Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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?
    Eddowes had plenty of "extra" cuts - two 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 remove Eddowes nose, he was strikingly inept at the job.

    Other "extra" cuts were a stab and four cuts to the liver, a stab and a cut to the groin, cuts to both thighs, and a cut to the pancreas. The killer left some organs undamaged (stomach, right kidney, gall bladder, bladder, vagina, cervix), cut others (liver, pancreas) , partially removed some organs (colon, spleen, uterus), and fully removed others (intestines, left kidney). Some of the removed organs were left by the body (intestines, colon) and some were taken by the killer (left kidney, uterus, spleen). The most damaged organ was the liver. The only organ that was removed fully intact and taken was the left kidney. Attempting to interpret anything from that seems like an exercise in futility.

    As to why the killer would need a section of apron, the simplest solution was that he accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage. Based on the fact the torn apron piece had "some blood and apparently faecal matter" on it and the intestines pulled from the body "were smeared over with some feculent matter.", there is a good chance the wound would become infected, which could explain the long gap between the Eddowes and Kelly killings.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

      ...

      As to why the killer would need a section of apron, the simplest solution was that he accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage. Based on the fact the torn apron piece had "some blood and apparently faecal matter" on it and the intestines pulled from the body "were smeared over with some feculent matter.", there is a good chance the wound would become infected, which could explain the long gap between the Eddowes and Kelly killings.
      Hi Fiver,

      I've wondered if JtR might have gotten an infection from this as well. If he did, hospital records could potentially be an interesting area to search, looking for someone admitted with an infection, or blood poisoning, in the days that follow this attack. Not sure if such records would still exist, or be accessible to a researcher, but I think it is a hypothesis worth testing if the data exists. Of course, there's no guarentee he did cut himself and/or get an infection.

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Hi Fiver,

        I've wondered if JtR might have gotten an infection from this as well. If he did, hospital records could potentially be an interesting area to search, looking for someone admitted with an infection, or blood poisoning, in the days that follow this attack. Not sure if such records would still exist, or be accessible to a researcher, but I think it is a hypothesis worth testing if the data exists. Of course, there's no guarentee he did cut himself and/or get an infection.

        - Jeff
        hi jeff
        good idea and him using it for a cut is possible. however. lawende described "sailorman" having a hanky around his neck. if cut wouldnt the first thing he would do would be to use that? and not some tainted portion of a victims apron?

        My theory is he cut the apron to sign the graffiti. or to carry the organ in and when he got home decided to use it to sign the graffiti. a little payback to all those pesky jews who had spotted him that night.

        Comment


        • #19
          Given the sharpness of the Ripper's knife, a cut hand would probably have released a lot of blood onto the apron, causing a decent-sized patch of bood to be apparent somewhere on the cloth. As it was, what was described was a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it". I'm inclined to believe that this description fits pretty much exactly what happened; the killer got blood and caca on his hand, and used the apron piece as a makeshift towel.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Harry D View Post

            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.

            If he had one hand over her mouth and the other wielding the knife. There would not be any sounds that anyone would hear

            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.

            Can you disprove any of the above, no you cant !

            It's all so tiresome and one-note. Questioning the status quo, regardless of the evidence, doesn't make you a special snowflake, Trevor.
            I question it because you and others are blinded by the old accepted facts, take the blinkers off

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

              I find it astonishing that you actually belive this .
              Take a closer look at the angle of the facial cuts !

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                Given the sharpness of the Ripper's knife, a cut hand would probably have released a lot of blood onto the apron, causing a decent-sized patch of bood to be apparent somewhere on the cloth. As it was, what was described was a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it". I'm inclined to believe that this description fits pretty much exactly what happened; the killer got blood and caca on his hand, and used the apron piece as a makeshift towel.
                Not in a month of Sundays !!!!!!! if he had have wiped his hands on it then the smears etc would have been on both sides on the apron piece.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  As to why the killer would need a section of apron, the simplest solution was that he accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage. Based on the fact the torn apron piece had "some blood and apparently faecal matter" on it and the intestines pulled from the body "were smeared over with some feculent matter.", there is a good chance the wound would become infected, which could explain the long gap between the Eddowes and Kelly killings.
                  If the killer had wanted something to stem a cut, why did he go for the piece of clothing that was the furthest away from him. If she was wearing an apron then it would have been buried under all her other clothes because they were all pulled up above her waist.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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.
                    So now in addition to having the time to walk into the square with the victim, kill, and mutilate her abdomen, remove a kidney and uterus, then rifle her pockets, and then cut a piece of her apron, finishing up by artistically carving out her face. all in under 5 mins.

                    Come on wake up to reality !!!!!!!!!!!!

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Not in a month of Sundays !!!!!!! if he had have wiped his hands on it then the smears etc would have been on both sides on the apron piece.
                      Hand. Singular. The one with the $hit on it. Besides, who's to say there weren't smears on both sides?

                      PS: you can forget it if that was a prequel to bringing up your ludicrous "Eddowes used the apron as a sanitary rag, hence the faeces and blood found on it".
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                        Hand. Singular. The one with the $hit on it. Besides, who's to say there weren't smears on both sides?

                        PS: you can forget it if that was a prequel to bringing up your ludicrous "Eddowes used the apron as a sanitary rag, hence the faeces and blood found on it".
                        The truth hurts doesnt it ?

                        Dr Brown
                        "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi jeff
                          good idea and him using it for a cut is possible. however. lawende described "sailorman" having a hanky around his neck. if cut wouldnt the first thing he would do would be to use that? and not some tainted portion of a victims apron?

                          My theory is he cut the apron to sign the graffiti. or to carry the organ in and when he got home decided to use it to sign the graffiti. a little payback to all those pesky jews who had spotted him that night.
                          I suspect the apron was taken and used mostly to clean/wipe his hands on. If he used it for carrying the organ I don't see why he would have disposed of it before getting home, though there is the possibility he got home, unwrapped the organs, then went out again to get rid of it I suppose. Cutting his hand and getting an infection as a result would possibly occur simply due to having damaged the bowel, removing the colon, etc, and getting feces on his hands. The apron used as a cleaning rag (for his hands and knife) because of the fecal matter and blood from Eddowes, rather than for a possible cut per se, seems the simplest reason for taking it. I believe one of the medical professionals testifies the stains on it looked like someone had wiped a knife (hands?) on it?

                          If he did write the graffiti (and that is not a sure thing), then it would also make sense that he would drop the apron while doing that, and if he was done with wiping up, then at that point he has no reason to pick it back up. But how one views all of that also depends upon when the apron and graffiti were put there, and the testimony is that it was about an hour or so after the murder, which implies JtR went home, then returned. The alternative is that those were just missed earlier in the night, and were deposited/written as he fled. The latter feels more likely, but the testimony is for the former. And pending on which of those one starts with greatly changes what JtR was doing when the apron/graffiti ended up where they were.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The piece of apron could have been taken as a trophy in the heat of the moment. At some point, he realizes just how incriminating it would be to be caught with it on him and tosses it.

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              I suspect the apron was taken and used mostly to clean/wipe his hands on. If he used it for carrying the organ I don't see why he would have disposed of it before getting home, though there is the possibility he got home, unwrapped the organs, then went out again to get rid of it I suppose. Cutting his hand and getting an infection as a result would possibly occur simply due to having damaged the bowel, removing the colon, etc, and getting feces on his hands. The apron used as a cleaning rag (for his hands and knife) because of the fecal matter and blood from Eddowes, rather than for a possible cut per se, seems the simplest reason for taking it. I believe one of the medical professionals testifies the stains on it looked like someone had wiped a knife (hands?) on it?

                              If he did write the graffiti (and that is not a sure thing), then it would also make sense that he would drop the apron while doing that, and if he was done with wiping up, then at that point he has no reason to pick it back up. But how one views all of that also depends upon when the apron and graffiti were put there, and the testimony is that it was about an hour or so after the murder, which implies JtR went home, then returned. The alternative is that those were just missed earlier in the night, and were deposited/written as he fled. The latter feels more likely, but the testimony is for the former. And pending on which of those one starts with greatly changes what JtR was doing when the apron/graffiti ended up where they were.

                              - Jeff
                              There is no logic to him discarding a piece of screwed up soiled apron, and then writing the graffiti at a secluded location some distance from the crime scene. How could he have known that if found they would they be linked to the murder in any event, and what if they hadn't been found. If the killer was going to send a message. There were much easier ways. For instance if he had cut the apron he could have sent that to the police. or if he had taken the organs equally he could have done the same with them.

                              Thinking out of the box is a trait that some do not seem to be able to do.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                                ... 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.
                                Michael this I believe is the first time you have actually said the name Isenschmidt. Good on you. A positive declaration. You cordon off the first two victims, Polly Nichols & Annie Chapman so that their particulars need not detain us when discussing any other murder. Such as Kate, the subject of this thread.

                                If that's what you believe, then fine. You saying that about Isenschmidt puts you LIGHT YEARS ahead of the run-of-the-mill "There Was No Jack The Ripper" posters who drop murky turds into the water, then accuse us of not thinking out of a box, and clinging to old ideas. And they're here doing that all the time, year after year. They can't seem to shake it.

                                Roy
                                Last edited by Roy Corduroy; 11-06-2019, 01:44 AM.
                                Sink the Bismark

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X