Archive through 08 March 2002

** 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 **

Archive through 08 March 2002

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics: How Jack subdued his victims: Archive through 08 March 2002

Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 03:32 pm
Like most people here I have ruminated on the details of this case for a number of years, and one of the most puzzling aspects for me has always been the question of how the murderer managed to subdue his victims with such speed, silence and efficiency. Most of the theories I have seen about this have been unsatisfactory or even downright ridiculous (with the grand prize for silliness going to Dr. Phillips, who suggested that Liz Stride had been "seized by the shoulders" and "placed on the ground". Where, presumably, she then patiently waited to have her throat cut.) However, I believe I have come up with a scenario which not only seems entirely workable but would explain some of the anomalous bruises found on the victims. First, let us begin with the assumption that Jack and his prostitute victim are ostensibly about to engage in sex (I know not everyone believes this, but let us remain on Planet Earth for just a moment). The general assumption is that this implies some variation of coitus. I think, however, it is much more likely that oral sex was the service being purchased. This is a much simpler act to accomplish for all concerned, especially in a public place (don't ask how I know this...just trust me). This would be true even if the lady were not wearing four skirts, six petticoats, knickers, stays and an apron. Now, try this experiment (preferably with someone who won't think you're a loon- fortunately my wife is no longer surprised by these requests from me). Have someone crouch or kneel or in front of you- now place your thumbs against their windpipe. Look at the position of your hands-your fingers are resting on the person's shoulders. If you were to lean forward and apply pressure, the heels of your palms press against the upper part of the person's chest. The person is helpless to either cry out or fight back- helpless to do anything, in fact, except fall over backwards, from which position they may be throttled at leisure. Try the same thing with a person who is standing up and facing you. They are able to scratch, punch, claw, gouge and kick you, and generally make the entire operation extremely difficult. Not only does this explain how it was done so quickly and quietly, it also explains the bruises on Stride's shoulders, as well as the "bluish discolorations" under the collarbone that Phillips said he had "seen on two occasions since". Annie Chapman displayed similar bruising and so, I believe, did Alice McKenzie. I can see the objections coming, so let me pre-emptively dispose of a couple of them. First of all, I am assuming that the murderer would launch his attack as the woman knelt or crouched down but before dropping his pants (sure, it's common sense, but you know how people are). Second, if you think the victim has a chance to get at her attacker's groin, try the experiment. Once the murderer begins to apply pressure and lean forward, you'll see that it's impossible. There are a few more points connected with this, but all this left-handed pecking has me arm-weary (right arm broken-very inconvevient). Cheers, peace and all the best AAA88
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 03:49 pm
Jesse, If Liz Stride were about to perform orally on her client, how explain the packet of cachous found in her hand? Wouldn't she want to have both hands free to do a good job, and also to ward off any suddenly-made attack? A friend of mine hired a prostitute for oral sex once. They retired to a back street, and she performed on him as he sat in the driver's seat of his van. After they were done, he noticed a sharp knife in her hand. She said that she had the knife pointed right at his belly throughout her performance, as a standard security precaution. It is difficult to seriously entertain the notion of oral sex, really any kind of sex, concerning Stride for this reason. David
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 05:55 pm
David- I don't see how the story of your friend and the knife-wielding hooker disproves my theory; in truth, I fail to see how it is even relevant. Certainly you're not suggesting that the Ripper's victims were armed with knives (are you?). If anything it tends to disprove your original contention. Obviously the woman was able to perform with one hand, leaving her free to hold something else in her other hand-just as Liz did. In any event, perhaps Liz was about to put them in her pocket when the murderer attacked. Either way, if you have an alternate theory that makes more sense than mine, I'm all ears. AAA88
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 07:19 pm
Dear Mr Radka, You relate, what to some, sounds like a thinly disguised tail :-) May I be permitted to offer the following observation...cachous-fetishism was not unheard of in 1888. Rosey :-)
Author: Ally Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 07:48 pm
And although simple logic defeats him time and again, he has come up with this grand theory based on the sole application of his wits and reason. Oh it ought to be good. I have this friend who really doubts it.
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 15 January 2002 - 11:02 pm
"Obviously the woman was able to perform with one hand..." How do you know? Were you there? David
Author: Jesse Flowers Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 12:45 am
David- (Sigh). It was you who said the woman performed with one hand and held a knife in the other. Not me. AAA88
Author: graziano Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 05:04 am
Jesse, if I may, you certainly here make a good point: try to find an alternative scenario to the ones which have already been published, implicating their insufficience to your eyes (that's your good point). You certainly make another good point in saying that other people do not believe these women (precisely Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes) went to the murder site for sex. I personnally think it is just preposterous even to only imagine the possibility. Why not trying to make a third good point, reading The Mystery of Marie Roget ? Bye. Graziano.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 05:09 am
Morning Jesse, Your theory does make sense, that oral sex was the service being purchased. Much simpler, as you say, to accomplish in a public place, especially in those days when the lady was likely to be sporting four skirts, six petticoats, knickers, stays and an apron. But Eddowes was found sans knickers or stays, so I guess some of the working girls went thus equipped, prepared (like boy scouts, if you will) for any eventuality, including having oral sex performed on them. (Oh, sorry, you mean the client pays the lady to perform on him, not vice versa. ) I can't immediately see any objections - er - to your theory. I'm tempted to ask for a blow-by-blow account but my descent into juvenile humour has gone too far already. Love, Caz
Author: ASEGERDAL Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 06:55 am
Dear Jesse: Me again, Alastair. I have just read what you have to say about how the Ripper subdued his victims. I'm sure he simply picked them up, went to a suitable dark spot and immediately stranged them and cut their throat. This would silence them at once. All the victims showed signs of clenched fists in rigor mortis, a sure sign of strangulation and/or cut throat. As for sex, the killer was a typical serial killer who went in for gross mutilation of the body. Sex (and his interest in sex) is nil. He is only interested in domination of women, death being the ultimate domination. Much of the information I've had about serial killer profiles is from a late friend who help set up the FBI's VICAP profiling unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. Most of the killers are loners who would not stand out in a crowd, but they are also quite intelligent--enough to hold down a stead job or undertake some other trade or profession. But they cannot stick at any one occupation because they are consumed by raging fantasies of domination and cruelty to women. The unique thing about this is that they cannot separate fantasy from reality. Even when jailed, they still plan their next killing in their mind, always trying to "improve" on their last victim. They are not "mad" in the usual sense of the word, and are sane in their day-to-day behavior. They are cool, calm and collected when interviewed by the FBI after their arrest, and happily talk about their awful work the way you or I would chat about the weather. They are also what the FBI term as "organized" meaning their deeds are carefully planned in advance. After each killing, they then work on how to improve on their next killing, with each murder being worse than their previous one. All of this can be seen in the Ripper crimes. This profiling information applies just as much to 1888 as it does today. All the best, Alastair
Author: graziano Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 08:36 am
Oh dear, dear, dear.......
Author: Jon Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 09:30 am
Jesse. Don't you think you are being a little unkind to Dr. Phillips, who I might add is making a remark which is dependent on the understanding of women's role in society in the 19th century. "....unsatisfactory or even downright ridiculous (with the grand prize for silliness going to Dr. Phillips, who suggested that Liz Stride had been "seized by the shoulders" and "placed on the ground". Where, presumably, she then patiently waited to have her throat cut.) In Phillips day women by-and-large were more submissive than today, more's the pity. I mean, when was the last time you laid a woman down and she said and did nothing? Dr. Phillips was conveying the Victorian attitude that men of upper society had on women of lower society, namely, that they would do what they were told and remain purely at the hands of the superior member of the species. His remark was not silly, it was made in another era with ~~better~~, different social rules. Excuse the bit of tongue-in-cheek humor there,.....any more of it and it may turn into foot-in-mouth. Regards, Jon
Author: Kevin Braun Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 10:12 am
Caz, Your response to Jessie seems to indicate that you have changed your mind concerning the oral sex theory. Several months ago, I suggested to Gailfinder that JtR may have asked for oral sex as a way of putting the victims in a very vulnerable position. Your response was that it was Jack, not the victim who was in the vulnerable position. I believe you included one of those faces with teeth chomping up and down. Take care, Kevin
Author: Jesse Flowers Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 11:36 am
Graz- Okay, I read The Mystery of Marie Roget. What should I read next? Jon- I'm not even going to touch that one... Caz- Naughty, naughty... AAA88
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 11:47 am
Hi Kevin, Well, Jesse did qualify his theory by saying: 'I can see the objections coming, so let me pre-emptively dispose of a couple of them. First of all, I am assuming that the murderer would launch his attack as the woman knelt or crouched down but before dropping his pants... Second, if you think the victim has a chance to get at her attacker's groin, try the experiment. Once the murderer begins to apply pressure and lean forward, you'll see that it's impossible.' Now I haven't had a chance to try Jesse's experiment yet and test the theory, but hubby will soon be home with a hot chicken for me to do something with, so before I decide how hot to make the curry, perhaps we'll see if I can get to his groin before he stops me. (Hubby's groin, not the chicken's, before anyone asks.) And anyway, women are well known for changing their minds - a very healthy trait if new info or a better argument comes along. I'm learning something new every day here. Love, Caz
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 01:12 pm
Alastair , syncope not asphyxiation. It makes all the difference. Simon
Author: Kevin Braun Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 03:27 pm
Caz, (IMHO) the theory may depend on circumstance and timing. Enjoy the chicken. Love, Kevin
Author: graziano Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 04:55 pm
Who knows, Simon, maybe syncope didn't apply in 1888. Oh dear, dear, dear.....
Author: david rhea Wednesday, 16 January 2002 - 06:11 pm
That gentleman who was the recipient of oral sex with a knife poised at his belly undoubtedly has nerves of steel.He had a lot to lose.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 04:58 am
Hi Kevin, All, Well we tried the experiment and I wholeheartedly agree that the theory depends on circumstances and timing. For a start, I knew exactly what was coming and hubby wasn't hell-bent on doing me in (not last night anyway). And I'm strong and healthy. The victims were old before their time, or sick, and Jack meant business. The only mitigating factors would be that the women would have had Jack at the back of their minds after Tabram and Nichols and may have been semi-prepared for a mortal struggle if their time came. They may have been tough old birds, used to fighting their own battles, but they were also desperate for the money Jack could offer just to survive. I doubt they'd have a chance to grab at anything when the attack came. As for me, the second hubby had his hands on my windpipe I was knackered and the last thing I could do was lash out at anything, let alone get my teeth anywhere near his groin. The chicken was lovely thanks. But for some reason, hubby couldn't shake off the feeling that he had come off worse from the encounter somehow. Love, Caz
Author: stephen miller Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 07:41 am
Caz was that the encounter with the chicken or something else? steve
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 17 January 2002 - 08:08 am
Something else entirely Steve. It was really something else.
Author: graziano Monday, 21 January 2002 - 04:20 pm
The victims were chloroformed by inhalation. The killers used a mask for the purpose, a leather mask very likely, which was applied on the face, having previously filled the mask with a cloth soaked -not necessarily so much- with the substance. They did it were the noise of a struggle could not have been heard (or at least could not have raised suspicions). As one was keeping the woman tight from the back with the mask on the face of the woman, the other kept tight the feets or the hands following the need. It is nevertheless possible that for Tabram and Coles chloroform was not used but a blow on the head was enough to render them unconscious. Then they moved the women where they had decided to perform the butchery (the aim of the location -but this is valid only till the murder of Mary Kelly- was to create a sentiment of huge insecurity amid the population of the East End and to deride the police forces). For Stride they got a little problem (they were disturbed but not by Diemschutz) and they did only what they could. For Eddowes they performed the disfigurement not in Mitre square but before. The disfigurment should not have been so important but they had a little problem also with her: to much irritation of the skin coming from the use of chloroform. The traces of such an application on the skin had to be erased. They began killing Stride only when they got the news and they were sure that Eddowes had been freed. It was two or nothing. McKenzie was killed for diversion. No strangulation. No traces on the throats. Too many bruises on the cheeks and the jaws. Lacerated tongues are not only signs of strangulation, they are signs of convulsions. Strangulation tend to leave livid surfaces. Inhalated chloroform may be the cause of convulsions. While butchering (it was not always the same guy, Chapman and Eddowes were not cut by the same hand) others kept watch at sensible points. The idea of chloroform is from Ed Carter and has already been put forward by him. He also explained the way the victims were moved. Other points are mine. I would not discard so easy the "Torso murders". But this is another story. I think "Jack" tried to do the same thing in France some years before but he got aware of the difficulties to stand again a police force who fought the milieu with a very sophisticated net of informers and which already used some methods of "scientific inquiry". But this is also another story. Bye. Graziano. P.S.: Jesse, by the way, I was really serious with The Mistery of Marie Roget, hope you did not take my suggestion as an offence.
Author: david rhea Monday, 21 January 2002 - 07:20 pm
Graziano; It appears that the French could ask questions while the British could not as to whom was being addressed by the police.Which was probably a great help.
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 21 January 2002 - 07:47 pm
Graziano, another way the victims could have been put out of action quickly prior to throat cutting, would be a very hard punch in the stomach. The state of health of those women would almost make sure that such a blow would knock them senseless Regards, Rick.
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 12:29 am
Graz- No, I did not take offense at your suggestion, and my response was meant only as a small jest which I hope you do not mind. The truth of the matter is that, sitting home with a busted arm and not a whole lot to do, and with the Complete Tales and Poems of Edgar Allan Poe sitting right there on the bookshelf, I did go ahead and read the story. I did not fail to notice the parallels between Poe's narrative and the subject of our discussion here; most pertinent, I thought, was Dupin's observation that "I would divert inquiry, in the present case, from the trodden and hitherto unfruitful ground of the event itself to the contemporary circumstances which surround it"; a sentiment with which I think we both agree. However trying to equate the incoherent ramblings of the now-departed Ed Carter with the cool deductions of C. Auguste Dupin brought me no small amount of merriment. I see that you have worked out a rather complex methodology for the murderers; but I do not see that you have adduced any evidence to support it (and neither, I might add, does Mr. Parminter). Indeed on some points (e.g. use of chloroform, victims moved after death) your views seem to conflict with the extant medical testimony. Although I'm sure you have your reasons for making these assertions, it's difficult to properly evaluate your theories when you keep those reasons to yourself. Now, my theory on the killer's methodology may be correct or it may be utter nonsense, but at least I have adduced reasons and evidence (e.g. patterns of bruising, practical experimentation) in support of it, and as far as I can see no one has substantially challenged it on those grounds. Unless and until such time as that is done I will continue to regard it as valid (for my purposes, anyway). "The mass of people", warns Poe's imaginary detective,"regard as profound only him who suugests pungent contradictions of the general idea." Such false profundity, without any basis in fact or reason, is "of the lowest order of merit." Hmmm. AAA88
Author: graziano Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 10:39 am
David, french prisons were full of professional informants and the police forces new quite everything there was to know about the mob. French police had already a huge collections of files with identities of criminals with all pertinent facts about their deeds. These files based on the "Bertillon system" were easy and always ready to use very fast. They also contained (aside pictures) all necessaries body measures to identify a criminal all his life. It was very easy for a recidivist to escape justice in England where Hershel and Faulds were considered as fools (the former in 1888 had already studied fingerprintings for nearly 30 years, the latter had already wrote how the use of fingerprinting could help detecting criminals). Changing identity was a children game. It was quite impossible in France. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Tuesday, 22 January 2002 - 10:47 am
It could have been Warwick but this, among other things, leave us with nothing to explain the bruises on the faces and, for some of them, on the hands. Moreover I do not know if this could explain the clenched fists, since these are sign of moments of deep stress just before the murder (I do not know why some boarders say that this is a compelling sign of strangulation). So a fight in consciousness before falling unconscious. A blow in the stomach and consequent immediate unconsciousness would have prevented such a stress. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Wednesday, 23 January 2002 - 05:54 am
Jesse, do you really think that on this casebook one may be regarded by the established boarders with profoundness ? But you are right concerning the adducing of evidences. And you are also right about the story of Mary Rogers. You got the point obviously. A lot of analogies. Could use the same deductions (inductions ? Is it english ?). I must admit that I do not know how to answer you (in this very moment). It's not a question of lacking arguments (which can be contested in any case), it's the way to put them that bother me. Let me think a bit about it. We will certainly have time and opportunity to discuss all that again. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Daelin Patrick McKenna Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 11:09 pm
Hello all! I have been reading your posts on this subject for a time now and feel that I must say something now. While I do not claim to have any idea as to what actually happened those fateful nights, I must say that Jesse's theory of strangulation before oral sex does make a compelling argument. I too, tried the "experiemnt" with my wife the other night. I found that in the space of one or two seconds I had her basically at my mercy. AS I Love her deeply, I didn't really apply that much pressure at all (I Left no bruises, but could see where I would have had I pressed harder) yet she was virtually powerless to fight me off. With a sweep of my hand I simulate cutting her throat and the "victim" is mine to do with as I will up to and including disembowling her.The Only thing I cant seem to account for is the blood spray that would inevitably come from the wound (and no doubt all over our killer!) If anyone knows if strangulation cuts off enough blood flow to the neck to cause a lack of distinct spray, Please let me know! I think Jesse may be onto something here, but think you all have wonderful minds! Let me know what you think! Cheers, Daelin
Author: Jesse Flowers Monday, 28 January 2002 - 03:49 am
Daelin- It's generally assumed that the murderer, after throttling the victim, knelt by her right side and severed the throat from left to right, thereby directing the spray of blood from the left carotid artery away from himself. Also, the small amount of blood found at some crime scenes could lead one to conclude that the victims were strangled to death before being cut, which would further reduce the flow of blood. At least that's my understanding. Hope this helps. AAA88
Author: Marion Powell Severin Monday, 28 January 2002 - 04:12 am
The oral sex position method of overpowering the whores seems logical to me. Don't you know only the hardest of hard cores must have stayed in that environment during the hype of all of these murders. God...........how utterly trapped MJK must have been not to be able to say "forget this crap, I'm out of here !" How very sad.
Author: Scott E. Medine Monday, 28 January 2002 - 10:34 am
Daelin Strangulation in fact causes the blood to flow more freely as does the presence of alcohol. Peace, Scott
Author: Michael Leonard Tate Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:24 pm
Hello, I believe the killer requested that the deed (intercourse - not murder...) be performed on the ground in the regular missionary position. The killer being on top would proivde the following advantages/explainations: 1. Easy to surpress the victim with his body weight. 2. Less visible from overlooking windows. 3. Blood from a throat slash would be less likely to soil the murderers clothes. (And less likely to soil those of the victims as per some of the reports). 4. Body already in position for quick mutilation. Obviously this wouldn't be the prefered position for the prostitute considering the hard, cold, dirty floors, but if they were desperate enough for money to roam the streets at night with a serial killer loose, then I'm sure they would have considered it. Perhaps JtR made sure to check that his victims were compliant before going off with them as I'm sure some would refuse. Maybe he did ask them first: "Will you?" Mike
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 12:37 pm
Yeah, perhaps they thought "This client's safe and boring. I'll be all right with him." Sorry for the flippancy. I'm in particularly good humour today. Love, Caz
Author: Goryboy Thursday, 07 March 2002 - 05:51 pm
Caz -- Not all Missionaries are boring--only the ones who pray throughout. Jesse -- I think your theory as to JtR's method of dispatching his victims a very good one. It would not only account for his lightning quick, silent attacks in which his victims are rendered unconscious with a minimum of fuss, but also for the bruising noticed on the "upper fore part of the chest" on at least two of the victims (Chapman and Stride), as well as the relative paucity of blood at the scene (due to strangulation before the slice-and-dice routine). And the likelihood of purchasing oral sex from these women (as opposed to any form of coitus) is quite good, I should think. I doubt many of them, even as degraded and desperate as they were, wanted to get down on the filthy ground of those alleys for a quick roll in the muck. The preferred method, as I understand it, was for the woman to turn her back to the client, hike her skirts and let the chap have his fun (although I've read that the more experienced ladies were able to prevent actual penetration by the adroit use of their upper thigh muscles). Another service offered by East End prostitutes in those days was the "penny knee-trembler," i.e., the manual release special. Though this did not put them in the same vulnerable position as the "hit-yur-knees, luv," oral thingammy, it still indicates that variety was not out of the q. The hummer, therefore, was probably as common as the stand-up quickie or the knee-trembler. As to Stride's having cachous in her hand, this does not preclude oral sex at all. She may have simply wanted to have them on-hand (so to speak) for after the oral frivolities, in order to freshen her breath for the next john. She was a prostitute, after all, not a saint. The fact that these poor drabs were apparently multi-talented individuals, capable of rendering a host of different services for their clients, indicates to me at least that oral sex is not to be lightly discounted. Under any circumcisions. Er, stances, I mean. And your theory does add a viable new dimension to the ongoing debate. As ever, Goryboy
Author: Jesse Flowers Friday, 08 March 2002 - 11:09 am
Hi GB- I'm afraid you have me at a complete loss. I have absolutely no idea how to respond to someone who actually agrees with me. AAA88
Author: Goryboy Friday, 08 March 2002 - 04:49 pm
Hey, AAA88, I guess it's just a matter of two like-minded individuals reading the same accounts, considering the same reports, the same evidence, and coming to roughly the same conclusions. That JtR subdued his victims quickly and quietly is indisputable. How he did so can be judged from the context of who and what he and his victims were. He was a punter buying sex from a prostitute. The women led Jack to a secluded area, giving him his opportunity, and he struck -- either from in front, from the side or from behind. There aren't any other options. Given the physical evidence presented by several of the victims, he must have strangled at least three of them (Nichols, Chapman, Stride), and probably Eddowes, as well, though the physical evidence isn't quite as strong with her. Still, common sense indicates he either grabbed them from behind or got them into the position you described above -- which makes more and more sense to me the longer I think about it. After all, as flexible and variable as the human animal is, there are only so many positions such a duo would likely assume in a dark, manky alley for a bit of sex. Jack was NOT Bill Clinton. He at least had some dignity. All breast, John eSprocket
Author: david rhea Friday, 08 March 2002 - 08:10 pm
Well perhaps he didn't smoke cigars.This sex thing is interesting. Were the police at that time unable to determine whether sex had been done or not or did Jack ask for sex not in the usual manner.Front and back would be usual-oral as well.The idea that Mary Kelly was sodomized was an idea of W T Stead or a suggestion from Rosyln D'Onston. As far as we know there was no sex as we understand it.These experienced whores knew most of the ways, but Chapman could say NO! (or did Jack say that).What the Ripper asked them to do was out of the ordinary.
Author: Goryboy Friday, 08 March 2002 - 11:04 pm
Actually, no sign of any sexual contact, or "connexion" was ever found on any of the victims. I believe one doctor even checked Catharine Eddowes' thighs for semen but found none. However, the persistent rumor of sodomy done to MJK may not be apocryphal after all. Check out the famous frontal view of Kelly in close up and see if you can spot the arrow or pencil that appears to have been jammed into her rectum. You'll need a larger, close up view of the photo to see it. There is something sticking out of the wreckage of her privates. You can see it in the photo in Sugden's "Complete History" and in Rumbelow's "Complete Casebook." Look for the small arrow, with what appears to be feathered flights, projecting from the corpse's rectum. It's visible in both photos. D'Onston was a bad boy, perhaps?