|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 October 06, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simplicity - Occams Razor:
Archive through October 06, 2000
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 12:21 pm |        | Mr. Apron: no, I mean Barnett as the spurned lover. Sorry for the confused syntax. But I see no sociopath here. Fleming is a question mark; he, too, evidently spurned. My working theory is that Kelly had originally preferred Joe F., but Joe B. had the money to keep her off the streets. A bit mercenary, but perhaps understandable in Whitechapel in 1888.
Alternative theory #2301 to the 'delay' between Eddowes & the Goulston Street Graffito: JtR was wandering around lost. Being an American, his mind was no doubt orientated to the grid pattern. In those eccentric British streets, he quickly lost his barrings. This happens. I speak from experience. Those zig-zag short-cuts work on the good old American grid; try it in London and one (well Americans anyway) end up lost. Those born in Europe don't understand the power of grid-thinking. The American temperance periodical The Nation understood, and had a contemporary editorial blaming the success of Jack the Ripper on the crookedness of London Streets. Q.E.D. |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 12:44 pm | | Jill, You might be interested to know, since we're discussing the literal meaning of our names, that "Radke," the traditional spelling used by my grandfather, means "wheelright" or "wheelmaker." Apparently, this trade was a kind of wheel blacksmith in olden times.
I looked up the meaning of the name of another gentlement who posts on these boards, a
Mr. _ _ g r _ _ i _. It means "manure shoveller."
David |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 01:12 pm | | | Good point Leanne, I never considered it that much if at all, but it certainly makes sense. Was she enticed to desert the children to walk the streets by a prostitute aquaintance. It would have made a hell of an impression on a young boy. RICK. |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 01:20 pm | | Jon,
The era of body-snatching was long over by this time. All unclaimed bodies (and there were many) were free to colleges and students.
From Columbia Encyclopedia Online:
"Before cadavers were legally available for dissection and study by medical students, traffic in stolen bodies was profitable. Those who engaged in the illicit practice were sometimes called resurrectionists; they were active from about the early 18th cent. to the middle 19th cent. Public opposition to any dissection of bodies was further aroused by discovery of the resurrectionists’ activities; outbursts of violence occurred in Europe as well as in America. Robert Knox, an eminent British anatomist, became a victim of public attack because a body he had purchased for dissection proved to be that of one of a number of victims murdered by William Hare and an accomplice named William Burke for the purpose of selling the bodies; the murderers were brought to trial (1828) and convicted. This and other similar cases led to the passage (1832) in Great Britain of the Anatomy Act, which permitted the legal acquisition by medical schools of unclaimed bodies." |
Author: Keith Rogan
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 01:52 pm | | Jill,
Jill said: "Both Tabram and MJK show possible signs of strangulation besides Chapman. He strangled before cutting the throat (seems logic to me)."
Both Tabram and MJK are atypical. Tabram because she was an early victim - while he was still experimenting with technique.
And of course MJK DID have the defensive wounds you would expect from a frontal assualt! Which is interesting because she was indoors where a more typical sexual position might be expected.
MJK's defensive wounds are what led me to postulate the theory in the first place - why is she the only one with clear defensive wounds?
And remember, the evidence for strangulation is rather "iffy". In strangulation, the hyoid bone is broken and the eyes are typically bloodshot from burst vessels - none of the surgeons report either of these diagnostic signs.
Jill said: "Also my thought is: If he cut their throat as you propose, why then lay the victims out on their back, legs drawn up and spread, instead of hunkered like you say?"
Because he wanted them in a sexual position. The bodies were "posed" in that he drew up the dresses and spread the legs - this is as much his "signature" as his obliteration/removal of the uterus. He didn't care how he killed them because that wasn't his purpose.
These were sexual assualts, make no mistake about that. He may not have actually achieved penetration when his victims "assumed the position", but at some point (possibly during his "surgery") he probably received some sort of sexual gratification.
Read up on Andre Chikatillo (sp?) and you'll see some great similarities.
Keith |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 07:24 pm | | There are a few points I'd like to make regarding killers, serial and other wise. How many murderers have gone unapprehended because they do not fit the police profile,-- because the police do not have enough evidence to arrest and convict,-- because the police, out of lack of proof or evidence, sit on their hands and wait for one more murder when there will be a good chance of getting him,--and that killing never happens?. How many killers have gone unapprehended because there was no motive,(to the police),-- the killer was just too good for them. After all police detectives are only human!, and this was 1888 not 2000.How many times have we read of kidnappings and ransome threats,"do this or pay that or the child dies". This type of person will even kidnap a pet and threaten the owner. Then there are the silent threats or warnings, an unspoken "Keep your mouth shut or else, and your car is vandalized, to emphasize the "else". All this to keep people toeing the line!. Kelly had to be made toe the line, though she didn't realise that was why she was losing her friends and aquaintances. If Bruce Paley is right in his theory,(and that is something that can never be proved), you Ripperologists who won't give his theory the time of day,-- well, Jack the Ripper would still go free if you were in the police force of 1888! because you won't think the unthinkable!. There are a couple of sayings I take a lot of notice of,--one is, "there is a first time for everything"--and the other is, "there's always an exception to the rule." And if it was our fish gutter friend who was the culprit, he got away with it because the police reasoning was the same as your's.
Rick I'm sorry if I preach, it's not intentional. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 08:16 pm | | Keith
Ever heard the expression "your teaching mother how to suck eggs".
Thanks for the Columbia extract, but I posted several titles already for anyone who is interested in learning about the history of the Resurrectionists in detail.
And I already mentioned all the salient points that you chose to quote, even about bodysnatching being over 50 yrs before Jacks time.
But you still somehow miss the point completely... foreign people (American, European) with medical training were not automatically allowed to become Doctors in England.
It is those who are outside the college, students, B.M.A....in general, outside the British Medical Fraternity that we might need to focus on.
And anyone outside the system would need to slip a few shillings to someone who needed the brass, like a mortuary attendant as an example. This is the creature who may have been supplying a 'Doctor' with organs, then on being discovered stealing the organs, is booted out...and with no other source of income, attempted to help himself to organs from the living.
I suggested earlier that in this scenario it is the 'Mr Hyde' who is Jack, not 'Dr Jekyll'.
Like I pointed out before, its a potential scenario which fits the facts of the case and is not unreasonable.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 08:30 pm | | Just to clarify a point....
There are at least two potential scenario's, involving this illicit organ retrieval.
- A solitary Dr Jekyll who changes into a Mr Hyde when he needs another supply of organs.
or
- A Dr Jekyll who hires a 'Mr Hyde' to go out and get him his organs.
Either way, I cannot see the need for a registered/licenced British Doctor or medical student, needing to murder for organs, so I suspect, if this scenario has any potential, that we are looking for a medical man (Dr Jekyll) of foreign extract.
Of course, there's always room for a mad English Doctor who gets more of a thrill out of murder, than writing a cheque.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 04 October 2000 - 08:54 pm | | Jack (L.A.)
Thankyou for your comment, and I appreciate the offer (GSG), to get back to discussing something a little more interesting than Barnett.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 02:46 am | | Jon,
Lets leave my mothers egg sucking out of this! Your theory is that some unlicensed doctor is paying people to gut prostitutes and steal the odd kidney here and there?
Take a deep breath, back off and examine your premise.
Keith |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 03:46 am | | David - The origin of species, hmmmm :-)
Keith - "Both Tabram and MJK are atypical. Tabram because she was an early victim - while he was still experimenting with technique. "
But then he used the same technique with Chapman, which is apprehended as a standard of JtR's technique.
As far as the signs go, it was deduced that Chapman was only partly strangled. And with both Tabram and MJK I would not go further than that, the reason why not all the signs are visible in full blown force.
To add a sign to the strangle-list you have given: clenched hands. It was on this basis that someone professional informed me of his observation that there were more victims than only Chapman being strangled.
But even without obvious strangling signs, there is Nichols with imprints at her jaw, that support she was grabbed from the front, not behind.
This leaves us with Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and MJK attacked from the front. And you can count Stride to a frontal attack victim too, if you believe she was murdered by JtR.
That leaves only Eddowes. Following the Occam's Razor on the medical foundings on those victims, it is safe to assume that Eddowes was attacked from the front too. And even when it wasn't then you still can't transfer a behind method to the other 5 mentioned, since they were in fact attacked from the front.
You call Tabram and MJK atypical: they all are.
Tabram is the first and stabbed, while being alive.
Nichols still had all her organs.
Chapman was killed near morning, and being robbed.
Stride was only cutthroated, and attacked under the nose of witnesses.
Eddowes was given a clowns face, and was probably not even a prostitute.
MJK was killed within doors, the youngest and MAYBE has defense wounds.
And yes I agree that there was a sexual connotation about it.
Still another point. You have mentioned that an often used position was bending forward. Another solution that was also used was just 'rubbing' and no intimate connection at all. There was once found a prostitute who died at an old age, still a virgin.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 10:37 am | | For those who like Barnett as JTR please tell me how he stops killing; because JTR looks like a serial killer & serial killers don't stop do they?
Jill I have been comfortable with the idea that JTR strangled his victims to submission ( probably from in front ) or death & then cut their throats ( probably from behind in order to achieve the force to mark bones ) do you have somethingelse in mind?
As to the positioning of the bodies I have formed the opinion that JTR placed the legs ( & or their bodies ) of his victims as a guide to the removal of organs. How else could this be achieved in the dark?
John |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 01:03 pm | | Jill,
It's this simple. If JtR attacked his victims from in front he would be subjecting himself to 60-90 seconds of face scratching, slaps, knee's in groin, eye gouging, hair pulling, etc, every time he killed someone. Many of these women would have escaped.
You can't strangle somebody AND control their arms and legs at the same time from in FRONT. And it's almost as difficult to simply cut their throats from in front. Each attack would have been a noisy death struggle with defensive wounds in evidence.
The attacks had to be from the rear, whether they were strangled first or just had their throats cut.
This method of attack also explains why there was a difference in opinion on whether JtR was right or left handed. A right handed man cutting a throat from the rear would appear to be left handed if you supposed he attacked from in front - and vice versa.
I'm not familiar with this "clenched hands" diagnostic sign. I do know that a strangulation must break the hyoid bone and that normally the eyes are bloodshot (this sign is not always evident with the naked eye - sometimes it requires an ophthalmic exam). None of the coroners report a broken hyoid bone and nobody reports the kind of extensive bruising that must have been evident if strangulation took place.
There's simply nothing to support how the victims died accept the opinions of the surgeons who did the exams - and those exams were of an extremely perfunctory nature - look at the notes.
However, if you take a step back and look at the evidence - the silence of the attacks, the lack of defensive wounds, the fact that the dead women had not pulled off hair, blood or eyeballs from their assailant you are left with one conclusion - he attacked from behind.
This is exactly what you would expect since JtR was paying these women to present themselves in this helpless position! |
Author: Keith Rogan
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 02:37 pm | | Lets lay this to rest if we can.
Tabram (Dr. Killeen)
– We only have a very loose paraphrased description of Killeen’s testimony but he basically reports 39 stab wounds, all inflicted while victim was alive and by two different instruments. Possibly Tabram was attacked from in front, but the evidence can be interpreted either way – the killer could have stabbed the throat from behind rather than the typical JtR slice. Inconclusive, however, no bruising (evidence of strangulation) or defensive wounds are reported.
Chapman (Dr. Phillips): "I am of opinion that the person who cut the deceased's throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right.
[Coroner] Could that be done so instantaneously that a person could not cry out?
Witness: By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.
The Forman: There would probably be suffocation.
The Coroner: The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation? - Yes. My impression is that she was partially strangled. Witness added that the handkerchief produced was, when found amongst the clothing, saturated with blood. A similar article was round the throat of the deceased when he saw her early in the morning at Hanbury-street."
- Chapman does show evidence of strangulation, but she had a neckerchief knotted around her neck that would have made a convenient “handle” to grasp from someone behind her. No defensive wounds.
Nichols: (Dr. Lewellyn): "On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae"
- Nichols has one bruise along the jaw (hardly a sign of strangulation). No defensive wounds.
Eddowes (Dr. Brown): Coroner] "Can you tell us what was the cause of death? - The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.
[Coroner] Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle? - I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.
[Coroner] Would any noise be heard, do you think? - I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound."
- Eddowes too, has no sign of strangulation and no defensive wounds.
Kelly (Dr. Bond): "Both arms & forearms had extensive & jagged wounds.
The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."
- Kelly (and I find this significant) was attacked indoors where the “from behind” sexual position of the street prostitute would not be used. She’s liberally covered with defensive wounds on her arms, forearms and hands. There is no evidence of strangulation.
I did not include Stride in this group, but she does have bruising on her shoulders (exactly where somebody roughly grasping her from behind might grab her), and another on her upper chest where somebody attacking from in front might bruise her. There are no signs of strangulation and again, no defensive wounds. With Stride, you might not expect defensive wounds if as posited, Kidney had simply cut her throat and ran away instead of struggling with her after the initial slash (see below).
I am disagreeing with the surgeons here (in that I think the attacks happened from behind, when the victims were “conjoined” or preparing to be conjoined with JtR). But, you must remember that these men had none of the forensic training that we would expect of a Medical Examiner today before being asked for such opinions.
These were also middle class Victorians who likely had little insight into how prostitution was performed in the alleys of the East End.
They are also quite absolutely WRONG on a number of points in their testimony. For example, Brown states that death would be “immediate” upon having the throat cut – absolute bollix! Any farmer or hunter who has performed this act on an animal can tell you that it takes upwards of a minute or more for a large animal to die this way.
Here’s what I think happened: He paid them as a normal customer. He was led to a private place by the prostitute who hiked her skirts and bent over (perhaps against a wall or fence) while JtR simply got behind them (no evidence here one way or the other whether he actually began the sex act with them). He then grabbed them by the hair - or by the kerchief in Chapmans case - and cut their throats. Held in this position, they could not strike out at him. Their throats are cut, so they can not scream. They are bent over, so the blood falls straight down (consistent with the fact that the front of their dresses were not bloodied). When they stop or weaken (from blood loss) in their struggles, he simply turns them and drops them to the ground and finishes his work.
This is entirely consistent with the evidence, while the frontal attack theory completely ignores everything we know about it today.
If he attacked from in front, the women’s hands would be bruised and bloodied from flailing at the attacker. One can simply look at Kelly to see the wounds that a frontal attack victim would have. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 05 October 2000 - 08:20 pm | | Keith
I'm not sure if its the idea that Doctors can stoop to murder, that you dont agree with.
Or is it that any Doctor might try to work outside the law.
Or dont you understand the 'Jekyll & Hyde' syndrome of a maverick Doctor?
Remember Dr Christian Barnard?...would you like a list of maverick Doctors who are ostracised by their peers because of their single minded struggle in pursuance of obscure studies?
Would you like a list of Doctors who stoop to murder?, in some cases, because they think they are God.
Try to be objective and admit the possibility is there. Thats all I have been proposing, to remind people that there is one very obvious research path that has never been followed.
Did you hear about the New Zealand Doctor a few years ago who discovered stomach ulcers are the result of abdominal bacteria?. He was another maverick Doctor who had to put his life on the line by infecting himself with the bacteria, he gave himself ulcers and had it verified by many leading medical Doctors. This was the only way he could prove to 'the old school tie' top brass in the medical world that he had a way of beating the common ulcer. He cured himself just as he always said he could. Check out the New England Journal of Medicine, or the British Medical Journal.
The Jekyll & Hyde syndrome is alive and well.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 04:02 am | | Keith,
On the post of Friday, October 06, 2000 - 04:03:
It's this simple: you can find it illogic that he wasn't scratched, or that the victims didn't defend themselves, and thus from your own mind decide that his best option was from behind. But I don't want to better his technique, I'm only looking at the forensic statements.
Lefthandedness: Only with Nichols JtR is thought to be lefthanded at first.
Clenched hands: I've got this information from a pathologist, and I'm not in the position to argue about this with him. And I'm not so sure that if a victim is only partially strangled, just enough to weaken her, that the hyoid bone would brake.
I've looked at the notes, and still do time and time again, to review my wound drawings, or any other evidence I'm looking for in reference to methodics and tactics.
On you post of Friday, October 06, 2000 - 05:37 am
Tabram: had "An effusion of blood between the scalp and bone" which would have resulted from her fall to the ground.
Nichols, Chapman: the only blood traces to be found were on the pavement, or any walls, or fences, at the hight of the throat as they were found, that is laid out. The blood of the cut was to be found in such a way that their throat was cut when they were already laying on their backs. He already had brought them down, before he cut them. The bruises could be interpreted double ways, although the bruises at the jawlines of both Nichols and Chapman, tend toward a killer in front of them (the choice of hand there).
I did not say that Nichols was definitely strangled.
Kelly: "jagged wounds" does not literary imply denfensive wounds. Looking at the picture so far I can tell, these wounds were brought on by a knife. And as we know, her hole body was covered by knife incisions: her face, her arms, her legs, her body.
Stride: there was a witness who saw Stride being attacked from the fornt, on the street, only afterwards cut in the backstreet.
To your last paragraph: I refer back to the blood traces to be found.
Greetings,
Jill |
Author: NickDanger
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 04:14 am | | Hi Keith and all,
I believe your comments on strangulation need clarification. You state that fracture of the Hyoid bone always accompanies strangulation. By this, I presume you mean 'strangulation' as opposed to 'asphyxiation'. Fracture of the Hyoid bone is not universal in cases of strangulation and is not even a factor in most cases of asphyxiation.
We had a discussion of this very subject several months ago on another board and have covered this ground before. It is far easier, and takes much less effort than strangulation, to induce unconsciousness and eventually death, through pressure on the carotids. One commonly known method called the 'sleeper hold' has been banned in many police jurisdictions because it has resulted in many unintentional deaths. Jack the Ripper's method was to render his victims unconscious or insensible, lower the bodies into a prone position on their backs and then cut their throats as quickly as possible with him on the right side of the victim and making the throat cut from left to right. There are methods available to induce unconsciousness apart from strangulation, from either the front or the rear of the intended target, but I don't want this to turn into another martial arts discussion.
I hope you will agree that in discussing the Ripper case, the differences between strangulation and asphyxiation are important and should be pointed out, as is the status of the Hyoid bone in victims of either type of attack.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Keith Rogan
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 05:00 am | | Jill and Nick,
You merely have to read what the surgeons actually found rather than what has been postulated by later investigators. It's easy to get led astray by all the theories that have come out of JtR investigations.
It's only when you go back to the original source - as I have quoted above - that you find these theories are based on conjecture rather than fact.
The theories of the surgeons in these killings are no more valid than those of any amateur investigator. They had no training in crime scene investigation and they weren't even very good medical examiners. The reports are really no more than a catalogue of injuries.
If you want to learn the truth, you're better off ignoring their conclusions and merely using the injuries as a sort of basic "check-list".
There are no defensive injuries (bruised/cut hands), so the attacks must have come from a direction they could not defend against - the rear.
Only one of the women has signs of strangulation (Chapman), so only one of the women was strangled - it's really that simple.
And Jill, I don't know about the clenched hands. Any deceased persons hands normally "clench", or at least the fingers close over the palm. Any subjective statement about a particular victims hands being "clenched" is...well, just that - subjective. I don't even know which victim supposedly had their hands clenched or who reported it.
Keith |
Author: Keith Rogan
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 05:12 am | | Jon,
I'll give you one good piece of evidence that Jack wasn't a doctor - or likely even a butcher.
If you look at the surgeons reports (or at Jill's drawings based on the surgeons reports), you'll note something quite important. The large wounds are often "jagged". These jagged wounds are what is known in medical parlance as "lacerations", rather than an incisions. A laceration is when the skin is actually torn rather with a relatively dull instrument, rather than neatly cut (incised) with a sharp one.
I'm sure that even a mad physician would have a blade that was whetted to surgical standards rather than the crude tool Jack used.
Keith |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Friday, 06 October 2000 - 06:26 am | | Keith,
You didn't respond on the point of the only blood traces to be found. I can even ignore bruisings, and look only at the evidence of the blood splashes. This evidence was given by policemen during the inquests. And if you don't ignore the blood splashes resulting from the cutthroat, then that's the unquestionable evidence that the throats were cut while the victims were already down on the ground.
Also you say that you don't give any worth to the opinion of the Drs. at that time. Then why do you use their statements to support your back-attack theory? You either use it or flaunt all.
Yes, maybe their expertise was not as such than the pathologists of nowadays, but they were the only ones that saw the victims. These unexpertised Drs. knew very well the difference between 'incisions' and 'lacerations'.
'clenched hands': If you want to discuss this sort of pathology, you have to take it up with a pathologist, not me. I'm only stating a professional ones findings and knowledge.
When hands are in a relaxed state, fingers are not straight, but bended toward the palm, and thus every dead person has flexed fingers, even when his hands are relaxed. Still there is a big difference between stating: relaxed hands and clenched hands. And Drs. of that time would have known the difference between the wording.
Jill |
|
|
|
|
