Kates Cuts

[Abby Normal]

Hi Trevor,

I don't see it likely that Catherine Eddowes fell to the ground with both her palms facing upwards.

the voice of reason speaks. listen trevor, or are your ears filled with beef steak?

[DJA]

The Serendipity Singers - "Beans In My Ears" 1964 STEREO - YouTube

[Fisherman]

As noted, there are credible reasons to drop some victims from the C5 and/or add others to the list, but the C5 theory is more credible than either your theory or Fisherman's theory.

And precisely WHY is it not credible that the series were by the same man? How likely is it that both killers just happened to do the same things? Cut away the abdominal walls in sections, for example?

I can assure you that although no police force likes to be pointed out for having locked itself to a specific theory, ANY police force would work from the assumption of a common originator with that kind of evidence - regardless if some people on an obscure website thought it rash for whatever reason.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I don't see it likely that Catherine Eddowes fell to the ground with both her palms facing upwards. Yet, that's how she was found.

That would depend on the killer. if he cut her throat from behind while standing, and then let the body fall to the ground in such a way that he could then carry out the muitlatiions that would be an explantion, but let not create another mystery when there is not one to be created.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I don't see it likely that Catherine Eddowes fell to the ground with both her palms facing upwards. Yet, that's how she was found.

Who's to say that she fell?

[seanr]

That would depend on the killer. if he cut her throat from behind while standing, and then let the body fall to the ground in such a way that he could then carry out the muitlatiions that would be an explantion, but let not create another mystery when there is not one to be created.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If he cut her throat from behind, wouldn't this be apparent from the medical evidence?

[Michael W Richards]

Who's to say that she fell?

"There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. " That's from Brown at the Inquest, which I believe supports your position Sam, falling usually means bruising of some sort. I don't think though that there is any cause to presume she was "placed" in any particular fashion other than one which makes the field surgery easier.

Back to the Mary issue for one sec though, if we can agree that the arm being placed back over the empty midsection is just that..placement...and that the fact she seems to be reclining and facing the entrance when found, by her overall physical impression, is it not also possible that the "placement" of biological items between her legs, and under her head, and on her table, might also represent some ritualistic thing?

I do see this as a murder where the murderer lost his mind in that room, at least during that time in there. But I suppose that doesnt preclude the possibility that actions have specific meanings we haven't deciphered.

[Fiver]

There is no evidence that the bodies were posed.

The bodies were found on their backs, legs drawn up, garments hiked up above the knees. That is ample evidence the bodies were posed.

[Joshua Rogan]

The bodies were found on their backs, legs drawn up, garments hiked up above the knees. That is ample evidence the bodies were posed.

But these are all necessary steps in order to inflict the wounds to the victims' abdomens. There's nothing to suggest this "posing" was anything other than practical.

[Abby Normal]

But these are all necessary steps in order to inflict the wounds to the victims' abdomens. There's nothing to suggest this "posing" was anything other than practical.

Hi JR
I posted this earlier-yes practical steps, still..

I don't know if they were overtly posed-but the killer left them in such a way for max shock value, so to me kind of a moot point anyway.

many serial killers will make some attempt to cover up or hide, maybe drag the body a few feet behind something, or even cover them up with something. None of this done with the ripper victims. Kelly had some weird things done-like the breasts, other parts placed beneath her head-so something is going on-and with victims killed in there own room many times the killer will at least cover them up with a blanket.

so IMHO I tink there is de facto "posing" going on.

[Fiver]

But these are all necessary steps in order to inflict the wounds to the victims' abdomens. There's nothing to suggest this "posing" was anything other than practical.

Even practical posing is a signature, but this was not practical posing. Placing the bodies on their back does make abdominal mutilation easier. Drawing up the victims legs or hiking up their garments does not make abdominal mutilations easier, but they do leave the victim exposed.

[Fiver]

... but for my money presuming a series of Five women murdered as being by what must amount to be the only man in the East End who acted violently towards women from late Aug to early NOV, without the requisite evidence linking them, isn't a reality at all.

You are attacking a position that does not exist. Nobody believes there was only one man killing women in 1888 in London.

[Sam Flynn]

hiking up their garments does not make abdominal mutilations easier

It does if they're wearing coats, shifts, petticoats, aprons, dresses etc... which was the case with most of the canonical evisceration victims.

[Michael W Richards]

The bodies were found on their backs, legs drawn up, garments hiked up above the knees. That is ample evidence the bodies were posed.

As you have been advised, and have denied in subsequent posts, the position..on their backs, with legs spread and garments hiked up is something almost certainly related to ease of access. It has nothing to do with "posing", and everything to do with practicality. Remember...he(they) knew they(he) would have very short time alone with the victims, and they(he) were in near darkness doing excisions..up until the last Canonical, there is no evidence, perhaps aside from items that were once on the deceased found around the body, that anything or anyone was "posed".

[Michael W Richards]

You are attacking a position that does not exist. Nobody believes there was only one man killing women in 1888 in London.

Again you have missed many posts by some poeters on that topic, some people do seem to believe that...one poster believes that the "Canonical " count should be a dozen victims. That's despite not having any individual murder linked with any other murder with a single shred of evidence.