Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

    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.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 12-27-2019, 10:42 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fiver
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Good day Jon,....
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Michael, if you were more familiar with the social norms of the lower classes in that part of London you would know these people couldn't afford nightgowns, slippers & hot water bottles, they slept in their clothes, both Prater & Cox confirm that point. So, the very fact Kelly was in her chemise means she was entertaining someone, if she was just going to sleep she would be fully clothed.

    Sleeping in her chemise is sleeping in her clothes Jon, the chemise was a day garment much like a slip. Of course, "being unfamiliar with the social norms" makes that a logical guess I suppose.


    Kelly was out on the streets that's why the room was dark & quiet.

    No credible evidence was presented at the Inquest to suggest Mary was seen alive again after 11:45pm Thursday night when she returned home. Youll note that Im not unfamiliar with the facts.

    On what basis does Blotchy assume Kelly is going to fall asleep when they are in the room?

    She falls asleep after entertaining Blotchy with song, whether he is still there or not. That's why its dark and quiet in there Jon.

    You seem to forget, a murderer needs to be in & out as fast as possible, not sit around for hours on the off chance his partner will fall asleep before some neighbor comes knocking. If his only intent was to kill her he could just knock her out to speed up the process, assuming she was too drunk to resist.
    If she wasn't too drunk to resist then on what basis do you think she was drunk enough to fall asleep?
    You can't have it both ways.

    Its you and others that insist this murder be by the madman at large, so I understand why you see his perceived threat level as higher the more time in the room, but if he is there by invitation, and is someone Mary knows....which is almost certain by the circumstantial evidence, ….then he can afford to let her doze off. If he arrives at the same time 2 people here "oh-murder", that means he kills her sometime after 4am. Oh, and she was barely able to get out a hello to Mary Ann, she was hammered.

    Also, Blotchy knows he was seen close-up by Cox. For him to go ahead and kill Kelly after a witness saw him as the last person in her company is preposterous.

    Yet you and others believe Sailor Man kills Kate, and he is also Jack, don't you? And what of BSM, isn't Liz supposed to be killed by Jack, and BSM must almost certainly be him if all that is true,..and by his statement doesn't Hutchy boy put himself on the scene, likely before the murder...making him the 4th example of men supposedly seen with their victims just before their murders. Preposterous indeed.


    The knife is only used when the victim is unconscious, it is very probable none of the victims ever saw a knife. They were all down and out before the knife was used. Jack wasn't a knife wealding prowler, he suffocated or strangled them, so any defensive woulds would be limited to bruises on the arms & hands.

    T
    hat would makes sense but for the physical evidence in room 13 Jon, there was a knife being used while they victim was conscious, the most obvious and reasonable explanation for the "defensive wounds".

    You think he was finished?
    Why did he strip flesh off her legs & thighs, if he was only looking for organs?, he didn't start to deflesh the other vicitms.
    Why did he not complete the defleshing of Kelly?


    Id say Yes to the first question, who the f*** knows what his intentions were with those absolutely meaningless desecrations, to the 2nd question, and likely because it had lost meaning to him on the 3rd. He cut her in ways that had nothing to do with acquiring organs, accessing those organs, or to make symbolic marks...like on Kates face.
    The cuts on Kates face were meaningful enough to take the time to do them, so they perhaps reveal something about the killer, the stripping of Marys thighs is either a way to destroy her, or just meaningless, lost cutting. And from 30,000 feet it doesn't appear that there was any focus at all on the abdomen or abdominal organs. He left them all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    First off Jon, there is nothing in any evidence that suggests Mary while still likely drunk, and possibly hungover, was engaging in any sex, and there is evidence she didn't when she went into the room with Blotchy.
    Michael, if you were more familiar with the social norms of the lower classes in that part of London you would know these people couldn't afford nightgowns, slippers & hot water bottles, they slept in their clothes, both Prater & Cox confirm that point. So, the very fact Kelly was in her chemise means she was entertaining someone, if she was just going to sleep she would be fully clothed.


    Secondly, since the room was dark and quiet from 1:30 until 2 people hear "oh-murder" as if from the courtyard, she may well have been trying to sleep off her bender when the killer arrives.
    Kelly was out on the streets that's why the room was dark & quiet.


    Or Blotchy waited until she was asleep.
    On what basis does Blotchy assume Kelly is going to fall asleep when they are in the room?
    You seem to forget, a murderer needs to be in & out as fast as possible, not sit around for hours on the off chance his partner will fall asleep before some neighbor comes knocking.
    If his only intent was to kill her he could just knock her out to speed up the process, assuming she was too drunk to resist.
    If she wasn't too drunk to resist then on what basis do you think she was drunk enough to fall asleep?
    You can't have it both ways.

    Also, Blotchy knows he was seen close-up by Cox. For him to go ahead and kill Kelly after a witness saw him as the last person in her company is preposterous.


    Thirdly, if you wake to someone behind you and the immediately knowledge your life is in danger, the flailing arms, and attempting to re-orient yourself to face the threat would be probable. The wounds on her hands and arms are almost certainly defensive wounds, how else do you imagine she got severe deep gashes there?
    The knife is only used when the victim is unconscious, it is very probable none of the victims ever saw a knife. They were all down and out before the knife was used. Jack wasn't a knife wealding prowler, he suffocated or strangled them, so any defensive woulds would be limited to bruises on the arms & hands.

    If you imagine that there was much else that he would have done in that room to Mary,... aside from the obvious continue defleshing her bones, I am fairly sure you would be alone in that. Surely he was sated, Jack or not.
    You think he was finished?
    Why did he strip flesh off her legs & thighs, if he was only looking for organs?, he didn't start to deflesh the other vicitms.
    Why did he not complete the defleshing of Kelly?
    Last edited by Wickerman; 12-21-2019, 09:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    As most of Kelly's type would practice safe sex, the most likely position would be her face down on the bed, and this would be anal sex.
    Her head was face down at the top right side of the bed against the partition, the killer is on her back. So he could still be right handed, his left hand grabs her hair and pulls her head back, the throat is cut by the knife in his right hand.




    Well, she was never asleep in my opinion, she had been strangled into unconsciousness, he slashed her throat then, he rolls her onto her back....



    There's no struggle at this point, she's well and truly dead when he rolled her onto her back. Any struggle came at the beginning as he applied the strangle hold, or perhaps the cord, from behind.

    I know she had cuts on her forearms & one on her thumb, I just don't see these as defensive wounds. The killer had slashed her body and could easily have caught her thumb unintentionally. The cuts to her forearm may easily be the beginning of further mutilation, which was abandoned for any number of reasons.
    There has been an automatic assumption that he had finished his mutilation of the body, this may not be the case. He could have been disturbed by people coming and going and decided to abandon the mutilation and get out before someone comes knocking.
    First off Jon, there is nothing in any evidence that suggests Mary while still likely drunk, and possibly hungover, was engaging in any sex, and there is evidence she didn't when she went into the room with Blotchy. Secondly, since the room was dark and quiet from 1:30 until 2 people hear "oh-murder" as if from the courtyard, she may well have been trying to sleep off her bender when the killer arrives. Or Blotchy waited until she was asleep. Thirdly, if you wake to someone behind you and the immediately knowledge your life is in danger, the flailing arms, and attempting to re-orient yourself to face the threat would be probable. The wounds on her hands and arms are almost certainly defensive wounds, how else do you imagine she got severe deep gashes there?

    If you imagine that there was much else that he would have done in that room to Mary,... aside from the obvious continue defleshing her bones, I am fairly sure you would be alone in that. Surely he was sated, Jack or not.

    On the cuts to hands and arms, they are defensive Jon, and they were likely made when the face slashing took place. Which indicates that at that point in time, she was conscious. She would have felt those wounds.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X