|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 30, 2003 - 5:13 am: |       |
Hi, I'm new to both this board, and I've only been following this topic for a fairly short time. I discovered this website several months ago and only recently have I begun reading through it in depth.
But anyway, I wanted to make a comment on something in this thread:
Marie Finlay writes:
::::However, it's certainly very intriguing to speculate that perhaps 'Jack' would have run his knife fully around the necks of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly- possibly in order to obscure the mark of a garrotte.
But this begs the question: why? After all, the other mutilations are there for all to see. It seems strange that he would wish to conceal just *one* particular aspect of the killings. :::::
The answer seems pretty obvious to me, if you think in terms of strategy -- namely the strategy involved in actually committing the deed as opposed to the strategy of not getting caught.
In short, it might have been useful to the killer to keep the public in the dark about precisely how he killed his victims, so that when he met up with his next victim, who would be expecting a frontal assault with a knife, that tiny piece of cord that he's sneaking around her neck on some pretext would arouse that much less suspicion until it's too late for her to do anything about it.
The mutilations, OTOH, are not strategically important in this context, since they're done after the victim is already dispatched.
}} |
Marie Finlay
Inspector
Username: Marie
Post Number: 219
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 09, 2003 - 3:18 pm: | |
Hi Randy,
Thanks for your post! I'm sorry I didn't see it until now, I often don't get the chance to check all of the board due to time constraints...
You wrote: "so that when he met up with his next victim, who would be expecting a frontal assault with a knife, that tiny piece of cord that he's sneaking around her neck on some pretext would arouse that much less suspicion until it's too late for her to do anything about it."
I would agree with you, but I'm not sure just how easy it is to slip a cord around someone's neck, without them getting suspicious....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Detective Sergeant
Username: Caz
Post Number: 67
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 5:26 am: | |
How about a pretty red neckerchief perhaps - which Jack could present to a victim, offering to tie it for her? He'd only need the one, taking it back to use again next time.
Love,
Caz |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 12, 2003 - 6:08 pm: | |
Cax
you wrote about the neckerchief. Ussually red. Is this not a sailor's equivelant of a necktie?
An item found on more then one victim. Also an easy means to strangle a victim.
Best regards Gary |
Randy Scholl
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 7:24 am: | |
Marie writes:
>>You wrote: "so that when he met up with his next victim, who would be expecting a frontal assault with a knife, that tiny piece of cord that he's sneaking around her neck on some pretext would arouse that much less suspicion until it's too late for her to do anything about it."
I would agree with you, but I'm not sure just how easy it is to slip a cord around someone's neck, without them getting suspicious....
................................................................
Well, it's just an example, and somewhat facetiously stated. The basic point is that, when one sees a killer's attempt to remove clues, there's a tendency to assume it's because the clue might lead the police to solving the crime. And in most cases, that assumption is likely correct. But if what's being disguised is related to the preliminary method of attack, then the possibility exists that the clues are being disguised simply because the killer does not want future victims to know how he does it.
As I understand it, a big part of the method of killers like The Ripper or (for example) the Boston Strangler, is to gain trust with the victim at first, to put the victim off guard in some manner prior to his attack. In the case of the Boston Strangler, how effective do you think he would have been in gaining access to their apartments if it had got out that he had disguised himself as a maintenance man? (Going by the movie version. I haven't studied the case in depth so that I can't state as undeniable fact that this is how he gained access. Particularly given that there is some controversy regarding whether DeSalvo was indeed the culprit. But it's only an example). It seems obvious that such information would make women in general leary of answering the door for an alleged maintenance man, which would seriously curtail his ability to gain the trust of his victims, and might even indirectly lead to his arrest if he should happen upon a would-be victim who panicks before he's had a chance to gain access.
In the case of the Ripper, it seems fairly certain that he did somehow gain their trust, and it appears to me that once the actual attack commenced, that he had to quickly subdue them, possibly rendering them unconscious fairly quickly, thus reducing the amount of time between realization that she's being attacked and unconsciousness to a minimum. This would be to the Ripper's advantage because it would reduce the chance of the victim screaming out or otherwise making a ruckus before he could commit his deed. (Considering he did most of his crimes outside in the open, a quick subdual would be of utmost necessity in my opinion)
Now, a piece of cord is a rather innocuous object, and merely seeing one in someone's hand might not necessarily raise one's suspicions to any significant degree. (It most certainly is less innocuous than a long-bladed knife). However, if it were widely known that this innocuous object played a large role in the M.O. of the killer, it wouldn't be so innocuous, and the likelihood of it raising the victim's suspicions would probably increase dramatically, which would no doubt rob the killer of an necessary advantage, the element of surprise.
Now, I'll admit all of this is entirely speculative, but I think it's at the very least a valid possibility to consider when asking the question of why a killer should attempt to disguise the preliminary method of dispatching his victim and yet make no attempt to disguise subsequent mutilations.
|
James Eric Carter
Police Constable
Username: Archangel261973
Post Number: 7
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - 11:36 pm: | |
I don't think that the killer needed medical knowledge or had to have been a slaughterman, hunter or other such. What I do think is that he was an educated man, and could have gotten a medical book and learned where, what, and how to take the kidney or anything else he wanted. As to the orginal question of if you/I could take a kidney from a body in near dark conditions the answer is yes and in the time frame Jack worked under (5-10 minutes). The fact that most people today said "maybe" doesn't prove much ask the same people who the vice-president is and they will get the asnwer wrong. So, knowing where the kidney is or isn't proves nothing, Jack had the killings planed out inadvace which added to his speed in completing the tasks, I don't say he had the place or victim picked out they were targets of opportunity.
Now, as to the idea that he cut th throats to hide evidence that he used garrotte I don't buy that either. There was evidence that he stangled his victims. The reason for this can only be guessed at but I would say it was to silence them.
Lets say he gains the trust of his victim, gets her to take him to a secluded place, then given the final position of the body and a wall or fence we can say he got them to lean on the wall most likely with her back to him, then he stangles them, lowers them to the ground cuts their throat to finish the killing, then gets to "ripping" them up.
Given the evidence this seems to be the most probable mo.
But, again as to him having medical or equivalent knowledge no, he would just need to know where and how to get what he wanted, which I think he did.
Eric |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2003 - 10:17 pm: | |
"Now, as to the idea that he cut the throats to hide evidence that he used garrotte I don't buy that either. There was evidence that he stangled his victims. The reason for this can only be guessed at but I would say it was to silence them."
Yes but, this evidence is based on scratches on either side of the neck not any indication of bruising as is usually the case.
(no bruising around the throat)
With Nichols these scratches are only noted in one press report, however Dr Phillips makes mention of them in the case of the Chapman murder and actually describes the direction of them.
Maybe you can look it up but I think he uses a phrase like the scratches ran in opposition to the cuts in the throat.
Now, we might understand 'opposition' to mean "right-to-left", if the cuts ran left-to-right.
The question arises, under what circumstances would a killer manage to cause scratches on his victim that would run "right-to-left"?.
To be honest, I cannot visualise any position in an assault that would cause such scratches.
Now, the term 'opposition', certainly in Victorian parlance may have meant 'perpendicular', when the cuts ran horizontal.
At least, thats how I interpret the meaning.
A similar difference in nuance is found when Victorians use the term 'opposite', ie; "I stood opposite number 19".
What was meant in those days was not standing on the other side of the street, as we would understand the term today, but the person was standing outside number 19 on the sidewalk. The meaning of the word was not consistant in those days.
Anyway, back to Phillips' description of the scratches, I think he was saying they ran perpendicular to the horizontal cuts, (they ran in opposition, "in an opposite direction", not horizontal but vertical) and therefore, in my opinion, were not committed by the attacker, these were scratches made by Annie Chapman in her attempt to pull something away from her throat.
Therefore, if this interpretation is correct, there is no evidence of strangulation, only evidence of the victims attempt to free herself from some choking hold or device.
The bruises noted on the jaw and around the cheek of the victims were likely the killers hand holding the jaw firm as he cut the throat, the body at this point is on the ground.
So, I see no actual evidence of strangulation.
Regards, Jon |
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 376
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 1:44 pm: | |
Hi
On the subject of medical knowledge, found this article about a "closed" inquest at which the surgical handiwork was allegedly recognized as that of an "eccentric" London surgeon.
The article is from the Trenton Times and dated 12 september 1889.
Any comments on who this medic might be would be welcomed
Chris
 |
Jon Smyth
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 10, 2003 - 6:35 pm: | |
Tantelizing morsal Chris.
Have you searched subsequent issues for any further information?
A hint might come from the likelyhood that only those doctors in attendance at the poste-mortem would be able to recognise the technique of a 'well known colleague'. And if the police appeared to be active as regards a clew(?) of some sorts then it is possible later issues may carry more details.
Interesting tid-bit.
Regards, Jon
|
Chris Scott
Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 6:28 pm: | |
Hi jon
Have looked at later issues and can find no other mention of this matter...
This must refer to the Pinchin St murder both from the date and the reference to a headless body in which case it is puzzling why the "closed" inquest was alluded to when it was fully reported.
The only medic referred to in the inquest (see Official Documents) is J Clarke, assistant to the divisonal surgeon
Regards
chris
|
Gordon Rowland
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, September 01, 2003 - 7:06 am: | |
Hello All,
In looking over the inquest reports of JR’s victims three facts stand out, they were all disabled so suddenly that defense was barely possible, they were mutilated after loss of consciousness and they all died by exsanguination from a severed carotid artery.
Would anyone care to comment on the following hypothesis?
Gaskell in 1883, a physiologist at Cambridge UK, established the intrinsic capability of heart muscle to produce rhythmic contraction without the innervation of the vagus nerve supply. He found that strong stimulation of the left vagus caused a temporary heart block (lasting from 20 seconds and up to more than a minute). The heart-beat entering tachycardia before stabilizing. If the right vagus was strongly stimulated, there was no heart block but tachycardia occurred. Both right and left vagus nerves are enclosed in the carotid sheath lying between the jugular and carotid arteries in their course from the brain to the heart. Severing the left vagus would constitute a ‘strong stimulus’ producing heart block and a sudden fall in blood pressure with consequent loss of consciousness and collapse. Haemorrhage from the carotid would have subdued pressure during heart block but regain full flow as tachycardia emerged. Full consciousness would possibly not be regained as brain hypoxia and maybe air embolism developed.
It could be argued that in cutting the throat of his victims such as to score the cervical vertebrae, it is not an attempt to severe the head from the body, but a need to ensure vagus stimulation and instant collapse.
If the veracity of this physiological scenario can be supported, the implication may add further light on JR’s vocation. Not only some anatomical knowledge is indicated, but also an up-dated knowledge of physiology obtainable either from current training in medicine at a University or kept current from reading professional journals. Should we be looking for a medical student or a well-qualified medico as the Ripper?
|
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 695
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 9:20 am: | |
Hi all
In my searches today I came across the article below which I thought might be of interest. The aspect of family information (the young man was suspected by his sister) is resonant of the private info of Macnaghten. I am not, of course, suggesting that this young man is Druitt, as the article is dated 24 July 1890! It is from the Fort Wayne Sentinel
Chris
 |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 2875
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 9:36 am: | |
Hi Chris -
Interesting find. This could also be related to the "Crawford Letter", which introduced an unidentified woman to Robert Anderson (date unknown) who believed the Whitechapel murderer was "nearly related to her."
Of course one, both, or neither article may be related to Druitt... though it could be that the source of official information from the above article was Macnaghten, who himself took Druitt to be a doctor in his famous memoranda. Ol' Mac didn't join the force until 1889.
Stephen P. Ryder, Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper |
Severn
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:56 am: | |
Interesting Chris.Some of your posts are incredible finds.They really enrich the picture of those times I often see that picture of the Blackheath Cricket Club that you unearthed in my minds eye when i"m reading about Druitt say, and it helps to focus on the sort of person who would have been comfortable mixing with these men-and they are all men.Really brilliant stuff.Thanks Natalie. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 697
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 5:22 pm: | |
Thanks Natalie - nice to know it's appreciated:-)
all the best
Chris |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page