Archive through October 07, 2000

** 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 07, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Simplicity - Occams Razor: Archive through October 07, 2000

Author: Leanne Perry Friday, 06 October 2000 - 07:18 am
G'day John, I choose NOT to IGNORE Barnett as a suspect yet! It's not a matter of 'liking' him at all. As I've said on the 'Joseph Barnett' board, the man who studied him for over ten years, failed to find any immediate records of his whereabouts between the inquest and 1906. This was when he renewed his porters licence at Billingsgate. So he kept an extremely low profile, but we conclude that he was 'squeaky-clean'!!! LEANNE!
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 09:55 am
Ok, my oppologies Dr Keith, I didnt realize you were also a surgeon in your spare time. :-) For our correct medical opinions we tend to turn to Dr Thomas Ind, who has very kindly contributed to the General discussion board with much in the way of helpful insite to medical method & procedure. Go to "General Discussion: Medical/Forensic" and I'm sure you'll find his contrbutions riveting. Incidently, there is no such thing as "evidence against medical expertise". In your case you point to jagged wounds. How a person holds a knife can influence the shape of the wound, as Dr Tom makes clear, it is not simply a matter of the condition of the knife, though an unsuitable knife would also make such a wound, but the correct weapon held as a dagger will also produce a jagged wound. Dr Tom and I also concluded that Jack very likely made the abdominal incissions from Eddowes left side, which in Tom's opinion would cause a right handed man to make rough looking cuts. He is at the wrong side, but this is where he had to be to watch the Church Passage entrance & the St James Passage entrance for an intruder. Jack must have worked with his back to the wall, hence the jagged incissions. For 112 years people have disagreed over the extent of medical expertise shown in the crimes. Mostly these people (like me) know little of a surgeons skill, they are just giving layman's opinions. As certain aspects of Chapman's murder were considered to indicate medical knowledge, we are bound to consider the expert opinion of the Doctor in charge at the time. And, as I pointed out previously, Wynne Baxter considered some connection with the medical world and the attention of police & public were turned towards Doctors as the culprit. The very next crime shows strong indications of a maniac, by mutilating the body. Now you try to use the condition of those wounds to show it was not a Doctor. This is exactly what the murderer may have had in mind, and you fall right into it. Its quite easy for an experienced person to make the wounds look amateurish, but how can an amateur make the wounds look professional? They cant. And it was no amateur who removed Chapmans uterus, and locating a uterus in the dark (Eddowes) is not something an amateur can easily do. Most people do not know where to locate a kidney either, so automatically you can eliminate well over 50% of the male population, possibly 75% too. I know where to find a human kidney, due to several years training as a butcher in my younger days. But a butcher is never taught to locate a womans uterii. That is never an aspect of butchering. The whole subject of medical opinion in these crimes likely will never be resolved but I can assure you (and possibly Thomas can too) that there is no way you can use the medical evidence to indicate that the murderer had no medical knowledge, the facts are in the opposite direction. You cannot prove a negative. It is more than likely that the Whitchapel murders were commited by someone with some anatomical/medical knowledge. We have to accept a certain amount of hack 'n slash, due to haste. But, in your opinion, what would a corpse look like which had been 'ripped up' by a Doctor who was disguising the fact by mutilating? Regards, Jon PS In my haste I forgot to add, that the facial laserations on Eddowes were caused by a sharp instrument, which negates your argument of a blunt knife, in favour of the stance of the killer, or how the knife was held.
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:04 am
Jill, I would have thought the most obvious way to cut a persons throat would be from behind, pulling the throat taut by pulling the head back with a hand over the mouth and chin, the only problem with that action is that the killer would have blood spraying all over, and blood was very well contained in these killings wasn't it?. Bagster Phillips doesn't mention strangulation, but he does mention suffocation. He doesn't say there were bruises on the neck, only the face. The Ripper could have inflicted those bruises by a sudden attack on her while she had her back to him. He could have manoeuvered himself into such a position without alarming her. One hand over her nose and mouth, the other hand and arm holding her hands and arms tight to her sides, maybe even lifting her feet clear of the ground,--helpless and silent, and suffocating! All the victims were small undernourished women except Kelly, and Annie complained of feeling ill shortly before her death, it wouldn't have been difficult for him. I can't find any reference to Cadosch saying whether it was a male or female voice he heard say "no" but the sound he heard like someone falling against the fence could have been Annie getting her kicking feet within reach of the fence before she was swung away. There was no blood anywhere but round and under the body, and fourteen inches above the ground on the fence so when she became limp and lifeless he laid her down and cut her throat on the ground close by the fence. Rick
Author: Jill De Schrijver Friday, 06 October 2000 - 10:37 am
Rick, thank you for making my point: "Jill, I would have thought the most obvious way to cut a persons throat would be from behind, pulling the throat taut by pulling the head back with a hand over the mouth and chin, the only problem with that action is that the killer would have blood spraying all over, and blood was very well contained in these killings wasn't it?. " - Yes, in the back position, the throat cutting would have resulted in another sort of blood spray, than is evidenced. "There was no blood anywhere but round and under the body, and fourteen inches above the ground on the fence so when she became limp and lifeless he laid her down and cut her throat on the ground close by the fence." Just my point, not cut with Jack standing behind them. - "The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple [face] were of longer standing - probably of days. He was of the opinion that the person who cut the deceased throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right. He thought it was highly probable that a person could call out, but with regard to an idea that she might have been gagged he could only point to the swollen face and the protruding tongue, both of which were signs of suffocation." Dr. Baxter places the bruises on the jawline. - The Cadoch statement: "Between the "No" and the thump against the fence is a time lapse: he entered the house and went back to the yarddoor in between." Either Chapman in trying to find grip (nice idea, Rick), or her being pushed against it. Hey Rick, are we agreeing here? Not totally, I still see the bruises caused by the Ripper as more supportive for the front-attack. Greetings, Jill Stephen - Where did you find that Cadoch heard a "a woman saying 'No!' " as written in the victims area of the site?
Author: Jim Leen Friday, 06 October 2000 - 12:01 pm
Hello Everybody, The most overwhelming aspect of these murders is the element of surprise. From my (vague) recollections of the locations I have surmised that the killer first struck whilst the parties were walking. I don't think there is any evidence to show that the parties were about to commence a sexual activity. On the contrary, sheer physiology would point away from this. The laws of nature, balance and gravity, would offer some protection from attack. This is because, as has been speculated, the victim would have their arms purchased against a wall or fence etc. Their limbs would thus act as barriers effectively limiting the killer's target area and reducing the chance of a silent kill. Therefore, if we look at the locations a clear pattern demonstrating mobility emerges. Nichols, the first of the C5, was found at the gates of a stable house. Isn't that indicative that no sexual occurence took place. Unless JTR was a show-off, would the pair not have gone behind the wall to conclude their ostensible business. There are other similarities. Chapman and Eddowes for instance, would quite naturally have led the way through passages to reach quiet spots for business. Chapman was probably initially attacked in the close and dragged out into the yard. (To us Glaswegians a close is the corridor on the ground floor of a block of flats.) Eddowes was probably leading her killer either to the corner of the buildings or, more likely, the passage between the empty buildings and Horner & Co's yard. Therefore, congress was not even attempted. The killer struck insensibility in his victims so swiftly and surely that we can preclude any limbs being in the way and point to the victim's neck being within easy reach. I initially favoured a garotte, basically a fine noose, as the killer's choice of weapon to enable silence. I have now amended it to a scarf, which would produce asphyiation and allow the killer to drag his victim down. Any subsequent disfigurement being obscured by the throat wounds.Extremely gruesome. Finally, it is a false assertion to state that doctors would know nothing of poverty, ways of prostitutes etc, because they were all middle-class. Bright children from deprived areas managed to attain a university education by various means. For sure Victorian Britain wasn't a classless society, but it was far more egalitarian than may be considered. Thanking you Jim Leen
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 06 October 2000 - 12:09 pm
Jon, I have stood in and looked around Jack the Ripper's corner before Mitre Square was changed out of all recognition. Don't you think it's probable that the Ripper had some knowledge of the movements and timings of the beats the two policemen were patroling there?. If that were the case I think he would have been more concerned with the Mitre Street entrance, he was very near to it and he would have known that P.C.Watkins would come into the square from that entrance. P.C.Harvey however didn't enter the square from Church Passage' so really he didn't need worry about that entry. I'm a believer that JtR escaped by way of Mitre St, so as long as he didn't hear P.C.Watkins footsteps approaching he regarded himself safe. If all the previous words I have written are a possibility then he could have done his work from the right of Eddowes body--and still ripped, you may say it was a professional who took her uterus and kidney, but he didn't make a good job of taking out the uterus, he left part of it in the body. W.P.
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 06 October 2000 - 12:44 pm
Of course we agree Jill, I would say some bruising was caused in rendering Annie unconcious, and I would certainly agree with you that further bruising occured while he was cutting her throat on the ground--because she wasn't dead at that moment,evidenced by the blood on the fence and around the body, if thats what you mean--------I HOPE! My Regards Rick.
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 12:58 pm
In '72 when I was in Mitre Square the whole place was much like we see in the contemporary photo's. Very dismal & dark, a gloomy place to be. And I recall crouching at the spot where Eddowes was found and I could see straight up Church Passage. We can only speculate as to Jack knowing the beat of all the policemen where he committed his crimes. But, I personally think thats too much to believe. Police did not wear watches, they could be 5 mins out either way on any beat on any night. The times given by Watkins & Harvey are guesswork, likely based on the official times that they usually get to those locations. Remember, Harvey judged his time by the post-office clock, some 10 mins walk away. And also Harvey would have crossed the square if he had reason to, so the fact that his beat did not require him to do that is no argument against him not responding to trouble, if he had seen Jack. We can see that Jack likely slit her throat from her right side, typical from the other murders. But Tom & I agreed, that the obvious position for the killer to take is to have his back to the wall. Even if Watkins comes around the corner, this position still gives the killer the best view, considering he has three entrances to keep his eye on. It was in Tom's opinion (Dr Thomas Ind) that the rip's to her abdomen are easier to understand when we consider a right handed man crouched at her left side, back to the wall. The most common sense position to take. The whole square is open in front of him. Also consider this, there were two lamps in the square. If he had his back to the square then he is working in his own shadow. The light was hardly suitable anyway, but why turn your back to potential intruders?....why work in your own shadow? Doesnt make sense to me. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 02:32 pm
For anyone who has not read a rebuttal by the Lancet, read on.....it is rather long but gives clear credence to the 'medical knowledge' theory. It only points to improbabilities as to the sum of £20 being offered, coupled with the idea of sending the organs to the USA. Which I agree has an absurd ring to it. ----------------------------------- The Lancet September 29, 1888 THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERS. The revolting tale of the Whitechapel murder has been further embellished by the astounding statements which the coroner deemed fit to make public in his summing up of the case of of the unfortunate woman Chapman. The public have supped full of horrors, and now there is added thereto a suggestion which, in spite of its plausibility, is almost too horrible to be credited. It seems, on the face of it, to dispel all previous theories and explanations of a series of crimes which are happily almost unique in our annals. It supplies a motive for the deed, which has been compared to that of Burke and Hare, but which, in fiendish greed and disregard for the sanctity of human life, almost surpasses the villainies of those miscreants. In presence of this suggestion it is futile to discuss any other hypothesis until this has been thoroughly probed. Mr. Wynne Baxter did not withhold any of the information which came to him from an unexpected source on the day of the publication of Mr. Phillips' evidence respecting the mutilations of the body. It will be remembered that at his first examination, Mr. Phillips did not enter into these details. He acted on his own responsibility in stating only such facts as should enable the coroner's jury to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the cause of death; whilst he took care to inform the police authorities of all those facts which might give them any clue as to the object the murderer had in view, and thus lead to his detection. However, when the coroner insisted upon Mr. Phillips being recalled to add these further facts to his previous evidence, he stated that the mutilation of the body was of such a character as could only have been effected by a practised hand. It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert--of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife, which must therefore, as Mr. Phillips pointed out, have been at least five inches long. The theory based on this evidence was coherent enough. It suggested that the murderer, for some purpose or other, whether from a morbid motive of for the sake of gain, had committed the crime for the purpose of possessing himself of the uterus. There could be little doubt that he first strangled of suffocated his victim, for not only were no cries heard, but the face, lips and hands were livid as in asphyxia, and not blanched as they would be from loss of blood. Then, with one long and deep incision he must have severed the poor woman's throat, and that almost all the blood from her body drained out of the divided vessels, accounting for the almost bloodless effect of the subsequent incisions in the abdomen and pelvis. If the evidence of Mrs. Long is to be credited, the victim was seen alive at half-past five in Hanbury-street, and about six o'clock her mangled corpse was discovered in the yard of the lodging-house. We confess to sharing Mr. Phillips' view that the coldness of the body and commencing rigidity pointed to a far longer interval between death and discovery that this; but, as he remarked the almost total draining away of the blood, added to the exposure in the cold morning air, may have hastened the cooling down of the body. Certainly the murderer must have done his work quickly; and this, again, points to the improbability of anyone but an expert performing the mutilations described in so apparently skilful a manner. The similarity between the injuries inflicted in the case and those upon the woman Nicholls, whose body was found in Buck's-row a few days before, gave from the the first the idea that they were the work of the same hand. But in the Buck's-row case the mutilation did not extend so far, and there was no portion of the body missing. Again, this is explained by those who think the possession of the uterus was the sole motive, by assuming that the miscreant had not time to complete his design in the Buck's-row case, and it was given in evidence that only a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body the row had been traversed by others. In the face of these facts, the statement made my Mr. Wynne Baxter presents great prima facie probability, but we must deprecate strongly any tendency to jump at a conclusion in a matter which may admit of another interpretation. Mr. Baxter said: "Within a few hours of the issue of the morning papers containing a report of the medical evidence given at the last sitting of the Court, I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was informed by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give 20 [pounds] apiece for each specimen. He stated that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. He was told that his request was impossible to be complied with, but he still urged his request. He wished them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerin, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this demand was repeated to another institution of a similar character." Although this statement seems to afford a satisfactory explanation of the motive for the deed and mutilation of the corpse, it is impossible to read it without being struck with certain improbablities and absurdities that go far to upset the theory altogether. We do not for a moment question the possibility of an application being made to museum curators for specimens of uteri. This is not an unnatural or unreasonable request to be preferred by a medical man engaged in the study of disease of that organ. But does it not exceed the bounds of credibility to imagine that he would pay the sum of 20[pounds] for every specimen?--whilst the statement that he wished for a large number, becuase "his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was engaged," is too grotesque and horrible to be for a moment entertained. Nor, indeed, can we imagine that an author of a medical work to be published in America should need have uteri specially procured for him in England and sent across the Atlantic. The whole tale is almost past belief; and if, as we think, it can be shown to have grown in transmission, it will not only shatter the theory that cupidity was the motive of the crime, but will bring into question the discretion of the officer of the law who could accept such and statement and give it such wide publicity. The pleas that the interests of justice will be furthered thereby cannot be sustained. Such information as was given to the coroner would have been far more appropriately placed at the disposal of the Home Office and the police; for the clue, if there is one, was for them to follow up. In our opinion a grave error in judgement was made by the coroner's informant in this respect. The public mind--ever too ready to cast mud at legitimate research--will hardly fail to be excited to a pitch of animosity against anatomists and curators, which may take a long while to subside. And, what is equally deplorable, the revelation thus made by the coroner, which so dramatically startled the public last Wednesday evening, may probably lead to a diversion from the real track of the murderer, and thus defeat rather than serve the ends of justice. We believe the story to be highly improbable, although it may have a small basis of fact, which will require the exercise of much common sense to separate form the sensational fiction that surrounds it ---------------------------------------------- So, apparently the 'medical knowledge' theory was sound and supported by the known facts, however distatefull. Regards, Jon
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 03:11 pm
Jill, The blood splashes don't contradict my theory. If he cut their throats the blood would fall directly down presumably to the place he would drop them in a few moments. And of course, they would still be bleeding once he dropped them down to the ground. in other words - the blood splashes don't tell you where the original cut was inflicted, they only tell you that the victim lie in that spot bleeding - which of course they did. As for the doctors opinions... well, I don't put any credence in their opinions or conclusions, only in their descriptions of the injuries. I'm sure they did know the difference between a laceration and an incision (though I don't know if medical parlance drew that distinction). But they clearly describe lacerations. You used those descriptions to draw your images. The only data you can draw from the fact is that his knife was dull or quickly became dull during his work. His knife was either dull or was a cheap one that wouldn't hold an edge - not a doctors blade. I still don't which victim is the one you are referring to as having "clenched hands". Please enlighten me and I'll be glad to comment on it.
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 03:39 pm
"And it was no amateur who removed Chapmans uterus, and locating a uterus in the dark (Eddowes) is not something an amateur can easily do. Most people do not know where to locate a kidney either, so automatically you can eliminate well over 50% of the male population, possibly 75% too." Jon, you might eliminate 50-75% of a 21st century population, but in 1888 even urban people commonly bought a pig or sheep now and again to butcher themselves. They had a rudimentary knowledge of basic anatomy - the kidneys were prized organs used for "steak & kidney" pie for example - they knew where they were. I have field dressed many deer and caribou in conditions not much different than those of JtR (in the dark, in the rain or snow). It's really no trick to do this - in fact, as I've said before I've never seen any hunter do it badly as JtR does. Look at Eddowes for example - he cuts her intestine in two places and dumps feces everywhere. As for the uterus, its one of three organs (bladder, colon, uterus - female animals) attached at the base of the body cavity that are removed by hunters every day. You grasp the organ, find the attachments and cut it loose. The bladder and colon are far trickier than the uterus - they leak if you don't do it right. Think about what you're saying - you first postulate that it's a doctor because of his medical knowledge (which isn't very unique as I point out), then when challenged by the poor quality of his surgery and instruments you sort of retreat and say: "Ah hah! That's what he wants you to think!" You're grasping one detail to create a theory and then using all the contrary information to credit him with being tricky about it. Jon, you've created a theory and are then bending the details to bolster it. You've got your method backwards - what you need to do is to let the facts lead you to the theory.
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 03:55 pm
Warwick, You are assuming that the victims would have been in a standing position when their throats were cut but that's not supported by any evidence. Look at the very evidence you quote above - blood found 14" above the ground on the fence. Certainly that blood didn't get there if the victim was lying on the ground, and it certainly didn't get there with the victim in a standing position (which would have seen blood on the front of their dresses as well). One explanation that fits (the ONLY one I can come up with) is that the victim was bent over in a sexual position with her head approximately 3 feet off the ground - near the fence. With her throat cut in that position it's no great trick to see it falling and hitting the fence lower down in her death struggles. And that is the common position a prostitute would assume - bent over against a wall or fence. Think of it from Jack's point of view - he merely has to give the woman two pence for them to place themselves in this position of helplessness. It's a sex crime after all.
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 04:47 pm
Jim, The problem is that there are simply no medical facts to support the Garotte theory - except in the case of Chapman. But let's look at Chapman for a moment. Baxter-Phillips says: "The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen..." That is the face of someone killed (or injured) by strangulation. The hyoid bone breaks and the tongue is no longer held in place - it comes forward as described. The broken bone and other trauma creates the swelling. This kind of thing is not something that's easily overlooked and is apparent even to the layman. These signs would be present whether a thin cord or a thicker tool such as a scarf was used. None of this is described in any of the other victims and so... that's not how they were killed. I think Chapman just had that convenient scarf around her neck and our man used it. Now, asphyxiation, with the hand over the mouth and nose would explain the lack of diagnostic signs. An asphyxiated person would only show some blueness in the fingernails and lips - easily enough overlooked since these women were likely quite dirty and bloody. I could buy off on the asphyxiation theory quite easily. The only detail that gives me pause is that old bugaboo - the lack of defensive wounds. I takes a long time to die by asphyxiation (hold your breath and see) and the individual would be struggling the entire time. I can see it happening if our man got them down on the ground right away and then while straddling them with his legs used both hands to smother them into unconsciousness. hhhmmmm ... I CAN see this method used. Jack and the victim are walking along or already at their destination when he suddenly grabs then around the head with his hands over the mouth (to preclude them from crying out) and pulls them to the ground. He then straddles and smothers them into unconsciousness before going to work. That one works for me but the garrotte doesn't because the medical facts simply don't support it. I think this method is at least as good an explanation as my earlier theory. Theres a few odd details that don't match - the blood on the fence for example, but crime scenes are messy and things never fit as neatly as they should. I think you may be on to something here. Keith
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 05:00 pm
Keith There's a few titles I give you that were studies done around 1880-1900, which reported the depravation and the poverty that was rife throughout the east end. And your average (common?) dosser was certainly not one to be seen hauling half a pig through the streets. Thats like one of those "let them eat cake" statements. Middle class people may well have been so fortunate, but thats not what you said. You need to read up on the actual conditions in that period. And if you had been paying attention you would have read that this was a possible scenario which is supported by the medical evidence. Not a theory, and not my theory either. (Read the Lancet statement, I posted today) As all those here are well aware, this was first proposed by Baxter, but never extrapolated on, and never investigated. I suggest you read up on the case, by what I've read in your other postes you need to establish a deeper understanding of the facts before contesting medical evidence. I am quite certain from your postes that you have little surgical knowledge, and hunting is no qualification to question the experience of Dr Phillips, or any other qualified medical practioner on the case. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 05:04 pm
delete duplicate
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 06:17 pm
Jon, I read the Lancet statement but it only supports my belief that it wasn't a doctor. The author of the Lancet opinion in almost the same breath says that the bladder was cut in half and then opines it was someone with medical knowledge... Well, if he had medical knowledge how did he end up cutting the bladder and spilling piss all over the place? It takes about 2 seconds to cut the ureters, blood vessels, etc, and remove it whole. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge can do this without making a hash of it. Jon, the theory just doesn't hold water (or urine). Keith
Author: Jon Friday, 06 October 2000 - 06:38 pm
Well Keith, I'm sure you are a better authority than the medical professionals involved in the case. Its a shame you were not there to solve it for them. As to the blood stains.... Do you expect us to believe that a hunter cannot understand that when a body is still alive on the ground and the blood is still under pressure in the arteries, that to cut the throat will cause the blood to spurt out and cause stains, possibly 12-14" up on a adjacent fence? "Jack subdued his victims by either strangulation or asphyxiation, they were still alive while Jack crouched at their right shoulder and clasped his left hand over their mouth, grasping their jaw. And with the knife in his right hand, sliced the throat commencing at the far side, away from him, and drawing the knife towards him, in order to avoid the spray of blood." The above is a basic consensus by investigators, Doctors (modern) and serious students of the case. Do you also contest this method? Regards, Jon Oh, incidently.... During the Civil War, where they learned how to remove limbs with a sweep of the knife. One experienced surgeon. while under pressure of time, managed to slice of the leg of an injured soldier, while in the same sweep, removed one of his own testicles.... And you cant understand why Jack did not take his time and 'operate with perfection? Time.....Keith.....TIME !!!!!
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 06:41 pm
All, I am officially tossing my theory in the trash bin - "plop". My theory about the mode of death is entirely consistent with the medical findings, but after pondering Jim Leen's points about the locations of the deaths, I have to admit I was wrong. If (as Jim postulates), the locations were not consistent with a place where a sex act would take place, but instead were often places where a prostitute might transit going to or coming from a "liaison", then my theory was just wrong. So, a nod to the good Rabbi on that one! I still maintain that a garrotte was not used in the slayings (except for Chapman who supplied her own), but the smothering technique fits the scenario just as nicely and is entirely consistent with Jim's theories as described. Now, let me toss out something for all of you to chew on. If the attacks were sudden affairs - ambushes in alleys - we need not necessarily point a finger at the customers! Perhaps our man was watching these sex acts from a place of cover (serial killers are often "Peeping Tom's") and merely ambushed the victims as they departed after earning their two pence. In this scenario, all of the descriptions of the last customer are meaningless. One might even suppose that a customer would choose to depart the scene with a different route so as not to be seen with her. and of course, a prostitutes customer is not likely come forward and give evidence - or lend himself as a suspect. Our lady of the night is now alone (while the customer makes his exit in the other direction) and heading through dark alleys back to her "trolling" area - with Jack stalking her. I'm not forwarding that as a theory, just tossing it out to get opinions. Keith
Author: Keith Rogan Friday, 06 October 2000 - 07:04 pm
Jon, As you see above, I am abandoning my theory but not because of the blood stains, etc. I suppose it might be possible for blood to spurt out and shoot up on the fence, but really it's unlikely. When I went back and looked at the original testimony, it turns out that blood was just a few drops - the largest the size of a small coin. This is more consistent with blood thrown from a swinging knife or bloody hand rather than a gush of arterial blood directly from a wound. I don't want to get into the hunting thing to much because surely some PETA supporter is going to ambush me and I really don't want to get into that sort of debate - or even offend in the first place. I will say this though, with larger animals like caribou it's often the case that the animal doesn't die immediately after being shot. You want to kill them as quickly and humanely as possible, while at the same time you don't want to shoot them again and ruin meat (the reason you shot the poor thing in the first place), so, the preferred method is to cut the throat/carotids just as our friend Jack did. I've done this at least a dozen times and seen it done many more. The blood does not "gush" from the wound. You can see the pulsing action of the heartbeat, but it doesn't spurt out beyond the skin if you know what I mean - it just sort of pours out and flows down the neck. I hope that doesn't offend anyone here, but I thought some might find this description valuable as it pertains to JtR. Keith
Author: Feebles Friday, 06 October 2000 - 07:17 pm
For an example of how doctors would join ranks to thwart investigation of a murderous colleague check the book "Blind Eye: How the Medical Establishment Let a Doctor Get Away With Murder," by James B.Stewart. It is about Michael Swango who was finally convicted of killing 4 patients in a New York hospital. Although doctors deal with some different issues today-like malpractice lawsuits-the perceived need to protect the profession from outsiders was probably the same in the 1880's. Many of the various body-snatching scandals were then still within living memory (even Burke and Hare were only 60 years in the past) and older doctors must have remembered the fear and hatred (sometimes leading to violence) of doctors that resulted.