Disemboweled?

[lynn cates]

knife work

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Read next line.

She was opened like some kind of package. Start in the middle, move down. Go back to middle, then up.

"Knives with a six inch blade are pretty long for ordinary pockets, we might be looking for a man with a little black bag."

Or a leather apron whence hung his knives--as the bloke at the butcher shop related?

"The second guess is based on the account of Cross hearing a man approach from about forty yards away. If footsteps could be heard, sound carrying further at night, then the source of the footsteps may well have been out of sight at 3:45 am.
The same would apply from the killer's perspective."

Except Polly must have died around 3.30--train passing.

"What does circumscribing the abdomen have to do with cutting up a sheep?"

Nothing, unless you are delusional.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"A number of comparisons over the years on Casebook have established, quite reasonably I think, that the elongated wound from breastbone to pubes on Nichols is replicated on Chapman & Eddowes."

Even if they were, surely the fact that the cuts on Polly and Annie are in and down, yet Kate was in and down; next, in and up, should raise the brows a bit. And the knife was held obliquely. But, I digress.

Sorry you lost me there, if Polly, Annie and Kate was "in and down", who was "in and up"?

You may be right about a difference in knives on Polly and Annie. If only we knew of a bloke who carried TWO knives, one of which was well ground down. (heh-heh--self serving, I know)

Knives with a six inch blade are pretty long for ordinary pockets, we might be looking for a man with a little black bag

"So, my guess is, the long abdominal wound was the last wound he caused, before he heard footsteps coming towards him."

Actually, two guesses. The long wound could be last. But the second guess--concerning footsteps--has no foundation.

The second guess is based on the account of Cross hearing a man approach from about forty yards away. If footsteps could be heard, sound carrying further at night, then the source of the footsteps may well have been out of sight at 3:45 am.
The same would apply from the killer's perspective.

"unless he was only interested in drawing lines around her abdomen"

Well, what if he were NOT interested in anything except cutting up a sheep? You know, a delusional chap?

What does circumscribing the abdomen have to do with cutting up a sheep?
Now, if Nichols had been found hanging upside down by her heels......

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

thoughts

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"A number of comparisons over the years on Casebook have established, quite reasonably I think, that the elongated wound from breastbone to pubes on Nichols is replicated on Chapman & Eddowes."

Even if they were, surely the fact that the cuts on Polly and Annie are in and down, yet Kate was in and down; next, in and up, should raise the brows a bit. And the knife was held obliquely. But, I digress.

You may be right about a difference in knives on Polly and Annie. If only we knew of a bloke who carried TWO knives, one of which was well ground down. (heh-heh--self serving, I know)

"So, my guess is, the long abdominal wound was the last wound he caused, before he heard footsteps coming towards him."

Actually, two guesses. The long wound could be last. But the second guess--concerning footsteps--has no foundation.

"unless he was only interested in drawing lines around her abdomen"

Well, what if he were NOT interested in anything except cutting up a sheep? You know, a delusional chap?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Transferred from another thread...

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"It has always struck me as apparent the Nichols murderer was not able to complete his task . . ."

Very well. Umm, what WAS his task? If it were to remove, say, the uterus, could not he have forgone the extraneous (furtive?) cuts on the abdomen and refocused on organ extraction?

Hi Lynn.
A number of comparison's over the years on Casebook have established, quite reasonably I think, that the elongated wound from breastbone to pubes on Nichols is replicated on Chapman & Eddowes.

What we cannot be certain of is whether the smaller abdominal wounds on Nichols preceded or followed the larger vertical wound.
As Llewellyn described the knife a being "moderately sharp" and used "with great violence", we might assume the knife used on Nichols was simply not sharp enough.
Contrary to the knife used on Chapman, as being "very sharp".

Therefore, if the killer attempted to begin the abdominal mutilations on Nichol by slashing down her right side, and the knife was not sharp enough, he pulled the blade across the bottom of the abdomen, but the same result.

Then, he plunged the blade into her left side and pulled along, the skin rippling up against the blade requires more effort and produces a jagged cut.
This is what Llewellyn observed, "moderately sharp knife, used with great violence".

So, my guess is, the long abdominal wound was the last wound he caused, before he heard footsteps coming towards him.

". . . which is why he returned so soon, the next week."

Could he not merely have felt the same urge to kill as before?

Certainly, it could be either way, in fact he may also have attempted another murder that same night after being interrupted, but the circumstances were not favorable, we can't say one way of the other.

"In short, in my view he was interrupted."

Not impossible, but surely conditioned on Annie, not the evidence.

Only partly, unless he was only interested in drawing lines around her abdomen, and then leaving, we might be able to assume he was intending on raising huge flaps of skin to access the abdominal cavity.

"There are a number of concerns with the Schwartz account, both from the time he gave, the lack of people in the 'busy?' street, the fact his sighting was not confirmed, and that the Coroner did not call him to the inquest.
It is not an ideal sighting."

Agreed. But IF he told the truth, then there was not an interruption?

All our interpretation are predicated on the IF

Regards, Jon S.

[emlodik]

I expect that for one it wasn't expected that people would be so likely to pause it and look too closely, especially with the quality of still frame you got on 80's VCRs, and for the amount of time it's on screen in that quick zoom, you can't see much. And as we've discussed, overall it's not a winner for any sort of accuracy, any more than any other Ripper film, or indeed the recreations in a lot of documentaries.

B.

Another issue I have is Catherine Eddows murder scene. When I was just a kid, that scene really scared the living hell out of me and screwed me up as a child. I remember my grandfather tried to re-assure me that it wasn't blood pouring out of the coach, but just "ribbons from her dress." Ha... Anyway, when I like at scene now, it looks ridiculously campy and like something out of a bad slasher flick. To top it off, they even threw in the classic Ripper movie cliche... The victim says some idiotic cockney phrase right before Saucy Jack lunges at her...

[Suzi]

He he !Glad you're enjoying the Caine movie- Was trying to get hubby to rewatch it tonight but he's got into 'Once upon a time in Mexico' on the tele with Depp in it and refuses to budge! Grrrrrrrrrrr Nice young Johnny but------------ beddies I think to me!!

[Bailey]

By the way, anyone find it odd that the Michael Caine mini-series used the actual photo from Mary Kelly's murder scene, yet in the re-creation, the body is dressed in a gray skirt, white blouse and with both legs intact... So... Odd!

I expect that for one it wasn't expected that people would be so likely to pause it and look too closely, especially with the quality of still frame you got on 80's VCRs, and for the amount of time it's on screen in that quick zoom, you can't see much. And as we've discussed, overall it's not a winner for any sort of accuracy, any more than any other Ripper film, or indeed the recreations in a lot of documentaries.

B.

[Bailey]

No wrath incurred 'onist chaps!!!!! Heeeeeeeeeee all round!!
Actually I think it's time to grit the old teeth and take on Michael Caine again...well the Ripper film anyway!!!! Although there's a LOT of total toot in it....there are some rather fine-if amusing sequences!!

Phew, I was fearing I'd get a spanking there...

I love the mini-series, but you have to turn your Ripper fact-checker off. One of the best moments dramatically is the big clincher when it's revealed that Netley has spelling issues with the word "Juwes" - I was torn by the urge to laugh myself silly, but it's nonetheless a very well-written and played moment, if slightly melodramatic. And of course you've got to love the Caine method of acting - the more intense the scene, the louder you shout, and if you want real impact, say "bloody" as well

Cheers
B.

[emlodik]

No wrath incurred 'onist chaps!!!!! Heeeeeeeeeee all round!!
Actually I think it's time to grit the old teeth and take on Michael Caine again...well the Ripper film anyway!!!! Although there's a LOT of total toot in it....there are some rather fine-if amusing sequences!!

Come in Philip!!!

You haven't been spreading that old story about the guts hanging from the picture rails again have you!!!

Seriously who was this I wonder?

Suz x

A girl named Leslie... The ad boasted that she was London's most knowledgable Ripper guide. By the way, anyone find it odd that the Michael Caine mini-series used the actual photo from Mary Kelly's murder scene, yet in the re-creation, the body is dressed in a gray skirt, white blouse and with both legs intact... So... Odd!

[Suzi]

Actually, the tour guide that I take the Ripper Walk with back in May claimed that the Ripper DID attempt to pull out her intestines, but I found a lot of her "info" suspicious...

No wrath incurred 'onist chaps!!!!! Heeeeeeeeeee all round!!
Actually I think it's time to grit the old teeth and take on Michael Caine again...well the Ripper film anyway!!!! Although there's a LOT of total toot in it....there are some rather fine-if amusing sequences!!

Come in Philip!!!

You haven't been spreading that old story about the guts hanging from the picture rails again have you!!!

Seriously who was this I wonder?

Evgueni-

Re Polly-

The amount of blood and the buisiness about only a wine glass being found -of course is open to some sort of derision- It was found that most of the blood following the throat cutting seeped backwards/roadwards into her heavy Ulster coat* and maybe all that was seen on the road was equal to a wine glass as the quote says...Oddly this became 'A wine glass was found at the site' later!!!! Always makes me

Suz x

* Now where she got that rather fine coat and her 'Jolly' bonnet is another story!!

[emlodik]

Thanks for the great answers, guys. For some reason, there are so many varied accounts regarding the Nichols murder... I guess it probably all started with Dr. Llewlyn's diagnosis that there were no wounds on the body besides the but throat.

[DVV]

Hello all,
A report from J. Spratling, 31 aug 1888, refers to "two small stabs on private parts".
Amitiés,
David

[FrankO]

Hi Evgueni,

But was there also damage to her genitals or just the throat and the abdomen?

In a detailed summary report, dated 19 October 1888, Chief Inspector Swanson wrote: "Dr. Llewellyn of 152 Whitechapel Road was sent for, he pronounced life extinct and he describes the wounds as, - throat cut nearly severing head from body, abdomen cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach, there the wound was jagged: the coating of the stomach was cut in several places and two small stabs on private parts,..."

All the best,
Frank

[Bailey]

D'oh, my bad, I meant the removal of bits of Nicholls, not Chapman. Apologies!

I did chuckle at the scene of the photo being taken, thought that was followed by a certain wistful regret that it wasn't the case.

As for the commentary, I haven't listened to it since first buying the DVD a few years back, but I do recall it being entertaining just how adamant he was about his accuracy.

Cheers,
B.

[emlodik]

Hey Emlodik

I just watched the Caine miniseries again, having not seen it for a few years, during which time I have learned a great deal more about the case, and as much as it's still a very entertaining watch, I think I noted an average hit rate of one factual error per minute (estimated, and with tongue in cheek) , the misrepresentation of the removal of bits of Annie Chapman being one of the more serious, along with the handy plot device of assorted ear mutilations to tie in with the letters. That said, I do still love the miniseries - it's a great piece of entertaining melodrama, and it's what sparked my interest in the case. As a source of factual information, however, despite its creator's claims, it's not so good.

And by the way, as per your comment in another thread, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Suzi, I thought the term "glamour skank" - while certainly not flattering - was an ideal description for how Ms Graham portrayed MJK.

Cheers,
Bailey

Same with me! Even though I saw the mini-series at a very young age and always thought it was the most historically accurate movie out there, but I recently bought the DVD after not seeing the film for more than fourteen or fifteen years and was shocked at just how FICTIONALIZED the whole story was, especially the wild claims that Mary Ann Nichols had organs missing and that Liz Stride was mutilated after her throat was slit... But, what was so inaccurate about Annie Chapman's murder scene, other than showing the police taking a photo of the body, which never happened. Did I miss something? By the way, did you listen the commentary track on the DVD? It's a hoot! To this day, the filmmakers claim that their solution is the correct one and they're yet to see proof that shows otherwise... All of this based only on the fact that Dr. Gull's death certificate was signed by his son-in-law...