A theory about some injuries!

[Robert St Devil]

Jack did make a lot of "funny" cuts on Kate's face that don't make sense... well, less sense than cutting out her kidney, I guess. I don't generally believe that he opened or closed any of the women's eyes, Abby; you're right, eyes don't seem to be "his thing". It seems that there must have been sufficient light in Mitre Square to see Kate's eyelids were closed, and he knicked both of them. In Kate's case, I think that puts him on her right side, if he's trying to get as much light from the street lamp.

In Mary's case, I'm under the impression that there was some, uh, skill used in removing the flesh and muscle of her leg. Considering what he did to her stomach, lung and face, her leg should have looked like a Christmas goose carved up by an 8 year old. Instead, it seems like he "removed" that section rather adeptly.

The heart, hm... won't lie, sometimes I consider that he cooked and ate it in her apartment.

[Abby Normal]

So you're not ruling this out? There might be hope for us after all, Michael.



What about the slashed throat, abdominal injuries and excision of internal organs suggests a different objective to the previous murders?

We also have to factor in variables, such as the killer's mental/physical state, lighting conditions, the victim's clothing etc. Eddowes was wearing a lot of layers on the night she was killed which might have contributed to the disorganised mutilations. Be that as it may, he still successfully removed internal organs and took off without anyone seeing or hearing it happen.



Stride can we put to one side. Personally, I think she was a JTR victim. The proximity to another cutthroat murder in the same area is too coincidental. I believe the old chestnut that the killer was interrupted, hence taking his frustrations out on Eddowes. I can't claim to prove that but it makes sense to me and I don't need to wrestle with the problem of multiple cutthroats/mutilators running loose in Whitechapel.

Good post and totally agree.

[Harry D]

Harry,

I think that the differences can mean something very significant about what type of person did the killing, or it can be a indication of evolution or growth in a killer, due to the acquired experiences of prior engagements.

So you're not ruling this out? There might be hope for us after all, Michael.

...and the evident skill level with the technical differences in the Eddowes murder, suggests to me different hands, and objectives.

What about the slashed throat, abdominal injuries and excision of internal organs suggests a different objective to the previous murders?

We also have to factor in variables, such as the killer's mental/physical state, lighting conditions, the victim's clothing etc. Eddowes was wearing a lot of layers on the night she was killed which might have contributed to the disorganised mutilations. Be that as it may, he still successfully removed internal organs and took off without anyone seeing or hearing it happen.

Strides killer wanted her dead, that all we can conclude with what is before us. I would never categorize the Chapman in such a manner...the murder there was just the early part of the entire objective. The facilitator.

Stride can we put to one side. Personally, I think she was a JTR victim. The proximity to another cutthroat murder in the same area is too coincidental. I believe the old chestnut that the killer was interrupted, hence taking his frustrations out on Eddowes. I can't claim to prove that but it makes sense to me and I don't need to wrestle with the problem of multiple cutthroats/mutilators running loose in Whitechapel.

[Michael W Richards]

So because some of the throats weren't cut in exactly the same fashion, or the killer didn't remove the exact same organs in each murder, this obviously denotes a different hand?

Harry,

I think that the differences can mean something very significant about what type of person did the killing, or it can be a indication of evolution or growth in a killer, due to the acquired experiences of prior engagements. The step backwards seen in the murder of Liz Stride, and the evident skill level with the technical differences in the Eddowes murder, suggests to me different hands, and objectives. Strides killer wanted her dead, that all we can conclude with what is before us. I would never categorize the Chapman in such a manner...the murder there was just the early part of the entire objective. The facilitator.

[Abby Normal]

I'm thinking that your mention of the eyes is related back to the eye injuries inflicted on Catherine. I hope that we can return to the subject of the eyes soon. I've wondered if the condition of the eyes at the time of death may be an indication of the killer's method. And whether a person is more inclined to die with the eyes open (Polly) in cases of strangulation, with the eyes closed (Catherine) in cases of stabbings, or whether it matters at all. In Catherine's case, I question if he was attacking either the eyes or the eyelids.

I'll keep in mind the fair point. I feel the 800 lb. question here is whether or not this was the work of the Torso Killer. In that case, much more could have been, uh, accomplished. Nothing about the facial or abdominal mutilations seem surgical, but there does seem to be sensibility on how he dissected her leg down to the bone. Given more time or tools, maybe he could have gotten into the more intricate mucles of the shoulder, elbow or wrist. But the fact that he made silly cuts along her left arm makes me consider that he was finished with that appendage.

He was nicking the eyelids. Just like he was enjoying the other things his knife could do to her face. Cutting off the nose, cutting the lip. He didn’t seem to have a thing for eyeballs per se.

With kelly I agree he was done with her. Took her heart and maybe some of the flesh from her leg and left.

He liked what his knife could do with the female body, inside and out.

[Fisherman]

Kelly had her entire abdomen laid open from front to back, and from the diaphragm to the pelvic girdle, evidently to facilitate the complete emptying of her abdominal viscera. Jackson had a "panel" of flesh removed from just above the navel to the vagina, arguably to enable her womb to be opened and her baby removed. There is very little comparison.

A/ You do not know the exact sizes and shapes of the Kelly flaps.

B/ You do not know the exact sizes and shapes of the Jackson flaps.

C/ Your suggestions of different reasons lying behind the two cuttings are mere guesswork. I could say that in both cases, the killer seems to have been intent on getting access to the abdominal viscera, and I will be demonstrably more correct than you are.

D/ Completly regardless if they differed significantly in BOTH sizes and shapes (and were nevertheless in both cases described as large flaps), they are nevertheless exponents of an extremely rare thing, and therefore there is not "very little" comparison - there is a more or less proven case of the same perpetrator.

It is becoming slightly tedious to speak for deaf ears by now, but I will nevertheless do for as long as it takes.

[Harry D]

Actually my goal is much less complicated than that Harry, Id like the these broad assumptions to be seen for what they are and for people to remember that its just opinions, not the physical evidence itself, that links most of these murders. It was then, and still is.

To suggest that there are other possible answers here isn't radical or right wing, its prudent considering the weight of the evidence one way or another. If you cant except that there were possible alternative reasons for any of these murders that do not include a mad killer killing solely because he has a mental aberration, that's your shtick.

The facts are that very few of these murders closely resemble one another in circumstance, evidence or acts performed. Alice most closely resembles the Polly and Annie murders, and the "authorities" tell us the person responsible for the first 2 Canonicals was dead, in an asylum, or still at large. Not the kind of statements one should base any premise on.

So because some of the throats weren't cut in exactly the same fashion, or the killer didn't remove the exact same organs in each murder, this obviously denotes a different hand?

[Sam Flynn]

Kelly had her entire abdomen laid open from front to back, and from the diaphragm to the pelvic girdle, evidently to facilitate the complete emptying of her abdominal viscera. Jackson had a "panel" of flesh removed from just above the navel to the vagina, arguably to enable her womb to be opened and her baby removed. There is very little comparison.

[Fisherman]

I'm thinking that your mention of the eyes is related back to the eye injuries inflicted on Catherine. I hope that we can return to the subject of the eyes soon. I've wondered if the condition of the eyes at the time of death may be an indication of the killer's method. And whether a person is more inclined to die with the eyes open (Polly) in cases of strangulation, with the eyes closed (Catherine) in cases of stabbings, or whether it matters at all. In Catherine's case, I question if he was attacking either the eyes or the eyelids.

I'll keep in mind the fair point. I feel the 800 lb. question here is whether or not this was the work of the Torso Killer. In that case, much more could have been, uh, accomplished. Nothing about the facial or abdominal mutilations seem surgical, but there does seem to be sensibility on how he dissected her leg down to the bone. Given more time or tools, maybe he could have gotten into the more intricate mucles of the shoulder, elbow or wrist. But the fact that he made silly cuts along her left arm makes me consider that he was finished with that appendage.

I am not particularly openminded about the question if whether Kellys killer was the torso killer or not. To me, it is as close to a done deal as we can come.

Just like Liz Jackson, Mary Kelly had her abdominal wall removed in a few large flaps. To my mind, that cannot possibly be coincidental, least of all given how there are many more similarities involved.

[Robert St Devil]

a fair point.

I'm thinking that your mention of the eyes is related back to the eye injuries inflicted on Catherine. I hope that we can return to the subject of the eyes soon. I've wondered if the condition of the eyes at the time of death may be an indication of the killer's method. And whether a person is more inclined to die with the eyes open (Polly) in cases of strangulation, with the eyes closed (Catherine) in cases of stabbings, or whether it matters at all. In Catherine's case, I question if he was attacking either the eyes or the eyelids.

I'll keep in mind the fair point. I feel the 800 lb. question here is whether or not this was the work of the Torso Killer. In that case, much more could have been, uh, accomplished. Nothing about the facial or abdominal mutilations seem surgical, but there does seem to be sensibility on how he dissected her leg down to the bone. Given more time or tools, maybe he could have gotten into the more intricate mucles of the shoulder, elbow or wrist. But the fact that he made silly cuts along her left arm makes me consider that he was finished with that appendage.

[Michael W Richards]

It's madness to believe Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly weren't slain by the same man. Michael wants to atomize the case, remove any connection between the nature of these murders, exaggerate the dissimilarities and create ulterior motives through tenuous links.

Actually my goal is much less complicated than that Harry, Id like the these broad assumptions to be seen for what they are and for people to remember that its just opinions, not the physical evidence itself, that links most of these murders. It was then, and still is.

To suggest that there are other possible answers here isn't radical or right wing, its prudent considering the weight of the evidence one way or another. If you cant except that there were possible alternative reasons for any of these murders that do not include a mad killer killing solely because he has a mental aberration, that's your shtick.

The facts are that very few of these murders closely resemble one another in circumstance, evidence or acts performed. Alice most closely resembles the Polly and Annie murders, and the "authorities" tell us the person responsible for the first 2 Canonicals was dead, in an asylum, or still at large. Not the kind of statements one should base any premise on.

[Harry D]

Hello Michael,

If we follow this line of reasoning then we have to conclude that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was home to uterus takers, kidney takers and chest cutters. All of whom were focused on their own individual trophy. We also have to conclude that for anyone prior to Kelly cutting the throat of a woman and taking out her internal organs would somehow consider the chest area off limits because that would just be sick and kind of icky. Very hard to believe.

c.d.

It's madness to believe Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly weren't slain by the same man. Michael wants to atomize the case, remove any connection between the nature of these murders, exaggerate the dissimilarities and create ulterior motives through tenuous links.

[Michael W Richards]

lol. Isaacs?

We know she was seeing 2 Joes, 1 Joe moves in around the corner from Marys room days before her murder, and shortly after she ejects Barnett, and disappears the night she is killed, leaving behind belongings in his room. Landlady remembers he was up late at night and she seems suspicious of him.

Not much, but nothing to just toss away.

[Michael W Richards]

wow...that's a lot of detail, which comes from where? I have a lot of respect for you, but these comments are certainly stretching the imagination a bit...

All of those tidbits come from Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Praters statements essentially, the only dramatic inclusion is my supposition that the reason that we didn't hear anything after the cry out, and the reason no sounds of scuffling or moving about were heard by Elizabeth after that sound...sounds she stated she could hear from Marys room..were because the person at the window or door was allowed to enter the room quietly. That suggests someone close to Mary, which we know was at least 2 of them at that time.

It could also explain why she was first attacked in bed, on the right hand side of the bed, facing the partition wall. Away from the door and window, and anyone in the room. She wasn't afraid.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

If we follow this line of reasoning then we have to conclude that Whitechapel in the Fall of 1888 was home to uterus takers, kidney takers and chest cutters. All of whom were focused on their own individual trophy. We also have to conclude that for anyone prior to Kelly cutting the throat of a woman and taking out her internal organs would somehow consider the chest area off limits because that would just be sick and kind of icky. Very hard to believe.

c.d.

That's not exactly my position cd, its that there were murders committed by people who, for reasons yet unknown to us, were varied in the actions taken by the killer, and some that were horrific.

And I didn't say anything about anything being off limits cd, I did say that choices were made, and although we may not understand what motivated the choices, that doesn't allow for wild speculation about a single metamorphic killer making all those choices.