Kates Cuts

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Harry D]

Sorry Harry, not clear about what you mean. Phillips said everything I just repeated about what he perceived was the ultimate objective in Annies murder, so why isn't that the same with Kates? Simple. Defensible question.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Any other victims have defensive wounds? Isnt it blatantly obvious that Kelly struggled against her attacker?

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.

[Michael W Richards]

The post mortem report says that "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition." If these were self-defense wounds, they would have been concentrated on the hands and forearms, with the clear majority being to the victim's left arm.

Its plainly evident some deep wounds are on her left arm as well, the wounds are certainly consistent with defense motions, and considering it appears she was on her side facing the wall when her throat was cut, Id say the flailing arms and facial slashes were when she reacted to that cut. People assume the victims were unconscious, but its evident that some wounds could well have ben made while semi conscious or even alert. Kates nose cuts could have been made before her throat cuts for example. Choked to semi conscious state, hand over mouth, make the face marks, then slit the throat.

[Fiver]

Any other victims have defensive wounds? Isnt it blatantly obvious that Kelly struggled against her attacker?

The post mortem report says that "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds. The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition." If these were self-defense wounds, they would have been concentrated on the hands and forearms, with the clear majority being to the victim's left arm.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael - that does not altet what I've pointed out repeatedly. If Phillips had presided over the Eddowes case he could have said precisely the same. You're reading far too much into it.

He couldn't have said the "whole operation" was to obtain the uterus in Kates case Sam, which is what ive repeatedly said. The specific organ, not just some organ from a general region. The fact it was a uterus is in and of itself interesting.

[Sam Flynn]

Michael - that does not altet what I've pointed out repeatedly. If Phillips had presided over the Eddowes case he could have said precisely the same. You're reading far too much into it.

[Michael W Richards]

Again, all that the record says is that, in order to remove the uterus, the (clumsy) opening of Annie's abdominal wall was necessary. Just as it was necessary for the long, vertical incision to be made to Kate's abdominal wall in order to remove her uterus and kidney.

"The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Now you might want to question what specific parts he refers to Sam, but to me the statement appears it is as I suggested. Phillips thought that Annies killer, with some savy anatomically, set out to get her uterus. That to me is a very dialed in focus. How he goes about doing that may be somewhat represented again in Kates murder, ...no flaps.....but again, lots of men in the area at that time cut flesh as part of their job or for recreation. It needn't be assumed that only Jack could or would open a body up, but if Annies killer was Jack..and I believe he was,...then it could be assumed that his target was specific in this murder. Whether he maintains that specificity going forward is going to be revealed on his next outing, which if any, is likely Kate. And the organ that is removed with some care isn't the uterus. The uterus is taken sloppily. Partially.

Added to that inept uterus extraction we have facial cuts, appearing as if made with the tip of a blade, we have a severed colon section placed between arm and body exposing feces, and we have a section of clothing cut and taken. There was apparently some other agenda here as well.

I maintain that when there is evidence that a foundation for a motive exists that does not definitively point to a previous unknown killer who kills for thrills, then its best to examine that fully before deferring to a premise that has evidence that is suggestive only, and interpretable rather than definitive.

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, all that the record says is that, in order to remove the uterus, the (clumsy) opening of Annie's abdominal wall was necessary. Just as it was necessary for the long, vertical incision to be made to Kate's abdominal wall in order to remove her uterus and kidney.

We have a clumsy opening but the uterus and all its appendages were removed with skill and expertise. Then we have the opposite with Eddowes an expert opening but a clumsy removal. Two different killers, or two different removers of organs ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Again, its on record that the man who examined Chapman though "the whole operation" was to obtain precisely what he took.

Again, all that the record says is that, in order to remove the uterus, the (clumsy) opening of Annie's abdominal wall was necessary. Just as it was necessary for the long, vertical incision to be made to Kate's abdominal wall in order to remove her uterus and kidney.

[Michael W Richards]

Kate Eddowes claimed to be about to name someone she thought was the killer at large for the reward, there was no reward offered by the Police at this time so she evidently knows of the private rewards. She will be doing what is commonly called snitching, but could be ratting someone out...being a stool pigeon, or a canary. She is found with her nose cut in a consistent manner with street women who would do something like this and get caught doing so. There is no reason to assume she was correct about the person she was suspecting, nor that he had actually killed any women during this period. There is no reason to assume that the man she was to name was the mythical Jack. There is clear implication however that her claim suggests he knew someone she believed was capable of such things.

[Michael W Richards]

So, by the same logic, I take it you no longer believe that Kate's nose was cut off to mark her as a snitch, since the numerous other cuts to her face water down that apparent intent?

I don't post in such a cryptic manner that people would easily misrepresent what I said...which makes me wonder why some persistently do anyway, but I never said Kates nose wasnt a "snitch" marking, I said I thought it was a few posts back. Even in the opening post. There are other" cuts to her face, sure, since it was almost pitch black where she was killed.... three of them or more might have been done while attempting to cut the nose....has anyone claimed her head couldn't move while he did that? Does anyone know she was fully unconscious when they were made...Im surprised that people who think Mary was killed by the same killer, who cut her while she still could manipulate her arms and therefore was still conscious, wouldn't seize that parallel. Not that they would be correct, just that I thought people would use it as an argument to marry the 2 of them.