|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Modus Operandi: Strangulation/Garrotting
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Modus Operandi: Strangulation/Garrotting
Author: Monty
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 09:13 am |        | Scott,
I was joshing. My humor is perverse and I'm sorry if it upset you, besides I've already had a dressing down from the other half and deservedly so.
Sorry
Monty
 |
Author: Scott Weidman
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Hi Monty,
I was just trying to bail you out before someone else became offended, that's all. You needn't apologize to me. I'm a big boy. And I've heard much worse.
Take care,
Scott |
Author: Monty
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 11:29 am | | Scott,
Fair comment,in that case I turn my apologies into gratitude.
Later,
Monty.
 |
Author: Robeer
Monday, 15 October 2001 - 09:40 pm | | Scott,
If, as you believe, JTR needed no charm and little conversation to lure his victims into a secluded area then the standing position of the prostitute would be routine and probably not face to face. JTR would need the hands and arms of the victims to be unavailable for self defense, so the victim's hands would need to be otherwise engaged so as not to interfere with what JTR had in mind.
Facing away from the customer, the victim would need her hands to hold her dress up so the customer could access the necessary part of her anatomy. If the victim is facing a wall then the hands, by necessity, would be placed against the wall to brace herself in order to maintain her posture for the convenience of the customer. In either case the victim has her hands out of the way and fully employed while her neck is exposed to the hands, garrott, or knife of JTR. This position would allow a swift attack and quick reduction of the victim, who would have no chance for self defense, and also has the advantage of having the victim trapped against the fence or wall. This position also allowed prostitutes to employ a common technique to practice birth control. For all these reasons it is probable JTR was behind the victim when she was attacked.
A face to face position would allow observation of JTR and the opportunity for the victim to bring hands, arms, knees, and voice into play for self defense. On the other hand, weakness from hunger, intoxication, and exhaustion may have rendered these victims virtually helpless anyway, but the likehood is JTR attacked from behind the victim.
There is one gruesome possibility for a face to face attack position. If the victim has her back against the wall and her hands holding her clothing up, JTR may have choked her to death for the perverse pleasure of watching the look on her face as she died. It would be unlikely he would cut her throat while facing her to avoid blood splatter over the front of his clothing.
If JTR was right handed then the left eye that was swollen and bruised on Annie Chapman might indicate a vicious blow to the left side of her face from a right handed man facing her. It is possible JTR employed different tactics based on the size of the victim and circumstance. |
Author: Scott Weidman
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 09:29 am | | Hi Robeer,
"Scott, if, as you believe, JTR needed no charm and little conversation to lure his victims into a secluded area then the standing position of the prostitute would be routine and probably not face to face."
Perhaps you were addressing a different Scott? I've never stated anything about the Ripper's lack of charm nor anything in regards to his standing vis-a-vis with his victims while attacking them. At any rate, however, your points, to whomever they were addressed, are quite interesting. I, too, believe that the victims were attacked from behind, and also that their assailant was a control freak.
Then there's also the argument regarding left-handed versus right-handed. What about ambidexterity? And, even if the killer wasn't truly ambidextrous, it still wouldn't prove he favored one arm over the other when striking or slashing his victims.
Anyway, I'm late for work.
Take care.
Scott |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 11:38 am | | Scott Dubya,
Actually I was referring to a post from Scott Medine, a veteren police officer from New Orleans, but please feel free to join the discussion. There has been detailed discussion on other threads about whether the telltale signs of strangulation were evident on the victims or not. Like everything else about this case there seems to be no clear evidence one way or the other. A lot depends upon how detailed the autopsies were and how much knowledge did the inspecting surgeons and police officers have in 1888 to determine actual cause of death.
The theory of Jack the Strangler is based on the blood flow of all victims. All the outdoor victims had blood flow that would indicate death before the throat was slashed. No blood spray was evident and no large amount of blood on the front of their clothes. The theory is that JTR knew enough to avoid slashing the throat until the victim's heart was no longer pumping so he could avoid being sprayed with blood. If attacked from behind he could avoid the blood spray but the front of the victim should be covered with blood. This was not the case so the assumption is the victims were strangled first.
Scott Medine has some very interesting posts on the Profile of Jack topic about profiling a SK like JTR. Part of that discussion deals with whether JTR needed charm to overcome the fear on the streets that may cause the prostitutes to be wary of who they consorted with. Scott Medines' response to that question is included in those posts. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 04:35 pm | | You are right Robeer,
Jack would have to have taken his victims from behind. The cuts on the throats went left to right. This from the victim's perspective. (Victims left to her right) For this to have happened, the killer with his right hand would have to reach around the victim and make the slice. The killer with his back against the wall and the vic backing up to him she would indeed be vulnerable and unable to see her attacker. The killer would also have leverage in his favor. He could either pull back sharply with a hand full of the vics hair or push her head forward. This positioning of the pair would also put the initial blood spatter down and away from the killer.
A point I keep bringing up is the Polly Nichols killing has a forensic that keeps getting over looked. She was found dead with her eyes open. A sign that indicates she died instantly.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: graziano
Tuesday, 16 October 2001 - 05:39 pm | | Hello Scott,
Polly Nicholls was found dead eyes open by PC Neil.
This was five minutes after the discovery of the body by charmen Cross and Paul.
It seems quite clear from their statement at the inquest that at that moment her eyes were shut.
It does not subtract anything from your conclusion (that she died instantly the moment the throat was cut), but it leads to some other important deductions (also for the other victims).
It seems also quite clear from the blood around the victims that:
a) the first thing to be cut was the throat (enormous blood flow coming from there and not a lot around their belly/legs),
b) the throat was cut while they were lying on their back or on their side(no blood on their chest and no blood spurt far from the body),
c) the throat was cut while they were unconscious (had they been conscious, even lying, it should have implied spurt; had they been dead we would not have had such a massive outing of blood from the throat-the heart not pumping anymore).
Could you confirm this, am I wrong ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 09:05 am | | Scott,
If Jack took his victims from behind then wouldn't they have positioned themselves facing the wall?
If so then then would the blood flow be strong enough to be sprayed against the wall or a fairly large radius away from the body?
Graz,
It seems fairly reasonable to me.
Monty
|
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 02:11 pm | | Scott M.
From your description it would appear you are under the impression that Jacks victims were on their feet when they had their throats cut?
How did you arrive at that?, or have I read it wrong?
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 03:57 pm | | Yes Jon, it is my assumption that the vics were on their feet and the killer was behind them. The positioning of the bodies as I stated earlier would allow the blood to flow away from the perp and the vic. The blood on the rest of the body could come from the cut depending on how the body falls or from the post mortem mutilations.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 03:59 pm | | Not necessarily Monty. Think of it as a lap dance in some back alley.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 08:42 am | | Scott E,
You have confused my simple mind.
What I was trying to get across was if JtR dispatched his victims with a knife straight across the throat then there would be a spray of blood emanating from the wound,yes?
Then,and please correct me if I'm wrong,the blood
"splatter" should fall a fair way from the body.
But I believe that blood was found in a pool underneath and close to the body which indicates to me no blood spray.
I may be way out on this though, like I said, my mind is simple.
Monty
|
Author: Neil K. MacMillan
Saturday, 26 January 2002 - 08:46 pm | | Monty, Chris and Both Scotts; You have quite perplexed me. I was hoping to find some sort of consensus for a question that plagues me as I start my first murder in the novel.
Did Jack strangled the vics. but also I have to agree if he slit their throats first, there would to my mind be a massive spate of blood. Even from behind it would be damn near impossible for our boy to not get some blood on him especially if the vic were facing a wall. I'd like to hear more of everyone's views on this so I'm on solid footing even though my suspect and first vic are both figments of the imagination. Kindest regards, Neil |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 11:29 am | | Dear Neil,
The question concerning what happened to all of the blood is one of the biggest mysteries in the whole case. If we look at it logically we see that the blood can only go four places. On the ground or the immediate area. On the victim. On the perpetrator. And finally on any combination of the three.
In the cases of Martha Tabram and Mary Kelly we see evidence of cadaveric spasms. These spasms are only present in conscious individuals who die instantly. These spasms are also found in strangulations but there are also other signs of strangulation that are not present in both cases.
There are three big indicators to instant death. These indicators are the aforementioned spasms, open eyes, as was found in the Polly Nichols incident and the coagulation of blood. When a body dies instantly, especially when there is a massive wound to the body, the body will quickly coagulate the blood especially at the trauma site in an effort to keep the body from bleeding to death. Its kind of a miscommunication as the body is already dead but it is still trying to save itself. If my memory serves me right, and without checking my notes, this coagulation of blood was noted in the Nichols case. In cases of strangulation the blood remains more free flowing. When alcohol is present in the system the blood also flows more freely. In the cases of strangulation, like Annie Chapman, there more than likely would have been more blood present.
So I ask myself, if there is not enough blood on the ground and/or the immediate area or on the vic then how much was carried away from the scene by the killer? There are no signs of blood leaving any of the scenes. No drag marks, no bloody foot prints and no blood trail indicating the direction of travel of the killer. In an effort to find an answer, I am drawn to the Anne Bryan murder in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in April of 1994.
Anne Bryan, an elderly woman, resided in St. James Place Retirement Community. She was found in the early morning by her nurse brutally killed and mutilated in a fashion that would rival the mutilation of Mary Kelly. Her bedroom and her body were covered in blood, yet the only trace of blood outside the bedroom was a lone smudge found on the 1 button of her telephone. In the blood was found the powder that is found on latex surgical gloves, that can be purchased at any drug store. Luminol was sprayed throughout the apartment and no traces of blood were found outside the bedroom, with the exception of the impression print on the telephone. What happened to the blood? How could the killer leave without tracking blood everywhere? How could the killer be covered in blood and not be noticed? Simple. He wore a yellow full length rain coat and rubber rain boots. He simply removed them before leaving the bedroom. Eric Brown was arrested for the murder this past year.
Suppose our Whitechapel killer wore a full length coat or some outer garment. He would surely have to present the victim with money or lead her to believe that he had the money before both went away to some dark out of the way place. Once they were safely out of sight he would have to open his coat to allow him access to the knife and her access to him to perform the services requested. Once the slaughter is complete the killer conceals the blood by simply closing his coat. Blood on his hands is taken care of by simply removing the gloves. Sure there would be blood on the outside of the coat. But blood on a dark coat would not be that easy to discern, at night, on a gas lit street.
Peace,
Scott |
|
|
|
|
