Throat Cuts as opposed to stabbing.

[Joshua Rogan]

Both Spooner and Blackwell already knew that there was a body in the yard when they arrived, whereas Louis didn't. It's a lot easier to make out an object in the dark if you know what you're looking for.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I know by the precise cuts under her eyelids that there was sufficient lighting in Mitre Square for Jack the Ripper to see Catherine's body; and so, it would be obvious that he would have been able to make out what was in her pocket when he removed each item. However, under the gloom of that sunwall at Dutfield's Yard, there may not have been sufficient light to see his hand before his face. After all, Louis Diemschutz had to light a match in order to discern the mass on the ground.

Edward Spooner: They said, "There has been a woman murdered in Berner-street." I went with them to the yard adjoining No. 40. I saw a young woman lying just inside the gate. There were about fifteen people in the yard standing round - most of them Jews. They were not touching her. I could see it was a young woman before they struck a light.

As Diemschitz was capable of driving his pony cart around the streets of London at night time, I'd assume his eyesight was fine.
Is someone telling fibs?

Coroner: Could you see there was a woman there when you went in?
Blackwell: Yes. The doors were closed when I arrived.

[DJA]

Okay, many thanks for this!

Am I correct in thinking that you do not regard it as likely that the killer was able to do what he did in the prevailing darkness and the restricted window of time that is normally ascribed to the murder? And perhaps that you do not think that Lawende et al actually saw Eddowes?

You say that you think that the xanthelasmas were removed indoors, and that the killer then proceeded to "complete the post mortem cuts" outside. But if he had an option to cut away indoors, why did he not take full advantage of it and do the cutting there? What would have been his reason to move Eddowes into the darkest corner of Mitre Square and continue the cutting outside? Why not cut away first and then drag her out and leave her?

Do you have any idea about what cuts he did inside? The xanthelasmas, the kidney and the uterus?

Xanthelasmas, as I understand it, is the name for fat growing some sort of bulge, typically in the inner corner of the eye. There was no reference to it by the medicos. Are you suggesting that the killer removed the fat through the nicks to the eyelids?

Sutton,with a theoretical bolt hole at 6 Mitre Street,would know the timing of the police beat. I surmise he had been there for at least 3 years.

The only person to see him,and live,was Mrs Long at 29 Hanbury Street.

He was unlikely to have used a 7" pathologist's knife to make those small cuts in the dark.PBC was and still is a rare condition, 1 in over 3,000 people.Gull was a leader in research,therefore so was his little mate Sutton.

Once the cop had left Mitre Square,Sutton has moved her out through the gate and completed the work he had allotted to the time span of up to 14 minutes.

My health is a problem right now.
I'm not being rude,for a change,it's time to take a rest.There is a lot to explain.

The questions you ask should be obvious,when you think about them.

Eddowes has gone straight to his place when released. He headed there after killing Stride. Reckon they had time to talk,thus "nothing" in the GSG.

Eddowes (and Nichols) had been his patients for almost 21 years. Eddowes may have been attempting to end what was effectively put into action by Nichols, after the idea was planted by Mary Ann Kelly. No doubt she wanted "reimbursement".

Might sound convoluted,it isn't.

Ciao for now.

[Fisherman]

The two xanthelasmas were probably removed indoors, while Jack was waiting for the beat cop to pass,before taking here outside through the gate to complete his post mortem cuts.

Okay, many thanks for this!

Am I correct in thinking that you do not regard it as likely that the killer was able to do what he did in the prevailing darkness and the restricted window of time that is normally ascribed to the murder? And perhaps that you do not think that Lawende et al actually saw Eddowes?

You say that you think that the xanthelasmas were removed indoors, and that the killer then proceeded to "complete the post mortem cuts" outside. But if he had an option to cut away indoors, why did he not take full advantage of it and do the cutting there? What would have been his reason to move Eddowes into the darkest corner of Mitre Square and continue the cutting outside? Why not cut away first and then drag her out and leave her?

Do you have any idea about what cuts he did inside? The xanthelasmas, the kidney and the uterus?

Xanthelasmas, as I understand it, is the name for fat growing some sort of bulge, typically in the inner corner of the eye. There was no reference to it by the medicos. Are you suggesting that the killer removed the fat through the nicks to the eyelids?

[DJA]

DJA, what I am asking you is whether you believe that:

1. The killer made the cuts to the eyelids at the murder scene, or...

2. ... that somebody else had made the cuts to the eyelids, in which case I´d like to know when and where you think they could have been made.

The two xanthelasmas were probably removed indoors, while Jack was waiting for the beat cop to pass,before taking here outside through the gate to complete his post mortem cuts.

[Robert St Devil]

Reckon he rifled the pockets of Nichols,Chapman and Eddowes looking for anything that would link them to him.

Yet he forgot the cachous. Further evidence he was spooked by Eagle or Diemshutz.

With Stride, that's how I generally read it. Her pockets were filled with all her personal effects rather than being rifled through; for me, that's an indication of an interruption or an obstacle.

By obstacle, I mean to say...
I know by the precise cuts under her eyelids that there was sufficient lighting in Mitre Square for Jack the Ripper to see Catherine's body; and so, it would be obvious that he would have been able to make out what was in her pocket when he removed each item. However, under the gloom of that sunwall at Dutfield's Yard, there may not have been sufficient light to see his hand before his face. After all, Louis Diemschutz had to light a match in order to discern the mass on the ground.

[Fisherman]

DJA, what I am asking you is whether you believe that:

1. The killer made the cuts to the eyelids at the murder scene, or...

2. ... that somebody else had made the cuts to the eyelids, in which case I´d like to know when and where you think they could have been made.

[DJA]

One aspect of this casebook that has always intrigued me has been the sequencing of the crime. As in, are there discernible clues that might suggest how and in what order did the killer commit each murder?

In the case of "frenzy", I'm certain that the word is subjective; but, I believe that I understand it in similar terms if you are writing that "a frenzied attack" suggests a killer who is beyond self-control, monstrous, without rational comprehension, compulsive, &c. And, based on the nature of the Eddowes murder, it would be easy to dismiss the morbid act as simply savage (which it is btw!).

Still, I've considered that the killer may have displayed a more measured attack (ie. acted with a bit of patient self-control) rather than a frenzied one based on the fact that he rifled through Catherine's pocket. I'm willing to be corrected re: the scene of the crime; I vaguely remember that many of her personal items were laid about her body (a similarity that is shared with the scenes of Chapman's and, to an extent, Kelly's murder). For me, this point suggests the opposite of a frenzied attack because the murderer deliberately goes through each of her possessions, an aspect which suggests that Jack the Ripper wasn't at all hurried by himself altho time was still a consideration.

Reckon he rifled the pockets of Nichols,Chapman and Eddowes looking for anything that would link them to him.

Yet he forgot the cachous. Further evidence he was spooked by Eagle or Diemshutz.

[DJA]

If this photo is super imposed over the previous post's lady's sinuses and nose,you will have a match for the unnecessary cuts.

The man's lymph nodes,ditto.

[Robert St Devil]

2. You dislike being told that it is not in evidence that the killer of Eddowes worked in a frenzy, but that is just something that you have to live with. Your own recommendation (if you remember) is to deal in established facts only, so I suggest we do just that: no frenzy proven.

One aspect of this casebook that has always intrigued me has been the sequencing of the crime. As in, are there discernible clues that might suggest how and in what order did the killer commit each murder?

In the case of "frenzy", I'm certain that the word is subjective; but, I believe that I understand it in similar terms if you are writing that "a frenzied attack" suggests a killer who is beyond self-control, monstrous, without rational comprehension, compulsive, &c. And, based on the nature of the Eddowes murder, it would be easy to dismiss the morbid act as simply savage (which it is btw!).

Still, I've considered that the killer may have displayed a more measured attack (ie. acted with a bit of patient self-control) rather than a frenzied one based on the fact that he rifled through Catherine's pocket. I'm willing to be corrected re: the scene of the crime; I vaguely remember that many of her personal items were laid about her body (a similarity that is shared with the scenes of Chapman's and, to an extent, Kelly's murder). For me, this point suggests the opposite of a frenzied attack because the murderer deliberately goes through each of her possessions, an aspect which suggests that Jack the Ripper wasn't at all hurried by himself altho time was still a consideration.

[DJA]

Haven´t you got a little explaining to do about the eyelid nicks? (I am asking although I of course know that this is so, since I know it all).

Primary biliary cholangitis - Wikipedia

Eddowes' family has a history of auto immune diseases.

The eyelid PM surgeries are symptoms of PBC.

I did post the links a few pages back.

Other cuts ie nose and chevron cuts over the maxillary sinuses,I've mention many times.

Ditto the uterus removal and right inguinal node cuts.

Here are some pictures for you .....

[Fisherman]

Fish was in the lead,however Trev just caught up

Haven´t you got a little explaining to do about the eyelid nicks? (I am asking although I of course know that this is so, since I know it all).

[DJA]

Fish was in the lead,however Trev just caught up

[Fisherman]

I am in complete control

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for that one, Trevor - it made my day!

Over to your "points" now:

1. You keep telling me that it is not in evidence that the eyelids were nicked at the murder site, and you advice me to deal in facts only. How that works with the suggestion of a mortuary prankster cutting eyelids is beyond me...?
I can only press my point that if there was blood all over the face of Eddowes - and there would have been - then it is in no way whatsoever odd that it was not registered in situ.

It is not in evidence that the abdominal wounds of Polly Nichols were in place in Bucks Row either. Could it be the same prankster at work here, Trevor? Please let us know.

2. You dislike being told that it is not in evidence that the killer of Eddowes worked in a frenzy, but that is just something that you have to live with. Your own recommendation (if you remember) is to deal in established facts only, so I suggest we do just that: no frenzy proven.

3. You then go on to say that you are not making guesses. Does that mean that we can drop the prankster nonsense now?

4. You furthermore resort to your old delusions by claiming that the kidney was not taken out in situ by the killer. The killer sort of only opened the tin can and then left it to others to help themselves.
A question: once Eddowes had been emptied out, did these scavengers (or pranksters) tag along with the killer to Millers Court? And was it they, not the killer, who took out Kellys organs, once the killer had done his tin can opening again? Because if it wasn´t, how do we explain that a killer who would never extract an organ before suddenly could not help himself in Millers Court? Any factually solid ideas for a change?

This really needs to come to a stop, Trevor. I am all for the burlesque and the exotic, but there´s a limit to everything.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think I already pointed put to you the last time that Eddowes´ face would have been covered in blood as she was found, and so it may well have been nigh on impossible to see the small nicks to the eyelids. I´m sure you can see how that works if you put your mind to it.

The point is that there is no proof that the eyelids were seen to have been nicked at the crime scene, just as there is no proof that the organs were found to be missing at the crime scene. I would suggest that we deal in what are known facts.

I also don´t think that yu should accuse others of "wild speculative guesses" if you are then going to move on to saying that the killer lost his self-control and was in a frenzy. Not least should you try and be economic about claiming that others are the ones making wild speculations if you are going to claim that a small portion of the damage caused to the face was made by a prankster sometime after the victim arrived at the mortuary.

The mutilation to Eddowes abdomen clearly shows she was subjected to a frenzied attack, stabbed several times, face mutilated

If you cannot see who makes the truly controversial guesswork here, you really should not make any comments at all castigating others as wild speculators. There is nothing at all speculative about suggesting that the killer was behind the eyelid damage just as he was behind the rest of the facial damage. It is instead a near certainty, as it happens.

I am not the one making guesses. I am postulating plausible alternative explanations, which you seem to not want to consider in preference to your own wild speculative guesses!!!!!

Anyone who can take out a kidney from the front of a dead person in utter darkness is anything but a frenzied killer with no self control.

But we don't know that is what the killer did do we you clearly have not been paying attention? Can you prove conclusively that the killer did that?
To do all of that the killer would have needed sufficient light a steady hand, knowledge a to where the organs were located, and even more knowledge to be able to remove them with some medical precision in an almost impossible time frame in what you call utter darkness

Any poster who claims the opposite is the one out of control.

And yes, that refers to you.

I am in complete control but its proving difficult to control you who is a loose cannon and cleary out of control as your posts show

www.trevormarriott.co.uk