Lawende is a red herring.

[caz]

I think Damaso was essentially agreeing with you there Harry, for me though there are some very significant discrepancies between the actions taken with victims number 2 and 4. There are superfluous cuts, for one. "No meaningless cuts" was the pronouncement on Annies wounds. Clearly that is not the case with Kate. The uterus was taken cleanly and complete from Annie, and partially from Kate. A non gender specific organ is taken without the body first being positioned to make that easier...like moving the body onto its side or back, Kate is killed outside what is considered to be the hunting grounds of this killer, (not that he would pay attention to boundaries..just a question of why he would be hunting where the fewest people live..the city proper), why would he need something from this victim to carry things off with if he is the killer who with a previous victim, did that without such a need for a carryall, she has circumstantial evidence that is not like the other victims, and its undeniable that her killer "marked" her with a knife. Even if the reason for the chevrons were from the attempt at removing her nose, its a non-essential act.

Really, Michael?

I'm trying hard to imagine the killer [or killers if you prefer] of any of these women thinking to himself: "I know that what I'm doing is not essential, but I'll risk my neck doing it anyway".

Surely, every act was essential to the killer at the time, or he'd have been somewhere else having a quiet night in.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I've read before that Eddowes' layers of clothing could have hampered the mutilations. Not to mention factors such as the killer's physical and mental state, and the perceived time pressure he might have been under, which might have all played a part. Needless to say, the killer still had the Ripper's uncanny knack of butchering women outdoors without making a sound and disappearing into the night.

Perhaps the reason Eddowe's murder resembles a Ripper murder is because.... it was a Ripper murder?

I think Damaso was essentially agreeing with you there Harry, for me though there are some very significant discrepancies between the actions taken with victims number 2 and 4. There are superfluous cuts, for one. "No meaningless cuts" was the pronouncement on Annies wounds. Clearly that is not the case with Kate. The uterus was taken cleanly and complete from Annie, and partially from Kate. A non gender specific organ is taken without the body first being positioned to make that easier...like moving the body onto its side or back, Kate is killed outside what is considered to be the hunting grounds of this killer, (not that he would pay attention to boundaries..just a question of why he would be hunting where the fewest people live..the city proper), why would he need something from this victim to carry things off with if he is the killer who with a previous victim, did that without such a need for a carryall, she has circumstantial evidence that is not like the other victims, and its undeniable that her killer "marked" her with a knife. Even if the reason for the chevrons were from the attempt at removing her nose, its a non-essential act.

[Harry D]

A point often made by people who do not think Eddowes was killed by the Ripper is that the ripping in Mitre Square was sloppy compared to what was done to Chapman. Cut through the clothes, knicked the colon, no attempt to decapitate, etc. While I believe it was the same killer as Chapman, the sloppiness is certainly consistent with it being a rush job.

Of course doctors take longer to cut people up: what they do only superficially resembles what the Ripper did.

I've read before that Eddowes' layers of clothing could have hampered the mutilations. Not to mention factors such as the killer's physical and mental state, and the perceived time pressure he might have been under, which might have all played a part. Needless to say, the killer still had the Ripper's uncanny knack of butchering women outdoors without making a sound and disappearing into the night.

Perhaps the reason Eddowe's murder resembles a Ripper murder is because.... it was a Ripper murder?

[Michael W Richards]

The simplest scenario is surely the likeliest here. Unless we enter corpse carrying fantasies then what’s left?

There is some data that reveals the police entertained just that notion for a time Sherlock, no matter how far fetched it might seem. I suppose it was due to the amount of blood found puddled, which is probably explained by the soaked back of her dress upon further examination.

I believe that its worth pondering whether Lawende saw Kate if only for the fact he acknowledged he didnt get a good look at her, just her clothing. Which was basically dark...like most of the night women. He didnt even think he could identify the man, who he said he did get a look at, just 2 weeks later. If he didnt see Kate and killer...which is what that Sailor man represents.. based on the timing given, then she could have been with her killer already in the square. She could have been killed already, giving the killer a little less time than the killer of Annie Chapman to mutilate her. Might explain what I see as errors...the colon section for one, the need to use her clothing to carry bits away...but then he takes time to mark her face. Not needed in any way, to kill, or to access internal organs...which is how Annies killer's process with his knife worked.

If Kate was not the woman with Sailor man, then the time available to do all that is done becomes less troublesome, and the presumption of his speed is better reconciled.

Surely THAT is the simplest scenario Shelock. Why they likely use Lawende later is another question, perhaps one of competence, perhaps of secrecy...or perhaps its not Lawende they later use.

[Damaso Marte]

A point often made by people who do not think Eddowes was killed by the Ripper is that the ripping in Mitre Square was sloppy compared to what was done to Chapman. Cut through the clothes, knicked the colon, no attempt to decapitate, etc. While I believe it was the same killer as Chapman, the sloppiness is certainly consistent with it being a rush job.

Of course doctors take longer to cut people up: what they do only superficially resembles what the Ripper did.

[Scott Nelson]

Lawende admitted he wouldn't recognise the man if he saw him again. For the police to rely on him as a witness must show they were clutching at straws.

Yes, maybe there was another witness we know nothing about. Maybe it was a city PC? Watkins in the Orange Market spotting someone emerging from St. James Passage? Harvey seeing someone walking along Little Duke Street? They weren't Jewish and neither testified to seeing anyone suspicious. But maybe a description was held back for some reason.

[Harry D]

Lawende admitted he wouldn't recognise the man if he saw him again. For the police to rely on him as a witness must show they were clutching at straws.

There's no guarantee the couple he saw were Eddowes and her killer in the first place.

[Abby Normal]

and CD if your going to try and be a smart ass, at least be right.

Lighten up.

c.d.

you forgot to say .."Sandy." ; )

[c.d.]

and CD if your going to try and be a smart ass, at least be right.

Lighten up.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I'm also thinking that the peaked-cap angle has been seriously overplayed.

I agree. You might as well say the suspect was wearing shoes.

c.d.

hi cd and RJ
yeah I guess abberline was such an idiot thinking that the peaked cap was of significance in helping ID a possible suspect.

I think he would know a little better than you two lol. and CD if your going to try and be a smart ass, at least be right.

[DJA]

I'm also thinking that the peaked-cap angle has been seriously overplayed.

I agree. You might as well say the suspect was wearing shoes.

c.d.

Ruling out John Kelly

[DJA]

ROFL ..... Pommie cricket team.

[c.d.]

I'm also thinking that the peaked-cap angle has been seriously overplayed.

I agree. You might as well say the suspect was wearing shoes.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

We see plenty of contemporary photo's of low-class women walking or standing around the street's or in doorways, and most of them wear an apron.

I'm also thinking that the peaked-cap angle has been seriously overplayed. True, Jack London and his 'Abyss' came along a few years later, but there are contemporaneous photos showing the same thing: every third bloke has one.

[Wickerman]

The apron and GSG are significant in this case.

That is true, but neither Lawende nor Levy knew the apron would be of any significance, so they had no reason to take notice if she wore one.

We see plenty of contemporary photo's of low-class women walking or standing around the street's or in doorways, and most of them wear an apron.
Besides, the witnesses only saw her from the back, and in poor light, and as most aprons only cover the front then it might not be obvious the woman was wearing one.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, in fact it would be in my interest to just agree as I doubt the woman was Eddowes, but in all fairness I don't think it is a worthy point for the reason's just given.

Once again, I forgot the smiley face