Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

Just as an afterthought, its not accurate to imagine that Im the only one who believes the mythological Jack the Ripper didnt kill the Five women in the Canonical Group, Im just one of the members that defends that position. So..really, its a push ...there is no need for a victory dance just yet...because dont forget there is no evidence known in existence that links one Canonical Murder with another.. let alone with 4 others, and I concede there is no evidence known which can prove that the man known as Jack the Ripper killed less than 5.

I think each murder has a story, not that 5 or more have one story.

[Michael W Richards]

To respond Fisherman, I believe people believe what they are told quite often. Since the contemporary investigators seem to put forward a Canonical Group most would side along with them, some like yourself believe they see a longer and broader series and what would amount to a evil genius morphing killer being the only one harming women in the East end. I know as you do that such a believe flies in the face of the facts of that area in that period. Violence was common, terrorists were plotting, people were starving...violence was to be expected. You've used the abdominal panels to try and align Mary with the same killer as Annie, but again these acts were common knowledge by then. It wasn't new. It wasn't something unexpected. Like Pollys abdominal mutilation was. And in the Kelly case we have ample evidence to suggest the killer knew the victim, in this case, rather intimately. We also know of an unknown man who she saw while with Barnett. More evidence suggesting something in the personal realm than an impersonal random attack. Like in both Polly and Annies case.

The actual extent of mutilation, or the choices the killer makes, can be based on practical approaches rather than compulsions. Anyone can cut up someone. Its likely easier once you've killed them too. So if you see extensive mutilation that reminds you of mutilation that had already occurred within the recent past, acts that were well publicized, then you may be seeing someone trying to hide in the persona of this unknown Ripper fella. I think Kates murder might be something like that because of some fundamental differences in choices, and I think Marys killer likely did lose his mind in that room..maybe grief, anger, and the violent tendencies all together account for cutting flesh off her thighs. I also add that in any of these cases, if he had enough time to do these acts then he certainly could have taken a head, or and arm. I would think a man bent on making a body into pieces of a body would do that when given the chance.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Is that the distant rumble of a horse and carriage I hear......?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Nichols ,Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly were all murdered by the same killer . For any new people interested in JTR, save them all the confusion.

And this would have been who exactly?

[John Wheat]

"Difficult to counter"? Really? Then why is everybody doing it? Why is everybody - just about - agreeing about how one killer is likely responsible for at least four out of five canonicals?
To annoy you? Somwhow, I donīt think so. I think they are going with "the knowns".

I have to agree with you Fisherman. The idea that the canonicals were killed by three or more hands is fanciful at best.

[Fisherman]

Whatever I say to counter your objections to my position Fisherman is based on the realities of the knowns.

The we are on equal footing on that score, Michael, because all I say is also based on the knowns - although I draw other conclusions than you do from them. Actually, sayng that we work from the knowns does not guarantee anything at all. If we see somebody siting on a rooftop, we can suggest that he flew there - we know that he got there somehow, so thatīs a known factor.

This mythology all began with Polly in my opinion, preceding violence was not unexpected nor was it particularly spectacular..but this first public display was. Someone posing as a nameless client in order to get the victim to lead him into a corner where he could quickly incapacitate them, kill them, then mutilate their abdomens. I must assume by Annies murder, which is virtually identical in almost every way to Pollys and within 2 weeks, that he likely sought to obtain something from the abdomen. In this case we do have evidence that the victim may have been barely alive when found. That might suggest abbreviated activity, maybe due to incoming bootsteps. The venue was a poor choice regardless. The backyard next time round was much better.

Some thoughts:

The venue was only a poor choice if he wanted to take no risks. If he was willing to take risks, and if he wanted to create maximum impact, then the choice of venue was a brilliant one.

You reason that the killer wanted to take something from the abdomen. Perhaps so. Then again, maybe he actually was more interested in putting an opened up abdomen on display. My guess is that he spent as much time and effort, at least, on cutting away the abdominal flesh as he did cutting the uterus out.

Reasoning that the aim was to mutilate the abdomen is risky. Eddowes and Kelly tell us that he could also choose to mutilate other areas of the body. Therefore mutilation AS SUCH is a better description of what he did.

These 2 murders are almost certainly by one man doing the same thing both times. With strangers. These victims are the only 2 that we have witness evidence were working the streets at the time. They match in MO, Victimology, PM Mutilation(or near death), all the relevant fields. A month later a woman is cut once in an act that the medical officer said might have been 2 seconds from start to finish. That same night a familiar scenario in Mitre Square, but with new elements. New focus, Perhaps different method of acquisition, not sure if there was any connection between killer and prey.But its possible this second murder might still be by Annies killer.

Once we know that the killer took away the abdominal flesh from both Kelly and Chapman, we also know that it was the same killer. For certain. Without a doubt. You may thi9nbk that was a fluke, but I would advice against such folly.

Everything else, excluding the facial marks, was something people felt was a connection to Annies murder. The intestines taken out, the deep double throat cuts, the excision of internal organs from the abdomen. But all those things had been in the public consciousness for a month. They read about what happened to Annie. Hell, everyone read about Annie. Round the world. In many ways Eddowes murder is so fundamentally different from Pollys, or Annies. And so unlike Liz Strides.

Once again, one strike with a poker over the head is extremely like two strikes. It is about what de DOES, not about how many times he does it.

Any argument I try and put forward in any thread here comes from that foundation, that 2 for sure and perhaps one more might be the extent of Jack the Rippers damage. Ive never seen any evidence that would make that opinion invalid, i.e. connection of one killer to more than one Canonical kill, connection of victim to killer discovered, etc...

Then you looked away when the abdominal flesh cutting was brought up. Otherwise you would know.

So its based solely on what is already on page, ..no known connection of any kills by a lone killer, no confirmed series beyond a double homicide at least. But lots of opinions. I have mine, and since they are within reason, are not suspect based and not overly ambitious, they are difficult to counter. I don't see anyone making a fuss matching Polly with Annie. Seems most agree with a single man repeating his actions. That's where the clarity ends. Leather Aprons, medical students, organs for sale, mad killer, gangs,...the specific pattern that was established by 2 consecutive almost identical acts was abandoned. Any subsequent act was immediately lumped in with the prior Unsolved Ripper cases with presumptions. And as a result, one sick semi skilled butcher, or med student, got away with murder.

"Difficult to counter"? Really? Then why is everybody doing it? Why is everybody - just about - agreeing about how one killer is likely responsible for at least four out of five canonicals?
To annoy you? Somwhow, I donīt think so. I think they are going with "the knowns".

[Michael W Richards]

Whatever I say to counter your objections to my position Fisherman is based on the realities of the knowns. This mythology all began with Polly in my opinion, preceding violence was not unexpected nor was it particularly spectacular..but this first public display was. Someone posing as a nameless client in order to get the victim to lead him into a corner where he could quickly incapacitate them, kill them, then mutilate their abdomens. I must assume by Annies murder, which is virtually identical in almost every way to Pollys and within 2 weeks, that he likely sought to obtain something from the abdomen. In this case we do have evidence that the victim may have been barely alive when found. That might suggest abbreviated activity, maybe due to incoming bootsteps. The venue was a poor choice regardless. The backyard next time round was much better.

These 2 murders are almost certainly by one man doing the same thing both times. With strangers. These victims are the only 2 that we have witness evidence were working the streets at the time. They match in MO, Victimology, PM Mutilation(or near death), all the relevant fields. A month later a woman is cut once in an act that the medical officer said might have been 2 seconds from start to finish. That same night a familiar scenario in Mitre Square, but with new elements. New focus, Perhaps different method of acquisition, not sure if there was any connection between killer and prey.But its possible this second murder might still be by Annies killer.

Everything else, excluding the facial marks, was something people felt was a connection to Annies murder. The intestines taken out, the deep double throat cuts, the excision of internal organs from the abdomen. But all those things had been in the public consciousness for a month. They read about what happened to Annie. Hell, everyone read about Annie. Round the world. In many ways Eddowes murder is so fundamentally different from Pollys, or Annies. And so unlike Liz Strides.

Any argument I try and put forward in any thread here comes from that foundation, that 2 for sure and perhaps one more might be the extent of Jack the Rippers damage. Ive never seen any evidence that would make that opinion invalid, i.e. connection of one killer to more than one Canonical kill, connection of victim to killer discovered, etc...

So its based solely on what is already on page, ..no known connection of any kills by a lone killer, no confirmed series beyond a double homicide at least. But lots of opinions. I have mine, and since they are within reason, are not suspect based and not overly ambitious, they are difficult to counter. I don't see anyone making a fuss matching Polly with Annie. Seems most agree with a single man repeating his actions. That's where the clarity ends. Leather Aprons, medical students, organs for sale, mad killer, gangs,...the specific pattern that was established by 2 consecutive almost identical acts was abandoned. Any subsequent act was immediately lumped in with the prior Unsolved Ripper cases with presumptions. And as a result, one sick semi skilled butcher, or med student, got away with murder.

[Fisherman]

WOuld that not be the same as ruling out a common killer when two victims are whacked over their heads with a poker, but one receives two savage blows and the other only one and not exactly as forceful? Is that when we forget about how two people have been whacked over their heads with a poker? Let me tell you, it certainly isnīt in my world.

A very good argument there, Fish. That same line of thinking produces the conclusion that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was inhabited by uterus takers, kidney takers and heart takers rather than one killer taking internal organs.

c.d.

And one killer cutting away abdominal walls because he wanted to and another one because the victim was pregnant. And one killer cutting from sternum to groin because he wanted to open his victims up for fun and another one doing so because he wanted to take a few bits and bobs out before he dismembered his victims. And one cutting throats to kill his victims and another one being forced to do so on account of how he needed to take the heads off. And one taking out a heart because he was an angry madman and the other doing it because he did not want it to get in the way of dismembering. And one carving out a uterus because he was a sexual sadist and the other one because he wanted to cut the foetus inside the uterus out, but not inside the body of the owner. And one abstaining from physical torture because he did not have the time to spare for it and the other doing so because he was too much style and class to engage in such things. And one stealing rings from his victims fingers because he wanted to keep them as trophies and the other one doing it because ... hell, I canīt tell - but it MUST have been for another reason!

Iīd say you have a very valid point, C.D.

[c.d.]

WOuld that not be the same as ruling out a common killer when two victims are whacked over their heads with a poker, but one receives two savage blows and the other only one and not exactly as forceful? Is that when we forget about how two people have been whacked over their heads with a poker? Let me tell you, it certainly isnīt in my world.

A very good argument there, Fish. That same line of thinking produces the conclusion that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was inhabited by uterus takers, kidney takers and heart takers rather than one killer taking internal organs.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Youre aware that there are major arteries on both sides of the neck?

Oh, yes - and I am also aware that severing them twice will not speed up the bleeding out process, nor will it lead to swifter unconsciousness. Come to think of it, I am aware of a good many things!

Liz had one cut completely. then again Liz Strides killer only wanted to kill someone. Just letting her bleed out was apparently fine, since he had finished what he intended already.

Eddowes had one artery only partly cut through. Why was that, would you say? Because the killer only wanted to kill somebody? And then he thought "What the heck..." and changed his mind? Is that how we identify the Ripper - by measuring the exact depth at which he cut? WOuld that not be the same as ruling out a common killer when two victims are whacked over their heads with a poker, but one receives two savage blows and the other only one and not exactly as forceful? Is that when we forget about how two people have been whacked over their heads with a poker? Let me tell you, it certainly isnīt in my world.

The general consensus is that if Stride was a Ripper victim, then the killer probably was interrupted and fled the stage. And interruptions are typically given away by what, Michael? Exactly: unfinished intentions.

[Fisherman]

Any other victims have defensive wounds? Isnt it blatantly obvious that Kelly struggled against her attacker?

Are you trying to identify at least a little something that IS "blatantly obvious", Michael? Because what you have so far described as obvious seems to be anything but.

I have no problems admitting that the arm wounds on Kelly look like defensive wounds. They really do. Then again, the killer I identify is a man who prioritized cutting into female flesh over anything else, more or less. Could such a person make cuts in a womans arms? I donīt see why not. And so, maybe what seems to be defensive wounds actually may (note that "may", please!) be something else.

[DJA]

Interesting that it's the nose cutting that's the overriding factor in the identity of Kate's killer, and not the missing organs.

Especially when he has cut into her inguinal lymph nodes and removed most of her uterus.

[Fisherman]

Just pointing out when the pot calls the kettle black....you disregard other theories in favour of one that isn't probable, nor is it supported within the knowns. Even when the competing theory has a foundation in actual evidence.

I am quite opposed to allowing you to defcide what is probable or not, Iīm afraid. There are heaps of similarities, and generally speaking, when there is, the police will work from an assumption of a common identity. Moreover, they are almost always correct in these cases, depending on how rare these types of killings are. You donīt like that reality, and I can understand that. It goes right against your favoured thinking, where we are dealing with a plethora of eviscerators.

So be it.

[Fisherman]

There is no evidence by any medical expert that Kates killer sought her "partial" uterus, there is that Annies killer specifically wanted a complete uterus. Kates killer took organs, there is no suggestion anywhere that the intention of killing her was to then obtain specifically what he took from her. There is in Annies murder,.... once again.

But we donīt need any medical expert to tell us that the killer actively chose to cut out Kate Eddowesī uterus and took it away, and therefore focused on that particular matter. He also focused on cutting her abdomen open, cutting her neck and cutting her face plus he focused on cutting a kidney out. Whether he knew what the parts were is a secondary question as long as we know that he focused on cutting them out in Mitre Square.

We could just as well say that the killer may not have known what he cut out from Chapman, that he took what he first saw. It is the exact same amount of focus as in Mitre Square. He cut women open and organs out. End of.

[Michael W Richards]

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?

There is no evidence by any medical expert that Kates killer sought her "partial" uterus, there is that Annies killer specifically wanted a complete uterus. Kates killer took organs, there is no suggestion anywhere that the intention of killing her was to then obtain specifically what he took from her. There is in Annies murder,.... once again.