|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 42
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 10:44 am: | 
|
Jane! oh my word girlie!
DID Liz Stride have some idea who this killer was?
The Coroner Do you know of anyone that was likely to have have run foul of her?
Witness On Monday night I went to Leman Street Police station for a detective to act on my information,but I could not get one.
The CoronerIt is not too late yet; can you give us any information now?
WitnessI have heard something said that leads me to believe,that had I been able to act the same as a detective I could have got a lot more information.When I went to the station I was intoxicated.I asked for a young dectective.I told the Inspector at the station that if the murder occured on my beat I would shoot myself.I have been in the Army.
Inspector ReidWill you give me any information now?
WitnessI believe I could catch the man,if I had the proper force at my command.If I was to place the men myself I could capture the murderer.He would be caught in the act.
Was Michael Kidney holding out for a reward?
Was that padlock to keep someone OUT rather than keep someone in?
Did'nt Liz Stride char for a lot of people who were Jewish?
Did Stride & Kidney try a bit of blackmail maybe?
The Jews are
the men
that will not be blamed
for nothing
Wild speculation....still,you never know ;)
(Message edited by swift on October 25, 2005)
(Message edited by swift on October 25, 2005)
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 420
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Jane,
Just out of curiosity, are you sure this would be the natural position of the legs? I have never seen this pointed out as a forensic fact. Most probably the victim would struggle, and the legs would NOT be limp as she was lowered to the ground.
Is it not more probable that this is part of the killers signature? I mean, coincidences do happen, but let us not stretch it too far...
Besides, arterial spray happens as long as the heart beats. I cannot see the point of a double cut to minimise this. A strangulation to death (as opposed to simply unconciousness) yes, but not a double cut.
Just my opinion(s)
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 730
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Hi,
I would think the double cut on Nichols and Chapman was that the first was the "bleeding" cut (as per Eddowes and maybe Stride?), and the 2nd was the failed attempt to remove the head. Having failed at decapitation twice, perhaps Jack just gave up on heads (which could explain the appearance of facial mutilations on Eddowes; can't take the head, so I'll just destroy the head).
Just a thought.
- Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 492
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm not sure that decapitation was ever his true intent. It could have been but, if so, he must have been a real scrounge at it.
The Cleveland Torso Slayer was able to do it on numerous occasions with one sweep. Indeed, in most of his murders, the cause of death was found to be decapitation.
Regards,
Stan |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 731
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
True, it's not a definate that Jack attempted decapitation, however the report on Chapman includes the doctor's opinion that marks on the vertebae suggested an attempt at decapitation may have been made. As such, we must consider this as an option when mulling over the information we have.
- Jeff |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 601
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
The idea of a double cut to let out some of the blood wasn't an idea of mine, someone suggested it here on the boards I think and I thought it sounded reasonable to me, but only as a good possibility. I couldn't actually think of any other sensible reason for it. Always open to other ideas though.......fact is there was a double cut in the case of Polly and Annie, but not of course in Liz's case, which was one straight slash.
As to the position of the legs.......mmmmmm
My poor daughter has suffered the torments of hell in pursuit of perfection.....I have strangled her, suffocated her, cut her throat (with a ruler) and lowered her into every position conceivable to test out theories.
If someone is attacked from behind and rendered unconscious they become a dead weight, and in Liz's case it would seem very likely that the scarf was used to cut off the oxygen supply. The knot was pulled very hard to the left and was very tight. A point was made of this at the inquest, so I just presumed that it must have been a point of some importance.
I then thought it seemed reasonable that her killer would have used the same scarf, still in his hand to lower Liz to the ground, but whether this is the case or not, we know that she was lowered to the ground in some way or other, and that she was leaning slightly to the left. I tried this with my daughter, who only feigned unconsciousness, I hasten to add, and as I lowered her backwards, her weight put her into exactly the position that Liz was in when found........
The main reason I thought this to be the case rather than her killer positioning her is the fact that her feet were not flat on the ground but merely sticking out from beneath her skirt and pointing upwards. Also the legs are leaning towards the left.
The feet in that position really make me believe that it was not posed. I think a killer when posing her would have put the soles of her feet flat on the ground.......as with Annie Chapman.........
Just my opinion though......and anyone elses is just as valid....
All roads lead off in totally different directions.......but they all seem to end up in the middle of nowhere......It's just reassuring to know that everyone else is as lost as I am!
Hugs
Janie
xxxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 421
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 3:55 am: |
|
Jane,
Oh, I should have known this was based on one of your experiments
(Would this be a domestic case, Glenn?  )
Ok, I'll definitely buy it as a possibility then.
My only reservation is that Jack (or anyone else) probably could not strangle anyone while holding them up. That is a lot of dead weight. And, contrary to popular belief, it takes a while to strangle anyone! Well, at least several seconds until unconciousness.
I was wondering if Jack's method would be to lower the victim to the ground while he was strangling them, and while they where still resisting. Nothing like loss of balance to further disorient and confuse a victim.
This also explain why (at least in some cases) the throat was cut while the victim was supine.
Actually, if Jack had developed that technique, he would be pretty clever. Because it's a principle used in martial arts (I'm NOT suggesting he was a Ninja, though hahah)
I totally buy your scenario if we find that the position in question is relevant to strangulation cases from behind in general, though.
Hugs right back at you.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 197
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:05 am: |
|
Helge,
It is quite easy to strangle/choke a person while they are standing,if the attack is made from the rear.That method is well taught in the military,and it may have caused the marks Phillips noticed on three occasions. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 602
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:50 am: |
|
HI Harry,
I thought you might step in on this one, and thanks.........I suddenly realised we have a lot of people on the boards that know an awful lot about killing people........mmmmmmm 
I sort of thought that myself.......only because I have been strangled almost to unconsciousness myself.......(don't ask) and I was standing up and I didn't struggle simply because I was in shock and the last thing I thought of doing was struggling for some reason, you just go all limp and dizzy. I suppose it depends how quickly the brain is deprived of oxygen.
Now Jack as a Ninja.........definite possbilities there.......
I did read though that the reason there may have been no strangulation marks is that the silk scarf can suffocate without leaving any.....maybe Harry or one of the other members of the assasination bureau could enlighten us on that one!
Love (watching cautiously over her shoulder)
Janie
xxxxx |
john wright
Sergeant
Username: Ohnjay
Post Number: 12
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
Hi All,
Wasn't the Thuggis method of strangulation to turn so that they were back to back and then lift there lower bodies up so that the victims were lifted of the ground as they pulled the scarf tight. Which i believed accelerated the time it took the victim to pass out.
just a thought on my part.
OHNJAY
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 43
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:03 am: |
|
Hi all (lol sometimes this is like being back in the briefing room)
A couple of things..first,if decapitation was his intention, then why did he not decapitate Mary Kelly when he had time and access to an axe?
Second,and this has always bothered me with connection to the Whitechapel murders, is this obsession that JtR had a plan....why must he have had a plan? Furthermore, why does everyone assume that Strides killing was the only time he was ever disturbed? In light of what he later did to Mary Kelly I'd say this not to be the case.
As Jane said 'We have demonized Jack to the point of lunacy, and it probably was just a case of him being very lucky a lot of the time'
Wise words those.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Oh Steve,
Marry me. We could have beautiful children together.
A soulmate.
Monty
Four candles.....you know, handles for forks ! - The Guv'nor
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2239
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:01 am: |
|
Hi Steve,
Your second point could answer your first.
If Jack had no set plan, he could have toyed with the idea of decapitation, realised it was a bit ambitious for him out on the street, and gone off the idea entirely by the time he had the opportunity. Maybe it was too easy then, and is it known for certain that there was an axe in the room?
Other than that, may I be a bridesmaid?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on October 26, 2005) |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 44
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:49 am: |
|
Monty - I accept,lets have a June wedding :P
Caz - Yes but only if you wear purple ;)
It is by no means certain there was an axe in the room no, but good pointers toward an axe wound (I'll remember where I read the piece sooner or later lol) on Kellys leg. An Axe by the fire was a feature in many households though for splitting kindling to get the fire going in the morning.
Plus it has to be said,he had taken the wound down to the backbone so he had basically done the job anyway,why not see it through?
I have to admit I still veer towards the throat wounds being a part of the mutilation rather than a way of causing death.What I mean is,I think he throttled them until they were unconcious/dead and then not caring,as long as they were not making a sound, he started in on the mutilations.Lack of arterial spray has always bothered me to tell the truth and I've yet to see a theory I'm comfortable with that explains this.
So until I do, I'm going with the theory that only Kelly & Chapman were alive when the throat was cut - but thats just me, and I'm known to be awkward ;)
The mutilations bother me too, and while it is mainly accepted they were sexual in nature I do not agree....so far. Many killers mutilate for 'shock value' and at the moment this sits better with me in this case, and that could,COULD, be one reason he was trying to get the head off.
God I'm confused,best go have another coffee ;)
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2240
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Oh Steve, that's really gross!
I hate purple on me.
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2722
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Just like Steve I see a killer who is disturbed in two of the crimes, well, disturbed in the head in all of the crimes, but disturbed in the act in two of them, Stride and Kelly.
I have never seen anything remotely 'sexual' about the murders or the mutilations, but have rather seen the murders as random acts of destruction carried out by a pin ball bouncing around Whitechapel late at night; and the mutilations as having an 'anti-sexual' quasi-biological motive derived from a total misunderstanding of the role of the female species as a mother, and the role a male plays in the production of children.
It has always struck me that Jack seemed to be doing things in reverse, as if he could stop the awesome power of procreation with the awful power of destruction.
He was sort of de-creating himself. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 422
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Harry,
I was not commenting on the ease of strangulation. It is quite effective if done correctly. However, I have read many cases on strangulation, and some kind of struggle have often been reported.
Strangulation may start out in an upright position, but sooner or later it becomes necessary, or at least easier, to simply let the body drop.
I admit that after looking into this, Janes scenario are far from impossible.
But an experienced strangler will not try to kill a person while that person is upright. That was my main point about this. You need not push someone down to strangle them, but you would need to put them down to strangle them to death. Or cut their throat for that matter.
There is no point in holding that dead weight while doing so, and, indeed it is not natural to do so. Someone that has strangled someone before would probably learn how to keep up the stranglehold while the body is let down to the ground.
In cases where there are no actual strangulation marks, it is possible that a palmar strangulation has been used. One thing to ponder...
And mind you, strangulations very often actually gives the victims quite a lot of time to struggle. It is not uncommon that claw marks from the victim is found on the neck, in an attempt to remove the attacker.
All in all, I do not necessarily see Jack as an expert strangler. Effective, but not expert. That means that, unless he was very lucky, he could expect a bit of thrashing around.
I'm not making this up. I have read reports from professors in forensic medicine that state that the primary signs of homicidal strangulation in cases where suicide may also be a possibility, is the telltale signs of struggle.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 732
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Hi,
I've always figured that if Jack was interupted at any of the murders beyond Stride (assuming for now she's a victim of Jack of course), that Nichols would be the next victim I would suggest. Her mutilations were less extensive, her abdomen was not as exposed (as if Jack may have pulled the dress back a bit and then run off), one fellow who found her thought she was still breathing, etc. In other words, although the minimal mutilations on Polly could be a result of Jack "just getting started in his crime spree", it could also be he was "just getting started on his mutilations when he was interupted".
As far as a "plan" goes, the only plan I can see in Jack's murders is to get a victim and mutilate them. I suppose that's a plan, but anything bigger and grander than that seems more of our making than Jack's intentions.
And, his focus on the abdomen, exposing and mutilating the genetalia, etc would be especially sexual in Victorian London. Showing ankles was riske for goodness sake, so leaving a women's legs exposed would be lurid by itself, let alone having her skirt hiked up over her chest. Jack's rage, or someother equally strong and violent emotion, is directed at women. His actions attempts to destroy them and the way he leaves them is to humilate them. The release of this pent up anger/rage/hatred, whatever, may have been so satisfying to him, that he felt empowered, the rush of adrenelin and endorphins would produce such a high, such a feeling of elations that he never experienced before, that he may even have reached orgasm. This would only highten his pleasure, and so on.
That's the typical "sexual serial killer" in a nutshell. And yes, Jack could have been much like the above.
But geee wiz! We don't know who Jack was do we? But we also know that other conditions can lead to murders of the same type. There have been cases of paranoid Schizophenics whose delusions are such that they feel complelled to murder and mutilate to a) remove deamons, b) stop their own blood from evaporating c) God tells them to d) delusions that include sexual aspects (making the murders sexual again) and probably some more. In these cases, there really isn't anything sexual about the crimes nor does the murderer derived any kind of sexual pleasure. In fact, they may not even find the actions pleasing but are compelled to do it anyway.
Maybe Jack is one of "these", which reduces the validity of calling the crimes "sexual".
And, I'm sure, one could find other examples or "types of murders" that have produced abdominal mutilations. Basically, the above two "kinds of Jack", in my opinion, are the two we are most likly looking for (I think Jack was probably one or the other, not both). Either we have a sexually motivated "rage" mutilator, or we have a delusional mutilator with/without sexual aspects.
In other words, there's nothing wrong about suggesting the murders may have a sexual aspect to it; one only makes a mistake if they insist there must be! If one is going to insist it "must be", then one "must be" able to back up one's claim with more than just pointing out what parts of the body were mutilated. Because that is just not enough.
- Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 493
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I also would put Polly as next after Stride on the disturbed list; not only because of the "minimal" mutilation but because the location made it much more likely that he would be disturbed.
As well, I would have to believe there was something sexual involved, otherwise, we would have had some passed out old drunks dissected on the streets too.
Regarding strangulation and the lack of bruising that would indicate such, perhaps it was suffocation instead. He could have covered the mouth and nose to prevent breathing. The affect could have been enhanced by sumultaneously sitting on the victim's chest to retard their ability to draw a breath sort of like a python kills.
These points are, of course, conjecture but that's how I see it at any rate.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 423
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Just wanted to say that was a bloody good post!
Stan,
Suffocation by hand over mouth\nose is palmar strangulation. Not trying to nitpick, just saying so.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 495
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
While weighting the chest? Also sometimes called "pressing" in execution terms.
Stan
(Message edited by Sreid on October 26, 2005) |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Helge
Sorry that I did not respond to your post before now, however I have been very busy.
Of course Jack wasn't too picky and nighttime or early morning was obviously his preferred times to kill, whether to assist his getaway or just his preference.
But whether lions kill seals or not but polar bears do is not something that I connected to this case.
I personally feel that Jack (my Jack) had a vendetta against prostitutes(rightly or wrongly).
Yes Dr.Bond pointed out that he felt the killings were more to mutilate than just kill, however, the doctors at the time most certainly did not all agree with respect to good ole Jack.
If Jack's purpose were just to multilate why not pick other females? Yes, one would state - "who would be out at that hour, if not prostitutes", but what about the females working at the market or other jobs requiring them to rise early and arrive at their job destinations early? Or the women venturing out to pick up dinners for their working men, often in the early hours of the morning.
I am not a historian, nor do I claim to know all about the comings and goings of the Whitechapel ladies during this time, however I do know there were many homeless women(aside from prostitutes) who were in the streets at ungodly hours, unprotected who were not victims of Jack.
My opinion may not be correct, however it does have some merit.
As to serial killers, they seem to have a specific victim type that they are either comfortable with or want to kill for personal reasons,be it their availability, vunerablity,convenience or vendetta of some kind, we will never know.
If we were able to understand and analyze serial killers, we would hopefully be able to prevent their slaughter on society.
Your points are certainly agreeable, but like everything else concerning Jack, unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
best regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 6:39 pm: |
|
Helge
Maybe Jack needed to kill Stride because she knew him. I firmly believe that Jack was familiar to his victims.
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 187
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 7:52 pm: |
|
maybe Jack wasn't a serial killer. Maybe he wanted to strip down a woman's insides for some reason; take her apart completely, looking for her essense or something. Perhaps he was interrupted or thought he would be interrupted 4 different times (as I've said before), and finally, it was time to go inside and just get it done. Maybe he just wanted to 'get inside' one woman, and therefore is only an incidental serial killer.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 45
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Has anyone considered he may have used a blackjack? The heads were not shaved post mortem so at best it is just a guess,but a blackjack is fast and quiet and was popular in the LVP.
I'll tell you something weird about our Jack,and for those of you who have heard this before apologies in advance. He's being a good little serial killer right up until the point he kills Kelly, once he kills her he stops conforming to 'type' because Kelly is 25 and still blooming.
I did a little work and this has actually happened before.Albert DeSalvo,aka the Boston Strangler, switched from older to younger women too.The widely accepted theory is that he was actually 'growing up' and would stop killing.As you know he was serving time for crimes committed as 'the measuring man' when it was discovered he was also the strangler and he had,in fact,ceased to kill during these crimes.
This theory was bourne out when he escaped for two days, during which time he harmed nobody and even gave himself up.
Hello Julie
I must admit I'm starting to come around to thinking Liz Stride may have been something other that a 'random' victim of this man.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4187
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
Helge,
I can't say I understand your position on the palmar strangulation thing. I have seen loads of cases where this is used and there has been no struggle at all.
Jane has given a clear example of what usually happens - the victim just simply gets stunned and paralysed and it really doesn't take many seconds for the victim to pass out. In ordinary manual strangulation, however, it can take a bit longer longer and you can sometimes find signs of fighting back, although not necessarily.
As for your remark on Kidney being questioned - no, there is absolutely on indication of that he was. You are just taking for granted that they did, but fact remains that no official report whatsoever says that he was heard in another way as an ordinary witness, NOT as a suspect, which would have been part of moral procedures today. It is quite clear from the documentation that the police of the day did not even consider any other option in Stride's murder than the Ripper, in spite of it being part of common police procedure to interrogate the closest male relative or husband when a woman is murdered. If a person like Kidney would have been suspected and questioned on those grounds, this would normally have been mentioned and commented on in the official reports. It is indicated that they did this with Barnett, but never with Kidney.
As for interruption - yes, I think there is a possibility that he MIGHT have been interrupted in for example Nichols' case, and to me it is even possible that he may have been in connection with the Eddowes murder, because of the apron, although this is speculative. It really wouldn't be that surprising, since the police beats left him with a rather tight time schedule.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 496
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 8:45 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
Leaving aside the question as to whether "Green Man" DeSalvo really killed anyone, the ages in sequential order were: 55-85-68-65-75-67-20-23-69-23-58-23&19-so there was some mixing.
Another explanation is that there were two killers, one taking the women over 55 and a second killing those 19-23. A different theory suggests that most of the younger victims were slain by several independent murderers; perhaps as many as five.
Best wishes,
Stan
(Message edited by Sreid on October 26, 2005) |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 497
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
P.S.
I can see where a sap would work in rendering the women unconscious but it would take a heck of a wallop to kill them in that fashion. If they were just out cold, there would still have been arterial spray. Its absence in three of the attacks has bothered me as well.
Stan |
c.d.
Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Jeff,
Your post was quite interesting. I am thinking of Mary Kelly's murder. If there was a sexual connection to her mutilations, would he have reached orgasm? If so, would he stop at that point? You have to wonder when enough was enough.
c.d. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 424
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:41 am: |
|
Glenn,
The reason I mentioned palmar strangulation was simply to propose an alternative means of strangulation for those incidents where there is no apparent bruising of the neck.
I'm not saying Jack used it. I don't think anyone could say that for certain.
Sometimes I think it is ok to throw out propositions and see if anyone picks up on it.
We have discussed strangulation before, and I know you think it is an almost flawless way of killing. At least this is the impression I get.
I beg to differ. For every case you can come up with where there are no signs of struggle, I'm sure I can come up with several where there was some struggle. And even in cases where there are no evidence of struggle, we cannot say for certain that there were none.
Besides, I have said that Janes experiment may actually have shown how it happened. Possibly. So I see the "no struggle" option as possible.
Several highly profiled experts on strangulation agree with me on the struggle bit, however. (Well, actually it is I who agree with them, obviously) I just read some work by Dr Anil Aggrawal, professor on forensic medicine (as an example).
I simply don't see Jack as an expert strangler with lots of experience to begin with. That is why, in the real world, one may expect less than a perfect kill.
I don't say there are no ways of achieving a perfect kill with strangulations, I'm just saying that you need to know what you are doing to do just that. Or be extremely lucky.
Besides there are indications that Jack did not have perfect control in the Chapman case (the "something falling against the fence")And if we include the Kelly murder (which I know you don't), that was slighly botched up ("Oh murder!") As to the others...well we just don't know how much commotion there was. Probably not much, but maybe those kills were less than perfect as well.
I guess I see Jack as more flawed than you do on this, basically. And maybe I am wrong. But then again maybe I am not.
On the question on Kidney I stand corrected, though. You are of course correct in that there exist no documentation that he was questioned. And yes, it is supposition that he was, and I should have been clearer on this.
However, I would imagine the probability for at least a cursory look into him as a suspect by at least some of the police involved as pretty high, however.
If it never got as far as a full blown interview, it might be because he early on was known to have a watertight alibi for that evening. Or that the Police though he could not be the Ripper for other reasons, and let it go with that.
If the latter is the case, I agree on what you say. Sloppy policework bordering on laughable incompetence as seen with modern eyes.
But come on, Kidney appeared at the inquest. It is not like no one ever spoke to him before that. This is not the way things happen.
I give you credit for correcting me on that no records of any interview with him exist, but certainly my main point stand. Either such records does not exist because they are lost, or the police figured it was not necessary. In which case they still needed some data to figure that out.
The police were fumbling with this case, but I guess I don't see them as complete idiots.
Julie,
I keep the option of Jack being familiar with his victims open as well. Glenn do see some signs that the Stride murder could be domestic, I say "domestic", as in someone she may have known (probably not family IMO). But it is just an option for me.
Add to that the possibility of making the Kelly murder a lot easier to explain if her killer was familiar to her AND the Ripper, and I am definitely listening.
I would love if you could elaborate on your position.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 425
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 2:48 am: |
|
Stanley,
Just one option. If Jack was really into strangulation in some of the events, there is no reason why he should not continue to strangle them after they are on the floor.
Also, the time it takes for the heart to stop after a strangulation varies wildly. Sometimes strangulation "play" or simply strangulation following rage, but no intention to kill, actually results in death, while at other times, with other victims, it would not have. Some of the women killed by Jack may have had a worse health than others, for example. Some may have been so shocked that the heart stopped.
Life is a strange thing. Sometimes one may survive the most impossible things, sometimes the smallest of accidents actually kill.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1951
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 4:14 am: |
|
Steve,
I would like to add that your are wearing the frock.
I havent the ankles for it.
Nichols, I feel, was a disturbance and not an interuption.
Monty
Four candles.....you know, handles for forks ! - The Guv'nor
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 198
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
Jane,Helg,
The method I outlined was the only strangulation method I was taught in the military.The fingers of both hand are interlocked behind the neck,allowing for maximum pressure to be applied.
The weight of the victims body,as John Wright states,is taken on the side/back of the attacker's body,not on his hands or arms,and the victim can be carried in this manner for a consideral distance.Any thrashing of arms or legs is short lived,and has no effect.
The bluish marks observed by Phillips,might be caused by contact useing this method.
Remember Kidney had served in the army. |
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 48
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
It really wouldn't be that surprising, since the police beats left him with a rather tight time schedule
Cant you just picture Jack kneeling over the bodies,stopwatch in hand thinking 'thirty seconds to go GOD this is so hurried and I'll NEVER get these stains out without simply HOURS of soaking'......I mean..seriously,come on now, you are entering the realms of Sherlock Holmes here.
Monty, I'm WAY too pretty for a frock :P
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1953
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Steve,
Pretty boy eh?
Watkins beat, in terms of time, seems a short one to me.
Monty
Four candles.....you know, handles for forks ! - The Guv'nor
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 426
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Harry,
Fair enough. It IS possible, I never have doubted that. However, when I was in the service we were told that this kind of thing was more wishful thinking than actually possible under most circumstances. Unless you were specially trained for this thing. And even then only in an emergency. Had Jack been taught properly military "silent killing" techniques he would have known that using a garotte, or even hitting someone on the head with a trench shovel is a hundred times more likely to succeed.
However, I'll give you that it IS possible to walk with a victim while strangling that person. But that is for military purposes, why on earth would Jack to that? Much more likely is that he laid his victims down.
And how likely is it that he would choose to cut the throat while at the same time holding the victim up? Why complicate matters?
All things are possible, but some things are more likely than others.
And to be honest, I have seen stuff in military manuals that are really stupid and laughable. Ever seen the manuals for sabre techniques by Patton? It's like. Yeah, right, I would not even try that even if my life depended on it. Did anyone ever try saving their horse from a blow by bending backwards in their saddle, for instance?
Point taken about Kidney and the military. But that is hardly any hard evidence against the guy! And I don't see strangulation as indicative of a service record. It is far too common for that.
No matter how successful, I don`t really think Jack was that good anyway. Look at the bruises and abrasions on Chapman for example. That is not indicative of a professional silent kill strangulation.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 499
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Yes, I know that the heart continues to beat, sometimes up to half an hour, after hanging victims are dropped. The pulse tends to weaken as time progresses however.
Stan |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2726
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Yes, I agree, a very good post, Jeff.
But I do question your reasoning when discussing the state of the victim’s clothing after the attack.
Surely the killer would need to expose the areas he intended to mutilate? Hence such actions as ‘hiking the skirt over her chest’ were probably carried out as a means to an end, the practical purpose of being able to see what he was doing with his knife rather than a conscious desire to sexualise his crimes or expose the privates of his victim.
One would also not expect a killer who has just ripped the innards out of a woman to do her the common courtesy of re-covering her exposed body.
No, he would just walk away, probably completely unaware of the sexual connotations that others might make of his work.
My contention being that a killer who intends to mutilate his victim would need to expose certain areas of her body to effect his strange purpose, regardless of his motive, sexual or otherwise. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 733
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Thanks to both Helge and Ap for the compliment! I'm blushing
Hi AP,
I see where you're comming from with regards to the state of the cloths. Obviously, if one is intent upon opening up someone's abdomen, it is easier to do by lifting up the clothes and getting them out of the way, etc. In the latter half of the post, where I talk about a more delusional Jack, these are exactly the sort of reasons why the clothes would be left in such a position without any need for assuming Jack had "sexual" aspects to his thoughts.
However, if Jack did have sexual aspects to his motivation, then the arrangment of the clothes would also fit with that theory.
In a way, what I'm sort of getting at is the difference between starting from the evidence and trying to draw a conclusion versus starting with a theory and seeing if the evidence fits it.
The former approach, in this case, would leave us with mutilple possibilities as our conclusion; either sexual-psychopathic killer or delusional psychotic killer with or without sexual fantasies. The latter approach would leave us convinced that our "theory" is correct, no matter which one we started with. The danger of the latter is that once a theory can be shown to "work", it's very common to see if alternative theories also work. And, since alternative theories often work by making different assumptions about what the evidence means, we become blinded to what the evidence really is and what it really tells us.
The evidence we have, hopefully, provides enough information to get an idea of the sequence of events. The sequence of events then tell us something about what Jack's behaviours were. Theory about Jack kicks in when we try and figure out "why Jack behaved the way he did". Similar behaviour can result for many very different reasons.
As I concluded at the end of my post though, if one wants to attribute any kind of sexual motive behind Jack's crimes, then one will have to use more than just the position of the clothes and areas of the body targeted because there are perfectly valid ways to interpret that behaviour without attributing sexual motivation (usually, it involves some sort of delusional thinking, which in this case most certainly could apply).
Hmmm, I actually think we agree.
- Jeff |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 183
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Helge,
I thoroughly enjoy your posts, which come across as well informed, intelligent and a serious student to J t R as we all are. Personally I am a finatic.
I have thought from day one (many,many moons ago)that our guy Jack knew his victims. I do not necessarily mean in a very personal way, but knew them by sight. He knew their choice of profession. If the prostitutes or hookers as they are also know (among other names),are like they are today they more than likely looked the part. How many times has one referred to dancers for example or prostitutes as looking the part. How many times have people said she looks like a hooker, or she looks like she has been around the block and back and so on. There is no doubt in my mind that these ladies dressed the part of prostitutes, thus the excessive makeup, loud colors , erotic stance, smiling at strangers, approaching strangers and or making themselves very available in no uncertain terms.
In my humble opinion our Jack either lived in the neighbourhood (not Mr. Rogers) or worked in the neighbourhood which necessitated frequent trips to the area. And who knows he may have been involved with law enforsement and could not help but know the gals who plied their trade and those who did not.
These comments are mine only and certainly do not suggest that all must agree.
my best regards
Julie
|
Steve Swift
Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 49
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Helge - I may not know much but I can tell you one thing with absoloute certainty.Victorian soldiers in Britain were NOT trained in anything beyond marching, musket and bayonet drill. British bayonets of the time were triangular and had no cutting edge.
Julie - not sure about that,these women were casual prostitutes not pro's so I doubt they looked much different than the average East End female.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Matt Humphreys
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:24 pm: |
|
It seems on this thread that there is a general consensus (or at the very least, favouring) of the idea that the murderer was somehow choosing his locations to murder in an attempt to either blame or draw attention to the Jewish immigrants in the East End. This is also a common theme on the thead about the Goulston Street graffito.
Am I the only one who can see no unusual link? The fact that by 1888 the East End was heavily populated by Jews suggests that by the simple law of averages there would be some Jewish connection to almost any location.
No-one actually knows what the graffito was - several different versions exist and several different meanings have been attributed to it. Furthermore there is no conclusive link between the graffito and the Ripper save the piece of Eddowe's apron found underneath it, which again could well be a coincidence.
It seems to me this racist slant to the Ripper is completely contrived. If he really hated Jews why wasn't he murdering them? He wasn't because he either was targeting prostitutes by preference or because he was targeting women in general and they (prostitutes) were just easy pickings.
In short, where's the evidence for an anti-semitic agenda? The Leather Apron scare was not engineered by the Ripper (and before someone says it could have been, where's the evidence?), and the graffito cannot be conclusively linked to Jack.
It seems to me that people are grasping at straws to make sense of what were probably random crimes which were commmitted as the opportunity arose.
Matt |
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff.
That's a novel idea, "Jack the failed head collector". But then, of course, there was Kelly.
He had enough time to get the head there, including the availability of a chopper if the knife failed.
Regards
ROD |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 26, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Spot on, for me Steve
I'm not even sure he contemplated murder, as he came out on the night of the murders
It is my humble opinion that drink played a big part in the murders of JTR
Regards Cludgy |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hello Steve,
You wrote about Stride's throat wound:
Thats DEEP,as deep as Annie Chapmans wound ..
That's not what Phillips testified. At the Stride inquest when asked if "there was any similarity between this case and Annie Chapman's case" he pointed out that "there was very great dissimilarity between the two. In Chapman's case the neck was severed all round down to the vertebral column, the vertebral bones being marked with two sharp cuts, and there had been an evident attempt to separate the bones."
I think the only thing we can infer from Phillips' words that Stride's wound was not nearly as deep.
And this is completely in line with his post mortem report where he writes that the common carotid artery was partially severed after which "the cut deviated a little downwards". Note the words "a little". Now both the carotid artery and the windpipe are located in the throat less than an inch below the skin and as there is no mentioning of any deeper structures of the neck being severed, I can only conclude that the wound must have been an inch or so deep. That's a pretty deep gash, but not nearly as deep as Chapman's, Nichols' or Eddowes' which severed everyting down to the spine: these wounds must have been at least three inches deep.
And if you compare the mortuary photographs of Eddowes and Stride I think this difference is strikingly visible.
Furthermore I find your claim that Stride's throat was cut while lying on her back even more puzzling. For Stride, different from every other victim, was found lying on her left side facing the wall of the club.
Equally puzzling is your conviction that Stride's throat couldn't have been cut from behind. For Blackwell, the police surgeon, stated exactly the opposite.
This is what he said at the inquest:
I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up.
Kindest regards,
Martin |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
Richard,
"Evidence suggests that Eddowes was not a streetwalker in the actual sense"
Few "streetwalkers" were - Chapman, for instance, is known to have knitted or crocheted and to have sold here wares at market. There were few women at that time in Whitechapel/Spitalfields that held any one job at any one time and most folk looked to make money whenever and however they could. For women, this often involved casual prostitution. Writers like Don Rumbelow, in their extensive research, met few descendants of Victorian East End families where granny had not "gone on the game" now and then. I daresay Kate Eddowes was as likely as any other East End woman to have indulged in the odd bit of "commercial lordosis" when the opportunity arose. Whilst your theory is quite plausible, I see no reason other than to suppose that Kate and her "client" were transacting purely on a sexual basis. Her attitude as described by Lawende - talking softly with her hand resting on the man's chest - sounds distinctly seductive to me.
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 193
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Gareth,
and most of them thought it a temporary thing as well. I'm not sure many would have said they were prostitutes if you asked them.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti č sempre incinta"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 503
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Maybe it's just me but if Stride's cut to the throat was so light then why did she die so rapidly? When I think of a throat cut lightly, I'd picture a cut that was principally superficial. I wouldn't characterize a cut that reached the carotid artery as light.
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 427
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 3:58 am: |
|
All,
Ripperologist (Sept 2005) has a piece by Karyo Magellan, where the throat wounds of the victims are illustrated in great detail.
Clearly, the ones most similar is those of Stride and Nichols. As a matter of fact, they are so similar that not two others of the series even come close.
Chapman's is by far the deepest.
Unfortunately I don't think we can draw much conclusions from this, however. The point is that (IMO) the actual circumstances surrounding each attack could vary, and so would the wounds. Some victim could struggle more (i.e. not be strangled unconcious before the cut), Jack could have been more or less drunk, or whatever.
Therefore I personally do not see any huge difference in MO just because some of the cuts were less deep than others.
However, Strides wound does cut the jugular vein, the carotid artery and the trachea, and can in no way be called superficial. It was a mortal wound by any standards. (I agree with Stan that it can hardly be called light)
It's depth might indicate that Jack was in a hurry, for instance. But such propositions would be conjecture, and only tenable because we know there was a good possibility that Jack may have known he may not have been able to do his job undisturbed this time.
Of course, there is nothing about the wound itself that rules out another killer. But there are some circumstantial evidence to connect it to Jack, IMO. And although I remain open to other interpretations, I still think it most likely to be Jack's handiwork.
Julie,
Thanks for your kind words. My reason for thinking Jack might have known his victims, at least casually, is my belief that he lived in the general area, and I think people back then knew a lot more about their general neighbourhood than people do today (and of course they were pretty much oblivious to what went on in the rest of the world!)
I think the victims did not in particular look like prostitutes, but rather that the setting in which he found them targeted them as possible victims. In effect, they were alone and on the streets at night, and did not shy away from his advances. Now, only a prostitute (even a casual prostitute) would meet those requirements...
Steve,
Thanks for your info on Victorian soldiers. I kind of figured that, but I did not know. At any rate, killing by strangulation is something you simply do not teach conscripted or even professional "ordinary" soldiers. It is simply too hard. Teaching regulars how to shoot straight is hard enought!
But HAD they been taught "Silent killing", strangulation would probably not have been first on their agenda.
I know Glenn for example have stated that strangulation is pretty common in domestic cases, and therefore not too hard, and I agree (Surprise!?) But in such instances the victim is usually a woman, and weaker in strenght, while the man is in a position where his proximity to the victim is not considered as a threat per se. Also, they are usually alone, and even an extended "silent" fight would probably not be noticed.
Just as with a prostitute and her John...
Military training, as I see it, has therefore little to do with this, and I'm happy that your info seems to indicate this as well.
Matt,
I cannot speak for others, but you will notice that my theory of a "Jewish connection" has more to do with Jack wanting to cast the blame on the Jews (i.e continue the Leather Apron type of suspicions), than to actually kill Jews.
In fact, if that was his purpose, to kill Jews would kind of be counterproductive.
That Jack should be anti-semitic is not a stretch of the imagination. Statistically that is pretty likely. In context, we do have some "Jewish" connections in the case, and we need not strain ourselves to find them!
Lipski! (anti semitic shout probably by the killer)
Berner Street Club (primarily a Jewish Club, with the offices of a Jewish newspaper in the same yard)
Goulston Street (not just because there were Jewish tenement buildings there, but because it was a distinctive Jewish market as well)
Mitre Square (once of a very great importance to the british Jews)
The graffito (obviously mentioning Jews, no matter how it was spelled)
At least two (maybe more for what we know) of the victims worked for Jews occasionally.
Now, tell me that all this is coincidence, and I'll say: Maybe. But what if it is not?
If we dismiss any potential clues as coincidence, we will never get anywhere. At the same time, we must also keep in mind that coincidences do happen!
But so many? I could also throw in Jewish areas, such as cemetaries etc, in proximity to other murder sites. But I don't. I don't go looking for tenuous connections. Those that figure so prominently in our little saga are more than enough.
It is not like BSC was in the neigbourhood of a murder site. Stride was killed in the yard of that Jewish establishment.
It is not like the apron (and GSG) was within a block or two of a Jewish marked, it was there...could not have been closer.
It is not like Mitre Square was within walking distance of the "wailing wall" (as AP put it) of the London Jews. It was there...etc.
Maybe, just maybe, Jack wanted this to be... And maybe you needed to be in his sick head to understand why. But then again, maybe it was considered by the authorities at the time, and this was the reason they chose to put a lid on certain things (like the graffito)
Ok, that last thing is certainly speculation, but I'm not saying it was so. I'm just saying that IMO all this warrants serious research.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 199
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, October 28, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Steve,
While I agree that the military skills were based around drills and weapon handling,close combat action was a very old part of military training.I suggested it as a possibity,nothing more,as the method could only be used from a position where the attacked person was facing away,and not expecting attack.Although it was taught,I am not aware of an occasion where it was used military wise.
In the case of the Whitechapel victims,they can hardly be classed as persons who could defend themselves,no matter from which direction the attack came,and such must have been the feelings of the attacker,that he utilised the situation as he saw it,which might easily have been an attack from the rear,while the victims were off guard.He was hardly in a position to give them a fair chance. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
