|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
The Ripper Victims (General)
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
The Ripper Victims (General)
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 06:34 pm |        | | Is there someone with a background in Anthropology perhaps, who could tell us what cultures besides our own could generate a person capable of finding and removing a uterus? I don't know if this person would be called a Dr., a priest, or a shaman or what. I know the Romans did C-sections on pregnant women and the Egyptians did brain surgery. |
Author: RLeen
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 09:43 am | | Hi everybody,
I'm not totally au fait with surgical skills of past cultures but I don't think it possible that the sort of skilled operations under discussion were possible in past times. This is mainly due to lack of anaesthetic and risk of infection which would result in the patients deaths before they had been cured.
Ms.Comer, I believe that the brain surgery done in the dim and distant past was called trepanning. It entailed drilling, or chipping, a hole through the skull and nobody is really sure what the point of it was. But I could be wrong, in fact I usually am. Keep chasing the angles!
The only historical figure that I can remember who posessed female anatomical knowledge was the weird boy-king Caligula. In saying that Aggrippa died, so wrong again.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Jill
Thursday, 29 July 1999 - 02:21 pm | | Hello,
I've read sometimes they held the trepanning as a realease of a bad spirit, and that sometimes it had its effect by releasing the pressure. And I've read so many things I wouldn't even remember where, when and if it has any value.
Cheers Jill |
Author: Thoughtful
Saturday, 31 July 1999 - 05:17 am | | | 'Gloves' certainly made everyone think! |
Author: Jouni Hiltunen
Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 02:30 am | | Question?
Could some of the murders be the work of a copycat?
I'm far from being an expert on serial killers, but common belief is that they follow their MO like clockwork In Jack's case that would be strangling to death followed by mutilation of intestines and genitalia.
Please reply to my e-mail
Jouni |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 04:51 am | | Hi Jouni,
This belief about serial killers sticking rigidly to MOs has been shown to be not correct. Notwithstanding, copy-cat killings could have been involved here, I think of McKenzie and Coles as being MAYBE such cases.
The five cans, or, while I still have trouble definitely identifying Stride as one, the four, were murdered with sufficient simularity of modus that a copycat here were unlikely. Copycats in such situations would need to have had a good look at the body, the wounds and the murder site of a number of killings to be able to copy them accurately enough. Just to hack someone's throat and stomach open with some knife would not provide the simularity needed.
The statement that Jack always first strangled his victims is not proven. Evidence in some cases indicated it, not in others. Mainly as an explaination for screams not having been heard at the scene of the crimes, the strangle theory is supported by many, however.
As a matter of interest, take a look at the Chapman poisoner case, where his wife once claimed that he had attacked her with a knife as they were in America, stifling her screams by holding his head against her face.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Alan
Thursday, 28 October 1999 - 11:11 am | | Kelly's mutilations were totally different to all the others. I now await the 'increase in ferocity' and the 'indoors and more time' brigades to come rattling into the fray. Sorry, I don't buy that nonsense.
Chapman's wife never claimed that he "attacked her with a knife," had he done so he would probably have injured her. What he did was to threaten to use a knife on her that he kept under the pillow. |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 29 October 1999 - 03:01 am | | Hi Alan,
Chapman's wife, if I remember correctly, claimed to have seen or found the knife, but if she did or didn't, the point was how Chapaman is alleged to have stopped her cries. I do not purport that as being any evidence that Chapman was Jack. It is evidence, however, that there are ways to keep a victim quiet other than by strangling.
Kell's mutilations being totally different to all others? How? She was definitely MORE mutilated as the others, which speaks for the increasing violence theory of the insane serial killer, but the attack was aimed at sexual body parts, just as with the other mutilative attacks and in the same manner.
I accept that Jack MAY not have been Kelly's killer, but I submit that the chances of his not being are pretty small.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: Alan
Friday, 29 October 1999 - 03:52 am | | Aimed at the sexual body parts? Aimed at the whole body you mean. The inner thighs were stripped of flesh, the arms lacerated, the nose, eyelids and much of the face were removed, all the main body organs were taken out, and the heart was missing (not the uterus).
Your other comments are fair Bob, but with the sort of attack Kelly suffered I don't see that there was any particular focus for the attack, although as the heart was missing some could say that was the objective. |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 29 October 1999 - 04:47 am | | Hi Alan,
Point taken, but I still do not believe that the killer was aiming at the whole body, but at sexual, or sexual associative parts. His attacks were always at the front of the body, no damge to back or buttocks except that caused from the front.
In short, he attacked only at the front where access to such organs were not so obstructed, even removing Eddowes's kidney from the front.
It is fully correct that the heart, not the uterus was taken.
Regards,
Bob |
Author: NickDanger
Friday, 29 October 1999 - 10:04 pm | | "Hello dear friends"
I recently posted an introduction to the forum concerning my long standing interest in this case on the 'Help With the Message Boards' board. I wasn't sure where to post it and I didn't want to interrupt an ongoing discussion. If you're so inclined, give it a look if it's still there. It's like my resume. I expressed my respect for this forum and its contributors as well as giving my personal history regarding the case. I also felt an obligation to state some personal views on aspects of the case as part of my introduction. These views are not meant to convince, persuade or provoke. Rather they are merely intended to state what my views are at this point in time. Nor do I think I'm the first one to raise any of these questions or to state a particular opinion. I try to be open-minded but also to maintain sound critical judgment. I am not always succesful in either case. My personal opinions are not meant to devalue the hard work, research and intellectual agility of previous posters. I marvel at some of the contributions as impressive intellectual excercises, regardless of the probability of arriving at definitive solutions or even if I disagree with the conclusion. The process itself is rewarding. At its best, this forum helps me to try to improve my critical thinking. Being an amateur, in that I don't posess my own copies of all the documents in the case, and I have more than a full time job, the resources I am able to devote to this are quite limited. I should state that there are several elements of the case that I simply cannot spend time and energy on. Foremost among these is the Maybrick Diary. Even when I first saw the story on it on '60 Minutes', I determined that it wasn't worth MY time, but I admire and respect those who have spent considerable time and energy in debunking this debilitating red herring. So much for the disclaimer.
I guess I should start with the Stride case.
I still consider Stride a Ripper victim although I have read some interesting views to the contrary. For me the similarities clearly outweigh the differences and still believe that it is far more likely than not. While I won't categorically dismiss coincidence in complicated historical events (the record is full of them), for me this strains credulity in the Stride matter, not to mention the conclusion that Michael Kidney was her killer. My opinion is that, especially when viewed in the context of the Mitre Square murder, the 'gestalt', as it were, points to the same man. What is still unclear to me is how to interpret the strange 'choreography' and timing that occurred that night in Berner Street. Comings and goings, couples spotted here and there at various times, some witnesses seeing nothing, Israel Schwartz's man coming from Commercial Road and seeming to be drunk, just what did Matthew Packer and Mrs. Mortimer see or not see, etc. For me this is the most difficult of the murders to get a handle on, but I still believe that Jack was Stride's killer. Bearing in mind the differences cited by those who feel differently, I don't see why it couldn't simply have been a spontaneous action by JTR. Perhaps he WAS drunk when Schwartz saw him and the attack on Stride was a spur of the moment decision that then became 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. I find it reasonable that he was interrupted by Louis Diemschutz, made his escape and then proceeded to find another victim who he could operate on with more deliberation. Another thread that interests me are the recurring descriptions of a man wearing a 'peaked cap such as a sailor would wear'. I realize that this was not an uncommon style of headwear, especially in working class areas, but in this case it seems to me to be more than just coincidence. The account published in the 'Star' of October 1 about the man seen in Church Lane is especially intriguing in this regard and Joseph Lawende's description is noteworthy.
Another thing that has puzzled me are the speculations on the type(S) of knives used. I once read an article describing exactly how forensic pathologists determine the characteristics of knives that have caused wounds, but I cannot remember the source. I know that there are contributors who have medical and forensic qualifications. Can anyone give us a detailed description of exactly how this is accomplished? Would the same techniques have been used in 1888? If Stride was indeed killed with a 'shorter, blunter blade', I see no particular reason to necessarily exclude her killer as JTR. It is not unreasonable to consider that the Whitechapel murderer had (and may have used) several different knives and may well have carried more than one. Dr. Phillips is on record as describing the knife that caused Annie Chapman's injuries as a "narrow, thin, sharp blade of six to eight inches in length", such as an amputating knife. Oddly, he also said that "the ordinary post mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon". I'm not quite sure what a mid nineteenth century post mortem knife looks like, but the Liston amputating knife is still made today. However, it is also labeled as a post mortem knife by the manufacturer. The Liston amputating knife was made in small, medium and large sizes, ranging from approximately six to twelve inches in blade length. They were sharpened on one edge only as opposed to the Catlin amputating knife which was sharpened on both edges. Doctor Llewellyn is quoted in the 'Times' of September 1 as stating that the weapon used in the Nichols case would be "a pointed weapon with a stout back - such as a cork cutter's or shoemaker's" and not exceptionally long bladed. Does anyone know what a cork cutter's or shoemaker's knife of this period looks like and can they describe it? The description he gives is a perfect depiction of the Liston amputating knife. It does indeed have a stout back to prevent it from bending as a slicing knife or butcher knife would be designed to do. The only other type of knife that I am aware of that generally fits the description and is currently being manufactured is the heavy duty filleting knife. They are made in varying lengths and thicknesses. I do not claim any medical or forensic expertise, merely an amateur's interest, but I do maintain an active interest in knives and edged weapons and I would be delighted to hear from anyone who can enlighten me on these issues.
Well, I guess this is enough for one post, and yes, I'm aware that longwindedness is one of my many faults. Please forgive any grammatical and punctuation errors as I am totally exhausted from celebrating the Yankees World Series Win!
I'm happy to join you all and looking forward to learning much from the message board contributors.
Best wishes to all,
Nick |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 30 October 1999 - 08:24 am | | Hello Everybody,
On Tuesday night the BBC showed a marvelous documentary about the Second World War. Unfortunately I can't remember what it was called but this episode concerned the Russian perspective and early entry into Berlin.
Now why am I telling you this? Basically because one veteran graphically recalled killing a dozen SS men by slashing their throats. (No comment will I make!)
Please note, I have tried to diminish the shock of the description but this paragraph still retains some disturbing imagery. The veteran induced the Nazis to follow him one by one into a room where he stabbed them on the right hand side of the neck, the blade penetrating through to the other side, and then cutting. Gruesome, deadly and apparently silent.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Bob_C
Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 10:58 pm | | Hi Rabbi Leen,
I did not (could not) see the program you refer to, but your point about the probable silent method of killing is taken. The method you mention would, however, I am certain, cause lots of blood to splash everywhere and that was not Jack's hallmark. A number of his victims showed evident signs of having been strangled (e.g. Anne Chapman) and the relative small amount of blood found at the scenes suprised the observers, leaving the assumption that the victim had been dead before the throat was cut.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: NickDanger
Sunday, 31 October 1999 - 11:35 pm | | I'm beginning to realize that I posted my earlier message on the wrong board. Sorry guys, I didn't mean to interrupt an ongoing discussion. Maybe somewhere on the miscellaneous board would be more appropriate. Oh well, I'll eventually learn how to navigate these message boards.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 01 November 1999 - 12:12 am | | Hi Nick,
Your contribution is interesting, no matter on which board. It is a lot longer than Rabbi Leen's last one, though, and has to be read properly to pay it proper due. I'll be reading it shortly, and if I have an answer, or some comment, I'll post it.
Please don't feel you're 'butting in', you're not.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 01 November 1999 - 08:41 am | | Hello Bob C,
Your response to my last post is quite gratifying because I am on record as stating that JTR initially used a garotte on his victims. I hadn't actually considered the amount of bloddletting that the Russian veteran's method would use. Perhaps one of the medical correspondents could verify whether the technique used would leave too much mess as this would then help us to further narrow the MO down.
Also, hello Mr. Danger. No, you were not butting in, the more the merrier. No-one pays any attention to me anyway!
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 01 November 1999 - 04:40 pm | | Thank you Bob and Rabbi Leen. I'm new to the boards and I feel a little like a guest in an unfamiliar hotel who's had a few martinis, opening the wrong doors, knocking over furniture, etc. I reposted the original message under the title 'The Murder Weapon' on the General discussion board.
Perhaps this is a good time to ask Rabbi Leen if he shares an interest in the parallels between the East End of London and the Lower East Side of New York. My father worked for the 'Jewish Daily Forward' (or the 'fawvitz' as it was always referred to) on East Broadway, and he got me my first summer job there when I was 15. I grew up on Long Island as a typical, hip, modern baby boomer and even what remained of the Jewish lower east side was a total mystery to me. I didn't even bother to learn Yiddish, which I now regret. Later in life I realized what an opportunity I had wasted. Issac Bashevis Singer and Elie Wiesel worked there when I did. I'll never forget Elie Wiesel, he had the saddest eyes I'd ever seen. One of the things that now resonates with me in studying the Whitechapel killings is the immigrant Jewish culture that permeated the area. I found the Imperial Club discussion on another board to be kind of interesting.
The Forward building (which has since been declared a historic site) also housed The Workmen's Circle (Der Arbeiter Ring) and was full of old labor socialists who came from a variety of countries and seemed to speak nothing but Yiddish. I have lately been wondering if any of them might have ever heard of Philip Kranz and Der Arbeiter Fraint or knew any of the people who were in the International Working Men's Educational Club that night. Just a thought.
Regards,
Nick |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 05:15 am | | Hi Rabbi Leen,
I am no Medical Doctor, although my present research causes me to come into indirect contact with lots of human blood from time to time. The mess that blood makes when spilt does not need to be exagerated! (I do not chop up people, or even students, for the blood! I use expired blood conserves.)
I do know, however, from operations I have attended, how much blood flows under pressure from the opened body. I was not aware that you considered that Jack may have used a garrot, I don't think that may have been so because use of such an instrument leaves clear identifiable marks at the throat. Who knows, though?
As for paying attention! No Sir, your posts are as important as any others on the board.
Hi, Nick,
I was once also the 'new boy' Some of the rot I wrote then amuses me even today. With Jack, it is as a well-known poster once wrote: 'The more I learn about Jack the Ripper, the less I know about him'
Best regards
Bob |
Author: NickDanger
Tuesday, 02 November 1999 - 05:46 pm | | Hi Bob,
Do I take that to mean that you consider what I wrote to be laughable rot?!
Just kidding of course. I don't take myself THAT seriously. I guess that's why after a while on these boards some people seem to either develop a very elaborate paranoia or a very thick skin. Thanks for the welcome and looking forward to joining you in the learning adventure.
Best wishes,
Nick |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 01:57 am | | Hi Nick,
I did write some, then, because I had no real knowledge of Jacky-boy at all. I first started learning mainly from P. Sugden's book, then Paul Begg's and works from a number of others such as S.Knight plus items out of the net. It must be said that some of these efforts belong in the fiction shelves, or the waste bin. (e.g. Diary, Royal plot) Others are excellent works, full of reliable information, even when perhaps sometimes offering a less likely candidate for the position of Jack.
We, as children just after the war in a family of 6, did our best to put our brothers and sisters off their food to get a bigger share of what was going (not much, those days). I will not describe how we tried, but my stomach is of armoured steel since then and my skin too.
Others have not had such luck. We do have an international public board, however, so we can accept that all types of person with all types of soul and feelings read, and write, on the board. The old saying is, I feel, fairly true that 'There's nowt so queer as folk'. (being one of'em myself.)
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 06:25 am | | Hi Bob,
Your reference to the various strategies you and your siblings used to increase their portions reminds me of a friend of mine when I was a kid. When a bunch of his friends came to his house to play, his mother would serve us ice cream. He would grab the first dish of ice cream and he would lick it all over so his Mom wouldn't take any from that plate to even out the servings.
It's a little ironic though, in a forum where we discuss the most hideous disembowlings, eviscerations and mutilations, that the methods used by your brothers and sisters might be considered offputting.
Ah, the human comedy!
All the best,
Nick |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 03 November 1999 - 10:39 am | | Dear Rabbi
The method of killing espoused by the Russian veteran is one of the commonest ways to kill with a knife attack to the throat.
It is important that the knife used has a strong, spear pointed blade, double edged. The open hand is placed over the mouth with the thumb and forefinger pinching the nose, forcing the head backward to expose the throat. The point of the knife (assuming a right handed attacker)penetrates the right carotid artery and is pushed straight through behind the windpipe. On exiting the point also severs the left carotid artery.
The knife is then pushed away from the throat severing the windpipe on the way out. You do get a severe spray of arterial blood. The wound is quite distinctive.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
|
|
|
|
