Author: David Radka
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 08:22 pm |        |
All evidence indicates the murderer attacked from the front, by strangulation. Nichols and Stride were not found in corners, but straight places--Kelly even indoors. Evidence indicates merely that he was a man of some strength, not that he was necessarily bigger than all the victims.
Who you tryn' to kid, Ivor?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 11:33 pm | |
| The question is David who are you trying to kid?yourself ?Pay attention you silly boy. Nichols was found in the corner of the stable alcove (West Pier)Her feet were placed at the corner of the pier.Her left side was in line with the stable door. Look at the position the body was found. Stride was killed near the corner of the entrance to Duffields Yard with Berner Street.Her feet were facing the corner.If you want to interpret the evidence to suit yourself and not as it stands then that is down to you. The position of Nichols with her feet in the corner of the alcove suggests that the killer simply placed her in the corner and stood behind her. He then interrupted her breathing and then laid her down with her feet in the corner. He turned her on her side and cut her throat then laid her on her back and mutilated her.Nichols was found in the corner of the stable alcove.Chapman was found in a corner of a yard.Stride was found with her feet facing the corner ( Bernerr St) of the passage of Dutfields Yard. Eddowes was found in the corner of Mitre Square.Kelly was found in the corner of a room.All evidence shows that the victims were attacked from behind and not from the front.Get a grip on yourself David and pull yourself together otherwise you wont be a ripperologist when you grow up.Also I believe D'Onston was the Ripper and he was 5ft10-11 inches tall so he would have been bigger than all the victims. Also some of the victims were just a few inches over 5 feet tall so Jack had to be bigger. What do you think Jack was a midget!!!! |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 01:14 am | |
David Radka,
"All evidence indicates the murder attacked from the front, by strangulation".
Could you please give only one (not all, only one) piece of undisputable evidence that such is the case ?
Do not be scared, I do not want to render it too much difficult, when I say one I just ask you for half a piece of evidence that they were attacked by the front, and for half a piece of evidence that they were strangled.
You see, I am may be...obnoxious as my friend Alegria put it but I am not as direct and rude as Ivor and I leave a chance to my adversaries.
Of course if they do not sustain it, well it is time for them...to get a grip on themselves and pull themselves together otherwise they won't be a ripperologist when they grow up.
Thanks David...Radka. |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:13 am | |
Ivor,
Of course. It makes sense. He can do his work and cut the risk of being jummped from behind.
PS, Have you E-mailed Philip C Dowe re his profile of Jack. His idea of Jacks MO almost matches yours and I would be interested what he thinks about D'onston in respect of his profile.
I'd do it myself but its your work and I do not want to be 'treading toes' so to speak.
Diana,
I cannot find out if Heydemann & Co yard gate was locked or not, so I bow and apologise to you..
Sorry.
Monty
 |
Author: David Radka
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 03:24 pm | |
Come on, a little bit. Nichols? She was found laying in Buck's Row straightly on the pavement. The body was parallel to the street with the pavement. It takes a pretty big leap of wishful thinking, I think, to associate this body with a corner in any way, unless you want to arbitrarily say that the murderer positioned her associated with just about any old corner available. The city is loaded with corners. Corners of doors, houses, windows, pavements, cobblestones, etc. etc. are everywhere. Any body thrown anywhere might be said to be associated with some corner if you reason this way. I would think if the Ripper really wanted a corner association, he'd position the body pretty clearly with respect to that corner--the whole body would be fairly obviously pointing to the desired corner. I'll agree with you on Chapman, she was found in a corner, all right. But Stride? She was found lying parallel with a building in an alley. Her head pointed upwards the alley toward the yard, and her feet downwards the alley toward the street. Where's the corner? The gate? But here again, we're talking some remove--it was ten feet away, and open. Where's the corner? I'll agree with you on Eddowes. But Kelly? Where else is she going to be plausibly found but on her bed? Yes, the bed was in a corner, but almost all beds are in corners. Our bed is in a corner--yours is probably also. Her tiny room was full of corners.
If you leave a body in a little room, its going to be somehow associated with corners no matter what, so why make a major point about corners?
The idea that the victims were attacked from behind seems ineradicable in those who want to believe it, despite the presence of defense bruises to the hands and arms on some of the corpses, the signs of frontal strangulation such as protruding tongue, and the position of the bodies lying on their backs. It is easy to strangle someone into unconsciousness from the front, harder from behind. They've got a good defensive weapon, too. All they've got to do is push their rump into your crotch, and you lose a good deal of leverage. This would mean he'd need to make further aggressive attacks, the signs of which aren't there. Besides, look at the great concordance of reasonable opinion agreeing with frontal strangulation. Begg, Fido, A-Z, etc. etc. Attacking from the rear is a marginal idea.
The truth will make you free.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 04:31 pm | |
| Hi Monty, Who is Philip C Dowe ? is he on these boards ? if so where did he place the profile on Jack ? I have never heard of this guy before. |
Author: Jeff D
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 08:25 pm | |
Hi Everyone!
I have always been interested in the method used by the Ripper to first subdue his victims before laying them on the ground to cut their throat.
After my first understanding of the crime scenes I felt positive that the Ripper must have attacked from the front, throttling his victims into subconciousness or death. The marks on the throat, jaw and cheeks of Polly Nicols for example. However I am not now so positive and believe the attack could very well have come from behind with the killers arm around the victims neck with immense pressure causing loss of blood to the brain rather than loss of oxygen as per strangulation.
eg; Dr. Phillips "The cause of death was visible from the injuries he had described. From these appearances he was of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action in consequence of loss of blood ......"
That the victims were first subdued, dead or near to death before their throats were cut is in my mind virtually beyond dispute. When considering the attack itself, and something I have always thought interesting, is the man seen the morning of Annie Chapmans murder by Mrs. Fiddymont. She descibes a very disorientated man with blood dripping from under his right ear down the side of his neck, blood under his fingernails, etc. This, in my opinion, is exactly how the killer would have looked. The scratch down the side of his face would have been a typical wound had the victim tried in vain to defend herself when she suddenly realised her fate. I would have thought that the victim would have at least struggled a little, and something like reaching or stretching to scratch out at her attackers face, to me seems extremely plausible. Quite coincidental, that guy that walked into the Prince Albert that morning with such minor wounds, don't you think?
Anyhooo.... the jury is still out for me I'm afraid. Did the killer attack from the front and strangle his victim, or did he attack from behind, using some sort of sleeper hold (for which he would have to have had some training). Convince me guys!!!
Many Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 09:30 pm | |
| Again -- what is the documentation for Ms. Nichol's gate being locked? (Boy I'm glad -- when my relatives asked what I wanted for Christmas this year I handed them a list of JTR books. No more unsubstantiated statements on these boards -- ahem -- I'm getting carried away). A lot of the doors in Mitre Square were left unlocked at nite. An old drawing shows a building behind and some distance back from the fence. He probably got out that way. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 31 January 2002 - 09:44 pm | |
| Diana,When I get time I will check my files at the moment painting and building work is going on so most of my paperwork and many of my ( the wife's) books relating to the ripper are all piled up and under dustsheets. I have only ever seen one reference to the stable door being locked in Bucks Row. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 06:15 am | |
G'day,
IVOR: The only reference I can find, states that: 'He noticed that the gateway, which was about 9ft. or 10ft. in height and led to some stables, was closed'.......CLOSED, not locked!
The police searched and made inquiries at Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway, the East London Railway, the District Railway, Sneider's factory and several houses in Bucks Row, but no body checked any stable yard.
The quickest escape for the killer once he heard someone approaching, would have been through that gateway!
LEANNE! |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 06:53 am | |
Hi Ivor,
of course you have read posts of mine! I am the poster sitting on the fence (concerning the diary).
My profile of Jack got lost during the board crash. Monty very kindly typed it for me (THANKS!) and I will repost it over the weekend.
Philip |
Author: Monty
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:23 am | |
Ivor,
Take note of Philips ideas on Jacks MO.
Monty
|
Author: graziano
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:35 am | |
Thank you David Radka for having explained what is your evidence of frontal assault and strangulation.
Bruises on the hands for the former.
Protruding tongues for the latter.
After that, could you explain me, bitte, what is the need for forensic medecine ?
Thank you.
P.S.: Stride was not lying on her back. Could that mean that she was assaulted from the sky ?
But you are right, strangulation from behind is very difficult. Thumbs on the back of the neck.
So, not from behind ?
Or no strangulation ? |
Author: Monty
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 10:06 am | |
Graziano,
What forensics can David do?
He has no body or scene to examine and only reports of others to work off?
It seems reasonable to argue a frontal assault as much as a rear one.
Monty
|
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:04 am | |
Hi all,
Q: How many whores like to perfoprm their "job" with a customer behind them?
A: Hardly any. Because they cannot see what is happening.
Q: How did whores in Victorain times usually perform their "job"?
A: Standing up with their backs to a wall or fence and the customer in fornt of them.
So where does that leave us - most likely attack from the front. Not only do the reports imply it but logical deduction leads us the same way.
Plus if he strangled them from the front - he only needed one hand - the other was used to get hold of his knife. He used his left hand to pin them to wall/fence and his right to rip. Which may mean - Jack was ambidextrous.
Philip
PS Something totally different - Were the satanic murderers in Bochum (Germany) mentioned in the press in other countries? |
Author: graziano
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 12:09 pm | |
"Lou Smit, 66, who investigated 200 homicides as a Colorado Springs detective, pointed to a section of the autopsy report that describes petechial hemorrhages, or rupture of small blood vessels that caused pinpoint hemorrhages in the eyes, skin and face - common signs of strangulation."
"The coroner listed the official cause of death as strangulation...".
From the inquest into the Jon Benet case.
Are these red dot on the face always occurring in cases of manual strangulation ?
No, not always.
But they are so common that out of 6 victims you may expect to see them at least in one of them.
Do we see them in at least one of them in the "Jack the Ripper" case ?
No.
Hardly astonishing since we do not even see, in none of them, the clearest and most necessary sign of manual strangulation: sign of venous pressures on the neck.
Erased, concealed by the cuts in the throat ?
No cuts in Tabram, only stabs.
The right side of the throat was not cut with Stride.
Who cares.
David Radka says there are protruding tongues and bruises on the hands thus there was frontal strangulation.
Polly Nichols had bruises clearly made by fingers (fingers, not fist) on her left side of the face, a bruise made by a pressure (like the one from a thumb or from the bottom of the palm) on the right side of her face.
Clearly showing that someone (her killer was undoubtedly right handed) kept something or at least the hand tight on her mouth/nose from behind.
Who cares.
David Radka say her body was lying on her back thus there was a frontal assault.
Asphyxia by manual strangulation was an enough common form of homicide at the time not to believe that the doctors couldn't have discerned even a partial form of that kind of cause.
No way to believe this was not the case only because of the very difficult professional conditions with which an autopsy was conducted or the scant knowledge of forensics at the time.
Swollen (and even protruding) tongue, faces, convulsions and consequent tongue lacerations may be signs of other causes of asphyxia.
David Radka has noticed that in one case, one case not two, there was some kind of protruding tongue.
I wonder nevertheless what one should be expected to see when the mouth is open.
Bruises on the hands, defensive wounds ?
What kind of bruises on the hands are defensive wounds, David Radka ?
Certainly not bruises on the back of the hand, between the thumb and the index finger unless you know a way to use your hands that I do not know.
Could you please elaborate it, some kind of Aikido movement ? Other martial discipline ?
Useless to speak about the damages inside the throat that manual strangulation would imply because David Radka is going to argue that Freedom will get you to the Word, or was it the Soul will get you to the Truth...anyway, too epistemologic for me. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 02:18 pm | |
The fact that we cannot agree on if the women were strangled or not does suggest that there is something missing here : Graziano has made an excellent point.
If they were strangled , why weren't they strangled to death ? Death resulted from syncope , from blood loss , not asphyxiation.
What would be the point of half-strangling them and then cutting their throats ? To cut down on bloodflow ? A skilled killer would have stood behind the victim and then cut the throat , to avoid getting sprayed by the blood. This is what happened in the Rachel Nickell murder case , the victim was stabbed in the throat but the killer was thought to have avoided being covered in blood because he stood behind the victim.
Look at the case of Annie Chapman , when her throat was cut blood would have sprayed forward across the murder scene in a 3ft radius. But in the backyard at Hanbury Street , only a few spots of blood on the fence. Why would it have mattered to the killer if blood sprayed all up the fence from Annie's neck ? |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 04:03 pm | |
Hello Simon, first time we've spoken to one another since the conference, how are you?. I'd say the reason Jack did it in the way he did was,
if he cut their throats first,-- and to kill from behind,-- then at least his left arm would have become blood sodden. I would guess that a victim who has been throat cut,feeling pain and seeing such a spurt of blood---coming from themselves!! they would possibly go wild with panic and fear. He wouldn't be able to let go, or he would be sprayed. To strangle someone to death, (I would think) takes time, how do you know when they are dead, they maybe shamming, also you look in a prolonged way into their eyes as they die, perhaps he wanted to avoid that. Jack was a belt and braces man, he did both, he even cut their throats twice, and went all round the neck on two of them, but he avoided getting messed up, and he made sure they were dead before mutilating the body.
All the Best Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 04:49 pm | |
| Hi Philip,Sorry yes of course I know of you. I will keep my eyes open for that piece you will be posting over the weekend. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 05:34 pm | |
| Hi Leanne, The police made a search of the area including the railway embankment.So if they went to all this trouble one would imagine that they tried the stable doors.You put yourself on offer by stating no one searched that Stable.Just because you cant find a reference to the doors being locked it does not mean to say that they were not.If the doors were locked then there is no reason why the police should search the stable.Thus a search of the stable was never mentioned because there was no need to search it.Because the body was found in the alcove with the feet in the corner one would have thought that police tried the stable door to see if it was locked. It is part and parcel of a policeman's job on his beat to check doors of all types to see if the premises in question are secure.I have seen police on the beat checking premises to make sure they are locked and secure just as a matter of course.After the murder in Mitre Square it is on record that police went checking premises to see if they were secure this came up in a topic on the boards some time ago.Also Even if the gate was locked it would not mean much. I could tell you of many little tricks performed by criminals in relation to locked doors or padlocked premises.I can give you several examples of police checking premises and finding them to be secure while inside the property criminals were at work.Neat little tricks can be performed on locked premises to make the police think the opposite of what has actually happened.Sometimes it can be a case of what you know rather than who you know.I have known criminals to gain access onto very secure premises and make it appear to the police that the owner ( or another party ) had somthing to do with it!!! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 06:18 pm | |
G'day,
PHILLIP: Where did you get the information that whores don't like to perform their 'work' with a customer behind them? I've read many times that rear-entry sex was the most common form for Victorian prostitutes, especially amoung prostitutes who 'worked' in the allies. It was fast and easiest for women who wore Victorian fashions.
I'll get back to you soon IVOR.
LEANNE! |
Author: graziano
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 06:39 pm | |
Ivor you say:
"Neat little tricks can be performed on locked premises to make the police think the opposite of what has actually happened."
but then,
"If the doors were locked then there is no reason why the Police should search the Stable."
I am puzzled.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:37 pm | |
Hello Rick , gosh its been a long time since the Conference hasn't it ! I am very well thank you , I hope the same is true of yourself and your lady wife !
You could be right , but there are several things that we should consider I think : firstly , strangulation from the front is a potentially dangerous thing to the attacker as the victim's feet are free , and this might lead to a very painful kick in the private parts for him !
Your point about strangulation to kill the victim also holds true in part in using it to subdue the victim : the killer might think hes half-throttled the poor lady when she turns out to have been faking it and gives him a punch in the face !
If strangulation happened at all , I think it would have happened this way - the killer would have put his arm round the victim's neck and over her windpipe from behind and used pressure to cut off the air supply to the head. When she was blacked out and subdued he could then cut the throat.
But the question begs : the simplest way to stun somebody is to give them a tap on the head with the old ' masher niblick ' ie why didn't Jack use a club or a nightstick to thwack his victim on the back of the head to stun her , or even simply stab her in the back with a knife ?
I think Mr Radka is talking some nonsense here ! |
Author: Diana
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 07:39 pm | |
| I have wondered if the gate deal was even part of his signature. But then you have to explain Kelly and possibly Tabram. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:22 pm | |
The only point I find worth commenting on from graziano above is the absence of the red dots on the face. The reason for this is because they didn't die by strangulation. They were strangled into unconsciousness, not death. His plan was to kill them by cutting their carotid artery while they were still alive, so that their heart would continue to pumping out a good deal of their blood. That leaves him with a relatively dry body cavity, rather than a pool, to mutilate in. Thus he doesn't get his hands and arms too bloody, and he can walk through the streets later unnoticed.
The rest: Ain't necessarily so.
David |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 08:35 pm | |
Hiya Ivor, what did Barnett give you then, a crate of fish?.
I'm glad you are coping with giving up smoking, --your diet too. What people don't realize when folks like you and me give up smoking is we give up one bad habit and gain another, (eating) before we really get rid of the smoking habit. So really we are fighting two habits now instead of one. I hate to discourage you Ivor, but I still would love a smoke after 8mths, but maybe it won't affect you so much in that way. Anyway Ivor keep it up.
All the Best, Rick |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 09:35 pm | |
The question of the gate could possibly be solved if we could ascertain whether the doors swung inwards (toward the yard) or outwards (toward the street), since if they swung outwards it would have been plainly impossible for the killer to have gone through them. Although frankly I don't know who might possess such arcane information, except possibly the Viper.
A short time ago I gave my reasons for believing that the murderer attacked his victims while they knelt or crouched in front of him under the thread "General Discussion: Miscellaneous: How Jack subdued his victims", so there is no need to repeat them here. I will only reiterate that it is exteremely difficult (if not virtually impossible) to subdue someone quickly, quietly and without a struggle while they are standing upright, while it is a simple matter to subdue a person who is kneeling or crouching. Furthermore it would explain the bruises on the shoulders and collarbones of some of the victims, which these other theories do not address.
AAA88
PS- Upon reflection I suppose it is possible that the gate swung both ways. Still, it would be interesting to know for sure. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 10:11 pm | |
Hi Graziano,
Dont take the two comments together they are meant as seperate issues.You are a card Graziano some of your comments make me laugh.I liked the one about Stride being attacked from the sky :-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 10:29 pm | |
| Forget about all this crap about what prostitutes would do or not do with their clients.You cant put Jack in the same mould as a normal client Most clients dont kill they prostitutes but Jack did. So dont treat him like a normal John.Also for the record most prostitutes (and normal women for that matter) have intercourse from behind.Stop trying to read a normal situation into certain events which are by any standards not normal. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:00 pm | |
| Hi Rick, That is exactly what I said to my wife that it is fighting two habits at once.Barnett gave me a crate of smoked haddock and a box of kippers and a fine meal they made.My cat has never had it so good. |
Author: David Radka
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:00 pm | |
I've been fortunate to experience intercourse with a certain number of women, and I cannot imagine where Ivor is coming from concerning how most women have intercourse from behind. I've found most tend to prefer the missionary position, although they will accept the behind position. Now this is just my experience, let's hear from some others on this as well.
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:49 pm | |
| Trouble is with you David you must have led something of a sheltered life with some of the comments you come out with. Dont try and tell me that prostitutes dont have sex from behind or that many women dont have sex from behind.Do you expect all the females on this board to tell you about their sexual habits. Also I find that people make stupid comments just for the sake of making them.Others make stupid remarks with no experience in the matters which they waffle on about.One such stupid remark came from Jesse Flowers when he wrote, "I will only reiterate that it is extremely difficult(if not virtually inpossible)to subdue someone quickly, quietly and without a struggle while they are standing upright" I have never heard so much rubbish. I have never been a violent person in the pursuit of crime but during my criminal past I have attacked several criminals and have been justified in doing so as far as I am concerned.One criminal I attacked was more of a powerful person than myself.So to deal with him I had to have the element of surprise on my side. He was attacked from behind while standing up and held in a strangle hold and I applied all the pressure I could bring to bear on his windpipe.He could not struggle and he made no noise. He collapsed unconscious onto the floor.His wife pleaded with me not to harm him while he was unconscious so I let him be. When he awoke he was like a raging bull and it took 4 men to restrain him.I have seen a great deal of violence and much of it was in prison. It is a pity that some people dont stop to think before they make such stupid blooody comments.One chap I saw attacked in prison was hit over the front of his forehead with a square iron bar. He was hit so hard that the bar left an indentation on the front of his forehead (it made me shudder) he then grabbed his head with both hands and shook it and then the most amazing thing happened. He attacked his aggressor and put him in the hospital.I think Jesse gets this months prize for the dumbest comment. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 01 February 2002 - 11:58 pm | |
| I repeat what I stated,Most Prostitutes and normal women have sex from behind.Dont try and tell me that normal women dont have sex from behind. And by normal women I dont mean all women either. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 03:20 am | |
Hello all-
I will not respond to Mr. Edwards' comments, as I regard them (and him) as beneath my contempt.
As anyone who is trained in self-defense knows, a chokehold is one of the easiest holds to break. The most common method is, of course, to reach back and grab the attacker's testicles. Alternative methods are a backwards headbutt to the face, a hard elbow to the ribs or stamping on the attacker's instep. The reason this hold is so easy to break is that almost the entire "weak line" (face, rib cage, groin, instep) of the attacker is exposed. You may get lucky with this hold once, but five or six times running? I doubt it.
It must be remembered that these women, whatever their physical condition, would have become highly charged with adrenaline once they realized that they were fighting for their lives. However, if they were in a kneeling or crouching position, it wouldn't matter. It would have been a simple matter to render them helpless within seconds.
I would only add, for anyone who is interested (Ivor), that I will be in Baltimore in April. At that time I would be only too happy to convey my felicitations in a more personal way.
AAA88 |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:39 am | |
G'day,
IVOR: The 'Times' newspaper report on the Nichols inquest states, (following the testomony of Inspector J. Spratling): 'Later on he directed Constable Thain to examine all the premises in the vicinity of the spot where the body was discovered.' The body was discovered at 3:45 am, Inspector Spratling didn't even get there till 4:30 am. That leaves 3 quarters of an hour for Jack to escape through the other side.
By strangling his victims to death before slicing their throats, Jack lessened the amount of spurting blood by making sure the heart wasn't pumping. He wouldn't have used a club to thwack his victims on the head because if they didn't die straight away, they could have screamed or made a noise.
Looking at a contemporary sketch of Nichols lying in Bucks Row, the closed gate behind her has no lock and bolt on the side showing. Jack could have chosen that exact spot because it was near that gate which provided a quick escape.
Eddowes was found by Watkins at 1:44 am. Inspector Collard got there at 3 past 2:00 am.
Dr. Brown got there "shortly afterwards". The ambulance came and took the body then: "I took immediate steps to have the neighbourhood searched". Jack would have had at least half an hour to escape via another exit, leaving no clues to the actual route he took.
LEANNE. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 05:41 am | |
Jesse,
to kneel or to crouch in a wet and muddy ground as the backyard of Hanbury street or the passageway to Dutfield's yard would not have been very easy to do with the so long and so many skirts and pettycoats these women were wearing.
Where are the traces of mud on the skirts anyway (aside from the one coming from the position of the lying body)?
Philip,
Many men go with prostitutes because they like taking a woman from behind.
I must say that with oral sex the "take from behind" position is the most requested service.
Even if, as you rightly state, it's a potentially dangerous thing to do for them, refusing it would mean being out of business very soon.
I must second Ivor's thoughts here.
David,
thank you very much to have found something worth answering in my post.
I bow before your extreme kindness and before such an honour.
But I come back to you in my next message.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 06:19 am | |
Graziano-
It never fails to puzzle me, how you can be so eloquent (even in a language that is not your own), provide such unique insights...and then come up with something like this.
Polly Nichols would have been crouching over a pavement where less than half an inch of rain had fallen in the preceding 24 hours, and where the last significant precipitation had fallen some 12 hours previously.
There were "occasional showers" the night before Annie Chapman's death, but barely amounting to more than 1/3 of an inch. And Annie was most probably killed near dawn of the next day.
Kate Eddowes crouched over the pavement of Mitre Square some 2 hours after the rain, which amounted to less than a quarter of an inch, had subsided.
And Liz Stride's skirts, as we all know, were muddy.
Now tell me again...what is your problem?
AAA88 |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 06:22 am | |
Jesse, it's all very well talking of how easy it is to break a choker hold thats being held on a person from behind by another person, but it strikes me that you are talking about trained men. These were weak ignorant women, they were very likely apprehensive --and frightened before the attack, and when it happened all they were concerned about was the hand across their face stopping them breathing, or the hands round their neck choking them. I don't think they would have thought of reaching back and grabbing testicles.
Rick. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 12:34 pm | |
David Radka found, in his magnificent courtesy, a point worth answering in one of my posts above and to it, he generously consacrated some twenty or even maybe thirty seconds of his time to state:
"The absence of red dots on the face is because they did not die by strangulation: they were strangled into unconsciousness, not to death."
From the above statement David Radka gives the impression that petechiae come post-mortem.
This is not the case at all.
In case of asphyxia by strangulation (manual or ligature) petechiae do appear while the victim is still alive.
This because petechiae are the consequence of haemorrhages in the skin (in our case -strangulation- on the face) due to raised venous pressure coming of course from the pressure exercised on the neck/throat.
The pressure reaching the stage of creating the conditions for petechiae well before the death of the victim.
They may also occur post-mortem and these are known as "post-mortem petechiae", appearing only in places of the skin already rendered livid if and only if the pressure on the neck goes on even after death.
It is important to notice that David Radka is convinced that in our case strangulation is the solution because, he says, the tongues were protruding (in fact I think this was only the case with Chapman) and lacerated (Nichols, Chapman ?).
Lacerated tongues (the victim bite it) do happen sometimes in strangulation (manual or ligature) because of the convulsions to which the victim may become subject if pressure on the neck/throat is mantained long enough.
In general nevertheless convulsions occur at a later stage of the appearance of petechiae.
Only in general, I must admit, but the cases where the stage of convulsions is reached without the petechiae having previously appeared are quite very rare in comparison.
What nevertheless never happens in cases of asphyxia by strangulation (once again by hands or by ligature) is reaching the stage of convulsions without any formation of cyanosis and congestion.
Congestion is very subjective to interpretation, overall when one must base his opinion on a picture of the victim's face.
Is she swollen or was she simply fat ?
But cyanosis is not (subject to interpretation).
Cyanosis - consequence of lack of oxygenated blood - create a livid surface under the skin.
It is practically the first sign/stage on the face of strangulation.
None of our victims presented this characteristic.
Tabram was even "discoloured".
Quite the opposite.
Of course other compelling signs of strangulation were lacking on the victims of "Jack", e.g.: clear traces (bruises, abrasions, scratches) on the necks/throats left by fingers or by some kind of rope, but there David Radka in his neverending gentleness did not find worth speaking about.
But when he will do, I will be ready to discuss with him on smothering and chloroform.
All forensic information on this post come from my friend Aldo.
The translation (Oxford medical dictionnary) and the mistakes are mine.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: In all the above is (realistically) assumed that strangulation not only does prevent the passage of air to the lungs but also impede the flowing of blood from the body into the head and viceversa. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 02 February 2002 - 03:20 pm | |
| Jesse,It is quite apparent to me that you dont know what you are talking about.One victim was near to deaths door while the others were no match for the killer.Also it is one thing to show someone what to do when attacked but to do so when the element of surprise is in evidence is quite another matter.You made a statement about it being nigh impossible to do what I and many others have done in certain situations.I advise people to ignore your silly comments. As for your contemp it cant be any stronger than that which I have for you and your comments. As for you conveying your felicitations in person they will have to wait because I wont be in Batimore.But if you are here for the next conference after April then you can inform me then because I will be up for it. As for Graziano it is not him who has a problem but rather you. It is a pity that people dont learn something of a subject before they open their mouth. |
