Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Trevor Marriott 18 minutes ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by drstrange169 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 2 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Iconoclast 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by GUT 3 hours ago.
General Discussion: What Would It Take To Convince You? - by Timasina 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (44 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (29 posts)
General Police Discussion: Leaving one's beat - (27 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was Annie Chapman a rotund woman? - (20 posts)
Witnesses: Value of a lie - (14 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Bloodhounds - (11 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Doctors and Coroners

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-06-2014, 08:39 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 4,697
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Hereīs what Iīm thinking (and of course, I am trying to shoehorn things into Lechmere being the guily party, as always!)

It is often said that the gap between Tabram and Nichols is hard to bridge, seeing as Tabram was a "frenzied" deed, while the Ripper deeds followed a ready-made pattern: a quick overpowering of the victim, arguably involving partial strangulation - down on the ground the victim goes - zip goes the throat - the bloodspurt is directed away from the perp - and then itīs evisceration time.

Letīs go with the notion of Tabram being a frenzied deed (which has itīs limitations since it was apparently a very quiet deed too). What does the killer do?
He overpowers Tabram, and he partially strangles her (her fists were clenched when found). He gets her on the ground, and he goes berserk with a smallish knife. He manages to target all the vital organs, and he adds stabs to the genital area. One of the wounds is a cut to "the lower abdomen" - arguably a euphemism for the genital area. Tabram lives through the ordeal, according to Killeen, but then she is dealt a coup de grace by means of a thrust to the heart.

Letīs compare to this suggested scenario of Nicholsī death:
He overpowers Nichols, and he partially strangles her (her tongue was lacerated). He gets her on the ground and he goes berserk with a knife. According to Llewellyn, he targets all the vital organs. He adds stabs to the genital area. He cuts her abdomen open.
Then he hears another man approaching - Robert Paul. The killer decides to not take the risk that the victim could be alive and able to say something, so he delivers the coup de grace by severing her throat deeply. The first cut does not travel as deep as he wants to, so that he ensures cutting the windpipe and all possibilities to communicate. Therefore he delivers a second, deeper cut.

As Llewellyns states, the damage done to the abdominal area had already killed the victim, so as the killer cuts the neck, the pressure of the veins has gone. No blood spurts out, it instead slowly trickles out through the severed bloodvessels in the neck.

As the newcomer arrives, the killer takes him over to the corpse and bluffs him. At this stage, the neck has only been cut for perhaps some twenty-thirty seconds, so the pool of blood forming under her neck is still very small and cannot be seen by Paul from above. The abdomen is covered by the clothing, obscuring the other wounds, and Paul cannot see anything out of the order.

When Neil arrives to the spot, minutes later, the pool of blood has grown in size and can readily be seen from above.

This would put the Tabram deed and the Nichols deed very much on par with each other, plus it would explain why Paul could not see any blood at all on the spot. It may also explain how the neck-cutting trademark came about, a trait that was elevated to first priority henceforth since it would ensure silence and death.

The best,
Fisherman
Hi Fish
Entirely possible. But I would go with strangulation first on both Tabrams and Nichols to incapacitate first. then the stabbing on Tabram and cut throat on Nichols-I believe they were both near dead or dead when he started with the knife which would explain the lack of a lot of blood-especially for Nichols.

I think the ripper started his attacks well before Tabram and came to learn that the quickest, most efficient way to silence and incapacitate a victim was to strangle them to death first, then cut.

I think Millwood and Wilson were possible early attempts when he went first with the knife and realized this didn't work-which is why they survived-because a knife attack first does not kill them nor silence them quick enough and allows for more of a struggle and crying out.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-06-2014, 03:15 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Abby Normal:
Entirely possible. But I would go with strangulation first on both Tabrams and Nichols to incapacitate first. then the stabbing on Tabram and cut throat on Nichols-I believe they were both near dead or dead when he started with the knife which would explain the lack of a lot of blood-especially for Nichols.

I think the ripper started his attacks well before Tabram and came to learn that the quickest, most efficient way to silence and incapacitate a victim was to strangle them to death first, then cut.


But Tabram was not strangled to death - she lived through the 38 stabs, as per Killeen. And that means that he prioritized the stabbing with the small knife before he dealt the final, killing blow with the stronger weapon.

Thatīs why I am reasoning that he may have done what Llewellyn thought he did in the Nichols case - started out with the abdominal cutting. And my suspicion is that we may never have seen the cut neck if he had not been disturbed and felt the need to ensure silence and death.

Note that there was no spurting of blood from the neck in the Nichols case. But in the following one, Chapman, there was. I think it may have taught him to be more cautious the next times, which is why we have no such spurting in the Stride and Eddowes cases.

In cases of strangulation, the heart can go on pumping for quite some time after the body has gone limp. There would have been every chance for spurting blood in the Nichols case, thus - but there never was any spurting. So I am thinking he may have killed her by means of cutting up her gut and inner organs, before moving on to the neck afterwards.

The best,
Fisherman

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-06-2014 at 03:23 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-06-2014, 03:40 PM
Tom_Wescott Tom_Wescott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
It is often said that the gap between Tabram and Nichols is hard to bridge
I used to think this until very recently while researching for my new book. I hit on some interesting new things.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-10-2014, 11:48 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,965
Default

Always interesting to see how people interpret various bits of data...like the good doctors belief that the abdominal wounds on Polly were made before the throat cuts. When there is ample evidence of choking, as in the case of Polly Nichols, and very little blood found... "No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes", and the woman herself was on the ground when the cuts were made, you have a pretty good explanation for how the victim was forced onto the ground and whether her heart was beating when the abdominal cuts were made.

Victim was choked unconscious, lay down on the ground, she had her throat severely cut twice, and then the abdominal cuts were made. Its very probable that her body contained more blood than any other Canonical when discovered as a result. The choking stopped her respiration and shortly thereafter, her heartbeat. Its likely that when he cut her throat the blood pressure within the throat arteries had dropped to almost zero.

Thereffore, no spurts of blood around her, and very little loss of blood overall. Its not necessary to drain the body of blood to kill....but its practical to do so if you intend on cutting into it afterward and would like to keep as little blood as possible from getting on your hands or clothing.

That's why I believe he cuts Annies throat quicker...likely before she has completely passed out.

Cheers
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-10-2014, 12:47 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Always interesting to see how people interpret various bits of data...like the good doctors belief that the abdominal wounds on Polly were made before the throat cuts. When there is ample evidence of choking, as in the case of Polly Nichols, and very little blood found... "No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes", and the woman herself was on the ground when the cuts were made, you have a pretty good explanation for how the victim was forced onto the ground and whether her heart was beating when the abdominal cuts were made.

Victim was choked unconscious, lay down on the ground, she had her throat severely cut twice, and then the abdominal cuts were made. Its very probable that her body contained more blood than any other Canonical when discovered as a result. The choking stopped her respiration and shortly thereafter, her heartbeat. Its likely that when he cut her throat the blood pressure within the throat arteries had dropped to almost zero.

Thereffore, no spurts of blood around her, and very little loss of blood overall. Its not necessary to drain the body of blood to kill....but its practical to do so if you intend on cutting into it afterward and would like to keep as little blood as possible from getting on your hands or clothing.

That's why I believe he cuts Annies throat quicker...likely before she has completely passed out.

Cheers
Hi Michael!

Hereīs a snippet about lifesaving:

C-CIRCULATION. If the victim is not breathing, start doing CPR. After four to six minutes without oxygen the heart will stop beating. Brain damage is certain after ten minutes, so time is of the essence.

Four to six minutes! And there are many more reports out on the net that will tell you that the heart will go on beating for some considerable time after cutting off the air supply.

Consider this:

Annie Chapman spurted blood onto the fence beside her. She was lying in a large pool of blood, emanating from her neck wounds:
There were various other mutilations to the body, but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck. (Phillips).

Elizabeth Stride had only one artery cut slightly open, and the blood from it could have been directed down to the ground under her. When Johnston saw her, most of the blood had run away - she was lying with her neck over the rut in the yard, as per Blackwell, and the blood had run away towards the club door.

Catherine Eddowes had two very large pools of blood on either side of her neck, that may have concealed the bloodspurt.

Mary Kellyīs blood spurted onto the wall at her side. And there was a large pool of blood under the bed:
"The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes."

But in the Nichols case, there was only a small pool of blood under her neck. No bloodspurt - and her neck was cut off totally, all vessels were cut open.

How do you explain that there was no signs of spurting blood at the sides of her neck, Michael? And why was the pool of blood not a large one?

Hereīs a rational explanation for you: He partially strangled Nichols, rendering her unconscious, and then lowered her to the ground. At that stage, her heart was beating and the blood pressure was up.

He then lifted her clothes and frantically attacked the abdomen, stabbing and tearing and cutting it open. The blood pressure caused the blood to well over the sides of the crater formed, if you will, and it poured down onto the ground, where much of it was soaked up by her ulster.
The cuts to the abdomen killed Nichols, as per Llewellyn. Her heart stopped beating.

Then Robert Paul came along, and Lechmere (who was the killer and cutter, surprise, surprise) realized that he was in grave danger. He had killed Nichols, but he would not be able to be sure of that in the darkness. She could have been alive - and perhaps alive enough to inform the newcomer who had cut her.

In a situation as the one we have proposed, with the killer still around at the murder site, it would have been a priority to ensure that the victim could not give away what had happened, and thus point out the killer.

The only way in which Lechmere could be absolutely sure that the victim would not be able to do so, would be to cut her throat. And as he did, there would only be a trickling of blood from the wounds produced, since there was no longer any blood pressure. That would perhaps mean that what blood there was, was hidden under her neck as Paul saw her. But when Neil arrived, it had formed a larger pool, although not as large as in the other cases at all.

Of course, since the topic coincidences regularly come up whenever Lechmere is mentioned, one can add one more to the list here:

It is a coincidence that this case is the only throat-cutting and stomach-opening case out of four, where the medico suggests that the stomach wounds were inflicted first.

And it is equally a coincidence that it is the only case out of these four where the blood evidence is in agreement with a suggestion of the stomach wounds coming first.

Or not.

The other three had their throats cut first, before evisceration followed. That seemingly speaks of a conformity that would be comfortable and easy to embrace.
When the evidence speaks against it, though, together with the examining medico, we should allow for the world to be complicated.

The best,
Fisherman

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-10-2014 at 12:56 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:58 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,965
Default

I think you need to expand your thinking as it relates to what happens to someone after they have been strangled or had a "sleeper hold" put on them Fisherman.

In a sleeper hold "the amount of pressure needed to compress the artery is enough to cause the carotid sinus to kick into overdrive and send the heart a priority message to SLOW DOWN, which is sometimes enough to stop the heart altogether".

Does that inhibit brain function to the extent that pain can no longer be felt? Yes. So your theory, and the doctors, about the abdominal injuries occurring before she was technically without a heartbeat is possible. If she was unconscious. However, if you refer to the doctors comments I posted you will note that there was very little blood on her, and very little beside her.

So technically, the strangulation could have slowed or stopped her heart to such an extent that her blood pressure, required for the spurt you described, was dramatically reduced, or eliminated. Which would mean that either the abdomen OR the throat could have been cut first.

In this case, with such a public venue, would the killer ensure his victim could not call for help before continuing, or would he compulsively cut into the abdomen of a woman who might wake from her unconscious state at any time?

Cheers
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:25 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
I used to think this until very recently while researching for my new book. I hit on some interesting new things.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott
Give us a clue please?!
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-11-2014, 12:34 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
I think you need to expand your thinking as it relates to what happens to someone after they have been strangled or had a "sleeper hold" put on them Fisherman.

In a sleeper hold "the amount of pressure needed to compress the artery is enough to cause the carotid sinus to kick into overdrive and send the heart a priority message to SLOW DOWN, which is sometimes enough to stop the heart altogether".

Does that inhibit brain function to the extent that pain can no longer be felt? Yes. So your theory, and the doctors, about the abdominal injuries occurring before she was technically without a heartbeat is possible. If she was unconscious. However, if you refer to the doctors comments I posted you will note that there was very little blood on her, and very little beside her.

So technically, the strangulation could have slowed or stopped her heart to such an extent that her blood pressure, required for the spurt you described, was dramatically reduced, or eliminated. Which would mean that either the abdomen OR the throat could have been cut first.

In this case, with such a public venue, would the killer ensure his victim could not call for help before continuing, or would he compulsively cut into the abdomen of a woman who might wake from her unconscious state at any time?

Cheers
First: Have a look at Eddowes, for example. She had her neck cut off - and that produced large amounts of blood, floating out under her neck.
Then look at Chapman: Same thing. A lake of blood.

Both of these women had their stomachs ripped open, but that did not mean that the bleeding from the throat was any smaller.

With Nichols, there was very little blood underneath the neck. You need to explain that. The blood exited her in some manner, and apparently it was not via the neck. It was instead via the abdominal wounds. That blood was sucked up by her ulster, but there was still enough of it to form a pool under her knees!

Ask yourself why there is this massive difference, Michael.

You say that in a public venue like Buckīs Row, it would have been wiser to begin with the neck. Yes, it would have.
But why would we bank on the killer always going along with the best option?

There are things like learning curves. I suggest that he learnt this exact thing in Buckīs Row, and after that, he always began with the neck.

Now, look in the other direction! What happened in George Yard? That killer strangled or partially strangled Tabram, and then he stabbed her 38 times - WHILE SHE WAS STILL ALIVE! And then, AFTER that, he dealt the coup de grace through her heart.

Would he not have been better served, in such a public venue, by beginning with the heart thrust...? Why did he not do just that, then? Perhaps because his focus, intent and wishes were totally fixed on cutting and stabbing into the abdomen?

As for when the heart stopped beating, we canīt tell. We CAN tell, however, that the marks on Nichols suggested that pressure of thumbs and/or fingers had been applied. Thus we are seemingly not dealing with your "sleeper hold" - which would in no way ensure that the heart would stop anyway. There have been hangings where the victimsīhearts have beaten for a very long time afterwards, Michael. The heart is a very persistent thing - cut the air supply and it will go on beating for minutes. Thatīs why people are sometimes miraculously saved after having lain twenty minutes on the bottom of a swimming pool - because the heart kept beating and oxygenized the blood with what little oxygen there was. If it had stopped, it would have resulted in brain death in the fewest of minutes.

What you are doing, I believe, is to reason that since he cut the other necks first, he would have cut Nichols neck first too. Thatīs a tempting thought, but itīs oversimplifying, Iīm afraid. The evidence is instead in line with Llewellyn being correct. And letīs not forget that Llewellyn had the same idea as you - until he saw the abdominal wounds and changed his mind.
He would have had a reason for doing that.

The best,
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-11-2014, 01:22 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
With Nichols, there was very little blood underneath the neck. You need to explain that.
Hi Christer

It had simply run from her neck, underneath her back and soaked into the ulster.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-11-2014, 01:41 AM
Lechmere Lechmere is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,450
Default

Defying the law of gravity at the same time.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.