Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

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 W Richards]

... 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 "donīt you tell me youīre 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 W Richards]

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.

[Fisherman]

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 "donīt you tell me youīre 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.

[c.d.]

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.

[Fisherman]

Exactly so, Abby. To expose the inside.

[Abby Normal]

It is perfectly obvious that there were superfluous cuts to Chapmans body if we work from the presumption that the killer wanted to obtain the uterus and itīs appendages. To enable an excision of those parts, it was not necessary to cut away the abdominal flesh from Chapman. The Eddowes murder bears witness to that - no abdominal flaps removed, and still the killer could cut out the uterus. AND a kidney, for that matter.

It is nevertheless quite obvious that Phillips was impressed by the killers cutting skills, and reinterpreting matters to try and create a picture of a sloppy deed with random cutting only will not do.

The killer was a skilled cutter, he was able to remove the uterus and itīs appendages in a manner that had Phillips impressed, but it would be to go too far to claim that there were no meaningless cuts - IF, that is, we work from the presumption that the idea was to remove the uterus. And Baxter and Phillips alike apparently worked from that presumption (and Baxter could perhaps have been speaking of the cuts involved in the uterus removal process only when he phrased himself the way he did).

As I stated in my former post, this leaves us with the all-important question why the killer cut away the abdominal flesh at all. He took great care to do so, and produced four flaps (or sections) of abdominal flesh in the process.

It seems obvious enough that the aim was not to procure slabs of abdominal flesh for keeping, since he left three out of four sections behind and apparently only kept section four since it had parts of the reproductive organs attaching to it.

So he was not after the abdominal flesh; it was not meant for keeping. Nor did he have to remove it to get at the innards. And still he did this.

Ask yourselves: What is the result of cutting away the abdominal flesh from a corpse? That is the truly vital question we are left with.

Anyone?

to expose the insides

[Fisherman]

I think that his madness might outweigh his training Fisherman, and acquired skills.

His "madness"? I donīt think he would have been regarded as mad by his contemporaries, nor by a judge and jury - if they had been introduced to the killer. Of course, he deviated from the normal behavior, but so did Sutcliffe, Ridgway, Shawcross etc, neither of whom were "mad".

Ive never claimed he was surgeon In Annies case, just that he impressed the medical examiners enough to instigate a search of medical students and practitioners.

I agree. He was certainly not doing it a surgeonīs way, but he did have cutting skills.

Using a logical reconstruction of cutting activities might not be a practical approach considering he was obviously ill mentally.

Ooops - thereīs that "obviously" that tends to get in the way of a measured debate. As I said, he deviated from the normal, but there is no reason at all to believe that he would have been "mad" in any traditional sense. Rather the opposite, actually. One very good comparison would be Sean Vincent Gillis, who killed women and cut out organs, cut off hands and sliced the meat from their thighs, after which he posed the victims in explicit ways. This comes very, very close to what we see in the Ripper cases. But was Gillis mad or mentally ill? Nope, he was not. So you may just as well drop that notion before it becomes an obstacle to your thinking.

He cut in a manner that would enable him to take just what he took..thats really the point here.

No, he did not. He cut in a manner that was way beyond what he needed to do. THAT is the point, Michael. He did NOT need to take away the abdominal wall to get at the uterus - and still he did. Before you understand why, I really donīt think you stand much of a chance to decode what happened.

Kates Cuts....(I just liked the alliteration)..is really about the many superfluous cuts made on Kate. I don't think you can argue that the flaps cut from Annie were superfluous, just that they were not required. And cuts to the face served no practical purpose if the goal was a kidney, or the abdomen in general. Like the impractical and time wasting cuts made on Kelly later.

I would never argue that the flaps were superfluous to the killer. They were superfluous to the aim of extracting the uterus, though. So they are parallel to Kated facial cuts - they served ANOTHER purpose than eviscerations.
What the killer did to Kelly was not wasteful at all, by the way. Not if you ask me, at least. I believe it was all very deliberate and purposeful, from the cutting away of the thigh flesh down to the bone to the facial hacking. It was all part of the same agenda - that was also expressed by cutting away Annie Chapmans abdominal flesh. There was a reason for it, a purpose.

[Michael W Richards]

It is perfectly obvious that there were superfluous cuts to Chapmans body if we work from the presumption that the killer wanted to obtain the uterus and itīs appendages. To enable an excision of those parts, it was not necessary to cut away the abdominal flesh from Chapman. The Eddowes murder bears witness to that - no abdominal flaps removed, and still the killer could cut out the uterus. AND a kidney, for that matter.

It is nevertheless quite obvious that Phillips was impressed by the killers cutting skills, and reinterpreting matters to try and create a picture of a sloppy deed with random cutting only will not do.

The killer was a skilled cutter, he was able to remove the uterus and itīs appendages in a manner that had Phillips impressed, but it would be to go too far to claim that there were no meaningless cuts - IF, that is, we work from the presumption that the idea was to remove the uterus. And Baxter and Phillips alike apparently worked from that presumption (and Baxter could perhaps have been speaking of the cuts involved in the uterus removal process only when he phrased himself the way he did).

As I stated in my former post, this leaves us with the all-important question why the killer cut away the abdominal flesh at all. He took great care to do so, and produced four flaps (or sections) of abdominal flesh in the process.

It seems obvious enough that the aim was not to procure slabs of abdominal flesh for keeping, since he left three out of four sections behind and apparently only kept section four since it had parts of the reproductive organs attaching to it.

So he was not after the abdominal flesh; it was not meant for keeping. Nor did he have to remove it to get at the innards. And still he did this.

Ask yourselves: What is the result of cutting away the abdominal flesh from a corpse? That is the truly vital question we are left with.

Anyone?

I think that his madness might outweigh his training Fisherman, and acquired skills. Ive never claimed he was surgeon In Annies case, just that he impressed the medical examiners enough to instigate a search of medical students and practitioners. Using a logical reconstruction of cutting activities might not be a practical approach considering he was obviously ill mentally. He cut in a manner that would enable him to take just what he took..thats really the point here.

Kates Cuts....(I just liked the alliteration)..is really about the many superfluous cuts made on Kate. I don't think you can argue that the flaps cut from Annie were superfluous, just that they were not required. And cuts to the face on Eddowes served no practical purpose if the goal was a kidney, or the abdomen in general. Like the impractical and time wasting cuts made on Kelly later.

[Fisherman]

By the way, am I the only one thinking that "Kates cuts" sounds like the name of a Bronx meat restaurant...?

[Fisherman]

It is perfectly obvious that there were superfluous cuts to Chapmans body if we work from the presumption that the killer wanted to obtain the uterus and itīs appendages. To enable an excision of those parts, it was not necessary to cut away the abdominal flesh from Chapman. The Eddowes murder bears witness to that - no abdominal flaps removed, and still the killer could cut out the uterus. AND a kidney, for that matter.

It is nevertheless quite obvious that Phillips was impressed by the killers cutting skills, and reinterpreting matters to try and create a picture of a sloppy deed with random cutting only will not do.

The killer was a skilled cutter, he was able to remove the uterus and itīs appendages in a manner that had Phillips impressed, but it would be to go too far to claim that there were no meaningless cuts - IF, that is, we work from the presumption that the idea was to remove the uterus. And Baxter and Phillips alike apparently worked from that presumption (and Baxter could perhaps have been speaking of the cuts involved in the uterus removal process only when he phrased himself the way he did).

As I stated in my former post, this leaves us with the all-important question why the killer cut away the abdominal flesh at all. He took great care to do so, and produced four flaps (or sections) of abdominal flesh in the process.

It seems obvious enough that the aim was not to procure slabs of abdominal flesh for keeping, since he left three out of four sections behind and apparently only kept section four since it had parts of the reproductive organs attaching to it.

So he was not after the abdominal flesh; it was not meant for keeping. Nor did he have to remove it to get at the innards. And still he did this.

Ask yourselves: What is the result of cutting away the abdominal flesh from a corpse? That is the truly vital question we are left with.

Anyone?

[Sam Flynn]

"...the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body" does not translate to "no meaningless cuts". It simply means that the body was cut open and the organs cut out to enable the killer to take possession of them.

[Michael W Richards]

Try telling that to Annie's bladder or colon. Or the totally unnecessary three chunks of flesh that were hacked out of her abdominal wall, when a couple of well-placed incisions would not only have sufficed to open her up, but would have been quicker.

Those weren't Phillips' words, but Wynne Baxter's. So not a medical review, but those of a flamboyant non-medic who didn't hesitate to introduce his own opinions and ridiculous pet theories into proceedings.

From the Inquest transcripts Telegraph Sept 20th: "Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

Youre correct Sam that I misattributed the quote, but not about what Phillips thought. The sloppy bits and pieces you mentioned are acceptably within that same premise, it was still dark..he was in a hurry, and he had to feel some of the danger. He didn't have the half hour a surgeon would need to do this properly, using Phillips words.

[Fisherman]

"No meaningless cuts..". That kind of comment doesn't appear in any other medical review of the evidence in any other Unsolved case of the period.

Not word for word, no - but Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham victim was even more impressed with what the killer had achieved. Chapman is in no way unique when it comes to evoking feelings of awe coupled to the cutting skills of the killer.

[Fisherman]

Try telling that to Annie's bladder or colon. Or the totally unnecessary three chunks of flesh that were hacked out of her abdominal wall, when a couple of well-placed incisions would not only have sufficed to open her up, but would have been quicker.

Indeed! Therefore, we may conclude that although the "chunks of flesh" you speak of (and they were four, not three - one had gone lost) were unnecessary in order to excise the uterus and appendages, it seems the killer wanted to cut them away nevertheless. And so the logical deduction is that they were cut away for another reason than the procurement of the lost organ. And that of course makes them much more interesting per se since they introduce an element that is extremely rare, even in evisceration murder cases.

Those weren't Phillips' words, but Wynne Baxter's. So not a medical review, but those of a flamboyant non-medic who didn't hesitate to introduce his own opinions and ridiculous pet theories into proceedings.

Interestingly, though, Baxters views are very much allowed for in the Nichols case, where his assertion that it was never likely that the killer cut the abdomen before the neck is bought straight off, no questions asked. In that particular case, his word is taken over that of the trained and examining medico Llewellyns word. That idea of his is not scorned or called a ridiculous pet theory.
For whatever reason.

PS. Baxters words about "no meaningless cuts" are probably guided by him having spoken to medically trained people anyway if you ask me. Just like you say, he was not qualified to make that kind of judgement himself.