|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 177
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:43 pm: |       |
I tend to hold medical opinion way above the opinions of others, so where we find conflicting evidence I feel that part of the reasoning may be our misunderstanding of the level of expertise of the period.
One opinion which has bewildered me for some time is Dr Llewellyn's thoughts on the abdominal wounds being committed first, before Nichols was killed.
Everyone takes this as a bizarre suggestion to make so I wanted to offer a scenario for consideration, in defence of Dr Llewellyn.
I have recently mentioned that statement by Mrs Colville, it was discarded by the authorities due to the extensive wounds on the body, simply put, no-one could run through the streets with wounds such as those.
Agreed.
Always assuming the desperate woman heard was actually Polly Nichols, why was she in such dire straights?.
If she was crying "police, murder", then surely it was more than a case of her being frightened by someone?. Although, we must remember, the cry was said to be common place.
Had her attacker tried to choke her and she slipped away?.
Llewellyn never gave his reasons for suggesting that the abdomen was attacked first.
Jack chased her, choked her, she escapes, is heard by Colville, he pursue's her to the spot in Buck's Row, chokes her again, then commenced to attack the abdomen, thinking she was dead. She 'awake's', and only at that point does he slit her throat.
If this is a true sequence then Llewellyn would be vindicated, that her abdomen was attacked before she was actually dead.
Tell why you think this is unlikely or not possible. Please, read up on her wounds and give it your best shot.
Thanks, Jon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2853
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:20 pm: | |
Hi Jon
I don't think the chase could have been a very long one. Just from a non-forensic angle : if we place Jack's probable age somewhere in the range late teens to early 30s, then for how long could such a man be outpaced by a very drunk middle-aged woman who was hampered by Victorian clothes?
Robert |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 69
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
If we assume that the strangulation aspect of the killings was to stop the victim from screaming , and the throat slitting to let blood out so the actual mutilation part wouldn't be so messy , then in Nichols's case where is the blood spray from where her throat was cut ?
I think the stomach wounds had to come first , then cutting the throat must have come later : it suggests a murderer still coming to terms with finding a correct method for committing their crimes. |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 299
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 9:53 am: | |
Hello All, Simon -
I personally believe the strangulation was to stop them from screaming and wiggling around. It also served as a really easy way to shut them up. An easy method for getting them under control. I am still, however, on the fence when it comes to the "why did he slit their throat?" question. Perhaps it was part of his ritual, perhaps he did it once on accident and decided he liked it.. or perhaps he almost failed once and decided that he would strangle them AND cut their throat, if only to ensure that they didn't get up and run away.
Just for the record, however, I don't think that slitting the throat while they were alive would have been very effective in keeping down on the mess. I've read reports of jets of blood 10 to 30 feet long shooting out of a cut carotid artery. In order for him to make it as clean as possible, he would need to ensure that the heart was not pumping when he began to cut.
Psssst.. come close.. I'll let you in on a secret. When a person is strangled to death their heart does not, generally, stop immediately. Their heart rate slows down considerably because of the tremendous pressure on the carotid arteries (gotta love natures defense mechanism against high blood pressure changes) but it does not immediately stop. That takes a little while longer. Sometimes up to 3 to 4 minutes. A similar thing happens when a person is hung. Of course, there in behind the carotid arteries lies the vagus nerve. This little guy runs from the back of your brain stem to the top of your heart. Cut it and the heart stops immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $200 dollars.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 72
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Surely then if you cut the vagus nerve of your victim , the heart will stop pumping blood and then if you open up the belly , there will be less mess on you ? |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 302
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Simon -
Indeed, surely. The problem there is that the vagus nerve lies behind (well kinda.. hard to show with out a good diagram and Gray's online doesn't really provide the kind of diagram I'm looking for) the carotid artery.. so you would have to start cutting in the middle of the throat, moving out. Even then, you'll have issues and a mess.
Strangulation to slow the heart, the cutting of the carotid and vagus nerve is about the only way I can think of off hand (it's early yet, I haven't had any caffeine) that one would be able to 'minimize' the mess...
Now it's time to determine if that is what happened 
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 11:41 am: | |
I wouldn't be too overawed by the medical profession.
Two cases I am writing about at the moment may demonstrate the lack of skill amongst doctors.
In the Greenwood case the victim died following hours of vomiting, diarrhoea and intense stomach pain. Cause of death? Heart Disease later corrected to death by arsenic poisoning.
Mary Jenkins was found with severe bruising around her throat and neck, and bruising on her abdomen. Cause of death? Natural causes later corrected to death by strangulation when it was found the top two rings of her windpipe had been crushed.
Both these cases were in 1920, a time when you should expect a doctor to spot the telltale signs of poisoning and strangulation.
Bob |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 73
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:19 pm: | |
There has to be a specific reason for the throat cutting , otherwise the killer would have just strangled the victims to death !
Do we know/have any evidence that the strangulation of the victims would reduce the amount of blood that spurted out of the neck when the throat was cut ? I believe the strangulation was merely used to subdue and silence the victims , so I'm not sure.
I'd argue that it would have little effect. With Stride , Schwartz noted that she could hardly speak or cry for help - I attribute this to Liz being partly throttled at the time. Yet look at the amount of blood in Dutfield's Yard !
With Kelly , there was blood all over the walls and on the ceiling - did the Ripper attempt to strangle her ?
Chapman and Nichols and Eddowes - where was the blood spray from where they had their throats cut ??? I believe the throat cutting was to unleash blood to reduce the amount of gore that would spurt out when the Ripper disembowelled his victims - but what happened to the blood spurt ?
The obvious answer is that it went all over the Ripper himself ! But how did he escape in such a condition ? |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 303
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:20 pm: | |
Hey There Bob -
I would almost agree with you... Almost. Obviously the medical profession has room for improvement, just like any other profession.
Try to bear in mind that the people involved are just that.. people. Prone to mistakes and bouts of misanthropy. PEBKAC errors coupled with an attitude of "oh who really cares?" can and often do happen. Pride might get in the way sometimes as well. Tis a shame about the two cases you mention though. Oh well, at least they were modified/admendid. It could have been worse.. the mistake might have never been rectified.
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 304
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Hello Again Simon -
You recently typed:
"There has to be a specific reason for the throat cutting , otherwise the killer would have just strangled the victims to death !"
Unfortunately, there doesn't have to be anything specific to us, only to the killer. What makes sense to him might not make sense to us and vice versa.
"Do we know/have any evidence that the strangulation of the victims would reduce the amount of blood that spurted out of the neck when the throat was cut ? I believe the strangulation was merely used to subdue and silence the victims , so I'm not sure.
I'd argue that it would have little effect."
In as far as evidence from this case? No.. we don't really have a lot of that. However, what I described earlier holds true for a large portion of the population. Strangulation causes a change in blood pressure, for which the body's response is "Holy CRAP!! Slow down the heart or we'll die!!". Keep at it and the heart will stop. Needless to say, this has a dramatic effect on how much blood gets pumped through the veins, the ones in particular that interest us are the carotid and jugular.
So, choking someone to what would outwardly appear to be "death" and then cutting their throat would be a good way to reduce the "mess". Otherwise there would have been a whole hell of a lot more blood found at the scene.
"With Stride , Schwartz noted that she could hardly speak or cry for help - I attribute this to Liz being partly throttled at the time. Yet look at the amount of blood in Dutfield's Yard !"
Well she was just attacked. Shock alone has been known to cause this. I see your point however. Now you are on to something.. if we can determine (and I'm not saying we can) that the same person killed X amount of women going off the very thin "he murdered her in the exact same way", then, can we exclude stride because she was quasi alive when she was found? Given that the others would have never lived because they were strangled to almost death and had their throats cut? That's an open question that I don't have the answer too btw.. more of a random thought really.
"With Kelly , there was blood all over the walls and on the ceiling - did the Ripper attempt to strangle her ?"
Don't know, wasn't there :P In all seriousness though, I'm not certain. I have been looking into the kelly scene more than I have the others... it's just that as of recently I've been busy buying a house. A process that I whole heartily advise most stay away from
"Chapman and Nichols and Eddowes - where was the blood spray from where they had their throats cut ??? I believe the throat cutting was to unleash blood to reduce the amount of gore that would spurt out when the Ripper disembowelled his victims - but what happened to the blood spurt ?
The obvious answer is that it went all over the Ripper himself ! But how did he escape in such a condition ?"
Try to remember that "unleashing the blood" isn't required if the heart is no longer pumping. If the victims hearts were not pumping when he cut their throat there would be no "blood spurt" from the neck or when the mutilation began. He would only need to contend with the internal fluids at that point. Which do not normally spurt anywhere.. More like ooze, for lack of a better term.
I've given the "how in the hell did he just walk away covered in blood" question some thought as of late too. My answer? Dark felt clothes and a jacket. If the killer was wearing dark clothes, kept his hands in his pockets and didn't arouse any suspicion (I know, those are tough criteria to follow.. especially that last one) well damn, he could have just got up and walked away. Of course this depends on how far he had to walk to safety and it brings up a whole slew of questions that are probably off topic (like where does one go with very bloody clothes during the height of the ripper murders and NOT draw attention to himself, etc).
Just my 0.2 cents
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Hi all,
Jon, great to see you back on the boards!
Personally, I don't put much faith in those dubious press reports that have Polly running for some distance, screaming for her life. If such a chase had occurred, when the Ripper caught her (presumably at or near the spot where her body was found) there would have been a second or two during which time he would not have had complete control of her, he would have been unable to silence her immediately. She would have had an opportunity to scream and struggle at that point, yet neither Mrs. Green nor the Purkiss' reported hearing anything at all, and the inquest testimony clearly indicates little or no struggle took place. So, this idea of a chase is a non-starter with me.
However, I don't think a chase was absolutely necessary in order to vindicate Llewellyn. IMO, the Ripper knocked her senseless with a blow to the face (bruising on the right jaw, and lack of bruising around the neck indicates she probably wasn't strangled first), laid her down (no indication of bruising to the back of the head to indicate she fell or was dropped after the initial blow), and went to work. Whether he cut her throat first then attacked the abdomen, or the other way around, there need not have been a chase at all.
So, I think your question as to whether or not Llewellyn was correct that the abdomen was attacked first is really a forensic issue. I'm not an expert on forensics, but it's my understanding that a post-mortem wound has a very different appearance than a wound inflicted before death, due to the lack of blood flow in a deceased person. The question becomes two-fold: 1) how long after death does it take for a wound to appear distinctly post-mortem? There couldn't have been more than a couple of minutes between the throat cutting and the attack on the abdomen, would that have been enough time to tell which wound was inflicted first? and 2) given the state of medical knowledge in the LVP, especially the primitive state of forensics, would Llewellyn have even been able to tell the difference?
It is a shame that Llewellyn never gave his reasons for making that statement.
Cheers,
Jim |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 3:17 pm: | |
Some great thoughts here, I see Robert & Jim (hi Jim, nice to see you again, metaphorically speaking), both agree on the dubious 'chase' scenario.
I have to agree, I can't see the aged and 'tipsy?' Nichols being in any fit state to outrun 'Jack', or outrun anyone for that matter.
There is though a slender possibility that it was not her who left 'Jack', but due to some incalculable interruption, someone putting the cat out?, her killer broke off the assault and sidestepped into the shadows leaving Nichols to gather her senses and flee down Brady St. in the direction of Whitechapel High Street.
(just playing devils advocate you understand?)
If Jack slipped into the Jews cemetery, or around the munure works, his route will bring him back to Buck's row, down the side of the Essex Wharfe Whse. Polly inadvertently staggers down Bucks Row and their paths meet once again.
This kind of luck no-one needs.
Like I said, 'Devils Advocate', just trying to make sense of an otherwise problematical statement - not to be taken serious.
I see Simon still believes Polly was killed elsewhere?
Hi Bob, forever the nay-sayer?,
Jason, you raise some good points, especially about the effects of strangulation.
Why bother to strangle at all?, he carry's a knife, to stab her in the back or chest would be swifter than the chancy & tiresome struggle any choking assault brings.
Maybe this was his real 'kick', yes he had a specific task but his 'quirk' was to hold someone's life by a thread and both watch and feel it slip away.
Did the question ever occur to you, "why two cuts?". If Jack was releasing blood pressure by slicing the left jugglar, farthest away from him, he then knew this was the 'killing blow'. He didn't need to make a second cut, the first killed her outright, yes.
So, why two cuts?.
Same procedure with Chapman, same again with Eddowes. Jack kills them by cutting their jugglar, then takes the time, and I would think time was of the essence, but he takes the time to make the longer, larger more circular second cut. She's already dead, so why?.
Jim, I seem to remember reading somewhere that 'blue' bruising is indicative of life being present at the time. Whereas, 'yellow/green' bruising is indicative of the body being dead.
Thanks to all, Jon
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 75
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 3:56 pm: | |
Jon , I still think the strangulation attack was to prevent the victim from screaming - still a possibility if Jack plunged a knife into the chest or the back of the victim. Also if a knife were being used , Jack would also have to draw the knife from somewhere about his person which would take time and might alert his victim as well.
I don't believe the neck cuts were an attempt to take the head of each victim off - if so , why didn't our killer bring a hatchet or a machete ? That would have done the job much better.
I'm still suspicious that Nicholls , Chapman and Eddowes might have been killed elsewhere but I'm more open-minded now , I'm willing to consider other possibilities ! But I still think there IS a suggestion that Nicholls was killed elsewhere : for instance , why did nobody hear Nicholls' drunken singing in Bucks Row , or hear her hobnailed boots on the cobblestones ? And what did happen to the blood spatter from Nicholls' cut throat ?
Part of the attraction of this case is all the mysteries that still surround it...
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 4:18 pm: | |
Hi,
I Still cannot ignore the report of a frantic woman trying to get in to a house or at least rouse the occupants, the report did state that her young daughter awoke her mother refering to the incident, I would suggest that this account was a true one, which leaves the question.'How did the drunken Nichols outrun the most brutal killer in History?'
As mentioned in a recent post he may well have let Nichols escape , only to catch up with her in Bucks Row.
Or as I have also said , mayby the killer was just unable to manouver as quick as a normal able bodied person, and he simply persued her until he reached the breathless woman where he despatched her.
Newspaper reports will be sometimes inaccurate, but the ones that ring true, i tend to take seriously.
Richard. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 319
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:20 pm: | |
re: the heart beating without assist from the vagus nerve
A key portion of this conduction system is the sinoatrial . . . node, or S-A node, a small elongated mass of specialized cardiac muscle tissue just beneath the epicardium. It is located in the right atrium near the opening of the superior vena cava, and its fibers are continuous with those of the atrial syncytium.
The cells of the S-A node can reach threshold on their own, and their membranes contact one another. Without stimulation from any other outside agents, the nodal cells initiate impulses that spread into the surrounding myocardium and stimulate the cardiac muscle fibers to contract.
Holes Human Anatomy and Physiology, David Shier, Jackie Butler, Ricki Lewis, McGraw Hill, New York, Ny, 2004, page 554, 555 |
Jason Scott Mullins
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 305
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
Hi Jon -
"Jason, you raise some good points, especially about the effects of strangulation.
Why bother to strangle at all?, he carry's a knife, to stab her in the back or chest would be swifter than the chancy & tiresome struggle any choking assault brings.
Maybe this was his real 'kick', yes he had a specific task but his 'quirk' was to hold someone's life by a thread and both watch and feel it slip away.
Did the question ever occur to you, "why two cuts?". If Jack was releasing blood pressure by slicing the left jugglar, farthest away from him, he then knew this was the 'killing blow'. He didn't need to make a second cut, the first killed her outright, yes.
So, why two cuts?.
Same procedure with Chapman, same again with Eddowes. Jack kills them by cutting their jugglar, then takes the time, and I would think time was of the essence, but he takes the time to make the longer, larger more circular second cut. She's already dead, so why?."
To stab her in the back or chest would not mean instant death. Thus she could get away and he would be caught, quite literally, red handed. I tend to think that he did, in fact, have a god complex. Holding someone's life by a thread then watching it slip away... Deciding whether someone lives or dies, etc.
Simon -
Nothing suggest to me that any of the women were not killed where they lay. Aside from the logistics nightmare (pick her up, kill and mutilate, drop off) there would probably be more indication of something like that going on in the evidence. No one reported any of the victims last seen with a cart and horse
Diana -
Long time, no type. I was being general. I'm no doctor, but I'm inclined to believe that cutting the Vagus nerve is almost always going to stop the heart from pumping in any real sense. Lest we forget that the carotids would probably be cut as well. At the very least, I'd think that blood pressure would be 0
crix0r
"I was born alone, I shall die alone. Embrace the emptiness, it is your end." |
Jim DiPalma
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jimd
Post Number: 98
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 10:34 am: | |
Hi All,
Jon, you've jogged my memory. While studying the Manson murders some years ago, I read that Mrs. LaBianca received several post-mortem stab wounds only a few minutes after her death. One of the defendants (I forget which one) tried to use the defense that she wasn't guilty of murder because all she had done was stab a dead body. To address the point, the coroner testified as to which wounds were post-mortem and which were inflicted prior to death. He was able to tell because post-mortem wounds have a paler color due to the lack of blood flow when the wound was inflicted.
Point is, I think this does answer the first question. Apparently, even a post-mortem wound inflicted just a few minutes after death can be distinguished from a pre-mortem wound.
Now all we need is an expert in 19th century medicine to tell us if this was known to doctors of the period. Any takers? 
Jim |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 21, 2004 - 7:57 pm: | |
Hi Simon, you wrote..
"I don't believe the neck cuts were an attempt to take the head of each victim off - if so , why didn't our killer bring a hatchet or a machete ? That would have done the job much better."
Me neither, but due to the savagery, the length and depth of each second cut an attempt at decapititation is automatically assumed but I suspect wrongly. We still have to account for no marks of strangulation.
If the murderer was only interested in separating the head from the body then he only had to extend the first cut, not start a new one.
The second cut, because in all three cases starts afresh, almost suggests he placed the knife on purpose.
Is it possible that the killer needed to make a second cut?, if he used a ligature, the ligature would leave a scar on the neck, no such scar is identified but the doctors would not be alerted to the use of a ligature if the killer ran the knife through the scar.
He is in effect hiding the fact he used one. This may mean he was known to carry such a device or that he may have been arrested for using one previously. I know it's a long shot, but it does raise another avenue of investigation.
Hi Richard, you wrote..
"I Still cannot ignore the report of a frantic woman trying to get in to a house or at least rouse the occupants,.."
No, and we shouldn't. The report needs to be remembered, it may betray a different type of approach than what we usually believe and it actually could be true.
Human nature being what it is, we don't know if the usual "I heard nothing" is really true.
People could be reluctant to admit they heard a woman crying for help while they sat indoors and did nothing. Neighbors could easily scorn them for not helping or being partly responsible for the savage attack that they could have prevented.
The "I heard nothing" could be a way of absolving themselves of guilt.
Hi Jim, you wrote..
"Jon, you've jogged my memory. While studying the Manson murders some years ago, I read that Mrs. LaBianca received several post-mortem stab wounds only a few minutes after her death."
Funny thing was, when I suggested that I was under the impression that a doctor had made some observation about abdominal bruising on one of the victims, confirming that such wounds were applied post-mortem.
Alas, I couldn't find the report, maybe I was confused
Regards, Jon |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 159
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 4:54 am: | |
Hi all,
Regarding the two cuts to the neck, I wonder if the MO might go something like this: Strangle the victim, Lay them on the ground, First cut to the throat purely to remove blood pressure and to minimise blood on the killer, Mutilation to abdomen, Later if time allows further mutilation to neck and face, including second cut to neck.
This would explain why Stride only had one cut to the neck, with only one being necessary at the start of his routine and that only to release blood flow. I would think that if two cuts were done to the neck at the same time then Stride would almost certainly have had two.
As far as abdominal injuries first I have never believed this to be the case although I have no way of backing it up medically. It seems possible that if the killer derived a thrill from seeing the life leave his victims as he strangled them, in earlier cases such as Nicholls he may have done things in a different order and not have received the kick he was looking for. This might account for the abdominal wounds being done first in the Nicholls case but later in the later victims.
But i'm only guessing there, my money is still on Llewellyn being wrong about it. I in no way cast him in a bad light in this belief, I don't believe that the science of such matters was fully understood by the medical profession at the time.
Scotty. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1322
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 26, 2004 - 11:15 am: | |
Scotty,
This would explain why Stride only had one cut to the neck, with only one being necessary at the start of his routine and that only to release blood flow - Bold by Monty...not Scotty.
If true then surely this would mean that we are looking for a slaughter of kinds, no?
Also I suppose it would depend on if stangulation was the cause of death. If so then there would be no need for that 'blood letting', initial cut would there ?
Of course, if only partially strangled or punched senseless...
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
