman or anything such, just about a killer who worked carefully to a perceived agenda.

I have a hard time believing that people have not seen through the "angry killer" and "frenzy" stuff over the years. All the effort our boy put in - and he does not get any recognition for it!

[Fisherman]

"The extras" are actions that had been public knowledge since Annie, and Ive admitted that its difficult to rule Kate out once and for all as a result of some similarities. Its the incongruous acts, the new choices. Yes, he does take a partial uterus, but its clear his focus this time wasn't that organ.

It is? How? Is it not true that when a killer cuts a uterus out, there must be some sort of focus on doing so? Or do you regard it as collateral damage?

[Fisherman]

Again, there are precedents for nose cutting as a symbolic mark of betrayal. Kate suggested she intended to betray someone to her former landlady. Are those little details related to each other?, Im saying its possible. And that is has been done before by others.

Possible? Aha. Well, as long as we leave "credible" out, I´m fine.

[Abby Normal]

No, that is how your personal interpretation of them looks. Mine differs, for example. "The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed". So he cut away nose, cheeks eyebrows and ears. Sounds kind of a fiddly work to me, nothing that comes about by cutting angrily into a face in a random way. Of course, the rest of the matter makes the exact same impression. The abdominal wall was intentionally cut away in three large flaps. The organs were all taken out and placed in various spots in the room, none of them having suffered any damage as far as we know. they were apparently CAREFULLY removed. An angry killer does not do that. Angry killer stab away, they tear and they scratch and they hit, and pretty muchn everything is turned into mincemeat. Not so in Kelly´s case. A breast was placed under her head, together with both of her kidneys and her uterus, like a form of pillow. Is that what "angry" killers do, Michael?
You have got this very wrong, all of it, if I am not very much mistaken. To me, the Kelly murder involves sign after sign of a careful killer with a set agenda, a killer who even took care not to damage the eyeballs.
Mayhem never looked like that. Ritualistic evisceration murders do, however. And I am not speaking of some sort of Shaman or anything such, just about a killer who worked carefully to a perceived agenda.

I have a hard time believing that people have not seen through the "angry killer" and "frenzy" stuff over the years. All the effort our boy put in - and he does not get any recognition for it!

amen fish amen!

[Abby Normal]

It is? How? Is it not true that when a killer cuts a uterus out, there must be some sort of focus on doing so? Or do you regard it as collateral damage?

perhaps her uterus removed was a defensive wound.

[Joshua Rogan]

I understand that Mrs D was washing up in the kitchen after the meeting had ended an hour earlier, I wonder who would cook the 12:45 supper for Mr Eagle.

I'm not sure supper needs to be cooked, and it seems Mrs D was preparing drinks for club members - perhaps Eagle asked her for tea and biscuits when he got back?

Morning Advertiser 1st Oct;
"Mrs. Deimschitz, the stewardess of the club, has made the following statement:-"Just. about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs"

There was also the club maid Mila who was around to help.

[Michael W Richards]

And what does the second cut add in terms of killing effectiveness, compared to the first one? How dead can you get? Plus, of course, making two cuts does not add to the mutilation time offered - it detracts from it.

2 cuts ensures a speedy departure to unconsciousness and a faster bleed out, leaving less blood in the abdominal cavity sooner. If you can start mutilating sooner then that doesn't have a negative impact on the time available.

[Michael W Richards]

No, that is how your personal interpretation of them looks. Mine differs, for example. "The face was gashed in all directions, the nose, cheeks, eyebrows, and ears being partly removed". So he cut away nose, cheeks eyebrows and ears. Sounds kind of a fiddly work to me, nothing that comes about by cutting angrily into a face in a random way. Of course, the rest of the matter makes the exact same impression. The abdominal wall was intentionally cut away in three large flaps. The organs were all taken out and placed in various spots in the room, none of them having suffered any damage as far as we know. they were apparently CAREFULLY removed. An angry killer does not do that. Angry killer stab away, they tear and they scratch and they hit, and pretty muchn everything is turned into mincemeat. Not so in Kelly´s case. A breast was placed under her head, together with both of her kidneys and her uterus, like a form of pillow. Is that what "angry" killers do, Michael?
You have got this very wrong, all of it, if I am not very much mistaken. To me, the Kelly murder involves sign after sign of a careful killer with a set agenda, a killer who even took care not to damage the eyeballs.
Mayhem never looked like that. Ritualistic evisceration murders do, however. And I am not speaking of some sort of Shaman or anything such, just about a killer who worked carefully to a perceived agenda.

I have a hard time believing that people have not seen through the "angry killer" and "frenzy" stuff over the years. All the effort our boy put in - and he does not get any recognition for it!

I didn't say he stayed angry Fisherman, I said the facial slashes represent vented anger. As he takes Mary apart and places her bits here and there he need not be in a heightened state of emotion,...I would imagine he was lost but not necessarily angry for those actions.

[Michael W Richards]

It is? How? Is it not true that when a killer cuts a uterus out, there must be some sort of focus on doing so? Or do you regard it as collateral damage?

Phillips said he thought the man who took Annies uterus did all he did there so as to accomplish that specific act. Did you read somewhere that anyone suggested the same with Kate...anywhere?

[Michael W Richards]

Possible? Aha. Well, as long as we leave "credible" out, I´m fine.

A scenario that fits with known evidence cannot be credible with you...but linking a Torso maker with Liz Strides killer is? Hmm..fascinating distinction there.

Of anyone here you should be the last to throw stones Fisherman.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not sure supper needs to be cooked, and it seems Mrs D was preparing drinks for club members - perhaps Eagle asked her for tea and biscuits when he got back?

Morning Advertiser 1st Oct;
"Mrs. Deimschitz, the stewardess of the club, has made the following statement:-"Just. about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs"

There was also the club maid Mila who was around to help.

That doesn't mean Liz couldn't have been hired to clean that night...maybe she is waiting until the rest upstairs start leaving. Or, for someone socially. I asked about Eagle because he arrives back when Liz disappears. And because he "could be sure" whether he had to step around a dying woman.

[Fisherman]

2 cuts ensures a speedy departure to unconsciousness and a faster bleed out, leaving less blood in the abdominal cavity sooner. If you can start mutilating sooner then that doesn't have a negative impact on the time available.

No, cut two will not open any other vessel than cut one did - if it went to the spine and severed all vessels. the water will not exit a bottle quicker if you cut it´s neck twice. There will be no speedier unconsciousness either.
If cut one did not go to the spine, then we must ask why he set out with a shallower cut - if his inention was to save time.

[Fisherman]

I didn't say he stayed angry Fisherman, I said the facial slashes represent vented anger. As he takes Mary apart and places her bits here and there he need not be in a heightened state of emotion,...I would imagine he was lost but not necessarily angry for those actions.

It is not as if facial cuts must denote a personally directed anger, Michael. And as I say, the eyeballs seems to have been intact, the ears were cut off, the eyebrows - we are looking at careful cutting here. In no part do I see an angry killer in Miller´s Court. I see a curious and anatomically fascinated one.

[Fisherman]

Phillips said he thought the man who took Annies uterus did all he did there so as to accomplish that specific act. Did you read somewhere that anyone suggested the same with Kate...anywhere?

Do we really need to have it in writing before we accept that taking the uterus out from Kate Eddowes was something the killer intentionally did and focused on?

[Fisherman]

A scenario that fits with known evidence cannot be credible with you...but linking a Torso maker with Liz Strides killer is? Hmm..fascinating distinction there.

Of anyone here you should be the last to throw stones Fisherman.

Sorry, Michael, but I handle my stonethrowing on my own, and I allow noone to interfere with it. As you VERY well know, the links between the torso killers slayings and the Ripper C5 deeds are not present with Stride other than in a secondary way - IF Stride was the Rippers deed, then yes, I am just about certain that she was killed by the combined Torso killer/Ripper. It´s either that or we have criminal history´s greatest fluke in front of us.

But go ahead, try to shift the focus. You need it!