|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
tony baird
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 8:57 am: | 
|
I am a 1st time poster here and just a novice compared to you guys, but.... when these killings took place, was the forensic technology available to determine at what point death occured, that has always intrigued me after seeing 'Murder By Decree' starring Christopher Plummer, in one of the scenes it obliquely shows Mary Kelly being mutilated & screaming . Any opinions, or is it better that we don't know for sure?? |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 49
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 7:39 pm: |
|
Tony.
From the medical details we know the main artery (in the neck) was severed. Death follows almost immediately.
Are you inquiring whether she was alive while being mutilated?.
This is almost certainly not the case.
Mutilations of that nature would cause death, thats true, but then what would be the point of cutting the throat after she was dead?
Thats the simple answer without getting into evidence of struggling, screaming, and excessive loss of blood, as there would be if she was still alive while being mutilated.
She had her throat cut, logically, that was the first cut (with the exception of a few defensive wounds on her hand/arm), and there was excessive loss of blood at the side of the bed by her head/neck.
Regards, Jon |
Candy Morgan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 9:47 pm: |
|
Greetings Tony!
When blood is still flowing through tissues, as in a live victim, a cut will produce a medical condition called an extravasation. Basically, blood seeps into the tissue structures around the cut, and the tissue retracts as a result of the back pressure.
That's why, despite the MASSIVE injuries to Ms. Kelly, Dr. Bond's report specifically mentions a small abrasion and cut to her right thumb, featuring extravasation. That would be a defensive wound, made while she lived.
And, by extrapolation, (since he located and identified an extravasated wound) all the other injuries except the throat cutting, were post mortem.
Welcome to the boards!
~~Candy Morgan |
Maryanne
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 28, 2003 - 6:17 pm: |
|
I read somewhere that there was no defensive wounds and that she was actually killed whilst sleeping. |
Greg Hutton
Sergeant
Username: Greg
Post Number: 40
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 1:42 pm: |
|
I can assure you, death is not instant.
The victims may well have been alive and consious when the mutilations began.
Regards,
Greg |
Lindsey Millar
Sergeant
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 23
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Greg,
That is truly a horrible thought. It's so convenient for us (well, me) to believe that the victims were mutilated after death - I have always given the Ripper that - that his victims were dead before mutilation. I have always been of the assumption that the mutilations took place after the cutting of the throats, which I have presumed to mean death - but, I guess I could be wrong in that thinking.
The thought that they may have been conscious while the mutilations took place.. awful.
Lyn |
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 98
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Lindsey:
We apply our aesthete to the WM in almost every circumstance. Thats natural...and normal.
To the Ripper,his methodology was important, but his regard for these untermenschen,as he saw them,was not. I'm glad you are disturbed...and you should be too.
How |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 1:22 pm: |
|
I guess it is easy to look at this in a very black & white prespective, ie: was she dead or alive?.
In truth, although the cutting of the throat causes immediate death, 'immediate' is not instantaneous and is sort of relative.
Death only occurs after a significant loss of blood which could take several seconds to a minute.
Meanwhile the killer certainly could have began the mutilations, we should not attempt to split hairs on that issue.
A disturbing thought.
There is though a difference between a person being alive, sensative and conscious and feeling the pain of a knife cut, and a person partially unconscious with little or no nervous responses and numbed by shock, who might not in truth have felt the commencement of the mutilations.
I once read that the head of a beheaded man will still see, hear, recognise & feel something for a couple of seconds after the severance of the head. Like for instance, may actually see himself falling into a basket, assuming thats where the head will fall - something most of us we will never know for sure.
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2158
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
You are so right, Jon.
I am by no means a medical expert, but that corresponds quite well with what I've heard on the subject.
"Immediate" surely doesen't have to mean "right away", but I think it would be fair to assume that they at least were unaware of the mutilation acts. At least I certainly hope so...
Usually a cut throat do lead to a very fast death. If we take Polly Nichols, for example, we can see on the morgue photo that her eyes are open, which generally indicates instant death on the spot, according to the crime manuals on my shelf.
All the best
Glenn L. Andersson, crime historian
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 3:52 pm: |
|
In other words...
We talk of things as wrong or right,
Or clear as night and day.
But rarely is life black and white,
But multiple shades of grey.
 |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Just an observation..
In many reports (Eddowes comes to mind), we read of opions that officials are puzzled at there being no noise of a struggle, coupled with a comment that the severance of the carotid artery would account for that.
What bemuses me is that the medical men involved already agree that the victims were laying down when the throats were cut.....not one account appears to consider how on earth the killer got them to the ground.
Obviously, surely, the victim would attempt to scream while still standing yet officials are comforted by the throat being cut as a reason for the silence,....but that action is after the assault has commenced and she is layed on the ground.
It just seems to suggest to me that many of these officials were not in touch with the sequence of events.
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1449
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Jon
Just another observation...or two..
Okay maybe the victims were laid down when their throats were cut but... what's to say that they weren't in company with someone they maybe felt easy with and therefore in a 'clinch' situation... found a hand around the throat.. enough to put enough pressure on the carotid to drop them to the ground,maybe they mis -interpreted this as affection but by the time they hit the floor a quick hands around the throat strangulation would have seen 'em off in time for a quick throat cutting and I hate to say it ...this may have caused the 'lack of blood' scenario at the sites.Failing that just a strangulation in a standing kiss would have worked....the scenario of Kate with her hand on the chest of a man may well have been a setting for just this act!This could all take place very quickly and allow for the odd mutilation (Kate especially!) to have been dealt with very swiftly indeed!
Cheers
Suzi
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 6:21 pm: |
|
"... found a hand around the throat.. enough to put enough pressure on the carotid to drop them to the ground,maybe they mis -interpreted this as affection.."
In your experience that counts for affection???? does it come with whips & leathers?
"..Failing that just a strangulation in a standing kiss would have worked..."
It never occurs to me to think of these whores engaging in kissing, who knows....
Regards, Jon
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2160
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 7:12 pm: |
|
Well, Jon, after all some of them apparently did have Cachous... 
All the best
Glenn L Andersson, crime historian
"If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth. Alles klar?"
Herr Wolf Lipp, The League of Gentlemen
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 8:44 pm: |
|
You're right Glenn, I missed that...who was it bought the cachous?, I guess thats like saying, " 'ere Lizzie, you need a breath mint"
Regards, Jon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3333
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:20 am: |
|
I remember reading about a dreadful case where a woman or girl was tortured. The fingers had dug into the palms of the hands.
We do have finger clenching with the Ripper victims (apparently a sign of sudden death) but we don't seem to have nail marks or wounds on the palms.
Unless, of course, the throat cutting made them too weak to dig their nails into their palms?
Robert |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:33 am: |
|
Yes Robert, I recall one report that the fingers of Mary Nichols were clenched, but another report appears to contradict this statement.
This is quite possibly because the contraction of finger muscles is a stage of rigor mortis, not necessarily an indication of strangulation, or as you put it, sudden death.
Regards, Jon
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1324
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 11:48 am: |
|
Every one seems to be missing the real reason as to why a person dies after having their throat slit.
Jon,
You say that the victim has to lose a lot of blood before. This is not the case. When the throat is cut as deep as the Ripper victims were then they suffocate due to the severing of the air pipe and this is the cause of death. This is a lot quicker than losing blood.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1455
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Jon
The clenching of the hands after death is known as a post cadaveric spasm and is known to occur at times of 'sudden death'..ie a surprise attack,difficult to see whether Mary had it though owing to the position of the hands
Sarah-
You're right about the airway I feel..!(eeeeeergh!)Once the cut was through that and heading(!) towards the spine the corotid would have been by the way!!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 29, 2004 - 4:58 pm: |
|
Sarah, the stated medical cause of death was from:
"syncope, or failure of the hearts action in consequence of loss of blood caused by severance of the throat..."
(quote)
Suzi, yes I agree, I was agreeing with Robert, I was only saying it's not an 'only' but there's an 'also' - ie; more than one reason for the fingers to clench.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on October 29, 2004) |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 10:48 am: |
|
Jon-
I dont recall any reference made specifically to any of the five with reference to 'clenching' of hands except in the case of Liz.
Maybe this was the case... but the only reason that it was reported significantly in Liz's case, was because of the cachous.
Cheers
Suzi |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:04 am: |
|
Hi Suzi.
If you check out the East London Observer, Sept 1, 1888, you will read of a purported account of the scene of the body in the dead-house described by the reporter, he observes, "the hands were still tightly clenched".
The fingers were never described as either clenched or relaxed in any medical report I have read, nor either by a policeman at the scene, so whether her fingers were initially relaxed and became clenched as a result of rigor setting in, or were they clenched at the time of discovery?, we will never know.
Regards, Jon |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1466
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 10:46 am: |
|
Hi Jon
Just checked out my edition!(!)
You're right! we'll never know..sadly!,Have to dig out the old forensic tomes I guess..
Suzi
 |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 199
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 8:05 am: |
|
Hi Gang! Great thread! Let me add my two cents. When the neck is severed in this manner a number of fatal manafastations occur. There is the severing of the wind pipe. Cutting of the jugular vein midline in the throat will cause fatal bleed out. Cutting the carotid artery eliminates the blood flow to the brain. But most important here is the severing of the vega nerve that lies along and behind the carotid. This is a long and branching nerve that is directly related to the heart beat. Sever the vega nerve and the heart no longer beats. This explains why there are no gushing blood spatters with most of the vics. Even stranger the vega nerve branches to the bowel and bowel problems can stop the heart from beating. This can cause momentary non responsiveness or death. We call this vegaling and its more common that you would belive. Probably the most famous victim of this was Elvis, whos drug induced impacted bowels caused his heart to stop while on the pot.
Ok, I know that most of the time when I post its off the wall stuff, but check out the science, this one was serious. Yours, Brad.
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3347
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Brad
I've a feeling you're a medical man, and I'm not, so could you please explain?
You say the vega nerve if cut will stop the heart and inhibit blood spatter. But the vega nerve lies behind the carotid? Doesn't this mean that he'd have to cut the carotid before he could reach the vega, and thus get the blood spatter just the same? Or would the spatter last only for a split second before the knife cut the vega?
I thought that the lack of spatter was due to prior partial or total strangulation.
I don't understand. 
Robert |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 200
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 1:43 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Im sorry if I was obtuse, I was only trying to explain the mechanics of the body when the throat is cut. When the vega nerve is severed the heart stops beating, however what we know from the medical reports isnt too clear. We have brusing of the throat skin but no breakage acea, which means JTR could have partially throttled them or really took a vise grip on their throat before he cut. If he strangled them for enough time to slow down the heart (40 to 90 seconds), the blood spatter will diminish, less than that the splatter will increase due to the adrenlin rush with the fight or flee response. So what does this tell us? He either cut quick or throttled them to near death before he cut. Wish I could be more specific but we're dealing with 1888 medical reports and not forensics.Remember this was a time when photography was in its infantcy, fingerprinting was only known in East Indian pottery, and antibiotics was still about 75 years in the future.
To try to specifically answer your qestion, the heart stops beating with pulses from the brain when the vega nerve is severed or blocked. However the heart can still beat on its own (fribulation) due to adrenlin or other body chemical responses. This isnt the typical normal heart beat though, as you can get the nerves firing on a chamber (atrium) that is empty. Brad
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3351
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 4:14 am: |
|
Thanks Brad. Well, it looks as though I'm going to have to either
1. Take a medical degree.
OR
2. Take up mass murder.
OR
3. Do both (was the Kelly murder a prank by a medical student?) 
Robert |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1291
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I often wonder that more alcohol wasn't found in the bodies of some of the victims, especially those who were reported evidently drunk by witnesses who may have been the last to see them alive apart from Jack.
How might copious amounts of alcohol (or certain drugs) affect bodily functions from the onset of a fatal attack? And how quickly would a middle-aged woman, in poor health and ill-nourished, have been able to process poisons like alcohol and drugs through her system - resulting in nothing of significance remaining to be identified at post-mortem stage?
Would substances like morphine, for example, have shown up, if they were specifically looked for during examination?
I'm just wondering if Jack could have done the Victorian equivalent of date-rape (or in his case date-murder), and given the ladies a thimble-full of brandy spiked with some powerful drug to render them anything from merrily off their guard to virtually out of it, so they could be down and practically out cold before he got his hands (or perhaps a cord), followed by his knife, to their throats.
Any thoughts?
Love,
Caz
X |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1222
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Hi everyone,
oh, man, i don't think this bears thinking about!
Hi Caz,
I guess it could be as you say but have to admit to not having a clue about such things.
does this imply a doctor/medic?
Jenni
We're off to Button Moon, we'll follow Mr Spoon,
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1474
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Hi Caz!
Wow a thought eh!....the alchohol problem is definately one with ost of em.....where did they get enough to get in the 'fire engine/bonnet state' with no money Hmmmmm Wish I could work that one out!
Maybe something as you say an 1888 equivalent of the date rape thing is a SERIOUS possibility! What was it though......something that would have made 'em a bit 'pre med'...what is that drug?
Just asked hubby who gave me 'that look '.....so nothing there....SOMEONE'LL know!
Also Caz have a sort of odd Kate theory re the apron etc will email ya!
Hope youre good!
Suzi
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3355
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
Re the amount of alcohol in their bodies : they may have simply thrown up.
Robert |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 105
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
I have a article coming up in Ripperologist that covers the subject you mentioned.
Nina |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 11:09 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
Was Mary strangled first? I think there can be no doubt that she was dead before mutilation. With the blood spray all over the room, she may not have been strangled first.
Your friend,CB |
William Sickert
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 28, 2004 - 6:17 pm: |
|
ah so have they truly found out who did all these killings, as in what the persons name was? ha ha, well i always wondered who it was boss.
Mr. Nemo |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 10:09 am: |
|
Hi Suzi,
Got your email - thanks.
Hi Nina,
I'll look forward to reading that.
Hi Robert,
Good point. But a much smaller amount of alcohol combined with a powerful drug could presumably have similar effects to a whole afternoon's heavy drinking - and far quicker, easier and more practical from a practical Jack's point of view. Getting 'em high and beyond dull care in next to no time, with the chances of throwing up being just as high - whatever your poison.
"What's your poison, lady?"
"What you got, sir?"
"Something the ladies like."
Love,
Caz
X
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3380
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 3:44 pm: |
|
Hi Caz, CB
Caz, it would depend on how quickly this drug was supposed to take effect. I think there's a fair chance that Jack had to abort some of his attacks, sometimes at the last minute. Perhaps we would be hearing more reports than we do, of women who had been offered a drink by a stranger, only to regain consciousness later and wondering what had happened.
CB, I think that Mary probably was not strangled. I feel that she was attacked while in bed and stabbed through the sheet before having her throat slashed.
Robert |
Gordon Rowland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Hello folks,
Thought I may be able to extend Brads account of heart block by severance of the vagi as the implications for unraveling the “ripper’s” signature are quite useful.
The left and right vagi sends impulses to cardiac tissue at two different areas of the heart. The left vagus to the atrioventricular node (AV node) and the right vagus to the sinoatrial node (SA node). Cutting the right vagus causes at first a slowing of the heart for one or two seconds followed by tachycardia (fast beating) but if the left vagus is cut there is a sudden stoppage of ventricular contraction, an immediate fall in blood pressure, the brain is deprived of blood and the person typically faints (syncope - looses consciousness). After approximately three to five seconds the ventricals regain contraction, as the heart muscle itself and the SA node takes over the pace making role. If circumstances permit, normally blood flow to the brain resumes and the individual recovers from the faint.
Applying these events to the ‘ripper’ victims;
Since the major blood vessels to the left side of the neck have been severed, even during heart block, hemorrhaging would continue due to the elastic collapse of blood vessels, but without high pressure. Once heart beat commences, air would enter the severed blood vessels causing air embolism that blocks blood flow in the brain and so prevents the victim from regaining consciousness. The contracting heart will continue to exsanguinate the victim until it too becomes blocked by air emboli.
Blood entering a severed trachea (windpipe) could cause drowning, but would be a much slower process than a heart block and cerebral embolism.
Since most of the ‘ripper’s’ victims showed little evidence of defense wounds it would seem, whether by design or experience, that syncope and incapacitation of the victims was a prime objective of the throat injury, he wanted them dead quickly.
This scenario suggests either prior knowledge by recent medical education or experience and/or exposure to slaughtering procedures. In 1883, a physiologist in Cambridge, England named Walter Gaskell explored the physiological mechanism of the nerve supply to the heart, noting that the heart will continue to beat for several hours after being removed from the body independent of vagal nerve supply. It is therefore possible that the murder had access to this knowledge.
Since Gaskell’s work was experimental, it could have taken a few years before it would be usefully applied in the practice of medicine. (Something for medical historians to work out!) Alternatively, the butcher theory may have some merit, to apply to those who particularly practice ‘ethical’ killing. By that I mean those who have a specific concern for animal welfare, in particular the Jewish ‘sochet’.
It seems unlikely that the murderer could have discovered this killing procedure simply by trial and error on three victims. The killing of Stride was the ‘finesse’ of ‘humane’ murder; some of his other victims seemed to require a couple of deeper knife cuts to produce the required collapse of the victim. This may have been due to pulling the head back to stretch the neck for the incision – the skin cuts easier on the stretch. By doing that, the contents of the carotid sheath, (the jugular, carotid artery & vagus) is displaced backward into the notch in the body of the vertebrae making it less available to the knife. Hence the double slashes and marked vertebrae in at least two of the victims.
As for dying; this is a biochemical process beginning in brain cells within the first minute of oxygen depletion (ischaemic hypoxia) progressing to irreversible brain cell degeneration, usually within 5 minutes.
|
Tel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 07, 2005 - 5:23 am: |
|
It seems to me that a lot of you are looking at the throat-cutting the wrong way around.
Now I've cut quite a few throats in my time (put the phone down - none of 'em were human) and seen a lot more done and have never seen a single instance of a throat being cut from the 'outside in' so to speak.
Usual practice is to (from behind);
extend the neck by upward pressure on the lower jaw,
insert knife from the side (in a stabbing motion) until it is right through, with the back of the blade up against the spinal column and the front (sharp) side of the blade forward,
cut outwards (forwards) until the whole of the tissue is parted - if your knife is in good condition this can all be done in one fluid motion.
Death occurs in under a minute.
If the perpetrater was someone with (livestock) slaughtering experience I would expect that this is the method that would have been used.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 721
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Hi Tel,
Don't know if you're still around, but anyway, I have one comment. Although Jack the Ripper may have had experience slaughtering livestock, he didn't cut his victims' throats from behind. They were already down when he did that, or at least, that is what the medical evidence tells us - and that sounds convincing.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
They were already down when he did that, or at least, that is what the medical evidence tells us - and that sounds convincing.
How do they know that? I mean, what are the signs a pathologist would look for that would indicate whether a throat was cut from in front, behind, standing or lying down? I've always wondered. The post mortem reports discuss whether the wounds were inflicted left to right or vice versa, and draw conclusions on the dominant handedness of the murderer, but never seem to question whether he attacked from in front or behind. Presumably the signs were so clear that he attacked from the front they didn't feel they had to discuss it?
Curious,
Cate
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 725
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 3:58 am: |
|
Hi Cate,
First of all, welcome to the boards. I hope you stay around, because I find your posts interesting. Like you, I’m also interested in the psychological aspect of the case, although, unlike you seem to be I’m educated nor employed in that area.
The simple and main reason why it is thought the victims were already down when their throats were cut is that there was no blood whatsoever on the front of the victims (clothes nor body). Perhaps ‘medical evidence’ was not the right term to use, but the doctors who examined the bodies were the ones who gave it as their opinion that the victims were already lying on their backs when their throats were cut because of the absence of blood on their fronts.
Hope this clears things up.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Sorry, just to pick this up again.....
If (as seems likely) the victims were strangled to a point of insensibility before being lowered on the ground, is there a way of determining from the evidence whether the killer then cut the throat from in front (ie pushing the chin up and away from him while either straddling the body or kneeling/crouching at their right side), or from behind the head (ie pulling the chin towards him and slicing so most of the blood would flow away from him to the side?
Based on Tel's observations the second method (even allowing for her being down) would seem like the best way to stretch the neck tissues, and most effective, swift, and cleanest (for the killer's person) means of dispatching a victim.
Given the position of the bed in the corner of the room and the evidence from the sheets and large pool of blood underneath that her throat was cut at the upper r/hand side of the bed, MJK was presumably killed from the front. If the throat was severed right to left (I think that was the case), this would suggest a r/handed killer responsible for that murder.
In the other canonical cases the throat was sliced left to right - suggesting a L/hander if the killer attacked the throat leaning over them from the front (face to face so to speak), but a R/hander if he worked from behind, at 180 degrees to the body.
Could a post mortem show which was the case - by whether the throat injuries were inflicted with a blade angled upwards, downwards or obliquely for example? Or alternatively do the locations and position of the bodies/bloodstains at the crime scenes indicate this in someway?
I'm not trying to get into a debate on ambidexterity or the other mutilations here - I'm only talking about the position the killer worked from while cutting the throats - once they were safely dead he was free to change his/the body's position at his convenience.
Just trying to get this clear in my mind
Cate |
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Duh - thought it must be something obvious ;-)
Many thanks,
Cate |
Tel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
G'day Frank,
Yes, still here & waiting for my registration to come thru'.
As to your point, using my technique there is very little, or no, blood on the animal except for the immediate area of the cut until you lay it down to 'bleed' it. Also, and this should be of interest, it is possible to kill & bleed an animal this way without getting any blood at all on your hands.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 729
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Hi again Tel,
Good to see you've registered.
Interesting points you raise here. So maybe he did cut Catherine Eddowes' throat from behind, although, if she actually was acting as a prostitute at that time, I would have expected her to end up lying with her head more towards the square instead of the other way around.
Because, as far as I know, the common way for a prostitute to service a client would be for her to face a wall or fence and lean against it with her hands while the John was doing his thing.
And in the cases of Nichols and Chapman there were signs of strangulation, so that's most probably what he did in those cases. Plus, there were no injuries reported to the backs of the head of any of the victims, which makes it plausible that they lay on their backs before their throats were cut.
Nevertheless, I think it's quite possible the Ripper had experience slaughtering livestock (as well).
All the best & see you around,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 730
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Hi Cate,
It is generally believed that he cut his (outdoors) victims' throats while he was kneeling or crouching down at their right side, but I don't think there's anything in the surviving evidence that really precludes that he did it in one of the positions you've put forward - although perhaps there was too little room for him to do it from behind the head in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes.
This coupled with the absence of clear indications like bloodstains in relation to the body position and the angle of the blade have made it impossible to determine whether the Ripper was right-handed or left-handed.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Ms C
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Hi Frank
although perhaps there was too little room for him to do it from behind the head in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes.
I had wondered if something like that mighthave been the case. Not having much imagination when it comes to spatial relationships, I find it hard to visualise these things from descriptions and photos of crime scenes when the body is not present, even when they are quite detailed. With Chapman I couldn't for ages quite get my head round these two descriptions from the Victim section of the casebook of her body :
1 - On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay.
2 - Looking from the top of the steps there is a small wood shed to the left, Annie's feet pointed directly at it. To the right is the Privy.
For a long time I kept visualising the body between the shed and privy, and couldn't work out where the fence came into it  .
So I went back to it and have tried to picture this in relation to the photograph and newpaper sketch of the yard, and the piece of video footage, and finally decided what I think this means. Sorry, I know the scale is nowhere near and the graphics are pants.
I hadn't realised it but this is almost identical with how Eddowes body was positioned in relation to a passage door with a fence/wall along the L/hand side, and I think (though it's hard to be sure of scale) the killer would have been able to work from behind in both cases(ie directly in front of the pasage door), as well as from the right side.
Your point about him possibly cutting the throats from behind whilst the victim was 'assuming the position' Because, as far as I know, the common way for a prostitute to service a client would be for her to face a wall or fence and lean against it with her hands while the John was doing his thing,is intriguing.
Is that based on a firm source, do you know (I'm sure I have read it before somewhere), or is it just a logical deduction that this would be the most convenient way of transacting business, given neither party would want to get horizontal on the possibly filthy ground in damp/dark alleys?
If it is for that reason, I would think that sex upright against a fence or wall facing each other was also perhaps on the menu. There seems to be quite a bit of information on sexual practises in Victorian bordellos, but little about street prostitution - presumably because the people who had sunk low enough to use or provide the service were not the kind of folk who normally record their experiences for posterity. I would imagine as well as 'threepenny' penetrative intercourse, and anal and intercrural sex, women also commonly offered other services like manual relief, as they do today (but maybe less frequently fellatio, given the poor hygiene of the times).
I have always assumed that as at least Chapman & Nicholls bodies showed evidence of prior strangulation, the killer would have commenced his attack from the front, as he moved in close in what the victim would take to be preliminaries to intimacy, since it is more difficult to strangle someone from behind unless a ligature is used.
But I suppose if the victims turned round in the manner you outline, in Chapman& Eddowes cases he might have slipped his hand under their neckerchiefs and twisted them until they passed out, then either cut the throats standing (think he might have to be quite strong though to support their dead weight), or lowered them to the ground first.
Maybe all this speculation is academic, but if the killer was the same individual responsible for Kelly's death, it's interesting to consider how his technique would have had to alter to fit the indoor venue.
best
Cate
|
Terry Lane
Police Constable
Username: Tel
Post Number: 1
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
I don't think it would require all that much physical strength to support the victim once her throat had been cut from behind - more a matter of balance, he would certainly have a lot more control of lowering/positioning the body from behind.
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 549
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi Cate,
You are so going to hate me............
The drawing that you have put up showing Annies position is very good by the way, nice and easy to see what's what in it........
But Annie's body is too far down in it. 
Her head was actually between the steps and the fence and even allowing for the ambiguity of some of the descriptions given, the lowest positioning for it is about level with the bottom step.
The most likely interpretation is that it was actually between the fence and the steps and about two feet from the back wall. The blood spray on the wall gives and indication of how close it was......
Under those circumstances, Annie's killer would have had to have cut her throat either kneeling on the left hand side (her right side), or possibly sit on the steps and bend forward to do it .
The picture I have attached shows not only how close she was to the wall, (allowing for artistic licence, she may be a tiny bit too close to the back wall in this) but substitute Jack for Dr Phillips and you probably have about the right position.
Sorry. You can throw things at me if you like....
Jane
xxxxx
 |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
I think Tel's post is extremely important. It disabuses us of the theory raised by the Victorian doctors that they had to be on the ground when their throats were cut.
Tel says it is possible to do it from behind and not have the blood go on the front of the victim's clothes (in his case fur) before the victim is on the ground.
He tells us that there is a technique to this. I assume he is a slaughterman? So it is possible for an individual to develop expertise.
Couple this with Jack having no difficulty finding the kidney and a hazy picture begins to emerge.
At this point I reinsert a chart I made months ago and posted.
I think this gets us closer to Jack's background. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Jack's Proficiencies