Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

Ok Harry, I see we need to leave reasonable off the table with you, but just for the jolly...

I'm asking you if this is a shtick or not. The amount of assumptions and mental gymnastics needed to prop up this theory are considerably less than just accepting that Eddowes was murdered by the same eviscerator.

Using known circumstantial evidence, historically established facial marking, and known physical evidence shouldnt be considered either mere assumptions or require any mental gymnastics to comprehend. Like in Strides case, where a single cut suggest a mad Ripper mutilator..now that require a leap of faith across the Grand Canyon.

First of all, the police always looked at the antecedents of the victim regardless if it had the Ripper signature. Therefore, the idea that a second killer performed the extensive mutilations and organ removal to throw off the cops is spurious and better left to the realms of fiction.

The idea is facilitated by the fact that they knew nothing about the killer at large, they only knew what he left behind. Doing some damage to have this murder blend in with the assumed kills is in my estimation, a very smart tactic.

If someone was afraid of Eddowes shopping them to the police, killing her in the manner befitting the Ripper was all kinds of stupid for reasons I'm sure don't need explaining.

Again with the disrespect. Hmm. Not only would it have been just short of brilliant, not the opposite like you erroneously suggest, its done its job if that's what happened...because no-one is looking at WHY she was killed at all. Well, I am, but the majority still just drinks the lemonade.

If someone did want Eddowes silenced, they could've slit her throat and been done with it. After all, they never caught Liz Stride or Frances Coles murderers.

And left evidence that she wasn't killed by the mad slicer and dicer killing strangers randomly? And then leave the authorities to wonder, again, WHY she was killed...and by WHOM? Much better to let the unknown menace take the blame I would think. Unless you are that man, of course.

The Ripper had only previously removed a uterus, so why would a copycat increase the risk of being caught by rummaging around for a kidney too? Wouldn't this seem far likelier to be the same eviscerator upping the ante?

"The Ripper" sought that uterus specifically, so why would taking some other organ represent a copycat at all? It doesn't. Upping what ante? A new organ gets taken, and you assume its still the same bloke, instead of questioning what a new focus might mean??

If the nose removal was a warning to snitches, surely this was lost when everyone lumped her murder in with the Ripper victims?

I suppose youre right, since Ive seen many asinine assumptions being forwarded based on a belief that the Canonical Group is a vetted and proven theory.

I think this will be my last post on the matter. No offence, but I don't have the energy to waste on such drivel.

You call a valid suggestion drivel and say no offense...kinda takes the false respect out, don't ya think?

Ill just finish by saying Harry that almost everything you state as more probable, involving less gymnastics, and with support is categorically not more probable, far more involved and convoluted, and without any evidence to support it.Its all just based on an unprovable Canonical Group, a failed theoretical proposition for over 130 years.

A witness stated Kate was going to give a suspected killers name to collect a reward, she said she thought she knew who the killer was. She didn't say give a name to the police, and why would she...they had no reward at that time, so she obviously meant the private rewards being offered. She has no known funds for getting drunk that afternoon, there is no explanation for why she is in Mitre Square after being released from jail, she suffers facial markings that mirror those given to snitches in that area at that time, and the organ taken from her was not sought specifically from the initial cuts on. Like Annies was.

Im trying hard not use use words like obtuse and blind to counter observations that don't recognize whet arguments actually have support in the evidence. Mine actually does. A canonical group HAS ONLY OPINION.

[Michael W Richards]

I wouldn't read too much into that. Kelly was practically naked (her arms were certainly bare) and in bed, probably facing her attacker. The others could easily have been taken by surprise from behind.

Her throat was cut from behind, while she is facing the wall..the splatters say that Sam. She was also on her side, and later placed back on her back for the mutilations. Which, when concluded, he finished with the placement of her left arm back over her empty body.

[c.d.]

A canonical group HAS ONLY OPINION.

Michael,

I don't know why you feel the need to make that point over and over again. No one has ever argued otherwise. If it were an established fact there would be no need for argument. But just because it is an opinion only does not mean that it could not be correct.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Her throat was cut from behind, while she is facing the wall..the splatters say that Sam..

What happened to her before her throat was cut? Or do you think she incurred those defensive wounds on her forearms after she was killed?

(Besides, the blood spray by no means proves that she was attacked from behind.)

[Joshua Rogan]

Her throat was cut from behind, while she is facing the wall..the splatters say that Sam. She was also on her side, and later placed back on her back for the mutilations.

This is only your opinion. Others may differ.
I'm not sure Dr Phillips says anything about the attitude of her body, only the location;

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

[Wickerman]

This is only your opinion. Others may differ.
I'm not sure Dr Phillips says anything about the attitude of her body, only the location;

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

Hi Joshua.
I have to say I take issue with how Phillips described her position.
His opinion is based on the assumption her body had not been moved, that she was killed as she was found, on her back in the middle of the bed. This implies Kelly was attacked from the front.
I believe she was facing the partition when she was attacked, her throat was sliced as she faced away from her attacker, he was behind her on the bed.
Her throat was sliced from behind, then her body rolled onto her back in the middle of the bed, which is how she was found.

[Michael W Richards]

A canonical group HAS ONLY OPINION.

Michael,

I don't know why you feel the need to make that point over and over again. No one has ever argued otherwise. If it were an established fact there would be no need for argument. But just because it is an opinion only does not mean that it could not be correct.

c.d.

The reason I use that so often cd is to counter point against any and all suppositions that include what specific victims are linked with a single killer, how many victims can be attributed to a single killer, and whether similar injuries dictate a single killer conclusion. Its because virtually every possible answer is still on the table, we haven't solved the Jack the Ripper crimes, we don't know who he killed, we don't know how many he killed. Were not sure when he started, and not sure when it stopped. The only linkage seems to lie in the injuries themselves, not an apparent motive throughout, and Ive said on that issue that anyone with the stomach for it and a knife could have done most of those cuts. And in that area, lots of men had knives. Lots of men cut flesh for a living, some cut pigs..which may be relevant.

As long as were clear on that people shouldn't be subjected to wild theory accusations if they use that same available evidence to construct a hypothesis.

[Michael W Richards]

This is only your opinion. Others may differ.
I'm not sure Dr Phillips says anything about the attitude of her body, only the location;

"The large quantity of blood under the bedstead, the saturated condition of the palliasse, pillow, and sheet at the top corner of the bedstead nearest to the partition leads me to the conclusion that the severance of the right carotid artery, which was the immediate cause of death, was inflicted while the deceased was lying at the right side of the bedstead and her head and neck in the top right-hand corner."

Im using the arterial spray on the partition wall Josh. And that description above,... when on her right side is added to it, it seems to reflect that position.

[Michael W Richards]

What happened to her before her throat was cut? Or do you think she incurred those defensive wounds on her forearms after she was killed?

(Besides, the blood spray by no means proves that she was attacked from behind.)

I believe the evidence suggests that Mary was on the right side of the bed, facing the partition wall, on her side, when her throat is first cut by a left handed man from behind. The spray hits the wall, she is suddenly awake and aware she is under attack and although she cant cry out she can still flail her arms a bit and try to move her body defensively against the attack. The killer slashes at her, criss crossing her face, her arms, she is bleeding profusely from the throat cut and loses the ability to put up a struggle after a brief challenge, and when he can, he slits her throat again to finish her off. He gets up, folds her clothes and puts them on a chair...(that's just creative license, but it seems creepy and in keeping with this guy),..... he throws some items on the dying fire, rolls up his sleeves and turns back to his work.

[Sam Flynn]

Anyway... Kate's cuts. As opposed to "Kate was killed by a different killer than Mary".

[Wickerman]

I believe the evidence suggests that Mary was on the right side of the bed, facing the partition wall, on her side, when her throat is first cut by a left handed man from behind.

As most of Kelly's type would practice safe sex, the most likely position would be her face down on the bed, and this would be anal sex.
Her head was face down at the top right side of the bed against the partition, the killer is on her back. So he could still be right handed, his left hand grabs her hair and pulls her head back, the throat is cut by the knife in his right hand.

The spray hits the wall, she is suddenly awake and aware she is under attack and although she cant cry out she can still flail her arms a bit and try to move her body defensively against the attack.

Well, she was never asleep in my opinion, she had been strangled into unconsciousness, he slashed her throat then, he rolls her onto her back....

The killer slashes at her, criss crossing her face, her arms, she is bleeding profusely from the throat cut and loses the ability to put up a struggle after a brief challenge,....

There's no struggle at this point, she's well and truly dead when he rolled her onto her back. Any struggle came at the beginning as he applied the strangle hold, or perhaps the cord, from behind.

I know she had cuts on her forearms & one on her thumb, I just don't see these as defensive wounds. The killer had slashed her body and could easily have caught her thumb unintentionally. The cuts to her forearm may easily be the beginning of further mutilation, which was abandoned for any number of reasons.
There has been an automatic assumption that he had finished his mutilation of the body, this may not be the case. He could have been disturbed by people coming and going and decided to abandon the mutilation and get out before someone comes knocking.

[Michael W Richards]

Anyway... Kate's cuts. As opposed to "Kate was killed by a different killer than Mary".

Just addressing your post Sam.

[Michael W Richards]

As most of Kelly's type would practice safe sex, the most likely position would be her face down on the bed, and this would be anal sex.
Her head was face down at the top right side of the bed against the partition, the killer is on her back. So he could still be right handed, his left hand grabs her hair and pulls her head back, the throat is cut by the knife in his right hand.




Well, she was never asleep in my opinion, she had been strangled into unconsciousness, he slashed her throat then, he rolls her onto her back....



There's no struggle at this point, she's well and truly dead when he rolled her onto her back. Any struggle came at the beginning as he applied the strangle hold, or perhaps the cord, from behind.

I know she had cuts on her forearms & one on her thumb, I just don't see these as defensive wounds. The killer had slashed her body and could easily have caught her thumb unintentionally. The cuts to her forearm may easily be the beginning of further mutilation, which was abandoned for any number of reasons.
There has been an automatic assumption that he had finished his mutilation of the body, this may not be the case. He could have been disturbed by people coming and going and decided to abandon the mutilation and get out before someone comes knocking.

First off Jon, there is nothing in any evidence that suggests Mary while still likely drunk, and possibly hungover, was engaging in any sex, and there is evidence she didn't when she went into the room with Blotchy. Secondly, since the room was dark and quiet from 1:30 until 2 people hear "oh-murder" as if from the courtyard, she may well have been trying to sleep off her bender when the killer arrives. Or Blotchy waited until she was asleep. Thirdly, if you wake to someone behind you and the immediately knowledge your life is in danger, the flailing arms, and attempting to re-orient yourself to face the threat would be probable. The wounds on her hands and arms are almost certainly defensive wounds, how else do you imagine she got severe deep gashes there?

If you imagine that there was much else that he would have done in that room to Mary,... aside from the obvious continue defleshing her bones, I am fairly sure you would be alone in that. Surely he was sated, Jack or not.

On the cuts to hands and arms, they are defensive Jon, and they were likely made when the face slashing took place. Which indicates that at that point in time, she was conscious. She would have felt those wounds.

[Wickerman]

First off Jon, there is nothing in any evidence that suggests Mary while still likely drunk, and possibly hungover, was engaging in any sex, and there is evidence she didn't when she went into the room with Blotchy.

Michael, if you were more familiar with the social norms of the lower classes in that part of London you would know these people couldn't afford nightgowns, slippers & hot water bottles, they slept in their clothes, both Prater & Cox confirm that point. So, the very fact Kelly was in her chemise means she was entertaining someone, if she was just going to sleep she would be fully clothed.

Secondly, since the room was dark and quiet from 1:30 until 2 people hear "oh-murder" as if from the courtyard, she may well have been trying to sleep off her bender when the killer arrives.

Kelly was out on the streets that's why the room was dark & quiet.

Or Blotchy waited until she was asleep.

On what basis does Blotchy assume Kelly is going to fall asleep when they are in the room?
You seem to forget, a murderer needs to be in & out as fast as possible, not sit around for hours on the off chance his partner will fall asleep before some neighbor comes knocking.
If his only intent was to kill her he could just knock her out to speed up the process, assuming she was too drunk to resist.
If she wasn't too drunk to resist then on what basis do you think she was drunk enough to fall asleep?
You can't have it both ways.

Also, Blotchy knows he was seen close-up by Cox. For him to go ahead and kill Kelly after a witness saw him as the last person in her company is preposterous.

Thirdly, if you wake to someone behind you and the immediately knowledge your life is in danger, the flailing arms, and attempting to re-orient yourself to face the threat would be probable. The wounds on her hands and arms are almost certainly defensive wounds, how else do you imagine she got severe deep gashes there?

The knife is only used when the victim is unconscious, it is very probable none of the victims ever saw a knife. They were all down and out before the knife was used. Jack wasn't a knife wealding prowler, he suffocated or strangled them, so any defensive woulds would be limited to bruises on the arms & hands.

If you imagine that there was much else that he would have done in that room to Mary,... aside from the obvious continue defleshing her bones, I am fairly sure you would be alone in that. Surely he was sated, Jack or not.

You think he was finished?
Why did he strip flesh off her legs & thighs, if he was only looking for organs?, he didn't start to deflesh the other vicitms.
Why did he not complete the defleshing of Kelly?

[Michael W Richards]

Good day Jon,....

Michael, if you were more familiar with the social norms of the lower classes in that part of London you would know these people couldn't afford nightgowns, slippers & hot water bottles, they slept in their clothes, both Prater & Cox confirm that point. So, the very fact Kelly was in her chemise means she was entertaining someone, if she was just going to sleep she would be fully clothed.

Sleeping in her chemise is sleeping in her clothes Jon, the chemise was a day garment much like a slip. Of course, "being unfamiliar with the social norms" makes that a logical guess I suppose.


Kelly was out on the streets that's why the room was dark & quiet.

No credible evidence was presented at the Inquest to suggest Mary was seen alive again after 11:45pm Thursday night when she returned home. Youll note that Im not unfamiliar with the facts.

On what basis does Blotchy assume Kelly is going to fall asleep when they are in the room?

She falls asleep after entertaining Blotchy with song, whether he is still there or not. That's why its dark and quiet in there Jon.

You seem to forget, a murderer needs to be in & out as fast as possible, not sit around for hours on the off chance his partner will fall asleep before some neighbor comes knocking. If his only intent was to kill her he could just knock her out to speed up the process, assuming she was too drunk to resist.
If she wasn't too drunk to resist then on what basis do you think she was drunk enough to fall asleep?
You can't have it both ways.

Its you and others that insist this murder be by the madman at large, so I understand why you see his perceived threat level as higher the more time in the room, but if he is there by invitation, and is someone Mary knows....which is almost certain by the circumstantial evidence, ….then he can afford to let her doze off. If he arrives at the same time 2 people here "oh-murder", that means he kills her sometime after 4am. Oh, and she was barely able to get out a hello to Mary Ann, she was hammered.

Also, Blotchy knows he was seen close-up by Cox. For him to go ahead and kill Kelly after a witness saw him as the last person in her company is preposterous.

Yet you and others believe Sailor Man kills Kate, and he is also Jack, don't you? And what of BSM, isn't Liz supposed to be killed by Jack, and BSM must almost certainly be him if all that is true,..and by his statement doesn't Hutchy boy put himself on the scene, likely before the murder...making him the 4th example of men supposedly seen with their victims just before their murders. Preposterous indeed.


The knife is only used when the victim is unconscious, it is very probable none of the victims ever saw a knife. They were all down and out before the knife was used. Jack wasn't a knife wealding prowler, he suffocated or strangled them, so any defensive woulds would be limited to bruises on the arms & hands.

That would makes sense but for the physical evidence in room 13 Jon, there was a knife being used while they victim was conscious, the most obvious and reasonable explanation for the "defensive wounds".

You think he was finished?
Why did he strip flesh off her legs & thighs, if he was only looking for organs?, he didn't start to deflesh the other vicitms.
Why did he not complete the defleshing of Kelly?

Id say Yes to the first question, who the f*** knows what his intentions were with those absolutely meaningless desecrations, to the 2nd question, and likely because it had lost meaning to him on the 3rd. He cut her in ways that had nothing to do with acquiring organs, accessing those organs, or to make symbolic marks...like on Kates face.

The cuts on Kates face were meaningful enough to take the time to do them, so they perhaps reveal something about the killer, the stripping of Marys thighs is either a way to destroy her, or just meaningless, lost cutting. And from 30,000 feet it doesn't appear that there was any focus at all on the abdomen or abdominal organs. He left them all.