Kates Cuts

[Trevor Marriott]

Go on then.

The concept of mutilating the face of an informant is certainly not speculative, take the current phrase "snitches get stitches". So I think tying in the markings on Kate Eddowes with your theory that she was going to turn in the killer and paid the price doesn't stretch credibility providing you already accept said theory.

Whoever killed Kate, regardless of whether they killed any or none of the C5, probably had done that kind of thing before. And there are not so much steps as giant leaps between roughing up a "grass", slashing their face, murder, post mortem disfiguration and disembowelment, or in Kate's case, all of them. So assuming her killer was already a violent individual who had killed before, my personal opinion tends to err towards the facial mutilation being for internal reasons that, without actually being able to interview him, probably served some purpose to serve his own Psyche.

With regard to the lack of facial mutilation in previous canonicals, is it a case of justifying the differences or accepting them? If you believe in escalation, it's not hard to explain, the killer did more and more, culminating in the horror of Millers Court. So, in keeping with the theme of your post, my take is that if Polly and Kate were killed by the same hand, the reason for the facial mutilation in Kate's case is because the killer was confident, more experienced and needing more from his crime.

Still, like I said, as an aspect of your own theory I don't think the facial markings would need much explanation. If she was killed specifically because of what she knew and threatened to do, then cutting her face would serve both his internal desire to put her in her place and to serve as a warning to others.

The facial wounds were defensive wounds sustained by the victim in trying to avoid having her throat cut !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Go on then.

The concept of mutilating the face of an informant is certainly not speculative, take the current phrase "snitches get stitches". So I think tying in the markings on Kate Eddowes with your theory that she was going to turn in the killer and paid the price doesn't stretch credibility providing you already accept said theory.

Whoever killed Kate, regardless of whether they killed any or none of the C5, probably had done that kind of thing before. And there are not so much steps as giant leaps between roughing up a "grass", slashing their face, murder, post mortem disfiguration and disembowelment, or in Kate's case, all of them. So assuming her killer was already a violent individual who had killed before, my personal opinion tends to err towards the facial mutilation being for internal reasons that, without actually being able to interview him, probably served some purpose to serve his own Psyche.

With regard to the lack of facial mutilation in previous canonicals, is it a case of justifying the differences or accepting them? If you believe in escalation, it's not hard to explain, the killer did more and more, culminating in the horror of Millers Court. So, in keeping with the theme of your post, my take is that if Polly and Kate were killed by the same hand, the reason for the facial mutilation in Kate's case is because the killer was confident, more experienced and needing more from his crime.

Still, like I said, as an aspect of your own theory I don't think the facial markings would need much explanation. If she was killed specifically because of what she knew and threatened to do, then cutting her face would serve both his internal desire to put her in her place and to serve as a warning to others.

[Michael W Richards]

Since no-one took the bait on this premise, Ill expand it somewhat....since the murders of Polly, Annie and Kate share so many features, are there real, fundamental differences in the way Kate was opened, and the way Annie was. For many,many years Ive been on the fence about Kate. Primarily due to 2 new additions that for me don't represent the killer of Annies "purpose" if you will. The goal was not to kill a street walking Unfortunate...the deep throat cuts ensured quick deaths...it was not to stab a corpse, or to randomly chop it up...like it seems in Mary Kellys case. The opening of the abdomen shows us that the killer sought to remove internal abdominal organs. In 3 of the first 4 Canonicals anyway. It doesn't seem to be about symbolic goals, like terrorists would have.

I kept thinking about this over the weekend, 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. But that doesn't adequately address the many similarities between Kate and Polly. They are there, and 1 of the reasons I personally don't see the same knife and anatomy skills in this murder may be understandable... considering the quick nature and dark location for this attack.

Kates facial cuts for me still represent a branding, a mark with symbolic meaning, Im at a loss to understand why, if Kate is killed by Pollys killer, some sort of symbolic message might be absent in Pollys murder. Killed for different reasons, but by the same man/men?

How much should that specific abdominal mutilation done to Kate be considered when assessing whether or not this was Pollys killer?

[Michael W Richards]

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?

The murder of Catharine Eddowes is very similar in most aspects from the previous victims, (excluding Stride), but the anomalous elements within the physical evidence, in addition to the marked deviation from what we are told were her regular habits, make this a slightly awkward fit with Annies killing.

Im interested to see how people justify these differences, but to start off, this may have bearing on the facial wounds...

From the Star, Oct 3rd;

The services of "noses" - that is to say, people who are hand in glove with persons of indifferent character, are frequently called into play, and they are deputed to go to the low lodging-houses and other places that are the resort of low characters, and keep their eyes and ears open for anything likely to give a clue to the individual or individuals wanted. Women often act as "noses."

This kind of work could be dangerous as well one might imagine, and there are historical records for the area that state that some murder victims in the years leading up to the Ripper crimes were found to have cuts to their nose, if not removed entirely.

When one considers that, in essence, Kates claim that she intended to give a name of someone she knew who she felt responsible for the recent murders, in order to receive a reward, is very much like acting as a "nose" would. If Kate was the person seen with Sailor Man by Lawende, might she be out doing just this kind of work, or perhaps reporting something to him.