|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 April 9, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Ann "Polly" Nichols:
Archive through April 9, 2000
Author: Ivor Q. U. Estion
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 01:28 am |        | | That's no answer Mr Radka. Avoiding the issues again? |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:23 am | | | I think that proves David is right about our anonymous poster ! |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:32 am | | Hello All !
Thanks for the apology Ivor ! I hope that you will accept mine for over-reacting. I apprecaite fully your comments that there will be rebuttals and I have no problem with this, as I mentioned this is how I hope to learn.
I had mentioned a while back that I have gained a better understanding by airing issues in this forum than I would have by simply reading the many Ripper books out there. I have a few theories, though I don't profess to put a name to the killer, and I do accept alternative views to mine. It's the way-out theories that get me agitated, like diaries, high-power conspiracies and such, so I was quite alarmed at first, with a knee-jerk reaction, wondering why my rather conservative comments should attract such a strong response.
I would be very happy to exchange views with you or anyone on these boards Ivor. I trust that any disagreements can be argued with a sensible approach that's all. I certainly wouldn't learn a great deal if people simply agreed with every point I made. Thanks again for taking the time to respond, as I said please accept my apologies for my over-reaction, and see you on the boards.
Jeff D |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 04:41 am | | Thanks Viper,and I do agree with you.
Ivor,
What I said about the Ripper choosing the sites to kill is quite correct.Initially there may have been an agreement for sexual relations,he would have to go along with that,he himself may even have suggested it,but on his part it would only be a ruse.He could not say,'please choose a place where I can kill you',that choice would have to be his.No one could choose a place for him.At which point he decided that the location was suitable is unknown,it could have been before,or after reaching such spot,but there came a time when he and he alone chose.She could choose a spot for sex,he would choose it as the killing place.Can't put it simpler than that.
George Hutchinson's presence at Millers Court does not really alter my point.It would not be on a nightly basis.Allowing for perhaps a minute or two for each individual to walk the distance to or from the court to Commercial Street,and allowing for any standing or waiting,I would say that for the greater part of the night Dorset street would have been deserted.This I think would apply to most streets in 1888.It applies to most streets even today.
There was no evidence that the killer had washed his hands at the tap at 29 Hanbury street.He had handled and taken away body parts,so his hands and arms would have been covered with blood.It was daylight with people moving on the streets,so how far could he be expected to travel without being noticed.A mile,two miles,further,or maybe only a short distance.Would not a smart killer take this into account. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 06:23 am | | | Harry's point adds further support to the theory that a carriage was used for the crimes ; the hands and arms of the killer would be covered in blood and he would be carrying body parts on his person , these would also be dripping in blood. How far was he expecting to go in this state in broad daylight ? If he lived in the area , suppose he had bumped into someone he knew - he would not be in a state to have a chat with anyone ! But if there was a carriage waiting around the corner to drive him away , then he would not have to go very far at all and this would be true in the case of all the victims. The carriage was needed for the killer's security. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 06:25 am | | | By the way CMD , how are you getting along with my 11 points on the Nichols case ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 07:29 am | | Me again. But this time a proper post on Polly Nichols. I saw a US programme on our Channel 5 the other day called ' Autopsy ' and there was a story about a black US football player who had died in police custody c.1980. Interestingly , he had marks on him similar to Polly Nichols. The victim had died in a ' choke hold ' similar to a wrestling ' sleeper hold ' where the full arm is placed around the neck with the elbow joint at the front , I think it is pressure on the pressure points in the neck which causes unconciousness. Now if the victim had turned her back in preparation for intercourse , this hold would be easy to apply. Then the victim could be lain down and have her throat cut. This would take some time however , thus it would explain the difference in the MO in the Stride murder where the killer had been disturbed by Israel Schwartz. Its my belief now that a sleeper or choke hold was used to incapacitate the victims before mutilation. I also believe though that it would be impossible to silently murder or mutilate the victim. I read in Rumbelow's book about the Yorkshire Ripper's tenth victim , Josephine Butler (?) who was murdered in a park in Halifax and was stabbed over 20 times with a sharpened chisel. A man walking his dog nearby heard a horrible scraping sound from this implement as the girl was murdered , I presume this would have been loud therefore. The Whitechapel Ripper was using a knife 15-20cms long. There would have been at least some noise I believe as the knife hacked into the flesh and hit bones , also there would have been the noise of blood splashing from the rapid insertion of the knife over and over again. A human body would have been tough to cut. In the Chapman and Eddowes case there would have been a slop as the organs were pulled out and hit the ground. The killer was having to work fast , he would have been breathing heavily , disembowelling a body in such a short time would have been hard work. Yet nobody heard anything - WHY NOT ? |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 07:50 am | | Simon -
I'm not sure how accurate Rumbelow's information is in respect of the killing of Josephine Whittaker. Neither Roger Cross (The Yorkshire Ripper,1981) nor Gordon Burn (Somebody's Husband, Somebody's Son, 1993) make any mention of a scraping noise being heard, even though, according to Burn, a man walking a dog passed within a few feet of Sutcliffe and his victim. The areas attacked seem to have been mostly "soft" - breasts, stomach, thighs and vagina. The two above sources also disagree with each other (and Rumbelow) as to the weapon. Burn has it as the Philips screwdriver, while Cross claims it to have been a kitchen knife.
So, whilst it is obviously likely that the Whitechapel Murderer would have made some noise in the process of mutilating his victims, we may be misleading ourselves if we conclude that it would be sufficient to draw attention.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 07:51 am | | G'day,
Jack the Ripper strangled his victims to death, not just 'unconsiousness'. Their hearts stopped beating, so the blood flow would have been minimal. When he butchered them, the blood would have soaked up by the women's dresses.
With the number of slaughter houses in the district, a little blood on his clothes, would not have drawn a great deal of attention!
Leanne! |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:30 am | | Leanne,
It would have been the blood on the hands that would have drawn attention.Slaughtermen would have been as clean in their habits as anyone else,and on their way to work they would surely have had clean hands.At the finish of work there was plenty of water at slaughterhouses to again ensure clean hands.
It may well have been that people not knowing of a murder might well have ignored a bloodied man,but it would stick in their minds.The danger to a murderer would be that someone who knew him might see him in that condition. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:35 am | | Hi all. I have ' The Complete Jack the Ripper ' with me today , so I will quote the exact passage from Rumbelow's book. It comes from the Beyond the Grave chapter , p.283 : " Sutcliffe hit her ( Josephine Whitaker ) twice , fracturing the skull from ear to ear , before dragging her back into the park. He had specially sharpened a giant Phillips screwdriver before coming out. He stabbed her twenty-five times. A man walking in the park heard a noise , the type of noise that makes your hair stand on end ' My apologies for the errors in my earlier post , but I was trying to remember the piece from memory : I still stand by the main crux of my argument however , in that the stabbing made a horrible noise. This man must have been at least 20ft away yet he still heard the sound. As to the choke hold , it would be possible to choke somebody to death with it. But I imagine that this would take two-three minutes to do , even strangulation to death using two hands would take a similar time.Taking this time into consideration in the Eddowes case , it would seem hardly possible for the murderer to have had time to mutilate the body and leave the square ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:44 am | | (continued) However Leanne , I have evidence that the murderer only choked his victims into unconciousness or semi-conciousness : check out Sugden , p.91 : " Phillips held that the woman ( Annie Chapman ) had been partially suffocated before death and that death had resulted from syncope , the sudden loss of blood supply to the brain caused by the severance of the throat " If you look at it , it makes sense - why would the Ripper even bother to cut his victim's throats if the victims were already dead ? |
Author: Jeffrey
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 01:06 pm | | Hi Simon !
There are actually a number of very good reasons why the Ripper might cut the throat "after" the victim was already dead. Not the least of which would be to release a large volume of blood quickly, enabling him to better rummage around and perform the mutilations to the abdomen, with the least amount of blood getting in the way. The strangulation first would ensure there was no great spurt where the killer wouldn't have any control.
I have always felt that the killer was at least a little sympathetic to his victims. Not wishing to torture them or see them suffer at least (MHO). Remember that the victims were also lowered gently to the ground. Not just dropped, or thrown out of a carriage. (No bump or bruising to the back of the head).The stranglulation into death, or unconciousness would ensure that blood didn't squirt all over the place under high pressure, (and get all over the murderer).
The murderer appears to have had every control and to me he seems to have been very methodical. He was quick, silent and he seems to have known precisely what he was doing, down to the ultimate display of the corpse. The finder of the body could have been the target of his campaign as much as the victim for example. I don't mean a specific individual would find the body, but whoever would come accross such a site would be horrified, and this would then create the greatest publicity. How else would the world have known of the fate of those who were the lowest of the low. Remember even the discovery of Nichols, in all it's gore, was still treated very matter-of-factly at first by the police at the scene.
Many Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 28 March 2000 - 09:24 am | | | The stable yard outside which Nichols was found was called Mullin's Yard. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Sunday, 02 April 2000 - 11:11 am | | (Simon)
'Its my belief now that a sleeper or choke hold was used to incapacitate the victims before mutilation'.
------------------------------------
Excellent !!
I'm glad to see someone else arrived at this conclusion. The medical evidence certainly does not support that the victims were all dead by the time their throats were cut. And as thorough as the facial & neck descriptions are, I'm concerned that there is no mention of bruises about the neck. Bruises one might expect to see had thumbs and fingers been used as pressure points. It is always possible that the mutilations about the throat obscured the bruising, but among 3 'for sure', 4 'very likely' or 5 'possible (Cannonical)' victims I would expect to see some evidence of strangulation.
However, the theory of strangulation is recent, and was not mentioned in survivng documents, so possibly not suspected in 1888, especially as some were of the opinion that the victims were attacked with a knife while standing.
Doctors may not have considered strangulation, so evidence of it may have been overlooked.
Death by strangulation, as we all know, cuts off air to the lungs. As opposed to a choke hold which cuts off blood flow to the brain.
Which beg's the question, if the 'death by syncop' was determined assuming the cut throat has robbed the brain of blood. But a choke hold also cuts off blood to the brain, incapacitates the victim but does not kill as quick as strangulation.
A sleeper hold applied from the rear is a much safer position for a killer to take. Any attempt to strangle a person from the front always leaves the attacker open to a frontal injury, kicking, scratching, punching. These women, although in some cases drunk, were not weaklings, they were tough and well able to handle themselves in any street brawl. As always nothing is conclusive, but the possibility of this type of attack cannot be ruled out.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 09:00 am | | | I think the doctors conducting the autopsies would have noticed bruising on the victim's necks , after all they did notice bruising on the victim's faces where this occured. In Nichol's case there was a large bruise on her right cheek possibly from the killer's thumb , and a further bruise on her left cheek. This would be consistent with the killer grabbing the woman's jaw from behind with his right hand and violently forcing her head upwards and backwards , then the choke hold could have been applied easily. |
Author: Jon Smyth
Monday, 03 April 2000 - 08:26 pm | | I agree Simon.
However, the circular bruise (fingers?) was on her left cheek and the singular bruise (thumb?) was along her lower rightside jaw line.
This I envisage as caused when she was on her back and the killer, crouched at her right shoulder had his left hand covering her mouth, fingers pressing in her left cheek, palm over her nose & mouth area with thumb curled around and under the chin, on her right side of jaw line.
This was the grasp that held her head firm while he drew the knife along her throat.
Speculative, but still consistant with a right-handed 'Jack'.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 05 April 2000 - 04:17 pm | | Dr. Bagster Phillips : "From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death..." Testimony at the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman, Thursday, September 13, 1888.
Wynne E. Baxter, coroner, South-Eastern Division : "The wretch must have then seized the deceased, perhaps with Judas-like approaches. He seized her by the chin. He pressed her throat, and while thus preventing the slightest cry, he at the same time produced insensibility and suffocation." Summing up at the inquest into the death of Annie Chapman, September 26, 1888.
The Lancet : "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..." From The Lancet, page 637 Vol. II, 29 September, 1888.
The medical men of the day did notice any signs of strangulation.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 06 April 2000 - 05:56 am | | | Yes , but all these comments apply to Annie Chapman whereas we are talking about Polly Nichols here ! Given the state of Chapman's face , tongue and lips then I would agree with Bagster Phillips when he said " My impression is she was partially strangled ". However this does not preclude the application of a choke hold : Annie was a fighter and she may have struggled so much that the hold could not have been applied properly. Thus the Ripper had to suffocate her. There was no bruising to the neck as you would expect in a case of strangulation however , which is what I meant earlier. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 09 April 2000 - 01:52 am | | Simon wrote:
"Annie was a fighter and she may have struggled so much that the hold could not have been applied properly."
Huh?? According to infirmary records & the testimony of her friend who saw Annie hours before she died--Chapman was so sick she could barely hold her head up. According to autopsy records Chapman had two different terminal conditions & probably only months to live. This doesn't add up to Annie being a strong contender against a wet paper bag, must less a determined killer.
Ashling |
|
|
|
|
