|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 5:24 am: |       |
Shannon
From Dr Blackwell's inquest testimony on Liz Stride:
The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 ½in. below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it. It nearly severed the vessels on the left side, cut the windpipe completely in two, and terminated on the opposite side 1½in. below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.
In what way is this "nowhere near the same" as the other descriptions you have given above. I would describe it as remarkably similar. Aside from the fact that the second artery was not cut, but it is obvious that in the other cases the left hand side sustained the most severe damage just the same.
The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed to the bone, the knife marking hte intervertebral cartilage. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just open, the carotid artery had a pin-hole opening.
Dr Brown's inquest testimony on Catherine Eddowes injuries. Sounds very similar to me, the killer obviously concentrated the force of his cuts in both cases on the left hand side, and the right hand side was only cut because of the knife trailing through. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 210
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 6:46 am: | |
Alan, Liz had the knife stuck into her throat and pulled backwards towards the killer, all the others had the knife placed against their throat and thrust downward. Liz was a stab and pull on one side of the neck in the opposite direction of the others. The others were killed by a slice hard enough to go through every thing but the backbone itself.
The only similarity between them is that they were done with a knife, beyond that there is noting similiar about them.
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 211
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
Alan, a bit graphic but here goes...
Take an 8 inch butcher knife in your left hand and pull it from right to left as you cut through a raw beef roast about the size of a human neck. You will see how (gulp) easy it cuts when you force it downward putting your weight behind it.
Now, take a smaller knife with a rounded blade, say a steak knife and stab it into the side of the roast and try to pull it up and out towards you. Its a lot more difficult, and it requires you to the the opposite hand to do it...
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 134
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 8:13 am: | |
Evidence please. References.
Taking it from left to right there is a clean cut incision 6 inches in length, incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three quarters of an inch over undivided muscle then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck, the cut eing very clean, but indicating a slight direction downwards through resistance of the denser tissue and cartilages. The carotid artery on the left side, and the other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through save the posterior portion of the carotid to about a line of 1 twelfth of an inch in extent which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery. The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages are more superficially cut, and the cut tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw.
Dr Phillips. Now if I know my anatomy (and having been married to a paramedic and frequently helped her revise her anatomy exams, I actually do), that describes a knife thrust sideways in a left to right direction. Please explain how you come to the conclusion that it was thrust in and pulled backwards. How could such a knife possibly even superficially cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilage, particularly a smaller knife with a rounded blade as you put it. It isn't possible. Furthermore when asked if there was anything in the cut that showed that the incision was made by a pointed knife Phillips replied no. Please explain to me how you can stab a non-pointed knife into the side of somebody's throat? You can, but it would require tremendous force which would have left a great deal more bruising than was evident. The cut was left to right not in and backwards. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 215
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - 10:23 pm: | |
Alan: "In what way is this "nowhere near the same" as the other descriptions you have given above?"
"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 ½in. below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it.
First, this cut is caused by the knife actually being stabbed into the left side of the neck 2.5 inches below the jaw (about half way down the neck of a female her size). In the other cases, the knife was not stabbed in, it was placed on top and sliced downward.
It nearly severed the vessels on the left side, cut the windpipe completely in two, and terminated on the opposite side 1½in. below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.
In all the other cases the killer slices though all the flesh, ligaments, and arteries on BOTH sides of the neck. Here, he only does it on one side and it is done as the knife is pulled in a forward motion from the back of the victim's throat to the front as the knife blade exits her kneck about 1.5 inches below the front jaw.
This means he stabbed her half way down the neck on her left side and pulled the blade towards her front and and upwards with the blade exiting in the front just to the right side of her wind pipe. This is completely different than any of the other murders where the blade of the knife was placed against the windpipe while the victim was on the ground and then pulled from the killers right to left as it went downward though the victims neck, stopping when the blade struck bone.
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 140
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 5:19 am: | |
Firstly, once again please point me to any evidence of the knife being "stabbed into the left side of the neck". Certainly neither Dr Phillips nor Dr Blackwell ever mention it. In fact Phillips specifically says that there was no evidence of a pointed weapon being used which he absolutely would not have said if he had any suspicion whatsoever that the knife was stabbed into the neck. He calls it a "clean cut incision", that is an incision made with the blade of the knife, not by stabbing in with the point which would produce a very ragged incision.
Secondly, the difference between severing the vessels on the right side of the neck and not severing them is maybe half an inch. In the case of Eddowes the vessels on the right side of the neck were only nicked. I doubt very much whether the Ripper had his ruler out when carrying out the killings so I would personally say that half an inch difference in the exit of the wound does not in any way to me describe a wound which is "nowhere near the same". |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 216
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 6:49 am: | |
Alan, basic physics: 1. You have a "clean cut incision" in the LEFT side. An incision is just that its when you take your cutting instrument and INSERT it into the victim. 2. For Liz to have the damage done to her neck starting 2.5 inches down on the left side and ending 1.5 inches down just barely on the right side, it had to be pulled outward.
Had the killer cut downward on the left side, there would be NO damage to the right side of her jaw. Had he taken the knife and sliced the left side of her neck, then either the cut would have originated on her right side (which it didn't) or it would have done more damage to the right side as he pulled it across her neck, and again, it didnt.
So, once again, tell me how a stab wound where the knife made a "clean cut incision" on the LEFT side of her neck is the same as a brutal slice starting at the windpipe and continuing DOWNWARD until it impacted bone and cut EVERY tendon, artery, and ligament...
Shannon |
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 142
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 7:32 am: | |
Polly
On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw.
Annie
The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand.
Liz
The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 ½in. below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it. It nearly severed the vessels on the left side, cut the windpipe completely in two, and terminated on the opposite side 1½in. below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.
Kate
A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened.
Those are all cuts starting on the left hand side and continuing across to the right. None of them started at the windpipe and continued down. Unless you are reading different medical reports than me.
Anyway, this is another of those arguments that could run and run so I'm just going to say that plainly you interpret things differently than I do and obviously neither one of us is going to convince the other.
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 362
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 2:46 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
Why the mystery?. Liz died from a cut throat, its as simple as that, we were not present at the time, knowing the graphic details of possible incisions, does nothing to determine our killers identity.
Richard. |
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 217
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 8:14 pm: | |
Alan, yes all the cuts started on the left side; but, in all the other instances except Liz the knife was pulled across from left to right and DOWNWARD cutting all the ligaments, arteries, and windpipe of the victims. That is the difference. Had the same tactic been used on Liz, she would have had more of the right side of her throat damaged by the knife.
For the killer to start his cut 2.5 inches from the jaw on the left side, go deep enough to sever the esophagus and end 1.5 inches below the jaw on the right side and NOT cut any of the ligaments or arteries on the right side, he had to have put the knife into the left side of her neck behind the esophagus and sever it from the backside coming forward as the knife exited her throat. Any other way and he would have severed the ligaments and carotid artery on the right side, and that we know did not happen...
Shannon
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 143
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 6:06 am: | |
Shannon, as said, no point in arguing any further because I'm not going to convince you and you are not going to convince me. As far as I am concerned the differences are minimal, especially between Liz and Kate. Also as Richard points out any differences that there are still does not demonstrate that they were made by different people. Differences can be explained by all sorts of factors including angle of attack and the not inconsiderable fact that the cuts were not performed on identical necks. |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:40 am: | |
Saddam, "Cachous were a comulsive treat like M&M's."
I don't think so, cachous were used to sweeten the breath and smelt and tasted of perfume, Parma violet's were one type, and can still be bought today.
They would have been taken a couple of times a day or just prior to conversing or possibly kissing someone, why waste them by eating them all at once?
Shannon What does it matter which way Liz Stride met her end? This is not going to catch the killer. Stick to the known evidence, Packer, Shwartz, etc.,
It has always baffled me why it's so important today to determine whether the ripper was left handed or right handed, some people are obssesed with this. What difference does it make?
Even to the police investigating the case at the time this fact would have been of little significance, for it proves nothing on it's own.
True if a suspect were aprehended and other mitigating circumstances together with his right or left handedness were apparent, then fair enough, but we can't apprehend anyone for the murder now, he's been dead for over 80 years, and do we know if Barnet or Druit or any other of the known suspects were left or right handed, i don't know you tell me. Still doesn't mean jot though. |
Joan O'Liari
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 7:33 pm: | |
Hi Everyone; Do you think it is possible that the longer cuts were to kill, and the shorter cuts were done afterwards to remove the strangler's cord, as was discussed in the Rose Mylett case?
In Liz's case, the scarf was not cut off as it would not be linked to the murderer. Catherine Eddowes red scarf also had numerous cuts about it"
Robert: About those cachous! When my little sister was 6, she was hit by a car while running across the road. She was knocked right out of her shoes and hairband,cut her head open and needed stitches, and was in a coma for 8 hours. As they took her into emergency, she was still clutching her little brown bag of penny candies from the store! The Doctors said that the only thing that saved her from broken ribs and other injuries was the fact that she was so chubby! Go figure!
Talk soon, I am laid off again and have lots of time on my hands.
Joan
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 10:47 am: | |
It's just occured to me that stride may have took a cachous just prior to entertaining one of her clients.
Cludgy. |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 2:23 pm: | |
Ehm-- just a thought on the cachous..
Perhaps Liz DId have them in her hands before she was killed.
In a reflex she might have put her hand to her chest, as a protection. (I hope you all understand me, this is the best way for me to say it in English.)
But, maybe Jack interpretented the fist as a sign that she could defend herself, and was ready to start a fight. So, he grabs her hand, and kills her. But he thinks she was ready to start a fight, and this didn't happen before. He's confused about it, and doesn't feel 'comfortable' enough for further mutilations. Maybe the lack of mutilations were a sign of some creepy kind of respect, like: 'you tried to defence yourself, and I liked that.'
I hope you understand what I mention.. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 6:27 am: | |
Hi guys,
I'm sure her killer, Jack or otherwise, didn't think about how he was going to cut her throat. He just needed to kill her and cutting her throat in any way would do it, especially if she was struggling.
Keep smiling!!  |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1144
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
Hi Joan
I was wondering where you'd got to! You usually turn up for Liz.
About your sister, what can I say? She sure liked her candies! But seriously, I'm at a loss to explain how anyone could be knocked down by a car and still keep hold of her sweets.
Glad she was OK, anyway.
Robert |
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 622
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2003 - 11:40 pm: | |
Cludgy,
"Stick to the known evidence, Packer, Shwartz, etc.,"
I hate to break this to you, but I would hardly call witness statements "evidence" (you can't be serious!). Witness statements are subjective observations of an event or person(s) and can hardly be considered reliable, since we all have our own different preferences when we see and try to interpret things.
Especially the ones you mention are highly questionable, and there are indications showing that for example Matthew Packer was an attention-seeker delivering bogus information; even the police lost interest in him since he changed - and elaborated - his story a number of time in the press. Some evidence...
I can agree that it's questionable how far medical analysing can take us in such an old case like this, but as far as witness statements are concerned, their value as trustworthy information is totally overrated.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, November 03, 2003 - 1:56 pm: | |
"Why the mystery?. Liz died from a cut throat, its as simple as that, we were not present at the time, knowing the graphic details of possible incisions, does nothing to determine our killers identity."
>>At last, a reasonable, logicially estimable position! Finally I've met someone who has got some ability to use his own noodle. Wound, schmound.
"...Matthew Packer was an attention-seeker delivering bogus information..."
>>Packer, schmacker. If Packer seems untrustworthy why not simply delete him from consideration? How does that impact other witnesses, like Lawende, Mrs. Durwood, Schwartz, Mrs. Mortimer, etc. etc.? When you say we should discount the witnesses as evidence because witnessing is subjective, you ignore the matter of corroborative information. It's not entirely a matter of subjectivity, in other words. Mr. Evans, otherwise a 100% respectable Ripperologist, also falls into this trap. He is faced with people saying the murderer looked about 30, whereas his suspect Tumblety was 50+ at the time, not to mention gigantically tall. So Stewart makes a big show of throwing up his arms, decrying the grand subjectivity of witnesses, and of life itself. See what I mean? What the witnesses say seems so obscenely incomprehensible to the mainstream Ripperologist-author that there just has to be some way to discount it clean out of existence. "The testimony is too subjective, we need objectivity!" they howl. Objective, schmobjective.
The Ripperologist who solves the case will not be the one to discount what people saw. You have to be able to wrap the subjective into a greater whole, to see what works and what doesn't. And if you want to take on that responsibility, you've got to have B A * * S.
Saddam |
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 9:06 am: | |
Admitedly, perhaps "evidence" is the wrong word to use in this context but i will reiterate, the STATEMENTS of Packer Shwartz, Brown, and all the other witnesses in the other murders for that matter, are the only thing we have to try and identify the man in question.
And they collectively paint a not too bad description of the killer.
What else is there? Very Little. Nothing was left at the scene's of crime by the murderer not even a clay pipe. Chapmans and Eddowes pockets were rifled. The murderer took away some portions of his victims. Thats about all.
Packer by the way was an important enough witness to have been interviewed by Warren himself. I believe Packer did see something in relation to the murder of Stride that night, albeit not in the way he recounted it to the police and the press.
I think he did see Stride with her killer that night, but i believe the part about selling them grapes was an elaboration.
But don't you think that by discussing the injuries to the nth degree of these unfortunate women, youre flogging a dead horse.
Cludgy
(Message edited by admin on November 04, 2003) |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 12:26 pm: | |
Well said Glenn, however some witness statements must have been accurate, I'm sure not all of them were made up or elaborated. The problem is, knowing which can be relied on. It was the typical Victorian nature that made them all interested in the murders and some of the witnesses probably just wanted their names in the paper, etc. |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 04, 2003 - 10:59 pm: | |
"The Ripperologist who solves the case will not be the one to discount what people saw. You have to be able to wrap the subjective into a greater whole, to see what works and what doesn't. And if you want to take on that responsibility, you've got to have B A * * S. '
Dave, David, Saddam--when are you going to quit chasing those white vans? You've got it all wrong, man.
All the very best, RJP
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 635
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 2:02 am: | |
Saddam,
Witness, schmitness.
I didn't say I wanted to erase all witness statements from the investigation. But I wanted to point out that witness descriptions in general are less than reliable. Of course there are corroborations, but that is hardly the point. Some may very well be accurate, but how do we know that? And how do we know that any of the persons described really were Jack the Ripper? Perhaps the man seen with Chapman in Hanbury Street and Lawende's man in Eddowes company were, that's possible, but those are really the only witness descriptions in the whole Ripper business I dear to take seriously. Matthew Packer is probably one of the least reliable; any police officer or detective will tell you, that a man who changes and elaborates his testimony a number of times (and only in the press) is most probably a phony and can't be regarded credible. To make matters worse, witnesses like Mrs. Mortimer only gave evidence to the press, not to the police or at the inquest, which makes them more than questionable. I've seen witness statements in other cases where the description of the same person come in ten different versions, with totally different clothes, shaven, unshaven etc.
I may not agree with Stewart Evan's personal conclusions or interpretations of things, but as a former police officer - with his excellent experience from police work - I believe that he knows better than anyone what the perceptive problems in connection with witness description means, Saddam. But if you don't see people's different interpretations of what they see as a flaw in this context, then we indeed have a problem. And there really aren't that many colloborations from witnesses in the Ripper case.
"If Packer seems untrustworthy why not simply delete him from consideration?"
I did that long ago. I wouldn't give him the time of day. Logical, schmogical, Saddam.
Cludgy,
"What else is there? Very Little. Nothing was left at the scene's of crime by the murderer not even a clay pipe."
Completely wrong, Cludgy. I believe it is the crimes scenes and the information we are given from the nature of the murders themselves and the victims' history, that reveals the most interesting information about the killer. I believe Packer was a liar and an attention-seeker and his statement completely useless.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 3:03 pm: | |
Personally, I have the highest respect for Stewart and his work. But he is a human being like the rest of us, and I feel it may be possible to discern half a thimble's worth of rooting for Tumblety in some of the many statements he's made here.
Flaw, schmlaw. If witness A says he heard "quack quack quack" and witness B says he found a feather, then they corroborate and we have a duck. The subjective is converted into the objective, insofar as reasonable theorization--that is, theorization with an epistemological center and an holistic explanation based on logical operations performed on the empirical evidence--is concerned. Rock of Gibralter, really.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 05, 2003 - 9:52 pm: | |
"...when are you going to quit chasing those white vans? You've got it all wrong, man."
>>What RJ is implying, for those not so au fait, is that I have got the same problem as all those folks who accepted the early witness testimonies in the DC Sniper case, that a large white van was seen leaving the scenes of those crimes. Since they started out believing in the white van, they proceded to make it their starting point or epistemological center, and therefore didn't think that the snipers might be using a cranberry Caprice instead. That resulted in more crimes being committed before apprehension than would have been. But for RJ to make this critique of me presupposes that he knows what my epistemological center is. In effect, he couldn't criticize it unless he knew it. But he doesn't know it--no one but me does. Here's a hint: it's got nothing to do with what anyone saw.
Saddam
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
