Kates Cuts

[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!

[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.

[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]

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]

He was trying to kill them effectively so he had time to mutilate the abdomens cd, at least in some cases. That's why 2 cuts.

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.

[Harry D]

"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.

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

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Morning Advertiser 1 Oct;
"Morris Eagle, one of the members of the club, left Berner street about twelve o'clock, and after taking his sweetheart home returned to the club at about twenty minutes to one, with the intention of having supper."

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Bang on the money, but will Mr Richards take heed of this?

No. Nope. Njet.

"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.

[Michael W Richards]

Even more ineptitude was shown in Mary Kelly's case, whose nose was also partially removed. Who was she snitching on, I wonder?

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Eddowes had two cuts to the right ear, two to the left eyelid, one to the right eyelid, two to the right cheek, one to the left cheek, one to the nose and upper lip, one above the nose, one to the right side of the mouth. The largest number of cuts appear to be to the right cheek and the eyes, with the mouth or ear getting as many cuts as the nose. If the killer was trying to target Eddowes' nose, he was strikingly inept at the job.

Do we know whether Kate was still alive when those cuts were made? No feces in those wounds. She may have moved a bit...in near darkness, and with hurried actions.

[Michael W Richards]

AND accomplishes the same damn thing. What was foremost on the killer's mind if it were in fact Jack? Was he trying to cut his victim's throat in order to kill her as quickly and efficiently as possible or was the foremost thought in his mind I need to kill her exactly in the same fashion as the last victim so that I am consistent?

c.d.

He was trying to kill them effectively so he had time to mutilate the abdomens cd, at least in some cases. That's why 2 cuts.

[Michael W Richards]

And yet another wild speculative theory
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You know I get this kind of remark a lot, and Im still surprised when using known evidence to form a premise is somehow less attractive than having one that is without support in any known documentation. I gave you known supporting evidence for a "what if" and yet you refer to the idea as "wild". Im not a member on any other public forum, maybe its something related to the format.

Liz Stride said to a confidant that she had been at work "among the Jews", cleaning...we have her outside a Jewish club that is assuredly in need of a post meeting cleaning, she is noted to have been dressed in her "good evening attire". She has a fresh flower arrangement on, she has breath fresheners, she hasn't consumed booze other than perhaps that afternoon after cleaning the rooms. She wanted to brush down her skirt. She tells a lodgemate that she needs her to keep something for her until she returns, and she doesn't know when that will be. She is seen out and about that night not with anyone in particular, and she is last seen, using reliable witness testimony, just outside the almost exclusively Jewish club around 12:35. The only witness from the Inquest to see anyone between that time and 12:55 is John Brown, who almost certainly saw the young couple.

This means Liz Stride may have been in the passageway when she is attacked, not that she was manhandled there.

And you really think its wild to suggest she is there to work for Jews or to meet someone Trevor? I believe we can rule out 1 other scenario if that's the one that has you flummoxed here...the meeting broke up an hour earlier, there were only around 2 dozen men there at that time, upstairs in the club, we have witnesses stating that the street was deserted after that 12:35 sighting...Lave, Eagle, Fanny, ….so if you wonder if she was soliciting even though there is NO supporting evidence for that assumption, she sure chose the wrong time to do so. A hour earlier it was raining men.

[Joshua Rogan]

I wonder why Eagle retuned to the club?

Morning Advertiser 1 Oct;
"Morris Eagle, one of the members of the club, left Berner street about twelve o'clock, and after taking his sweetheart home returned to the club at about twenty minutes to one, with the intention of having supper."

[Harry D]

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.

Bang on the money, but will Mr Richards take heed of this?

No. Nope. Njet.