Throat Cuts as opposed to stabbing.

[Michael W Richards]

Could you stop making this kind of personally insulting and derogatory comparison with those of us who simply don't rule out a potential connection with other murders, not least because of the efficient way Stride's throat was cut, but also due to other factors, such as the unsolved murder statistics for the whole of England, and the known 'double event' phenomenon, which even the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard was able to recognise and allow for?

I wonder how you'd react if a poster compared Stride 'exclusionists' with anti-vaxxers?

Just stop it, there's a good chap.

I wasnt talking about connections Caz, I was talking about interruption theorizing. Its as useless an enterprise as daydreaming whether Jack arrived by parachute, theres no evidence for that either.

[caz]

I've never included the letters in any theorizing, I don't think they came from the killer.
The fact Eddowes ear lobe had been sliced through appears purely coincidence, it didn't look intentional. And not the result of a failed attempt to cut the whole ear off.
If he had time to slice the eyelids then he had time to slice both ears, but no attempt was made to do that.

Hi Jon,

I don't have strong views either way on Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky or From Hell, but again I'd be cautious about completely ruling out possibilities and risking throwing baby out with the bath water.

Whether the author of Saucy Jacky was a killer or a hoaxer, he/she had a very sophisticated grasp for anyone in 1888 on the phenomenon whereby violent repeat offenders have been known to move on to seek out another victim if the first fails to meet their requirements in any way, for example, by refusing to move to a location more suited to her killer's plans.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wasnt talking about connections Caz, I was talking about interruption theorizing. Its as useless an enterprise as daydreaming whether Jack arrived by parachute, theres no evidence for that either.

It was still insulting and rude, whoever your comment was aimed at.

First question....undoubtably, but not for all. This is one area where people choose to believe despite any evidence to support them,...(like in Voting Mail-In Fraud for example)... they cannot be compelled to believed otherwise.

Which question were you addressing here, since I can see no reference to 'interruption theorising'?

[Michael W Richards]

I don't believe for one minute that the facial wounds to Eddowes were deliberate. I believe they were caused by the victim struggling in trying to avoid her throat being cut from behind with a long sharp bladed knife.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The cuts seem to be symmetrical Trevor, which doesnt suggest accidental.

[Michael W Richards]

It was still insulting and rude, whoever your comment was aimed at.

Which question were you addressing here, since I can see no reference to 'interruption theorising'?

Im just addressing this post generally, perhaps I misnumbered my replies...The similarity with Strides death, from a physical point, is the throat cutting. Even this is disputed, on account of it not being as severe, although still severe enough to kill rapidly.

So can throat cutting itself be seen as a connection? How common was this means of killing as opposed to other methods of killing by knife. Is an inexperienced killer, a passion killer, a 'heat of the moment' killer more likely to stab? Even in the neck, is a stab an easier method, a more reflex attack?

Would we be more willing to accept non ripper ideas if Liz was stabbed? Does the throat slashing cause her inclusion, when not much else does? Does the slashing of the throat alone suggest one who has killed before?

Im not trying to coddle Caz...obviously....Im trying to debate the knowns and the facts, not the fanciful.

[Wickerman]

......

That was a reference to 'number one', not 'number two'.

There is punctuation between the two statements, him 'not being able to get ears for police' could easily refer to both victims. It is not certain by any means that the comment refers only to number one, as he clearly failed in both cases.

[Wickerman]

I think the one missive that has potential Wick is From Hell, meaning that it actually came from someone who killed a woman. I believe the facial markss are to serve as a warning to others, that this woman was a snitch, and the only reason I can think they might consider her that is if she was allied with them in some way. The Irish community might be one group who would feel betrayed if its one of theirs that she intended to turn in.

I'd agree it has potential, but nothing more than that. Other's have theorized how it could have been faked by a medical student.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I don't have strong views either way on Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky or From Hell, but again I'd be cautious about completely ruling out possibilities and risking throwing baby out with the bath water.

Whether the author of Saucy Jacky was a killer or a hoaxer, he/she had a very sophisticated grasp for anyone in 1888 on the phenomenon whereby violent repeat offenders have been known to move on to seek out another victim if the first fails to meet their requirements in any way, for example, by refusing to move to a location more suited to her killer's plans.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

I feel the writing on Saucy Jacky is similar enough to the post script on Dear Boss. If the first came from 'an enterprising journalist' (as contemporary theories believe), then so did the second.
Only the 'From Hell' is the "iffy" one, if I had to chose one, that would be it. Though without some direct connection to the victim via the piece of kidney, we are just speculating.

[Trevor Marriott]

The cuts seem to be symmetrical Trevor, which doesn't suggest accidental.

I stand to be corrected but there is no evidence to show that any of the facial injuries were done by design this is another false Ripper myth that the killer specifically targetted the eyelids. One quote from Dr Brown "The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Hi Caz.

I feel the writing on Saucy Jacky is similar enough to the post script on Dear Boss. If the first came from 'an enterprising journalist' (as contemporary theories believe), then so did the second.
Only the 'From Hell' is the "iffy" one, if I had to chose one, that would be it. Though without some direct connection to the victim via the piece of kidney, we are just speculating.

Absolutely, Jon, and there is no law against speculation, despite the fact that some posters would clap the darbies on us for indulging in it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I stand to be corrected but there is no evidence to show that any of the facial injuries were done by design this is another false Ripper myth that the killer specifically targetted the eyelids. One quote from Dr Brown "The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I tend to agree, Trev. The killer was probably just slashing away at the face because it was an easy target for his knife in the darkness of that square. If he found it a satisfying release for his pent up emotions, he was able to do it again, to a far greater extent, when Kelly invited him into her room a few weeks later.

The idea that any of the facial injuries to Eddowes were done by design to punish her for a failed blackmail attempt [which appears to be Michael's belief] is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. Eddowes would have had to be the most dim-witted blackmailer in criminal history to arrange a rendezvous with her intended victim - a robber - in that dark corner of Mitre Square, to demand money without menaces. That tiny little defenceless woman, threatening to grass up a criminal if he doesn't give her a cut [ha ha] and let her toddle off home with the cash? Who was she expecting? Ronnie Corbett?

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I stand to be corrected but there is no evidence to show that any of the facial injuries were done by design this is another false Ripper myth that the killer specifically targetted the eyelids. One quote from Dr Brown "The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Youre talking about Kate right? Not Mary?

[Scott Nelson]

Prolly ran out of time.

Doubt the eyelids were done in the dark. Possibly done indoors after strangulation.

Where indoors, Dave? Could Polly Nichols body have been taken back to no. 6 Mitre Street?

[Fisherman]

I tend to agree, Trev. The killer was probably just slashing away at the face because it was an easy target for his knife in the darkness of that square.
Love,

Caz
X

I donīt ascribe to any idea that the killer knew Eddowes personally and that he wanted to get back at her for being a snitch or anything at all along those lines.

But I donīt think that some of the facial wounds could have come about as a result of the killer randomly waving his knife at the face of Eddowes. If there had been just the one nick to one of the eyelids, for example, I would not rule out that it could have come about by chance. But once we have BOTH eyelids nicked, I think we can safely say that there was something going on that went beyond pushing a lawnmower across the face. Those will be intentional wounds, deliberately and delicately delivered. The same goes for the cutting away of the nose tip. It did not just get in the way of the blade, it was deliberately cut away. There is even a failed attempt to look at, where the blade was applied too far up on the nose bridge, making the killer move the blade down to accomplish cutting the nose away.

Itīs not about mindless slashing, at least not all of it. If you compare it to the carefully and deliberately cut away and laid out colon section, stretched out in a straight line, parallel with the body, it seems we have more of the same commodity. Care, precision and purpose.

[Prosector]

I agree with Trevor that the Eddowes's facial wounds were probably accidental and incurred during the killing or the dissection that followed although I wouldn't totally exclude them being deliberate. I do think that the carotid artery severances were done after the victims were incapacitated and on the ground otherwise the Ripper, if he was standing in front of the victim, would have risked being soaked in blood. They were certainly done from left to right but that could have been done just as easily whether left or right handed providing that the knife was rotated accordingly. Most surgeons learn to be pretty much ambidextrous when operating although we don't usually use seven inch amputation knives to do so.