A theory about some injuries!

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

Abby; you're right, eyes don't seem to be "his thing".

Imagine a man with a paper, on which the alphabet has been written with a pencil.
He sits down, and starts to erase the letters from the paper, one by one.
When he is done, he has only left the "c" and the "u" untouched on the paper, while all the rest is gone.

Does that mean that c:s and u:s are not his thing? Or does it mean something entirely different?

When the killer let his knife go berserk on all the facial features of Kelly, but miraculously left the eyes intact (which he seemingly did) - did that mean that eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When he nicked the eyelids of Eddowes, but only so deep so as not to harm the eyeballs - did that mean that the eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When we take the utmost care not to harm a specific part of the body, whereas we are ready to inflict mayhem on all the other parts, what does that mean? Where does our interest lie - with the harmed or unharmed parts?

Things like these can be seen from two sides.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Fisherman!

When we think about the police official's words about Mary Kelly's eyes expressing terror, maybe that was Jack's pleasure?

All the best
Jukka

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman!

When we think about the police official's words about Mary Kelly's eyes expressing terror, maybe that was Jack's pleasure?

All the best
Jukka

Maybe so. At any rate, she must have been a haunting sight. I do think, however, that such considerations may have been secondary to the killer - a bonus, if you like.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Fisherman!

When we think about the police official's words about Mary Kelly's eyes expressing terror, maybe that was Jack's pleasure?

All the best
Jukka

I doubt it, somehow. Most of the canonical victims were killed under poor lighting conditions. As Fisherman says, perhaps the terror in Kelly's eyes was a bonus.

[Abby Normal]

Imagine a man with a paper, on which the alphabet has been written with a pencil.
He sits down, and starts to erase the letters from the paper, one by one.
When he is done, he has only left the "c" and the "u" untouched on the paper, while all the rest is gone.

Does that mean that c:s and u:s are not his thing? Or does it mean something entirely different?

When the killer let his knife go berserk on all the facial features of Kelly, but miraculously left the eyes intact (which he seemingly did) - did that mean that eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When he nicked the eyelids of Eddowes, but only so deep so as not to harm the eyeballs - did that mean that the eyes were not his thing, or something entirely different?

When we take the utmost care not to harm a specific part of the body, whereas we are ready to inflict mayhem on all the other parts, what does that mean? Where does our interest lie - with the harmed or unharmed parts?

Things like these can be seen from two sides.

Absolutely fish and good point.
I just meant that eyes were not his thing in terms of mutilating them.

[Abby Normal]

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.

The heart.
Another clue that they may have known each other.

[Varqm]

I am very satisfied with this explanation Robert....the "oh-murder" was exclaimed by Mary after she was woken.. drunk.. and padded to the door to see who knocked, the sound that woke Diddles. When she opened the door a crack, thats when the cry was made, it was exasperation...which was heard by one witness" as if at my door", and a second witness " as if from the courtyard". He was let in without further protest. Which for me makes him either a boyfriend or lover.

We know she was seeing someone aside from Barnett. We dont know who that was....some assume its Flemming. I dont. I think it might be Issacs.

We do not know how loud the cry was and if it could travel through the thin walls (sometimes Prater could hear commotions) and broken window
pane.It was a quiet early morning and the court was small.
The killer was successful in killing his victims standing up,with Eddowes there was no noise (partly something, logically ,he was aiming for).
Why change during Kelly's murder when they were standing up after the door was closed,per Dr. Phillips she was killed lying down.
As I posted before if an intruder how did he knew Kelly was asleep,half-asleep,like Nichols and Chapman 3-4 AM was a normal time to be awake and work/solicit
and if she had somebody with her (client/friend or just people crammed into the room which was not unusual in Spitalfields/poor areas).
He then had to put his hand through the broken pane and open the door,Kelly was a few feet away.Hard for me to believe it was other than Blotchy,
I do not entertain any other suspect in Kelly's case.Blotchy knew Kelly was alone,drunk and sleeping.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

As Sam has stated so well before the heart of romantic poetry and songs and heart shaped lockets is a far cry from the actual real thing stinking and bloody. Attributing a romantic connection to it in this instance seem rather far fetched to me.

c.d.