From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

As to the nicking of the eyelids there is no reasonable explanation for the killer to have done this, we see no signs of that in any of the other victims

A more plausible explanation could be that the eyelids were not nicked by designs but were caused by the killer when attempting to cut the throat of Eddowes and the flashing of the blade across her face while she was struggling trying to avoid the knife.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/FONT][/SIZE]

Good grief Trevor, that's a stretch.

Actually, a plausible reason for the killer nicking the eyelids is his way of sending a message to authorities, that he read the newspaper claims that the retina of the eye captures the last thing the victim saw.
He didn't damage the eye, he could have pushed the tip of his blade into the eyeball, but he didn't. Unless he did but it was not picked up in the post mortem - they never noticed the cut eyeballs?
I think the killer just acknowledged the claim, there's no other reason for doing it, because it was obviously done with some degree of care.

[Wickerman]

The Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness, yet some on this thread thought it was far too dark for him to write a message on a wall in chalk.

It might be something to ponder.

There was a survey map drawn for the inquest by Foster, someone, likely the coroner, made a note that there was a lamp just north of the address in Goulston st.
So, it would appear someone thought the author made use of the light to write the graffiti.
It's not clear why a lamp was noted at that spot, so I'm guessing this was the reason.
It also goes to show that some things were discussed that were never written down by either the court recorder or the press.



The 'A' is where the apron was found.

[Wickerman]

Oh come on there is a big difference between a handkerchief and a bib apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you would find any small square piece of rag, approx, 12 inch square, would be quite suitable to be used as a handkerchief, and identified as one.

[Wickerman]

I wonder why Wickerman did not think of that.

Because it would complicate the exchange, I don't think any of the letters are genuine, I mean truly from the killer.

[GBinOz]

then if that be the case how can you explain the coroner asking if they could have fallen out in transit. If they were found missing before the body was removed they could not have fallen out in transit, and if you still persist please tell where the doctor found the uterus with the fallopian tubes missing at the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I agree. The coroner asked that question of both Phillips and Sgt Baugham (Badham). The task of the doctor at the crime scene was to declare life extinct, estimate a ToD, and note any external evidence. The autopsy came later. There is inquest testimony to show that there was a break in the chain of custody in the cases of both Nichols and Chapman.

I asked my daughter if the doctors would have noticed organs missing at the crime scene. Her reply was that they would have observed the cuts, but the flesh rebounds to cover what is below. This is why retractors are used. That, and the blood, would inhibit the observation of the fact that the uterus and kidney were missing. Stomach flaps being missing would be noticeable.

There is a great deal of difference between theoretical imagining, and actual experience, as is shown by this quote from Prosector:
For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus.

What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field. Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). Dividing the root of the mesentery single handed is very difficult since you are operating one handed and blind. Usually an assistant wound be using both hands to retract the guts so that the operator can get a clearer view of it.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't find reference to this 3 minutes outside of The Star, a newspaper with dubious credentials. Either way, we'd need to know the logic underpinning that 3 minutes opinion.

The simple logic is that the three minutes is the time it took to carry out the murder and mutilations nothing more

There is a reasonable explanation. Serial killers experiment. It is well documented by those who have studied serial killers.

But the explanation I have given is plausible Eddowes had multiple cuts to her face

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dictionary definition of the word ‘excised’:

“having been cut out surgically.”

then if that be the case how can you explain the coroner asking if they could have fallen out in transit. If they were found missing before the body was removed they could not have fallen out in transit, and if you still persist please tell where the doctor found the uterus with the fallopian tubes missing at the crime scene

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Anderson?

I think Anderson was talking right out of his crevice and much of that was to do with his background. The type of person fully bought into the 'Anglo-Saxon master race' imagined by Victorian high society, of which he was a part; when in fact they just made up the whole 'Anglo-Saxon' thing as a means of distinguishing themselves from everyone else.

'Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I do not see how you can know that.

I cannot 'know that'. That much is true.

But, read about studies from those people who have made it their business to understand serial killers after they have been apprehended.

They will tell you that such people follow a pattern. That pattern doesn't involve hatred of a group of people. The motive is ephemeral pleasure.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sequeira when asked the same question and stated “three minutes”.

I can't find reference to this 3 minutes outside of The Star, a newspaper with dubious credentials. Either way, we'd need to know the logic underpinning that 3 minutes opinion.

As to the nicking of the eyelids there is no reasonable explanation for the killer to have done this, we see no signs of that in any of the other victims

There is a reasonable explanation. Serial killers experiment. It is well documented by those who have studied serial killers.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Where is the risk and reward in scrawling nonsense on a wall when a search is taking place? The risk is there, but where is the reward? Nobody understood what it meant, 150 years later people are still disputing its meaning. There was no reward in it.

Several posters have commented that it is impossible to discern whether the graffito was anti-Jewish or pro-Jewish, but no such uncertainty existed at that time.

The police were of the opinion that the message was anti-Jewish, that the murderer wrote it, and that it was an attempt to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment.

That was sufficient reward.

And, the idea that this was someone who held a grudge against 'the Jews' or 'prostitutes' or any other conspiracy idea is completing missing the point.

On the contrary, the murderer may have been antisemitic and murdering a woman in the yard in front of a Jewish club is consistent with that.

'Long story short: the experience of serial killers tells us that when he passed Goulston Street, he was trying to get home with his possessions. 'Not remotely interested in semi-literate impressions on a wall.

You are assuming that Pc Long's testimony was wrong.

There is no reason to think so.

Those organs would have been very important to him, whereas scrawling on a wall held no reward.

I do not see how you can know that.

the last thing he would have done was to come back out of his house to scrawl nonsense on a wall

The evidence of Pc Long implies he did leave his lodgings - to leave the apron piece.

Since it was unlikely that the graffito just happened to be there and just happened not to have been erased, that means it is likely that the murderer left that too.

The good news is, it opens up the type of person this was beyond the Victorian idea (not all of them, by the way) that his must have been someone broadly in line with Anderson's idea of who this person was.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Anderson?

[Fleetwood Mac]

If you expect the Whitechapel Murderer to behave rationally, then would you expect him to commit a murder about 40 minutes after having committed a murder, and when he could reasonably have expected the police to be searching for him?

And can we extend the criterion to Pc Long?

Why would he testify that the apron piece was not there if he had not checked whether it was there?

It is not as though he would have faced a reprimand for not having checked, any more than Halse would have or Pc Smith for not having checked whether there was a body in Dutfield's Yard when he passed by.

Rational choice is bound up with the concept of risk and reward. In our age, you can have police cars radioed in, in no time. In his age, walking ten/fifteen minutes to commit another murder was not such a risk due to the nature of communication and transport.

What you tend to find with serial killers is that when they take a greater risk, the crime is more violent. Risk and reward.

Where is the risk and reward in scrawling nonsense on a wall when a search is taking place? The risk is there, but where is the reward? Nobody understood what it meant, 150 years later people are still disputing its meaning. There was no reward in it.

And, the idea that this was someone who held a grudge against 'the Jews' or 'prostitutes' or any other conspiracy idea is completing missing the point.

There is a pattern among these types of serial killers who kill women in the street, demonstrable by means of empirical studies:

1) They are in it for ephemeral pleasure. Not because they hate people, e.g. 'the Jews' or 'prostitutes', and nor is it to do with revenge.

2) There is a very high incidence of abuse or neglect in their formative years. That's not to say it's a good reason for going 'round carving up women, and of course most people who have been neglected or abused do not wish harm on other people; but it is extremely prevalent in their make up. It's a very important factor, whereas some hatred of some group of people, is not observed. It's about pleasure not revenge and not hatred.

3) When they mutilate and take organs, it is for pleasure. Ownership, possession, control; whatever you want to call it.

4) They like to relive the experience.

'Long story short: the experience of serial killers tells us that when he passed Goulston Street, he was trying to get home with his possessions. 'Not remotely interested in semi-literate impressions on a wall.

Those organs would have been very important to him, whereas scrawling on a wall held no reward. He would have been trying to get home with his gains to relive the experience, and, as Jon claimed; that may well have involved eating them. One thing's highly probable: he would have taken a great deal of pleasure from getting home with his gains and the last thing he would have done was to come back out of his house to scrawl nonsense on a wall when he could have been reliving the experience.

The bad news is, those who believe this was done out of revenge or hatred of a certain group of people, well, it's unlikely.

The good news is, it opens up the type of person this was beyond the Victorian idea (not all of them, by the way) that his must have been someone broadly in line with Anderson's idea of who this person was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The term "some portions were excised" refers to the intestine that were drawn out

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dictionary definition of the word ‘excised’:

“having been cut out surgically.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes the possessions of Eddowes as documented by Collard were taken down at the mortuary when the body was stripped

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I asked two questions Trevor. One of which you ignored and for the other you answered a completely different question.

I know that Collard took wrote the list of possessions but what I was asking is how quickly they were given to The Press? Before or after the inquest?

The other questions was - why would Sequeira have been asked about the killers expertise if they were only talking about if they were only talking about a few hacks and cuts? The only expertise would have been for the removal of organs.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As I said previously if Dr Phillips had found organs missing at the crime scene he would have said, and there would have been no need for the coroner to ask that question.

The term "some portions were excised" refers to the intestine that were drawn out

Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.


Would Phillips have used the word 'dissection' to describe the throwing of the intestines over the victim's shoulder?

Would he have described the removal of the intestines as an 'extraction'?

Would he have described the drawing out of the intestines as an 'excision'?