Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

It's so obvious that I almost can't be bothered to point out the absurdity of this. Are you sure this isn't a "bit", Michael?

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

Ill add that most people have a strong resistance to suggestions that abdominal mutilations would be done by anyone other than the mythical jack. That's why Kate is included I believe,... what organ taken, though Annies killer was specifically driven to a particular organ, becomes watered down when Kates kidney is added. So now its not a uterus, though he took a partial, now its a kidney...which would mean the uterus wasnt specifically sought in Annies case. Thing is though, it appears it was.

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?

[Harry D]

It's so obvious that I almost can't be bothered to point out the absurdity of this. Are you sure this isn't a "bit", Michael?

[Michael W Richards]

What else was he going to take - a mass of cut intestines, a leaking stomach? In reality, if anyone's interested in an abdominal "souvenir", there are very few practical options.

If he had followed what we can see Annies killer specifically sought...then he wouldn't have taken the kidney at all. Again, its on record that the man who examined Chapman though "the whole operation" was to obtain precisely what he took. And he only took 1 item intact...the same one that was taken partially, from Kate.

Theres the line we have...if Annies killer specifically sought to kill and take a uterus, what doesn't not taking a uterus in a very similar slaying indicate? New objectives? Kates killer didn't realize that Annies killer did these things to obtain the uterus specifically? Someone is mimicking acts without the requisite compulsions for specific organs?

[Michael W Richards]

Excellent points, Roy. The only way the "snitch" theory could work would be for someone who wasn't JTR to hear a rumour that Kate was going to the authorities and assume that she was going to grass him/them in, e.g. because he/they were violent and had previous form. On this basis, he decided to shut her up as a precaution, even though he wasn't the killer of Polly and Annie.

My big problem with Kate's having something to snitch about (even if she was wrong) is that she'd had ample time to tell the authorities but said diddly-squat... despite spending several hours in the company of the police! Even her partner said nothing about it. All we have is an apparently throwaway and possibly fictitious comment made to a lodging-house supervisor, and that was reported in only one fairly minor newspaper a fortnight after her death.

I addressed most of what concerns you Sam in my last 2 posts, but on the issue of why she wouldn't talk to police about her suspicions...why would she? They were not offering any money pot for info at that time. But a few private people were. I don't imagine her alleged claim to her ex landlady was a demonstration of any altruistic leanings, I would imagine that she might care less about solving any crimes or the safety of her co-tenants in the East End, rather it seems like a more like a self serving gesture for money. Which she desperately needed. Something akin to pawning...sell something she has, in this case, information. Most pawns do not anticipate retrieval of the items pawned, its just an immediate need for funds. As Emily Burrell proves. She had no intention of buying back her goods, she just needed money for them.

If you don't think information can have a premium price tag, just look at the 5,000L paid to an informant at the Parnell Commission hearings. For information.

[Sam Flynn]

Ill add that most people have a strong resistance to suggestions that abdominal mutilations would be done by anyone other than the mythical jack. That's why Kate is included I believe,... what organ taken, though Annies killer was specifically driven to a particular organ, becomes watered down when Kates kidney is added. So now its not a uterus, though he took a partial, now its a kidney...which would mean the uterus wasnt specifically sought in Annies case. Thing is though, it appears it was.

What else was he going to take - a mass of cut intestines, a leaking stomach? In reality, if anyone's interested in an abdominal "souvenir", there are very few practical options.

[Michael W Richards]

Ill add that most people have a strong resistance to suggestions that abdominal mutilations would be done by anyone other than the mythical jack. That's why Kate is included I believe,... what organ taken, though Annies killer was specifically driven to a particular organ, becomes watered down when Kates kidney is added. So now its not a uterus, though he took a partial, now its a kidney...which would mean the uterus wasnt specifically sought in Annies case. Thing is though, it appears it was.

Cutting a body could be done by butchers, hunters, medical students or practitioners, field surgeons from the India Wars, slaughterhouse men, cattle boat men, there was a plethora of men available that would have no aversion to cutting human flesh, and in this case, some very real practical reasons for doing this kind of damage to someone he has just killed. Since they currently have an unknown killer running about who does this sort of thing.

Do that, and Kates murder is just about some mad killer adding to his "series', ...don't mutilate, and an investigation would have to look at other things to explain why she is killed.

[Michael W Richards]

But there can be no snitch if there is no serial killer. Snitching on who? For What? Your theory dissolves by what you are arguing. You are arguing against yourself, Michael.


Since you didn't answer before I will expand. You are quoting the one statement from a lodging house keeper that Catherine Eddowes was overheard saying something to the effect of "I know who the killer of these women is and I'm going to turn him in to the authorities." You Michael are using that as the basis for your snitch theory that the cutting of her nose was retribution for being a snitch.

So this would mean that in addition to the lodging house keeper, ( unless it is he you are sugesting killed her, in which case please say so) you are suggesting he told someone else or others, or that someone else overheard her threatening to snitch on the killer. In any case, this very same killer, who has already murdered the others, then killed her. I E THE SERIAL KILLER> the same guy. Do you get it? Do you see what you are suggesting? She was going to snitch on the serial killer,. That's she was overheard saying. He heard of this boast, so HE KILLLED HER.

If I have not made this plain enough, please tell me, I can start over again.

But wait, your premise for starting this thread is that "Kate's Cuts" mark her as NOT being part of the serial killer series. And you mentioned the name of Jacob Isenschmidt, itenerant pork butcher as a likely candidate for the perpetrator of the first two murders, those of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman. And then of course as we know he Isenshmidt was hauled off to asylum, so it is physically impossible for him to have killed the others.

Ergo no serial killer.

And I congratulated you for that courageous statement of casting blame for the first two murders on an actual person, Isenschmidt, and it follows there was no serial killer. That is light years ahead of the average Tom Dick & Harry who shows up here and proclaims there was no serial killer but gives absolutely nothing tangible to back it up with.

But do you understand? You are relying on her reported boast of knowing who the killer was and turning him in. Are you saying she knew it was Isenschmidt? If so, did Jacob Isenschmidt, who was confined to Grove Hall Asylum in Bow, get wind of this and he managed to sneak a note out of the asylum and have somebody bump off Catherine Eddowes to silence her? After all, that was her boast, right? She knew the killer and would turn him in. She didn't say, for instance, "I know who the Fenians are and I'm going to turn them in," or "I know what those dastardly Socialists of Berner Street are up to and I'm going to turn them in", or she didn't boast of any old sod hassling her or anyone, or any street criminal, and boast she would turn them in, did she?

NO

She boasted she knew who the killer was and she would turn him in. So it must have been the killer himself who offed her and marked her as a "nose" or "snitch" according to your suggestion.

But that cannot stand with your contention there was no serial killer.

How can I make it any more plain for you Michael. If if I can, please tell me and I will attempt to accommodate you.

Hope this helps,

Roy

Hi Roy,

Ill see if I can make my suggestion clearer. We have evidence Kate stated she was intending on naming someone she believed was responsible for the murders. To get money. I didn't say she was correct in her guess, I can assume however that she knew someone criminal and violent who might fit the bill. sidebar.....I suspect that might be from her exposure to Irish circles with Conway and people she might have become aware of. Its my suspicion that the Saturday afternoon drinks were bought by confederates of the man she intended on blaming to negotiate some silence. I think they are just criminals who were off the grid, not wanting to be put on it by Kate. Not necessarily Fenian Types, but not ruling them out either.

Ive never said there wasn't a serial killer in the East End at that time, clearly more than one victim meets the criteria and the Torso's are also right there in the mix. Maybe 2 serial killers. But lots of basic killer types around, criminals plotting crimes, Fenian friendly folks in town for the Commission hearings or future plots, street gangs, muggers, thieves,..there are after all 12 or 13 Unsolved Murders of women during this period and most use a 5 victim Canonical Group to explain less than half of them.

Liz Strides murder for example is unremarkable unless one uses the second murder that night and previous Unsolved crimes to suggest some linkage. But very clearly, she was not killed by someone who "rips".

As for Jacob, I see him as a very good suspect for Polly and Annie, ending there for the reasons you mentioned..but Ive also said Im on the fence with Kate, which would eliminate Jacob if all three were one man. Not sure.

But with Kate, and the addition of the markings that are consistent with those inflicted on people who ratted on other people in the streets, we may have a preemptive kill by someone who couldn't afford to have any accusations, accurate or not, bringing him to the authorities attention. Maybe someone robbing the Post Office that same weekend, it does establish criminals there at the same point in time. Maybe that's why he met her there. He needn't have done any of the things that Kate may have wanted to blame him for, I don't see any reason why she had to be correct in her assumptions, just that she might know someone bad enough to, as I said, fit the bill.

The plethora of bad dudes, the Parnell Commission bringing double agents to town..some on the Government payroll, the known gangs, the known plots, and more Unsolved Murders than a Canonical Group can explain. That's the tableau. And Torso's being made before and after this place in time. There wasn't 1 killer in East London during the Fall of 88, there were lots of potential killers and some experienced ones all within striking zone.

[Sam Flynn]

I try my best, Harry.

[Harry D]

Could Kate's cuts have been inflicted as street justice? Certainly, but I think it is nothing more than coincidence.

Weren't cuts to the noses of snitches done to the living as a warning? It seems a useless gesture to inflict it upon someone whose throat you have just cut and whose abdomen you have just ripped open.

It also seems like some posters approach the situation where ripping open Kate's abdomen and taking out her internal organs is more or less normal behavior but making a few cuts to her face is somewhat bizarre. I think the simplest explanation is that we are dealing with an extremely sick individual who simply liked cutting up women. If you want to attach significance to the cuts to Kate's nose then we should also be asking ourselves why Mary's killer cut the flesh from her leg.

Shhh. You're making too much sense.

Excellent points, Roy. The only way the "snitch" theory could work would be for someone who wasn't JTR to hear a rumour that Kate was going to the authorities and assume that she was going to grass him/them in, e.g. because he/they were violent and had previous form.

And in order to allay those fears, he went out and committed a Ripper murder.

It's laughable, isn't it? It must be a slow news day if this bunkum is a hot topic.

[Sam Flynn]

Excellent points, Roy. The only way the "snitch" theory could work would be for someone who wasn't JTR to hear a rumour that Kate was going to the authorities and assume that she was going to grass him/them in, e.g. because he/they were violent and had previous form. On this basis, he decided to shut her up as a precaution, even though he wasn't the killer of Polly and Annie.

My big problem with Kate's having something to snitch about (even if she was wrong) is that she'd had ample time to tell the authorities but said diddly-squat... despite spending several hours in the company of the police! Even her partner said nothing about it. All we have is an apparently throwaway and possibly fictitious comment made to a lodging-house supervisor, and that was reported in only one fairly minor newspaper a fortnight after her death.

[Roy Corduroy]

But there can be no snitch if there is no serial killer. Snitching on who? For What? Your theory dissolves by what you are arguing. You are arguing against yourself, Michael.


Since you didn't answer before I will expand. You are quoting the one statement from a lodging house keeper that Catherine Eddowes was overheard saying something to the effect of "I know who the killer of these women is and I'm going to turn him in to the authorities." You Michael are using that as the basis for your snitch theory that the cutting of her nose was retribution for being a snitch.

So this would mean that in addition to the lodging house keeper, ( unless it is he you are sugesting killed her, in which case please say so) you are suggesting he told someone else or others, or that someone else overheard her threatening to snitch on the killer. In any case, this very same killer, who has already murdered the others, then killed her. I E THE SERIAL KILLER> the same guy. Do you get it? Do you see what you are suggesting? She was going to snitch on the serial killer,. That's she was overheard saying. He heard of this boast, so HE KILLLED HER.

If I have not made this plain enough, please tell me, I can start over again.

But wait, your premise for starting this thread is that "Kate's Cuts" mark her as NOT being part of the serial killer series. And you mentioned the name of Jacob Isenschmidt, itenerant pork butcher as a likely candidate for the perpetrator of the first two murders, those of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman. And then of course as we know he Isenshmidt was hauled off to asylum, so it is physically impossible for him to have killed the others.

Ergo no serial killer.

And I congratulated you for that courageous statement of casting blame for the first two murders on an actual person, Isenschmidt, and it follows there was no serial killer. That is light years ahead of the average Tom Dick & Harry who shows up here and proclaims there was no serial killer but gives absolutely nothing tangible to back it up with.

But do you understand? You are relying on her reported boast of knowing who the killer was and turning him in. Are you saying she knew it was Isenschmidt? If so, did Jacob Isenschmidt, who was confined to Grove Hall Asylum in Bow, get wind of this and he managed to sneak a note out of the asylum and have somebody bump off Catherine Eddowes to silence her? After all, that was her boast, right? She knew the killer and would turn him in. She didn't say, for instance, "I know who the Fenians are and I'm going to turn them in," or "I know what those dastardly Socialists of Berner Street are up to and I'm going to turn them in", or she didn't boast of any old sod hassling her or anyone, or any street criminal, and boast she would turn them in, did she?

NO

She boasted she knew who the killer was and she would turn him in. So it must have been the killer himself who offed her and marked her as a "nose" or "snitch" according to your suggestion.

But that cannot stand with your contention there was no serial killer.

How can I make it any more plain for you Michael. If if I can, please tell me and I will attempt to accommodate you.

Hope this helps,

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

So we're looking at two separate killers who - within a few weeks - decided to silence two would-be (female) snitches by cutting off (the tips of) their noses, after having disembowelled and liberated them of various internal organs?

Im sorry, I misposted Sam, I was actually meaning Eddowes nose, not Kellys. Kellys face was slashed, as we both know, so any damage to her nose was a result of a slash, which is not a cut. And liberating and absconding with aren't the same either. Also we are looking at a longer lapse of time between alledged Ripper kills than from Annie to Liz, so, again, not just a few weeks. Over a month.

Ive said all along that I am on the fence with Kate's inclusion in this illustrious, despite being completely devoid of any supporting connective evidence... "Canonical Group", but when I see cuts that were not made to facilitate any organ removals, abdomen access, to kill, or to dismember...and cuts that were made that are identical to the type made on snitches in the East End, one has to wonder what ultimately led to this murder. Random acquisition of a working street walker?...not in the known evidence, so its going to be something else that motivated the killer. It likely wasn't getting a kidney specifically.

[Sam Flynn]

Ill settle for confidant then Sam, and a single press account doesn't mean it wasn't accurate..just that the Victorian AP hadn't distributed that information.

Kellys nose being cut is what I was talking about Sam, punishment for "noses" who snitch.

So we're looking at two separate killers who - within a few weeks - decided to silence two would-be (female) snitches by cutting off (the tips of) their noses, after having disembowelled and liberated them of various internal organs?

[c.d.]

Could Kate's cuts have been inflicted as street justice? Certainly, but I think it is nothing more than coincidence.

Weren't cuts to the noses of snitches done to the living as a warning? It seems a useless gesture to inflict it upon someone whose throat you have just cut and whose abdomen you have just ripped open.

It also seems like some posters approach the situation where ripping open Kate's abdomen and taking out her internal organs is more or less normal behavior but making a few cuts to her face is somewhat bizarre. I think the simplest explanation is that we are dealing with an extremely sick individual who simply liked cutting up women. If you want to attach significance to the cuts to Kate's nose then we should also be asking ourselves why Mary's killer cut the flesh from her leg.

c.d.