|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
How Jack subdued his victims
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
How Jack subdued his victims
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 09:47 am |        | Hello
I must say I think some of these theories are a little wild - no offence. To begin with oral sex was not widely practised in the 19th century. I think that we are allowing a level of sexual sophistication based firmly in modern times to colour the discussion. Had you asked a prostitute in 1888 for oral sex she probably would have thought you mad, even if she knew what it meant, never mind returning the favour. These women offered one service, which out of doors was a quick knee trembler and then mostly without penetration taking place.
The speed of the act was necessary for a number of reasons. Firstly, there was a good chance of being interupted by locals (e.g. John Richardson kicking tarts and their clients out of the Hanbury Street site) or by the Police. Secondly, most of these women would have found the act distasteful if necessary and thirdly most of the men would have little sexual technique or control. Finally sex out of doors is all very well in pleasant surroundings on a nice day, but in a back alley, at night, possibly when raining, both parties would wish to get on with it. Oral sex is about as likely as a multiple orgasm in these circumstances.
With regard to Mary Kelly, I would concede that such things were more likely as she had her own room, but I think she was strangled whilst sleeping in any case.
I think Mr Parminter is closest to JTRs technique with his punch to the stomach. I would contend that in fact JTR used a straight punch to the face. Essentially having decided on his victim he would trust her to know a secluded spot. Just as things were getting cosy I believe that out of the blue he would violently punch the vicitm in the face. If you have received such a punch you will know that, even if you are not knocked out you are at least massively disorientated. He would then strangle the victim and commence the mutilations with the cutting of the throat.
There is some evidence as regards the punch to the face. In the case of Nicholls she had a broken nose, whilst Chapman appeared bruised about the face (not all of it from her previous dust up). Stride had a thick lip (although could have been an old wound) and Eddowes was much bruised about the face prior to the slashing. Kelly was an exception as she was clearly enjoying a post coital nap when the killer struck.
Regards
Kev |
Author: Kevin Braun
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 05:13 pm | | Kev,
The following is a post to me from Grailfinder, on October 11,2011....
"Hi Kevin.
Surely you cant be serious? think about it, would you pop you todger in there knowing that a 9in blade was about to slash and rip the throat just an inch away from your JT? (bet that's made the rest of the guys wince)
As for your question:
"Does anyone know if prostitutes (London-1888) regularly offered this type of service"?.
What makes you think a BJ is a 20th century vice?
Have you never seen a copy of the Karma Sutra? this form of sex goes back to Biblical times and before.
As a form of contraception the BJ and many other ways, such as slipping in through the back door! have been practiced for thousands of years and the girls in Whitechapple 1888 probably had more tricks up there sleeves than Paul Daniels!
Your thoughts do have some merit though! If the girls were in this position when attacked? it would explain the bent knees and skirt tucked under there legs position, that some of the bodies were found in. But to be honest I think your theory has to many risk's to JtR and therefore is wrong, but don't let my opinion put you off, we all make mistakes, so you will have too 'Swallow your pride' and rethink this out.
Cheers GF"
I still think that JtR requested (that is the nice way) oral sex. Then if the opportunity presented herself, he went into action. MJK was possibly the exception.
Take care,
Kevin |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 06:58 pm | | Kevin
Ah, now I didn't say a BJ was a 20th century vice, or even a vice for that matter and personally I'd prefer to spit this one out. You may also realise that 'slipping in through the back door' is rather easier to say.
Seriously though, I think if you're looking for alternatives, for occasions when Liverpool were playing at home for example, you might think an HJ would be the thing? Wrong! These people didn't care. You have to look at things in context and this was 1888.
I, of course, have seen the Karma Sutra, but I rather doubt if Catherine Eddowes had. We are dealing with Victorian sensibilities and a considerable lack of sophistication comparitively speaking.
At the end of the day you pays your penny and the thighs the limit.
Regards
Kev |
Author: david rhea
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 08:06 pm | | | do you really think that Victorian sensibilities applies to these prostitutes.They cursed- fought- protected their turf.One of them (Eddowes) was making like a steam engine before she was put in the lock up to sober up.I would think that in that business of prostitution they'd done about everything you could think of with the tools at hand. |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 09:29 pm | | David
Eddowes, Chapman and Nicholls were once respectable women who only resorted to prostitution as a deparate measure. In the case of Eddowes and Chapman only occasionally. I don't doubt that they were capable of extreme violence (one only has to look at reports from the London Hospital) and language that would make a docker blush.
Very few working class men who were using prostitutes saw this as anything other than a quick release (no pun intended) and for the women it would be dealt with as fast as they possibly could.
The Victorian sensibilities I refer to, are more to do with having little concept of alternative sexual methods and even less requirement to perform them. No doubt if you had the money and suggested sticking a Policeman's helmet... well you get my drift!
The main point is that they and more importantly their clients would not even think of anything other than a quick knee trembler. If you were looking for exotic sex in Victorian times you would be talking West End brothel. No doubt Mary Jane Kelly would have more idea about other techniques, although again I doubt whether even she would have much requirement to perform them.
Eddowes' Steam engine impressions were as a result of being drunk and were said to have been highly amusing to the crowd that gathered, before the Police broke it up, but does that have anything to do with her knowledge of the Karma Sutra?
As an example (possibly not a very good one, but it's all I can think of right now) there was an episode of the BBC drama the Duchess of Duke Street (Edwardian period?), in which a new bride came down to breakfast the morning after her wedding in shock, following her husbands advances.
She said, 'I had no idea that that was what it was. I thought it was just kissing or something.' He then said 'alright, we never have to do it again if you don't want to.' OK - so this was some years after and these were middle class people, but you get the point? Nobody could conceive of this happening in a Western country today.
When looking at such issues we have to get the context right.
Regards
Kev |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 09:30 pm | | Kev-
I'd be interested to know upon what information you base the assertions that Nichols had a broken nose and Stride a "thick lip" ; I can't seem to recall any such injuries being described by anybody.
I'd also like to know how you came to the conclusion that "oral sex was not widely practised in the 19th century." For my money I doubt that "Victorian sensibilities" were applicable to back-alley Whitechapel prostitutes.
Personally I find the notion that the victims were preparing for some form of "rear entry" (for lack of a better term) to be unconvincing. Consider this; Nichols, Chapman and Stride were all described as wearing "long jackets". Eddowes was also wearing her jacket; I haven't seen its length described anywhere, but it's a good bet it was also a long one. If rear entry were about to take place, wouldn't a long jacket be in the way? Certainly not an insurmountable obstacle, but considering the multiple skirts, petticoats etc. that would also have to be dealt with, wouldn't it be so much easier just to take the damned thing off? It wasn't that cold; none of the outdoor murders took place in temperatures that were much below 50 degrees Fahrenheit. I think the fact that the victims were all still wearing their long coats indicates (not proves, but indicates) that rear entry was not being contemplated.
AAA88 |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Saturday, 09 March 2002 - 10:22 pm | | Jesse - hi!
Have a look at the mortuary photographs. You will see that Nicholls' nose is broken by looking at her left nostril. Stride has a very thick lip. Either or both of these could be old injuries, but I'd bet against it.
I certainly wasn't proposing rear entry (sounds bad doesn't it). This suggestion began with Rumbelow I believe, but has no supporting evidence. The technique used would be the 'knee-trembler' where client and prostitute would face each other.
I think JTR followed these women to their chosen spot once the deal had been made. They then leant back against a fence or a wall in preparation for entry and at this point he punched them very hard in the face, stunning or knocking them out. He then strangled them. This was followed by mutilation starting with the neck cutting. One thing I do feel, is that Jack would not actually try to enter the victim before his attack began. I'd suspect he would have a horror of doing that.
On the Oral Sex thing, I think you'll find that Oral Sex was not 'widely' practised in the UK until well into the 20th century, but certainly not in Victorian times. I have read this a number of times although I don't have a reference to hand. I think the Victorian working class prostitute would be even less likely to practise this than people in a stable relationship. Her sole aim was to get the money and do the job quickly. Why else would Doctors be examining the corpse's thighs?
I have also read (probably in here) about one such woman who had sex many hundreds of times and yet was only penetrated twice. It was a standard technique for these women to grasp the penis between their legs. The client would rarely know any difference. This supports what I said earlier about a lack of sophisitication on the part of the client.
The technique of course would have many advantages for the woman. It also offers some insight into the nature of the act, supporting the notion of rapidity. It's doubtful if the client saw or felt any bare flesh at all!
Regards
Kev |
Author: Andrew Millar
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 01:38 am | | Wow, from the top.
Graz: The use of chloroform would imply that Jack was a chemist of some sort or another, and had access to a laboratory:
One U.S. manufacturer began chloroform production in 1903, but commercial production was not reported until 1922 (IARC V.20, 1979).
(Not sure which journal this refers to... copied and pasted from the US Environmental Health Information Service.)
Although it's possible, I have trouble picturing Jack going to someone to produce chloroform for him - particularly in quantity. Such an act could strike the chemist as suspicious. In addition, this would again require Jack to even know about the stuff, implying a rather better education than most had in the day.
Simon - Asphyxia is the correct term, although asphyxiation is close enough for the amateur. According to my Medical Dictionary, syncope refers to a short, temporary loss of conciousness due to oxygen loss to the brain for reasons other than strangulation: to wit, emotional shock, standing for prolonged periods, or by profuse bleeding. An attack of Syncope comes on gradually in all cases. Asphyxia refers to oxygen loss due to choking or strangulation, and also leads to unconsciousness.
Now, Kev, you say that Rumbelow has no supporting evidence for his 'from behind' theory. What's your supporting evidence for the 'knee trembler'?
I should point out that it's almost impossible to knock someone unconscious by hitting 'em in the face. You have to get them right on the temple, or from behind (at the base of the skull) to have any reasonable chance of inducing unconsciousness. Or, you could hit them so hard as to be superhuman.
I agree that oral sex in Victorian England with a prostitute would be unlikely, although it was certainly not unknown. Not only the Kama Sutra, but Balzac, refer to it. I haven't read any Victorian "anonymous" books, but from secondhand reports oral sex is not unknown in them.
I've nothing to add to the theories, I'm afraid, only a few things to subtract. For what it's worth, I do like Rumbelow's 'from behind' theory, as it would give better leverage and not require Jack to disable four or five victims, each instantly.
-- Andrew "A Real Problem" Millar |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 03:17 am | | Andrew,
chloroform had already been largerly used in the Secession War as anesthaetic (sorry for the ortograph) in replacement of ether by surgeons.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Andrew Millar
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 06:32 am | | Graziano,
Yes. And Queen Victoria made use of it in childbirth. It was not, however, manufactured at the time, so it wasn't exactly freely available. Taking into account that English isn't your first language, I'll note that I use 'manufacture' in the strictest sense, which is to be mass-produced ('factory' shares a root) and distributed.
A chemist had to prduce the stuff, by hand in a laboratory, until the early 20th Century. See my citation, above.
Jack would have had to make, steal, or find someone to make the stuff for him. Theft would likely have been reported - alerting the police to the possibility. Because of this and my other objections above, I have strong doubts as to this theory. |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 06:35 am | | Andrew
Glad to see some support on the Oral Sex thing. I agree that I don't have any supporting evidence for the knee-trembler, however I had taken that almost as read. It was the standard technique and as I mentioned I had read the account of the prostitute who largely avoided penetration using it. I think that account may even be in here and I suspect that there are other accounts in the casebook that would support this method. Must have a scan.
On the punch, this is my own theory based on damage to victims faces. Is it really that difficult to knock someone out with a straight punch to the face? I thought that he would punch hard and disorientate the victim, then strangle, but I thought that he would in all probability knock some of them out as a by-product. Really I'm looking for reasons for the lack of any obvious struggle or screams. For example Nicholls was murdered in close proximity to many dwellings and no-one heard anything. I think JTR punched her violently in the nose and whilst she was dazed finished her off, but this is just my theory.
I don't think the 'from behind' idea is without merit (and certainly considerably more likely than lying down which some people suggest), but I have seen no contemporary accounts of this.
Regards
Kev |
Author: Andrew Millar
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 06:52 am | | Kev -
Hmm. I've got some reading to do. Another student of the times has assured me that 'standing up, from the rear' was standard in the day. But I actually have not, personally, researched Victorian sexual habits, so I won't take a stand here until I'm sure. I will say that, except for the ever-questionable Mary Kelly, I doubt if any of 'em took things lying down (snicker).
On the punch, yeah, I'm sure it's pretty tough to take someone out quickly from the front. The 'hammer blow' to the temple is the easiest way, but a punch strong enough to bounce someone's head off a wall can do it, yeah. It's pretty iffy however you slice it - a big chance to count on stunning or disabling a victim in a single blow.
A punch to the solar plexus or throat can do wonders for this, but the head has layers and layer of shock absorbtion built in. There's the cartelage, lotsa bone, the sinuses, the jaw and teeth, and the cerebrospinal fluid. All of these act as cushions for the brain.
Not that it's impossible - I was a bit overzealous when I said you'd need a 'superman'.
If I were suggesting the 'punching bag' theory, I would suppose that Jack hit the victims in the throat first, to silence and disable them. He could then have followed up with blows to the face at his liesure. Then he would slit their throats - presumably, obscuring signs of his initial hit.
-- Andrew |
Author: graziano
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 11:15 am | | Andrew, wait a moment  , could I ask you the following:
let us say that someone gives a violent slap with the palm of the hand on the back of the neck of a victim (who is conscious and standing).
Violent enough for the victim to lose equilibrium and fall.
Not because of loss of consciousness but only because of loss of equilibrium.
a) is it possible to imagine such a violent slap not to render the victim unconscious ?
b) what could be the possible external signs (on the neck, others ?) coming from the slap (bruises, abrasions, others?) ?
c) could/should there be some internal damages (at the level of the neck, brain, other organs ?) ?
d) could it be possible for the victim to stand up immediately after and not any whatever sign of the slap being present and no other medical consequence for the victim ? (remember the slap being so violent as to make the victim falling).
I am particularly interested in your "cushions for the brain" thing.
Any answer would be very, and I repeat very, useful and appreciated.
Thank you. Graziano. |
Author: david rhea
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 11:33 am | | | Dear Ken:I seem to remember discussing these matters with another person.He drew his conclusions from his feelings about the matter and interviews with poor people he had known.He discounted Jack London's assessment of Whitechaple. I want to know where you get your information about 1-Sexual practices among victorians 2 These women were only occasional prostitutes 3 They were not alcoholics and pretty much over the hill. Please give me your sources.I woulk like to see them.It might perhaps change my thoughts about this matter.Nothing I've read leads me to your conclusions. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 03:09 pm | | Kev, (Kilcoyne), I'd like to say I agree with a lot you and Andrew have to say on how Jack operated. But my favourite theory is that Jack didn't ask for sex at all, I have a belief that was never mentioned, but an offer of help or companionship was. I think Jack the Ripper and the victims were quite well known to each other.
We read that Barnett disliked prostitutes utterly, but he married one, or would have done if the emenities had been to hand, he may have been a very sensible lad who earned good money, but he wasn't that smart, she ruined him!!. Perhaps he didn't dislike prostitutes as much as we are led to believe.
There is another way of silencing a woman which is silent--- and dangerous, that is a hard punch between the breasts, I'm told it's as dangerous and immobilizing to a woman as a kick between the legs is to a man. Remember, I think it was the following day Eddowes body was examined, it bore green blemishes around the main stomach wound, could that have been the result of a punch to the stomach?
Rick |
Author: Andrew Millar
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 03:46 pm | | Graz -
If you hit someone right at the base of the skull with the palm of your hand, yeah, there's a fair chance of unconsciousness, if you use a thrusting sort of motion.
a) In the back of the neck itself, I'm not sure... probably it would daze someone, and possibly knock them down, if a strong person did the hitting. I doubt the blow itself would cause unconscousness, but if the victim hit her head when falling, perhaps.
Knocking someone out is an iffy thing at the best of times - a fairly light bump in exactly the right place can knock 'em out. On the flip side, there's a famous case of a man who had a tamping rod blasted through his skull, walked away, went home, and packed his leaking braincase with cotton.
b) Would there be signs? I dunno. Probably not anything easy to spot on the back of the neck or head, but if she clonked her noggin on the way down, possibly abrasions, bruising, or a bitten lip or tongue.
c) Internally? A hard enough hit can crack the skull, shatter teeth, or even break the spine, but probably not.
d) Certainly it's possible. People's reactions to injury vary widely. Some folks pass out at the mention of blood, others have been known to take a hammer to the temple and keep fighting.
Endorphins, such as epinephrine (adrenaline), can have funny effects on a person. So can alcohol - and it could go either way, making one more or less resistant to being knocked out, depending on an individual's metabolism (although invariably someone under the influence of alcohol is more likely to fall down due to loss of muscle coordination).
I don't think anyone can truly predict the results of a specific injury to a person. There are ways to increase your odds of landing a disabling blow - see also, the Martial Arts. I know the front of the head is one of the most difficult places to land a disabling blow.
Cushions for the brain... I'm going to step aside and let Dr. Asimov speak for me. From The Human Body (with my asides [bracketed])
Cephalization [the tendency toward sensory and cognitive functions to gather in a 'head'] did begin with the subphylum Vertebrata, however, and was here carried to the greatest extreme the realm of life can sho. The agnaths, which first developed carilaginous vertebrae to protect the nerve cord generally, also developed a cartilaginous box to enclose and protect the nerve cord generally. In addition, the agnaths and their descendants, the placoderms, developed a bony shell [the word 'skull' derives from the Scandanavian 'skel' root, as does 'shell'] to protect the precious and specialized head region.
Oddly enough, this bony shell, though it seemed to disappear with the extinction of the placoderms and the armored agnaths, has left its mark upon all their unshelled descendants, including ourselves. . .
. . . The human skull, however, does not develop from. . . a cartilaginous model. Instead, the bones that make it up begin to form beneath the skin, as though harking back to a long-past time when such bone formed on the outside rather than the inside of the body. The skull is apparently a relic of the external armor of the placoderms which has been narrowed in function. Instead of closing the head and fore regions generally, it has been drawn within and set to work as a tight enclosure for the brain and as a specific protection for the most specialized and most vulnerable of the sense organs, the eyes and ears.
In the lower vertebrates the skull tents to be quite complicated in structure. . . In contrast to this, the human skull contains only 23 bones, and of those only 8 suffice to make up the cranium. There is sense to this because a bony structure, designed for protection, is naturally weakest at the joints; the fewer of the joints [sic], the stronger the structure.
Of the eight bones of the cranium, the most prominent is the frontal bone, a single bone making up the forehead and the forward half of the top of the skul. The frontal bone reaches down to the bony circlet enclosing the eye. . . and to the top of the nose. Just above each eye there is a low ridge stretching across the frontal bone, which may originally have served as further protection for the eye in early species of man. This ridge. . . is virtually absent in children and the adult female. . .
The interwedged line of the suture [the joins between cranial bones in the adult] is such that the bones cannot be separated short of breaking them. The cranium in the adult is, therefore, to all intents, a single bone.
From the Bantom Medical Dictionary:
Cerebrospinal Fluid (CSF) the clear water fluid that surrounds the brain and spinal cord. It is contained in the subarachnoid space and in the central canal of the spinal cord. The brain floats in the fluid (its weight so being reduced from about 1400 g to less than 100 g) and is cushioned by it from contact with the skull when the head is moved vigorously. . .
From Modern Biology (Otto, Towle, and Bradley):
The bones in your body function in several ways. . . They protect delicate organs. Some bones, such as those in the cranium, enclose and protect the brain. . .
In its socket, the eyeball rests against protective cushions of fat...
The brain is made of soft nervous tissue. This is covered by three membranes. These are called meninges. The inner membrane is called the pia mater. It is well supplied with blood vessels that carry food and oxygen to the brain cells. The pia mater is very delicate. It closely adheres to the survace of the brain. It dips down into the many folds of the brain.
The middle membrane is called the arachnoid. It consists of fibrous and elastic tissue. This membrane does not follow the many grooves of the brain surface and the pia mater. The space between the pia mater and the arachnoid is filled with a clear liquid called cerebrospinal fluid. . .
The outermost protective membrane is called the dura mater. This is a thick, strong, fibrous lining. It lines the inside of the cranium. All three meninges extend down the spinal column to protect the spinal cord.
Together, these meninges act as a cushion to protect the brain from bumps and bruises.
Hrm. I suppose that's enough for now. I haven't managed to cite every single thing that can protect the head from injury, but I think I got the major ones. Couldn't find a citition for the protective value of the nose from a punch, but I think that's fairly intuitive - if it flattens out, it's dispersing force.
(Incidentally, stumbled across Chloroform, intruduced 1847, popularized 1853, manufactured 1922. I don't believe that it would have been easily obtainable - except to a member of the medical professions. It is possible, I suppose, that Jack had access to such things, if, perhaps, he worked at London Hospital (even in a non-medical capacity), or if he worked as an assistant to a surgical doctor of any sort. Or, I suppose, if he was a doctor himself. But not every Tom, Jack, and Harry would have easy access to the stuff.
--
Andrew "whew!" Millar |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Hi Folks
Andrew - Not that I'm an expert, but it seems to me that boxers, who are trained to take punches, often get knocked out from frontal head punches? I did a little bit of photo reconstruction (see that board if you are interested) and apart from a very over the top job on Liz Stride they came out passably well. The thing that interested me was the amount of facial damage that you could see when the faces were blown up. Knife damage apart Catherine Eddowes seemed very bruised and the others I have already mentioned. This is the basis for my facial punch theory.
Warwick - Is this 'breast' punch really that disabling to a woman? I have to own up and say that I'm very much with Martin Fido on my favourite suspect, but I wouldn't rule the likes of Tumblety or Barnett out. Rather than Joe Barnett however I think Kosminski may have been 'Leather Apron' and that suspect apart there is much merit in your feelings about him being well known and not ostensibly threatening to the victims. I can't go along with the help/companionship idea. If we take Eddowes as an example, she had obtained money from relatives as she had told John Kelly she intended. She then blows this on drink. When she is kicked out of the Police Station she realises that not only does she need money for her doss but also that she had better have something to show Kelly when they next meet up. As an occasional prostitute, what could be more natural than to turn a quick trick. Either she was hanging around Mitre Square looking for business or JTR approached her near there and she took the opportunity. Bad mistake! These women generally needed money and that was their motivation.
David - (I take it you mean Kev rather than Ken :-)). In answer to your questions:
1. As regards Victorian sexual practises, most of this can be learnt by general reading, both of contemporary accounts and this site (which is an excellent historical as well as crime resource). Also some of it is common sense. Who for example would lie down in Dutfield's yard, in the mud and muck?
2/3. Each of the women was different,but one thing they had in commom was prostitution:
Nicholls was an alcoholic. To support her habit she used prostitution and was probably a full time tart. This can be gleaned from her own words indicating that she had obtained and blown her doss money (on drink)several times in one night.
Chapman used to crochet and clean for money when she could. It was clear from her behaviour on the night in question that she was short of her doss money and this was the only means. She was an occasional. She didn't appear to drink much and her drunk appearance on occasion may be related to her illness.
Stride was in a relationship, but appeared to be a binge drinker and would go away from time to time to pursue this. I suspect that she only resorted to prostitution during these episodes. It is difficult to say for certain whether she was occasional or otherwise. Certainly she had convictions from a very young age in her native Sweden, but more than this is not known.
Eddowes was in a permanent relationship and for example had recently returned from a period of hop picking. Again she was an occasional using prostitution as a means to get money when short. I think her companion Kelly may well have been aware of this and accepted the situation. She clearly liked a good drink (as the fire engine incident shows) but there is no evidence to suggest that this was more than a binge when money was available.
Kelly was a full time tart at various times and probably since Barnett had departed.I believe that she was a more upmarket type who had fallen on hard times, but even in the East End had considerable potential for earning. She was a hard drinker without I think as yet becoming a proper alcoholic.
Most of this information can be derived from any good book on the murders such as Sugden or Fido. I don't deny that all used alcohol in one way or another, but the evidence only shows Nicholls as a true alcoholic. All used prostitution to raise money but to significantly varying degrees. I'd have to concede that they were 'over the hill' if you like, by which I mean without much hope, but the mortuary photographs do no show out and out hags. I think they were all fairly presentable by the standards of the area and the period.
Regards
Kev |
Author: Andrew Millar
Sunday, 10 March 2002 - 05:11 pm | | Kev -
Boxers very, very rarely knock one another out quickly, even though they are trained and practice constantly at placing blows in vulnerable spots. Boxers are also extremely strong.
When a boxer knocks another out, it's generally after quite a bit of time tossing blows back and forth. Jack probably did not have several minutes to pound on his victims' jaws before they went down.
A person in the 1880's East End of London is not likely to be as well-fed, well-trained, or generally healthy as a modern day professional athelete (due to poor hygenic conditions, poor medical care, and poor nutrition). They probably did not bench-press weights and train in a gym with a professional all day long, and were not schooled in the art of placing blows.
--
Andrew "Punch-Drunk" Millar |
Author: Monty
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 08:32 am | | Kev, Andrew,
When I my busted nose I ended up looking like a panda !
Andrew,
You are right. Its very hard to knock someone out. Im a amateur Pugilist and have never managed to do so in 15 years.
But you must also remember that boxers are trained to take blows as well. That, along with the reason you state above, is why we hardly see a early knockout in a world class fight.
Monty
 |
Author: Diana
Monday, 11 March 2002 - 10:41 pm | | | I seem to recall reading a few years ago about slaughterhouse technique (I was considering the possibility that JTR was a slaughterman.) The cow or steer is hit in the head with a mallet to stun them and then their throat is slit. I pointed out on the anatomical knowledge board that Jack had one surgical skill that is not taught in any medical school -- swift efficient throat cutting. |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 07:48 am | | Hi Folks
I take the various points about knocking people out. Unlikely that JTR could have managed that, but I still think that he punched them, maybe just causing disorientation before strangling. There has to be some reason for all the facial damage.
Diana's point about slaughterhouse technique is very interesting and has similarities with the way I think JTR operated, although I doubt if he carried a mallet. Too bulky and obvious. Maybe something else or maybe just a fist?
Another point about the slaughterhouse angle is that you wouldn't necessarily have to be a slaughterman proper to know about the techniques used in them. This will probably sound rather gross and disgusting, but by way of an example, many years ago I worked in a Safari Park as a summer job. One of the things we had to do was to chop up horses heads (which the park obtained free from slaughterhouses), daub them with some preparation (vitamins etc etc) and then they were fed to the Lions. The requirement was to split the skull in two. To begin with this was very difficult, but with practise and precision you could do it with one blow. The point then, is that you can learn such techniques without ever being a proper slaughterman. Additionally unless you tell people that you once had a job doing this they will never know, nor will it be recorded anywhere, which might just explain why the Police enquiries at slaughterhouses did not turn up anything. Did JTR have a casual or unskilled job at one time, where he learnt techniques later used to stun victims and rapidly dispatch them?
Regards
Kev |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 08:01 am | | Kev,
Im with you. A blow to disorientate then straight in to strangle.
Your point about the horses 'eds. That was what I was trying to make on the Francis Coles board regarding Jacks MO.
I feel he adapted it as he went along just like you did on the dusty plains of Africa....or Longleat !
Monty
|
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 08:43 am | | Kev,
what facial damage in Mary Nichol's case ?
Pressure of fingers on the left side, pressure of a thumb on the right side.
Aren't we allowed to think that Jack kept something tight to her mouth/nose from behind ?
Wouldn't it be more likely that such a violent punch leaving the victims disorientated or knocked out should leave black eyes, broken jaw/nose, very clear bruises ?
None of all this with Tabram, Nichols, Stride, Kelly.
Am I wrong there ?
Warwick,
I totally agree with you for Jack not asking sex.
I totally agree that they knew each other.
I am not sure how long. Maybe only some days or hours.
It's quite clear, as far as I am concerned, from the testimonies that Chapman (Long), Stride (circumstances) and Kelly (Hutchinson) had got an appointment.
I think that Kelly opened the door in the middle of the night (when she was already sleeping and was then awaken by someone knocking the door) moving the table that after would be used by the killers to depositate her flesh.
So the guy seen by Hutchinson probably left and came back after.
The first time his accomplice could not come around because disturbed (very likely by the same Hutchinson).
He left the first time saying "maybe I come back".
I do not think Joseph Barnett would have said that.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Kev Kilcoyne
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 05:21 pm | | Monty
I see we agree on the modus operandi. On the 'eds' - very astute, but then Windsor was the only other choice!!!
Graziano
I'm still not convinced that Tabram was a Ripper attack. I believe that Nichols had a broken nose (check her left nostril in the mortuary photograph). With Chapman there is bruising but this may be due to her earlier dustup over the soap. Stride had a fat lip. Eddowes had the sort of bruising you refer to but was somewhat masked by the facial slashing. With Kelly obviously you can't tell, although this was a modified attack in any case.
Regards
Kev |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 12 March 2002 - 11:06 pm | | | If he had punched them in the nose hard enough to disorientate them wouldn't you expect to find some bloody noses? |
Author: cue
Wednesday, 13 March 2002 - 12:04 pm | | Hi
I broke my nose twice,and my nostrils never looked like that.I think thats the way it was!
He could have just suddenly grabbed them around the neck with both hands, if he was relatively strong and the pressure on the sides of the neck it would be like a sleeper hold.They would be unable to scream and be unconcious in a few seconds?
Thanks Cue |
|
|
|
|
