|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 July 28, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
The Ripper Victims (General):
Archive through July 28, 1999
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 06:03 am |        | Dear Everyone,
I've just been re-reading some of the posts here and found the interesting items on the covering or otherwise of MJK's face. There have been several instances of a murder victim having their faces covered, the Courvoisier murder of 1840, the Leon Beron murder 1911, to name but two spring to mind.
According to some authorities this stems from a worldwide held belief that the eyes of a dead person retain the last image seen.
It is interesting to note that in these cases where faces have been covered the murders are all particularly bloody. In the first case mentioned Lord Russell had his throat cut.
De-huminising or de-personalising the victim is usually achieved by hacking off the features rather than by covering.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: RLeen
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 10:27 am | | Hello Everybody,
The aspect of the facial mutilations performed on the victims is surely one aspect of the Ripper's MO. And this sign does not appear with regard to the unfortunate Stride.
Is it too much to say that this is definite proof that Stride was killed by someone else? Surely the JTR of fact and fiction would have left his mark on his victim's face before making his escape.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 10:39 am | | Hi, Rabbi:
Facial mutilation is a feature of the Kelly and Eddowes murders but not of the Nichols and Chapman murders, so this does not appear to be a reason to discount Stride from the series, although my learned colleagues, Mr. Yost, among them, find other reasons that make them believe that Elizabeth Stride was not a victim of Jack's.
Christopher T. George |
Author: THOUGHTFUL
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 12:41 pm | | Thank you all!
See you at next Cloak & Dagger.
Thoughtful |
Author: Jill
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 02:05 pm | | Hello All,
Found the Ergonomics book: "Human Factors in Engineering and Design" by Mark S. Sanders and Ernest J.McCormick 7th Edition, McGraw-Hill International Editions, p.399-402
Test research done on gloves, was mostly done on difference of material against bare hands. On some tasks there will be no difference, but in general "performance on tasks requiring fine motor control and tactile feedback will be adversely affected by wearing gloves". The exception on this rule is where surface irregularities can be detected more accurately with thin cloth gloves than with bare fingers.
In a study done by Weidman in 1970 4 gloves were compared [leather with canves back, heavy duty terry cloth, neoprene and PVC (the last 2 didn't exist in 1888)]. There were 5 subtasks (all mechanical tasks like opening a lock with a key, replacing 16 television tubes by hand, using a socket wrench, a screwdriver and a triggre-type solder gun). The graph shows percentage increase in TIME compared with bare-hands performance. Neoprene differs per task from 12-20% time increase; Terry cloth from 22-55%; LEATHER from 27-60%; and finally PVC from 27-70%.
Another import fact about wearing gloves is the loss of grip strength. The reasons for it are to be found in the barrier between force and hand, the glove. This may lead to dropping a tool, poorer control, lower quality of work and increased mucsle fatigue. When wearing rubber gloves you keep about 80% of bare-handed grip strength, with cotton only about 72% and insulated gloves only about 60%
Now I'm still searching for the history of the invetion of vulcanisation, but I'm prety certain they only had that latex stuff that goes smeary in the sun and crackled in winter (remember the oil-seaman jackets)
Since fingerprinting was of no importance, the loss of tactility, the increase in time to perform a task and the loss of grip: NO he didn't wear gloves while mutilating his victims.
Cheers, Jill |
Author: Julian
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 04:43 pm | | G'day Jill, Rabbi, Dianna, Chris George, Janice, Jules, Caz, Bob, Yaz, Red, Thoughtful, Jon, Paul, George and Ringo.
Um, someone mentioned something about fingerprinting being an unproven science in 1888. I thing Stephen Ryder posted a beaut bit of information a month or so ago saying that some bloke had successfully used fingerprinting to get some other bloke off a murder charge (or something) over in China (or somewhere) but that the Whitechapel police wouldn't use it.
Just think if they did, none of us would be here now trying to solve this mystery and Jack would be just another arseole of history.
Jules |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 08:21 pm | | Hello Diana, Dr. V., and all,
I'm posting this here because the discussion thread I'm responding to I believe has now been archived. Diana Comer, Dr. Villon and some others were discussing the difficulty of extracting uteri from the victims' bodies. Dr. Villon stated that this is quite difficult even for a trained physician, and therefore liklihood is brought that the WM was a doctor himself, since he extracted uteri quickly under very difficult conditions (darkness, pressed for time, etc.)
I've tried to think this through. I believe there would be a way to do it without having professional medical expertise. The uterus is differentiated from surrounding tissues by being of a bit harder and more leathery consistency. Andre Chicatilo, the famous Soviet sexual serial murderer, used to like to take uteri because they were chewy--he'd quatch away in idle hours while reading, masturbating, etc. Additionally, the external genitalia lead directly to this organ. The WM I believe would start with a savage gash to the groin area somewhat off-center so as not to damage the uterus--see the diagram of Eddowes' body in the "A to Z". Opening up the body cavity widely, he'd next sever the intestinal attachments, then lay down his knife somewhere, then scoop up all the intestines in both hands and heave them over the victim's shoulder. This gets them out of his way inside the body cavity, and also out of his way in his moving around in squatting position outside the lower body, so he doesn't step into intestines and fecal material. Next he inserts the index finger of his right hand as far up into the vagina as he can from the outside. He inserts his left hand into the body cavity and feels around for his right index finger coming through. That index finger is now pointing directly at the uterus. He feels around blindly in this area until he locates the hardest, most leathery structure--it lies just a few inches beyond his index finger--he grabs it with his left hand and squeezes hard, pulling it upwards and out of the body cavity as best he can. Whatever it is still attached to as it emerges, he severs with his knife which he's picked up again with his right hand. He's got the uterus, no light is required, no sophisticated anatomical knowledge is required, and the whole thing can be done in 30-60 seconds tops.
In the case of Eddowes, I think he may have first cut off a small piece of intestine to lay beside the body before scooping up the main mass of intestines to throw over the shoulder. This length of intestine could be used to re-locate the knife he was about to lay down while inserting his right index finger vaginally. He might have lain the knife on top of that intestine, so as to later follow the intestine back to the handle of the knife with his right hand in the darkness.
This doesn't explain how he got Eddowes' kidney, however. It seems he had to have had some halfway-decent degree of anatomical knowledge to do that, since there is no external pathway leading to the kidney.
David |
Author: anon
Monday, 26 July 1999 - 09:31 pm | | As a theorist his ideas are very gory
And his reasoning is exceedingly hoary
But when it comes to identification
He claims to have dunnit with no justification
But that is another story |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 03:47 am | | | David's reasoning is very good. (Teachers always say "very good", have you ever noticed? We get compulsive about it because we dont want the kids to give up). I'm not a doctor so I could be way out in left field. It explains a lot that seemed inexplicable. Tulip pointed out a while ago (based on her sister's veterinery expertise) that the uterus is only marginally easier to find in animals. The district was full of slaughtermen and if he was one of those, maybe he practiced on the carcasses in the slaughter house. Could that also be why he was so good at slitting throats? How did they despatch animals in 1888? Dr. Villon, do you think that somebody who had practiced on animals could have overcome the uterus problem? |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 03:51 am | | | David's reasoning is very good. (Teachers always say "very good", have you ever noticed? We get compulsive about it because we dont want the kids to give up). I'm not a doctor so I could be way out in left field. It explains a lot that seemed inexplicable. Tulip pointed out a while ago (based on her sister's veterinery expertise) that the uterus is only marginally easier to find in animals. The district was full of slaughtermen and if he was one of those, maybe he practiced on the carcasses in the slaughter house. Could that also be why he was so good at slitting throats? How did they despatch animals in 1888? Dr. Villon, do you think that somebody who had practiced on animals could have overcome the uterus problem? |
Author: Villon
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 04:56 am | | Hello all
Diana, I don't think practising on animals would help signficantly in speeding up a man's ability to locate a human uterus in the dark, in those conditions. It's a bit like saying that looking at a map of Reading will help you find your way across Launceston at midnight in five minutes flat.
No disrespect to David's theory, but I have difficulty in applying it to the reality of human anatomy. David, have you much experience of exploring a dead body? There is NO gap between the vagina and uterus as you seem to imagine. It just isn't possible to insert one's fingers up the vagina and into the pelvic cavity.
Anatomically, the suggestion is (forgive me) nonsense. If there was such a shortcut to dissecting away the uterus, I think a good gynae. surgeon would have found it by now.
A few points on anatomy that might be useful for everyone here:
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UTERUS
Imagine a small hollow rubber ball (about the size of a tangerine), with a VERY small circular hole, about a centimetre across, cut in one side. Now imagine a piece of hosepipe, about two inches long, slotted snugly into this hole, so that it forms a complete and watertight join. The hosepipe is the vagina. the ball is the the uterus. The hole is the cervix (the thing that joins the vagina to the uterus).
Now, imagine this small construction buried under a huge mass of soft gunge-filled rubber tubing, with the consistency of newly-cooked spaghetti. Imagine it stuck to this tubing with strong adhesive in all kinds of unpredictable places, imagine the whole mass distorted and twisted around by these adhesions.
Now imagine yourself IN the dark, with a stop watch timing you to five minutes maximum or your life is forfeit.
All you have to do is plunge your hands into the tubing, either push it to one side or (for speed's sake), cut it away, bearing in mind that as you do so, stinking gunge will spill out and fill the space you are working in; find the rubber ball, cut it cleanly away from the hosepipe, and/or the surrounding adhesions, WITHOUT BEING ABLE SO SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING, take it out and run away before any one finds you.
That's all our boy had to do.
We have to be looking at someone with plenty of surgical or dissection experience - on human beings - to have any chance at all.
Mike |
Author: Edana
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 05:15 am | | Ok...yuck. Interesting yuck though. One observation on gloves...even if JTR wore gloves, it doesn't mean he didn't cut himself (and the glove he was wearing). I don't think he wore gloves. I believe he wanted to muck about in warm wet insides. I think he liked it being the anal sort of person he was.
I am attaching my sharpened versions of the Berner St. site and Hanbury St. just for jollies...wouldn't you?
Edana |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 09:14 am | | Mike,
But he had adequate light and time in Miller's Court, and Dr. Bond said that job showed no evidence of surgical skill at all.
I don't see where anywhere in your last post you successfully question the main points I made in my last post. It seems that you pull rank on me--you're a doctor, you know, I am not a doctor, I don't know. In my experience, doctors pull rank inappropriately like this all the time--they have a peculiar ingrained tendency to always believe they know best. When I was studying philosophy a few years ago, I dialoged with doctors who would give me the most lopsided arguments in favor of active euthanasia. They simply said that doctors know what is best for their patients, no on else does, and so if a doctor wants to kill somebody, we ought to let them do it.
All you say is that the job in Mitre Square would be hard, and the solution to a hard job has to be a doctor. I don't think this is necessarily true. As I said, he could have pushed his finger up the vagina to locate the uterus, then just pulled the tangerine up and out, and cut it away from the body with his knife. As I said, the uterus is behind the vagina in line with it, connected at the os by a neck-like structure, so he would have the route laid out for him by the organic realities. Eddowes' autopsy also revealed an invagination of the vagina or the anus, I don't have the papers in front of me. In other words, the opening was radically moved toward the inside of the body cavity in an unnatural way. This could have happened by the murderer pulling up hard on the uterus from the inside--invagination would have taken place as the mesenteric attachments of the uterus were pulled inward from the perspective of the invaginated opening.
As for your comments on the great mass of stinking gunge: Who cares if it stinks? Do you know what size Catherine Eddowes was? She was very petite. With her intestines out of the way, there would be very little gunge to deal with, IMHO. Plus, the gunge would not be back-filling to get in the Rippers's way if he had gotten ahold of that tangerine and kept pulling it upward like a bulldog--everything would be stretched out in space as it were--it wouldn't be filling in. It seems to me that you are imagining the job being done nicely, the way a doctor would approach it on an operating table; but this is inappropriate to the case. I imagine it being done roughly, the way the Ripper would approach it.
As I have said before, Yazoo had a great post on Dr. Bond several months ago. He would be best to discuss with you on this, but he seems to have lost his nerve on these boards. Little chance of me going that route.
David |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 09:26 am | | Hello Everybody,
Yes Edana this is a fairly yucky, though informative, discussion. As Dr. Villon, echoing the thoughts of Dr.Phillips states, it is fairly obvious that JTR had some medicinal connection, but of which particular branch?
Was he acquainted with corpses through pathological examinations or did he show any bias to being an actual surgeon. One other thing, would he posess sufficient practical skill to complete his infernal activities if he was a student.
After over one hundred years are we starting to narrow the field of suspects down to professional people?
Thanking you for your consideration.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 02:11 pm | | | The reason I struggle with this is because of the psychological profile ala Douglas which I just listened to on video again this afternoon. On the one hand I have Mr. Douglas telling me this man had only average intelligence, worked at a job where he didn't have to interact with the public, and did menial work. On the other hand I'm hearing that he had to have enough medical expertise to remove a uterus in the dark fast and that working with animals would not fill the bill. Douglas says he didn't get along well with people either. Douglas' book says these guys don't often reach the level of their potential and they are frustrated. Who is this? A struck off the register Dr.? A failed medical student? A janitor or night watchman in a funeral parlor who studies the bodies at night? Aaaargh! |
Author: JohnKle
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 03:57 pm | | | Maybe Dr. Thomas Barnardo? Ref: Mammoth Mook JtR, "The Mad Doctor" pp 280-302. |
Author: Diana Comer
Tuesday, 27 July 1999 - 04:06 pm | | I have been thinking in my own feeble way about my last posting and I began to wonder if maybe the answer is cultural transition. Jack moved to Whitechapel having immigrated from another culture where his medical expertise was recognized and respected. However he was not accepted by the British medical establishment and could not practice so he wound up doing menial work. This could explain his rage. Here are some possibilities I thought of: Jewish Doctor from Eastern Europe rejected due to antisemitism -- India was part of the British Empire at this time. While their culture was radically different from the Anglo-American model it was by no means primitive.
(Remember the ancient Egyptians practiced brain surgery) Could that culture generate someone with the expertise to find a uterus? -- Unknown primitive culture. Here we are talking about a shaman or witch doctor. -- Chinese medicine, while very different from Western could never be called primitive. Since the British Empire had reached its zenith at this time it embraced many cultures (I know they never ruled China)so the possibilities are almost endless. |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 07:41 am | | | I have thought of one other possibility and that is that there was a learning progression taking place. The idea being that he didn't quite know how to find the uterus in Nichols' (there were some vertical and horizontal abdominal cuts but that was all) but he learned a little from doing Nichols and so succeeded in securing Chapman's uterus. This presupposes some anatomical knowledge before Nichols but not enough. The problem with this model is that there is such a huge leap between Nichols and Chapman -- one would expect one or two intermediate steps. On the other hand, if he knew how to get the uterus from the start and that was what he wanted, why didn't he take Nichols uterus? Maybe we are dealing with someone who could find a uterus but had never done it fast and in the dark and that was why the Nichols (practice) stage was necessary? Maybe after Nichols he got the idea of carrying a lantern? Nichols knees were not flexed (the only one) so he apparently thought he could find it using only abdominal referents. Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly all had flexed knees. |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 10:07 am | | Diana,
The WM was likely interrupted by approaching footsteps when working on Nichols--that's why he didn't take her uterus. Nichols was likely his narrowest escape.
David |
Author: Villon
Wednesday, 28 July 1999 - 11:30 am | | David, truly sorry if I seem to be patronising you. It was not intended at all. But I have opened a few bodies and removed a few female reproductive organs in all degrees of disease and malformation, and I was just telling you that the process you envisage in theory can't be done in practise.
I'd vouch for a very high probability that our J. was a medical man.
Diana, hi. A failed or struggling med. student would fit, wouldn't it. He would have the required knowledge, plus a sense of failure and frustration. And we have the London Hospital, full of med. students, right there in Whitechapel.
Regarding profiling. I have an older brother who has been involved in forensic psychology for about fifteen years, and he is currently involved in a widespread reevaluation of the profiling system as propounded by the FBI. There is, so he says, great concern that the system is unscientific, in that it relies on unverifiable and unreproducable evidence, that it has been adopted without due consideration and that its value is highly questionable.
I'm not qualified to say whether or not he is right, but he is pretty senior in his profession and is speaking for a sizeable number of his colleagues. So it might persuade us to look at this profile of Jack with some scepticism and reservation.
Paul (my brother), is preparing some paper to deliver at a conference quite soon, likely to be published afterwards. I can keep the interested parties here informed, if they would like.
regards
Mike |
|
|
|
|
