He killed so he could cut...

[SirRobertAnderson]

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=206&page=29

Originally Posted by perrymason

Jack didnt kill....he killed so he could cut.

Perry Mason, noted attorney, made this remark on Casebook, and I found it quite striking. I have long thought of Jack as a petulant child opening up toys to see how they worked, and I suspect this comment follows similar thought lines.

Wot say you ?

[Chris G.]

Originally Posted by SirRobertAnderson

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=206&page=29

Originally Posted by perrymason

Jack didnt kill....he killed so he could cut.

Perry Mason, noted attorney, made this remark on Casebook, and I found it quite striking. I have long thought of Jack as a petulant child opening up toys to see how they worked, and I suspect this comment follows similar thought lines.

Wot say you ?

A reasonable theory of the case. Have not read the thread yet but in principle, Michael's statement, "Jack didnt kill....he killed so he could cut", sounds correct to me.

Chris

I'd go along with it. The deep throat-cutting has a distinct feel of a "means to an end", not just in making the mutilation possible, but - by "bleeding" the body in advance - making the process of evisceration less messy than it might otherwise have been. As was demonstrated by the Stride murder, and many others over the years, one doesn't need to penetrate the tissues of the neck to any great depth, nor to circumnavigate the throat, in order simply to kill someone. Stride, as we know from Dr Blackwell, bled to death "comparatively slowly", but she was still a goner from the moment her killer left her to die.

[Robert Linford]

I think AP was right when he described the Kelly scene as something like "a kid let loose in a sweet shop."

[Nemo]

I think the throat cut was a means to an end Sam - his goal was to enter the abdomen

Therefore it seems logical to me that he would immobilise the victim as quickly as possible as speed was of the essence

The cut down to the spine would provide a completely dead victim within the shortest time - cutting the jugular and waiting even a few seconds for the blood to flow, possibly with the victim writhing around a bit, would waste valuable time

IF the killer waited a few seconds for blood to drain to facilitate the mutilations without getting blood all over himself, then this is the short time I believe he may have attacked the face (of Eddowes)

Otherwise, it seems more logical for him to first enter the abdomen, remove an organ/flesh, stash it, and then compose himself for the escape

It is at this time, when he realises he has a few seconds spare, that he would mutilate the face with such control

Originally Posted by Nemo

It is at this time, when he realises he has a few seconds spare, that he would mutilate the face with such control

Cant' see much control in evidence, Nemo - Eddowes' face was turned into a skating rink.

To take the alternative scenario as a thought experiment:

He might have needed a degree of control to hold her head steady while he slashed, whilst simultaneously not leaving behind any traces of excrement on her face - and, indeed, a degree of care to avoid the pool of blood that had formed alongside her head in the minutes he'd been beavering away inside her abdominal cavity. He'd have needed some control to avoid the heap of feaces-besmeared intestines he'd piled onto Eddowes' right shoulder, over which he'd have to have reached while he pressed her head to the pavement and inflicted the facial wounds.

I can't quite see all that somehow. On balance (which Jack wouldn't have been if he'd attacked the face last), I much favour the idea that he cut the face first of all, before all those obstacles would have gotten in his way.

[Nemo]

That's certainly a possibility Sam - and possibly the most logical one -but not necessarily the correct one

It does appear to me that he was trying to slice off the face from the nose downwards - though this action does not appear to have been completed - why do you think that is?

Originally Posted by Nemo

It does appear to me that he was trying to slice off the face from the nose downwards - though this action does not appear to have been completed - why do you think that is?

I don't think that it is so, Nemo. A number of cuts were made - to the right side of Eddowes' face only - with the tip of the knife puncturing bone and gum as the knife was dragged, at varying angles, from "north to south" (strictly-speaking, from "east to west", going by the orientation of the body) over her features. The nose, it seems, was partially lopped off by one such "north to south" cut, with the blade oriented slightly differently. This doesn't appear to be an attempt at "skinning" to me - it has all the hallmarks of a random slashing, designed purely to disfigure.

[Jon Simons]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

This doesn't appear to be an attempt at "skinning" to me - it has all the hallmarks of a random slashing, designed purely to disfigure.

Hi Sam

Interestingly, if you have a look at a cleaned up photo of Kelly, she does appear to have had her forehead and eyebrows skinned. Perhaps, as you have pointed out in the past, the differences are down to visibility, and time.

[Nemo]

Hi Sam

I see a possible anomaly between the seemingly controlled cuts to the eylids and the savage slash(es) across the nose area

To me this may indicate differing emotions during the act of inflicting the differing injuries

It is possible that the killer either opened or closed her eyes with the tip of the knife

This could very well have occurred just after the throat was cut and before he entered the abdomen

The slash may have occurred in rage or anger after his troubles with the intestines

Whatever happened, the sequence of injuries is far from clear