Kates Cuts

[Sam Flynn]

And from 30,000 feet it doesn't appear that there was any focus at all on [Kelly's] abdomen or abdominal organs. He left them all...

...he left them all over the place, you mean. Her entire abdomen was emptied!

[Michael W Richards]

Not one of its contents held any take out interest though, did they Sam? Uterus under her head? And I believe an empty midsection and lower abdomen doesn't constitute abdominal focus, as was demonstrated in earlier killings. Nor does facial slashing...fundamentally...match facial marking, or cutting...with a blade tip, rather than the full length of the blade.

There is only a few things that can be learned from the physical evidence in that room...that her killer didn't seek to obtain any abdominal organs, as had been done twice before, ...that her killer struck when he was in her room with her permission, making him almost certainly someone she knew well, and that the large amount of needless, pointless and frivolous cutting done to Mary must surely indicate someone who was lost and without a compass. Or a specific goal.

Not only did Annies killer have a specific goal that was in the abdomen, he cut into her in a way that was specific to the task at hand.

That's not the case with any other organ removals in the Canonical Group.

[Sam Flynn]

There is only a few things that can be learned from the physical evidence in that room...that her killer didn't seek to obtain any abdominal organs

That's not the only conclusion one might draw. We could equally conjecture that, given the time and opportunity, he wasn't content with what he'd already taken (twice) before, but went for a bigger prize, namely the heart.

Not only did Annies killer have a specific goal that was in the abdomen, he cut into her in a way that was specific to the task at hand.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhhhhh!!! I've gone over this countless times with you, and I'm sick to death of pointing out the flaws in your logic. I shan't bother anymore.

[Michael W Richards]

That's quite a group of "a" Sam. Where this stems from is just personal interpretation of the differences, which are plenty, and In my own impressions, significant when assessing what kind of killer we have here. Someone opening up a dead carcass and placing bits about here and there doesn't suggest someone with specific goals in mind. Or specific organs. No matter how many "a"s you want to post Sam you cannot erase the direct quote Ive cited from Phillips as to what he saw with Annie. You don't agree, that's your choice certainly, buts its on the record. Your argument is therefore with the man who made the statement, not the one who later chooses to abide by his opinion.

[Michael W Richards]

The last post brings something more clearly into focus with this study. What people see at these crimes scenes is interpreted by the individual, because its not clearly representational of one mans actions. There are differences with every murder, from the first on. If you expected to see changes, you should be able to present a plausible explanation for why they occurred, and why they differed. If you are not confused by the scene in room 13 as a comparative with any other murder of that period in time, my suggestions is youre not looking at it without bias. If you insist that the killer morphs each kill, be prepared with some proof of that. Not by using know serial killer data either, its modern, has little correlation to the crimes we are studying, and predates the need for change by virtue of the facts that they had no idea who the man was, why he killed, or even who he kills, and they had no modern tools to use to capture absolute proof forensically.

This killer didn't need to change anything, goals, actions, targets, after his first 2 victims. They are by far and away the most similar of any of the Unsolved murders, closest in time to any other, and display very similar choices in Method, Signature and knowledge/skill exhibited. That's more than enough to match them with one killer. After those murders it seems I am supposed to buy the site members summary dismissals of professional opinions on the subsequent victims wounds, a matching of activities that don't match, and a display of skill sets, knowledge and wounds that are not alike, as proof of a single killers "series."

Heres my challenge for the New Year....match just one of the Canonical Group with another, using specific evidence and proof... (Im comfortable that the evidence is already there for C1 to C2, so this would be matching either of those with ANY other), then Id be happy to stop referring to a Canonical Group as a purely speculatory proposition.

The evidence for me as it exists today, doesn't support that. Liz Strides murderer is not, more than a month later, in room 13, for one. The physical evidence doesn't say that, nor does the circumstantial.

[c.d.]

Again Michael, there is no 100% metaphysical proof for the C5. There never has been and no one is making that claim. Yes, there are differences between the C5 and again no one is claiming otherwise. But it doesn't necessarily follow that those differences indicate different murderers. And we know for a fact from looking at what modern day serial killers have done that even greater differences in murders has still been the work of the same man.

We are all like jurors at a trial. We examine the evidence as we see it and make a determination. We simply can't be absolutely certain.

There is no obligation to believe in the C5. Believe what you want.

And if you can ever prove with absolute 100% metaphysical certainty that the C5 is not correct then you will have been vindicated. Good luck. And by the way, simply pointing out differences isn't sufficient.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

If you point to a basketball and try and try and tell me its a brick, then well always have issues cd. These murders, as you acknowledge, have some differences. Some dramatic. That in and of itself indicates discontinuity, not the inverse. I see you could resist "modern day serial killer" dogma, despite the fact that A) no series has been identified and proven, and that modern day serial killers often change their habits just to try and confuse investigators. I don't see one reason for the killer of Polly and Annie to have changed anything...his selection process was Random, his Victimology was targeted at less than 100% physically well women, he left no traces, he wasn't seen with the victim or leaving the scene, and the police themselves publicly acknowledged they had no clues as to who he was, and why he was killing.

Why would anyone change something that was working so effectively, and why would anyone assume he wanted to do anything more than what those 2 victims went through? And why would anyone believe that Liz Strides killer was a Ripper?

[c.d.]

You are free to believe what you want, Michael. I (and probably every other poster on these boards) would simply appreciate it if you would stop belittling anyone who disagrees with you. You have put forth your arguments. Repeating them over and over adds nothing to them.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

cd, respectfully the posts I make quite often have very little to do with my personal beliefs but rather my interest in using viable, corroberated data to discuss the questions concerning any one of these murders. Presumptions. Too often presumptions are made about the type of killer, who and how many he killed and why, rather than using the known physical and circumstantial data of each individual murder to suss out some possible avenues to explore. And not all of them will be down Serial Killer lane. Because until 1 is connected with 1 other, its an entry in a file. Unsolved Unfortunate murders.

Off thread for a moment longer....I often cite Liz Strides case to highlight what I believe is flawed logic that has become ingrained nevertheless. The presumptions needed to make her killer Jack are unsupported by either data base, and her acceptance into the mix is used to justify the more heinous nature of the crime later that night. He was frustrated...Its a mythology that self perpetuates. Take her out of this C5, have the records reflect the more probable "truth", and we have a Single Event that may be connected to Annies killer. With relatively even spacing between kills, after the first 2 in 2 weeks of course.

Polly to Annie I can definitely see, Annie to Kate I can see as possible, even Kate to Mary then becomes possible for me. Because there is some form of consistency, and possibly some of the relevant Profile characteristics are there to. And its only using the known data, not presumptions.

Because I believe the C5 should be at the very most, a C4, at this point in time I will often post counter-point, it doesn't mean that I am dissing you or anyone else. Certainly offense is not a lead in intention, although I admit to being reactive when provocation is presented.

Anyway.....Merry Christmas cd, all the best to your family, and the same to everyone here. We are Faceless Companions, but I hope each held in high regard.

[c.d.]

Anyway.....Merry Christmas cd, all the best to your family, and the same to everyone here. We are Faceless Companions, but I hope each held in high regard.

And to you, Michael.

c.d.

[Fiver]

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.

Now you're claiming the facial wounds are self-defense wounds? Since when does anyone try to block a knife attack with their face?

None of the wounds on Mary Kelly are consistent with self-defense wounds. 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." Self-defense wounds are concentrated on the hands and forearms, with the clear majority being to the victim's left arm. The only injury to Mary Kelly's hands was one trivial wound to the right thumb and no injuries to the left hand at all. This clearly indicates that none of the wounds to Kelly were self-defense wounds.

[Michael W Richards]

Now you're claiming the facial wounds are self-defense wounds? Since when does anyone try to block a knife attack with their face?

None of the wounds on Mary Kelly are consistent with self-defense wounds. 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." Self-defense wounds are concentrated on the hands and forearms, with the clear majority being to the victim's left arm. The only injury to Mary Kelly's hands was one trivial wound to the right thumb and no injuries to the left hand at all. This clearly indicates that none of the wounds to Kelly were self-defense wounds.

Youll note I stated that the facial wounds are when she "reacted", I didn't say nor did I intend to say when she defended herself. And the wounds on her arms and hands, for the last time, are quite consistent with defensive wounds.

I also said that she was attacked while on her right side, facing the partition wall, on the right side of the bed...that's when her throat was cut, and that has foundation in Phillips Inquest remarks,..." Deceased had only an under- linen garment upon her, and by subsequent examination I am sure the body had been removed, after the injury which caused death, from that side of the bedstead which was nearest to the wooden partition previously mentioned. 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."

She is cut by what is almost certainly a left handed man, or an ambidextrous one...although the second type are far more rare that people assume,..I believe she was likely on her side when it happens, as she dozed,... and upon being wakened under attack, she did what anyone would instinctively do, her body reacted to try and stop it. Which of course was impossible, but its not a decision she makes, its instinctual survival reaction. She gets her arms and face slashed and gouged in the process, bleeding out from her throat cut, all the while she is alive and conscious.

Find another murder in the Unsolved File that suggests the victim was conscious and struggling after the throat cut.

[c.d.]

The idea of Kate attempting to blackmail the Ripper seems quite far fetched to me. Even if we assume that she actually knew who the Ripper was (and that is a huge assumption) ask yourself this question. How does a person being blackmailed get rid of the blackmailer? Well they can pay them off assuming they have the funds or they can kill the person blackmailing them thus putting an end to it. So unless Kate had absolutely major league cojones it must have occurred to her that attempting to blackmail someone who would have no qualms about killing the blackmailer was probably not the best course of action. And would she have gone alone to meet Jack the night she was killed if blackmail was her intention? Again, not such a good idea. So why not take her husband or a friend or two for support? This doesn't seem to have happened.

I think the whole blackmailing scenario makes for interesting speculation but that is about it.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I forgot to add this -- wouldn't she have told her husband who she believed the Ripper to be? And if he knew, why not go to police after her death? He could have avenged her death and collected a reward as well.

c.d.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I was reading an article lately about Kate. It's from an animal welfare publication regarding slaughterhouses. It's not that big, but worth a read regarding the nature of Kate's injury.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/4/30/htm