Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

P.C.Long & The Time....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Nemo View Post
    ??? Not quite sure what that comment is supposed to refer to Neil...
    You say bodily mutilations before face.

    I say Faecal matter.

    There was no report of faecal matter upon Eddowes face. Seeing as her bowel was nicked, and there was reports of faecal matter in the body cavity and upon the apron piece, one assumes the face should also have such matter upon it.

    Yet there is no mention of that. Why not?

    Logic dictates that the face was prior to the body. However, logic has known to be wrong.

    I also argee re the observing of the beats and noting of times. It would only taking one or two observations of the PC on his beat to figure out when he would return back to that spot. However, it must be remembered that the PC may have had trouble somewhere else on his beat, or re checked that certain shop door, and those times fly out of the window. Its not a precise, more a gauge.

    How,

    it would mean Eddowes would have to stand in the same spot for 30 minutes to determine that.
    Or someone may have told her. 8 mins from Bishopsgate to Mitre Sqaure. Gives her 22 mins at most to get gemmed up on the beat PCs by a 3rd Party.

    Just thoughts

    Monty

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Monty View Post
      There was no report of faecal matter upon Eddowes face. Seeing as her bowel was nicked, and there was reports of faecal matter in the body cavity and upon the apron piece, one assumes the face should also have such matter upon it.

      Yet there is no mention of that. Why not?

      Logic dictates that the face was prior to the body. However, logic has known to be wrong.
      That was my point - with only a few minutes to "work" - you think he mutilated the face first? Wouldn't the face be secondary to his abdominal mutilation/organ removal if time was of the essence?

      I can see him mutilating the face first if, as I opined earlier, he waited for a few seconds/minutes for most/all of the blood to flow from the body before he entered the abdomen.

      A lot of descriptions of the murders seem to have him killing the woman as quickly as possible so as to move immediately onto the mutilation of the corpse. I think he could well have savoured the woman's moment of death also. I always wondered if the Ripper looked into the eyes of his victims to observe their life ebbing away.


      If he completed the abdominal work first, then the lack of faecal matter/blood near her hair or face may indicate that his hands were not soiled - which may have implications for the removal/use of the bit of apron

      Originally posted by Monty View Post
      I also argee re the observing of the beats and noting of times. It would only taking one or two observations of the PC on his beat to figure out when he would return back to that spot. However, it must be remembered that the PC may have had trouble somewhere else on his beat, or re checked that certain shop door, and those times fly out of the window. Its not a precise, more a gauge.
      As I said, Eddowes or the Ripper would only have to see the policeman passing once to have a good idea that there would be 10-15mins before he returned.

      If the PC had "trouble" somewhere on his beat, that would only extend the time available.

      As an aside, If the Ripper had an accomplice it would have been worthwhile him/her approaching the PC to accomplish this.

      Comment


      • #33
        So he may have wiped the knife on the apron after cutting the abdomen but before he cut the face....then decided to take the apron piece away for some reason...?

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi Currebell

          That is the possibility

          The piece of intestine removed and placed "as if by design" near the body, wouldn't that be the part that contained the bulk of the faecal matter?

          If the knife cut the intestine and the Ripper smelled it, would he plunge his hands into it? Is it more likely he tried to remove the offending part by holding it sealed at both ends and placing it carefully to one side "as if by design"?

          The killer could have the organ removed and stashed - possibly wrapped in the apron piece - and his hands wiped clean before he mutilated the face

          The face mutilations do not seem to be done in rage ie indiscriminate slashing

          I think it was Sam who put forward the interesting theory that the "V"s were produced during the same cut to the nose/mouth area by the knife rocking across the cheeks - but the nicks to the eyelids seem to be done quite carefully (if that is the word)

          It does seem to me though, that the eye nicks would be produced by the killer closing the victims' eyes with the tip of his knife. Wouldn't this have been done when he stood ready to leave, knife in hand, and looked in contemplation upon the corpse?

          I'm not sure if the kidney was removed prior to the intestinal cut - which is why I would like to see (if possible) an in depth analysis of each victim's injuries blow-by-blow and cut-by-cut. A bit gruesome I know, but with so little evidence to go on regarding the Ripper, his place, time and method of killing and mutilation is all we have to go on really.

          Comment


          • #35
            Nemo, considering the utter atrocities he caused to this and the other bodies, would some faecal matter really put him off????

            Theres a strong possibility he knew what he was 'getting into' so to speak if he's going to dig round peoples insides...

            Comment


            • #36
              Not "put him off" as such, but he almost certainly revelled in the blood and guts texture type of fetish - faeces I'm not so sure

              If he had a method of keeping relatively clean so as to make his escape, the presence of the pungent faeces may have worked against this

              Comment


              • #37
                True, the bodily gases released would certainly have made a stench....but the matter would have lingered for sure, if not washed off rapidly...

                If he supposedly liked the feel of innards...does this rule out his wearing of gloves?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Funny you should mention that Currebell, as another explanation I had for there being no faeces on the hair/face in the aforementioned scenario would be that he wore gloves during the abdominal mutilation and had removed these before he attacked the face...

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I guess he still could have some and get his kicks with them off, wipe his hands and put them on before proceeding with the face...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Funny you should mention that Currebell, as another explanation I had for there being no faeces on the hair/face in the aforementioned scenario would be that he wore gloves during the abdominal mutilation and had removed these before he attacked the face...NEMO

                      Thats a rather unique theory,buddy...and one I've never heard mentioned before. You have been making some damned good posts Nemo.

                      Hard to contemplate the killer taking even a nanosecond to remove any debris from her face out as some sort of respectful afterthought considering the atrocious damage done to her face with intent or even collaterally as he was attempting to remove her nose ( See Sam Flynn's & Jon Smyth's theories on this)...and unless he removed it with the apron piece or some other cloth-like item,I couldn't imagine him using his bare hand to remove any fecal matter or blood.

                      One possible counter-explanation may be that considering the times, the LVP, that mentioning fecal matter on Eddowes face would be a bit much.

                      One is reminded a report of one of the murder victims where it was mentioned in print...and this was either Chapman or Nichols,I believe....that despite all the horrific wounds,the victim had not been sexually violated,as if that would soothe the aesthetics of the reader in knowing an eviscerated victim was not raped.

                      But your idea is good all on its own,my friend.
                      To Join JTR Forums :
                      Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Currerbell View Post
                        I guess he still could have some and get his kicks with them off, wipe his hands and put them on before proceeding with the face...
                        Why on earth would he do that? He doesn't strike me as someone who'd have baulked at smearing the faecal matter onto Eddowes' features or elsewhere on her body. Here was a guy who was into perpetrating the most degrading acts imaginable on women's bodies, don't forget.

                        In addition, we know that her (externalised) intestines were "smeared over with faecal matter" - so it's probable that he tried to remove the kak by attempting to wipe his hands on those, before realising that it was a hopeless task. Anyone who's got that stuff on their hands will know that it's a bit of a bugger to shift by mere wiping.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          I did say that earlier, about the fact it (no 2's) probably wouldnt put him off considering how disgusting the mutilations were without any poo being involved....

                          I was discussing with Nemo whether he still would have had gloves on at some point either before or after the mutilations of the face and abdomen...

                          I havent had the pleasure of the stuff on my hands, well maybe in the future when Im nursing, but I can quite imagine it does stick like 'sh*t to a blanket'...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Sammy:

                            I think that the act ( as everyone else probably does as well) of mutilating her face either intentionally or collaterally can be assumed to be one of disrespect.

                            Why on earth would he demonstrate an act of what amounted to respect by removing blood,feces,or anything from her face?

                            Sort of like cutting up a side of beef and having a tear in one's eye for the "soul" of that poor ( and delicious ) animal.
                            To Join JTR Forums :
                            Contact Howard@jtrforums.com

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Currerbell View Post
                              I havent had the pleasure of the stuff on my hands, well maybe in the future when Im nursing, but I can quite imagine it does stick like 'sh*t to a blanket'...
                              More than somewhat, Bell

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by How Brown View Post
                                Why on earth would he demonstrate an act of what amounted to respect by removing blood,feces,or anything from her face?
                                Exactly my point, How. Which is another reason for believing that he cut her face before he got woopsy on his hands.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X