Jacks Day Job?

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

First and foremost, donīt tell me Iīm hiding behind the medicos judgements. Slightly rude, if you ask me.

You will have noticed that Glenn chimed in here, displaying the same opinion that I hold. Does that mean that he tries to "hide" himself behind otherīs opinions too? I think not.

My wiew is based on what was said by the medicos, for the simple reason that these men were by and large very trustworthy, no-nonsense men, with great medical insights. There are other times, when I do not lean against (or hide behind) the opinions of the medicos, like for instance Killeens wiew that 38 of Tabrams wounds were dealt with the same knife, but when I do so, I do not object to the physical observations made and put on print. Killeen only said that the 38 wounds MAY have been made by the same knife. They could of course have been made by 38 similar blades. Such things mean that the medicos are more fair game in some instances than in others.

Speaking about things put on print, David, you write:
"her backbone wasn't more furiously notched than the previous victims'. (We know this from medical reports...)", and if you donīt mind, I would like to call that card. That means that I want to know the number of notches in the respective victims necks, as well as the depths to which they travelled, preferably adjoined by a report on the differing anglings of the knife as he cut. With information like this on those hands of yours, I will prove a very interested listener, I assure you.

For some reason, you have married yourself to the idea that if he tried to decapitate, there must be an underlying wish or urge to do so on his behalf. I donīt think that this is something we can conclude, since I hold the opinion that he may simply have been trying to increase the, shall we say, shock value of his deeds, and when he found that it was not all that easy to do, he simply abandoned it. Keep in mind that he cut of the breasts, and filleted her thigh - did he do so because ha had a deep wish to cut off breasts and fillet thighs? Or did he do it because he could not care less where and what he cut, longs as it resulted in annihilation? And if the thigh suddenly had proven har to fillet, must we assume that he would have stayed at it until he succeded - or are we free to theorize that he may simply have abandoned it, and moved on?

"That is not guesswork, that's not a gut feeling ; that is what we have: throats cut to the spine, and no decapition at all."
No, David, we have a written report where a medico asserts us that what he saw in that cut neck, lead him to suspect a failed decapitation. Take that report away, and you are tampering with the evidence.

"by all evidences, there is no decapitation in our case, even not in the indoors murder of MK, while our man successfully removed various organs, in the dark, in the streets, in haste. If a man like this had had a desire for decapitation, he would certainly have succeeded, at least one time.

The organs he cut out, David, did not crave any severing of the bone structure, did they? Therefore that point of yours is moot, Iīm afraid. You cannot pinpoint a beheader by pointing to a cut out kidney, simple as that.

I will stand by my wiew until something comes along, evidencewise (like a report on the number of notches, the angling of the knife when they were caused and their respective depths in the victims necks in each case). Up til that time, with respect - and I mean that, David! - you are not the one taking advantage of the evidence existing; I am.

Much of the solution to the question you put to Glenn:
"Do you believe that our killer wanted to behead his victims, but never succeeded?
I sincerely don't."

... depends on how much lay in the word "wanted". If we are speaking "would do anything to achieve" it still is not enough to convince me, although I would judge your wiew more viable in such a case. If, however, "wanted" only equals "decided it would be fun to see if he could behead her", well, then we are speaking of something entirely different.

All the best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Glenn,
Phillips' interpretation is understandable, but false.
Do you believe that our killer wanted to behead his victims, but never succeeded?
I sincerely don't.
In a previous post, I mentionned J. Plumain, who savagely cut the throat of a woman, to the backbone. But he never intended to sever the head.

Amitiés, and thanks for PM,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I have to say, though, that I am usually no supporter of the busybody Dr Phillips, but I have to agree with his conclusions about the throat cutting.
Sure, none of the victims were actually beheaded, but the sheer magnitude and depth of the cut - especially in Chapman's case where the head hardly was detached to the body - indicates that the killer's intention went further than what was necessary for 'ordinary' throat cutting.
Personally, I think Phillips' interpreation about 'attempt of decapitation' is easily understandable and quite logical based on the medical evidence.

All the best

[DVV]

Hi again, David!
You write:
"whatever, we can't always trust Phillips, can we?
Wasn't this guy who discarded Eddowes as a Ripper victim, while he put Stride in the frame?"

...and I do believe you are trying to tease me here. Nevertheless, I find no reason whatsoever to deviate from what I have already said. And the fact of the matter is that while I rest my case against the medical reports, you rest yours against unsubstantiated guesswork.
It kind of makes me wonder; why are you so eager to refute dr Phillips words, when you have no more than a gut feeling to back it up? Whatīs in it for you, David?

Hi Fish,
and no, it's not only teasing, it's not only about Stride: that's also a matter of logic.
If I understand your position correctly, you don't think Jack to possess a "butcher's knowledge" - let alone a medical's...(agreed, but that's not the point in our digression)
What would be your answer, if I'd object: "No, Fish, your are wrong, because Dr Phillips said...." And if that would be my main and hammered argument...? (notice that I did not mention Stride.)

You would point out that forensic science, at the time, had nothing to be compared with Horatio Caine's team, and you would be right.
You would certainly add that other "experts", at the time, disagreed with some of Phillips' views. And again, you would be right and reasonable.
We all know that some of Phillips' conjectures have misled a lot of people, though his basic post-mortem observations are reliable.

Second: you state that you "rest your case on medical reports", while I rest mine on "unsubstantiated guesswork".
False, Fish, absolutely false! It's rather quite the reverse...
An "attempt of decapitation" was what Phillips guessed, or conjectured - nothing more.

I, on the contrary, am supported by a simple fact: JtR never beheaded anybody, although, in Miller's Court (I repeat), he had plenty of time to sever Mary's head.
He did not, and her backbone wasn't more furiously notched than the previous victims'. (We know this from medical reports...)
That is not guesswork, that's not a gut feeling ; that is what we have: throats cut to the spine, and no decapition at all.

To finish with, the matter of decapitation is more important than it seems, it would belong to JtR fanta, MO, personality. Then, instead of trusting Phillips more than he deserves, instead of hiding ourselves behind one of his more hazardous deductions, we should take all evidences into account. And by all evidences, there is no decapitation in our case, even not in the indoors murder of MK, while our man successfully removed various organs, in the dark, in the streets, in haste. If a man like this had had a desire for decapitation, he would certainly have succeeded, at least one time.

Amitiés,
David

ps: some years ago, a lunatic, in Pau, before escaping from the asylum, beheaded one nurse, and put her head on the TV set. He did this very quickly...with a knife...and he was not a qualified butcher ,nor surgeon. I guess he worked it out because decapitation was something significant in his poor sick mind.
And because he wasn't (completely) like Jack.

[Ashkenaz]

As for opening the windpipe not being a silent business, I would say that a severed windpipe renders you speechless, nothing less.

Yes victim was speechess. He was not able to pass air over his larynx as it was not longer in contact with his lungs.

This is corroborated by the medicos who firmly state that silence would have been ensured by such a manouvre.

The medics are wrong. The victim was unable to speak certainly. But silent he was not.

I

have not seen/heard your video clip, and have no wish to do so.

It was very grusome. I would not want to see it again. But we are the wiser for it in our discussions of jtr.

But whatever sound the poor victim did, I doubt that it was coming from the windpipe!

The sound was from the windpipe. I could see the chest rising and falling. In perfect rhytm with this was a loud whooshing noise. It was a ghastly thing to see.

Moreover, the throatcutting you mention would have been carried out on a conscious person, not a semi-throttled, subdued woman. That could make a whole lot of difference.

Yes it might.

Add to this the possibility that he may have held his hand over the victims mouths as he cut, and you will realize that there may have been significant differences at play!

Yes perhaps


All the best, Ashkenazy!
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Hi Ashkenaz!

You write:

"I have read that jtr's MO was to present himself as a punter. He would then let her take him somewhere quiet. He then throttles the poor woman. Then he severs the neck."

I have read that too. Problem is, we donīt know that Jack read it! We donīt even know that he specialized in prostitutes. And we donīt know that he took the women someplace - it may just as well be the other way around.

The punter/prostitute scenario is a very obvious possibility, of course. But I honestly think that we can go no further than to theorize that Jack opted for women who may just as well been ragged old low-lifes, drunk and defenseless. The throttling may, like I have said, have been there to some extent, but probably only as a means to subdue temporarily - enough for him to cut.
As for opening the windpipe not being a silent business, I would say that a severed windpipe renders you speechless, nothing less. This is corroborated by the medicos who firmly state that silence would have been ensured by such a manouvre. I have not seen/heard your video clip, and have no wish to do so. But whatever sound the poor victim did, I doubt that it was coming from the windpipe! Moreover, the throatcutting you mention would have been carried out on a conscious person, not a semi-throttled, subdued woman. That could make a whole lot of difference. Add to this the possibility that he may have held his hand over the victims mouths as he cut, and you will realize that there may have been significant differences at play!

All the best, Ashkenazy!
Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

What I am saying is that Chapman was the only case were there were obvious signs of suffocation. And those signs would have alerted the medicos to search for similar signs in the other victims - apparently with no result at all.

Well this is news to me. Maybe I had better re read some of my ripper books !

I have read that jtr's MO was to present himself as a punter. He would then let her take him somewhere quiet. He then throttles the poor woman. Then he severs the neck.


...

which is just about what I am saying here: Perhaps - and probably in Chapmas case - a partial suffocation. Not however, to the extent that it killed them, it only rendered them helpless and prone to the knife. And as he did not want them to make any sounds, he severed the windpipes, before setting about what he had come for.

I was agreeing with you, based on what the doctor said about the actual evidence IE blood spatters up the fence. It is that fact which makes me agree that she alive when her throat was cut, and had therefore not died as a result of the strangulation.

silence was the only commodity he absolutely needed to secure a maximum of time with victims killed in the open.

Yes he needed silence, but considering what I witnessed at ogrish.com , opening someones windpipe is likely to make a considrable racket.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi again, my hard-spelled friend!

Here goes:

"Dr Phillips mentions Chapman's swollen tongue at the inquest."

Yes. And so did I. What I am saying is that Chapman was the only case were there were obvious signs of suffocation. And those signs would have alerted the medicos to search for similar signs in the other victims - apparently with no result at all.

"This sounds like an arterial blood spatter. If so it means that she did not die from strangulation. She was still alive when her throat was cut. The doctor also mentions that there was a great deal of blood, indicating again, that she was alive when her throat was cut."

...which is just about what I am saying here: Perhaps - and probably in Chapmas case - a partial suffocation. Not however, to the extent that it killed them, it only rendered them helpless and prone to the knife. And as he did not want them to make any sounds, he severed the windpipes, before setting about what he had come for.

Tallies with the medical evidence, Ashkenaz, and makes a whole lot of sense to me since silence was the only commodity he absolutely needed to secure a maximum of time with victims killed in the open.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

No swollen tongues, no petichae, no nothing that could help them to establish that strangulation or suffocation was involved.

Dr Phillips mentions Chapman's swollen tongue at the inquest.

And you also state that the throttling would have brought the blood-flow in the bodies to a slow-down and halt

No, I did not state that. I said that when one dies the heart stops. When the heart stops there is no blood pressure. When there is no blood pressure, there is very little blood, from a severed blood vessel inflicted after death.

if you take a look at the wooden fence at the side of Chapman - the one victim that displayed signs of having been suffocated - you will notice that there were splashes of blood on it, some fourteen inches over the ground.

This sounds like an arterial blood spatter. If so it means that she did not die from strangulation. She was still alive when her throat was cut. The doctor also mentions that there was a great deal of blood, indicating again, that she was alive when her throat was cut.



All the best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

[Billy Bulger]

Hi everyone,
Regarding the idea that the Ripper was a slaughterer/furrier/butcher couldnt it be argued that he would not have been free to roam the streets (post murder) in bloody clothing because the murders took place during non-business hours? Now I understand that the working day in Whitechapel in 1888 began for many as early as 1 am, it could be argued the Ripper was one of those employees but isnt work of this ilk done in company- that is, alongisde many other slaughterers/employees? If so, it seems a stretch to believe the Ripper would have risked leaving the premises to murder.

...and its how he learned the alleys and lanes at night.

Hi Perry and all,
I can see where youre coming from with your theory and youre certainly not alone. But I've always felt that the Ripper was not as familiar with the Whitechapel streets as many scholars assume. This is mere opinion but I've always felt that if the Ripper was indeed possessed by a detailed knowledge of the Whitechapel streets he would not have chosen Hanbury Street or Mitre Square to take life. Both of which posed ungoldy risks to Jack and I believe they may demonstrate a lack of familiarity.

[Fisherman]

Ashkenaz, you will be familiar with the wording from the inquest on Chapman:

"The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen."

That is the only piece of evidence we have that points to strangulation, in any of the cases, at least as far as medical reports are concerned. Now, please consider that the doctor (Phillips) that saw and recognized these features of indications of strangulation still opted for a verdict of the cut in the neck being the cause of death. And take into account that Annie was the second of the canonical five, meaning that just like the doctors looked for evidence of attempted decapitation concerning the following three canonical victims (and found it in Kellys case!), they also would have looked thoroughly for any sign of suffocation or strangulation in those cases. But they did not come up with any evidence of it. No swollen tongues, no petichae, no nothing that could help them to establish that strangulation or suffocation was involved. It just was not there, Ashkenaz, and there is no way anyone can invent a method of lethal suffocation that leaves no traces!

You speak of strangulation being something that would take about two minutes before you were ensured that your victim was dead. How does that fit with the Eddowes slaying, where we know that the killer would have been desperately pressed for time, and where it seems odd that he had seconds enough to inflict all that damage? What happens if we withdraw two of the minutes he had at his hands?

And you also state that the throttling would have brought the blood-flow in the bodies to a slow-down and halt - but if you take a look at the wooden fence at the side of Chapman - the one victim that displayed signs of having been suffocated - you will notice that there were splashes of blood on it, some fourteen inches over the ground. Same thing with Kelly; splashes hit the wall at her side.

There would have been some sort of subduing preceding the cut, Ashkenaz, that is a reasonable suggestion. To some extent, it could have involved a partial suffocation, at least regarding Chapman. But it need not have been any more sophisticated than the sudden placing a hand over the victims mouth and nose and pressing her to the ground, thereafter swiftly and deeply cutting the neck.
What defence would a much drunken Nichols put up? A seriously ill Chapman?
Furthermore, there is no need, I feel, to accept that the deeds were completely silent in all cases. We are not dealing with a phantom here.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

Well, then, Ashkenaz, perhaps you could enlighten us a bit more? It is an interesting wiew of yours, that doctors would accomodate the ignorance of ordinary people by supplying causes of death that are readily understandable to more simple minds.
To accept that this was the case also in the most high-profile case in criminal history is even more interesting...

...and probably quite wrong, if you ask me.

Non doctors are not simple minded. They just have no familiarity with medical terms. They simply need a death certificate for various reasons. Its a very simple one sheet document. It does not require lengthly explanations as to actual cause of death.

[Fisherman]

Well, then, Ashkenaz, perhaps you could enlighten us a bit more? It is an interesting wiew of yours, that doctors would accomodate the ignorance of ordinary people by supplying causes of death that are readily understandable to more simple minds.
To accept that this was the case also in the most high-profile case in criminal history is even more interesting...

...and probably quite wrong, if you ask me.

But donīt let that stop you - please elaborate. This thread seems to mainly concern itself with wiews that disagree with the medical findings - we have already been asked to digest that notches and carvings in the vertebrae of the spinal column does in no way have to point to efforts of decapitation - and so it will be interesting to see where we end up. Maybe Tabram was actually battered to death with a loaf of stale bread, and for all we know Chapman could have been drowned by that witnessed-about fluid on her skin?
If we go on like this, we will have it all solved in no time at all!

Joking aside, Ashkenaz, I really feel that when (and if) we are to challenge the medical wiews, we must be able to point at something substantial. And thus far I have seen absolutely nothing of the sort.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

Thanks for filling that gap in, Sam! I will take the opportunity to fill another one in, for Ashkenaz (the one without the "y", that is). It is about whether the victims were dead when Jack cut their necks or not.
This is what was said at inquests and in death certificates:

The blood was produced by the severance of the cartoid artery, which was the cause of death
(Kelly)

The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate
(Eddowes)

Violent injuries to throat and abdomen
(Chapman)

Violent syncope from loss of blood from injuries in throat and abdomen
(Nichols)

That, I believe, is that!

The best, Ashkenaz and Sam (Whoa - THAT was easier to spell!)
Fisherman

All these causes of death are inaccurate. The cause of death is the same for everyone. Everyone actually dies of the same thing, and it is not any of these, you quote from..

Death certificates are written by doctors for non doctors to read and keep. For this reason they are fairly brief. The death is usually attributed to something readily understandable to non doctors. Hence- a severed artery. A head injury, a heart attack, internal injuries, drowning, electrocution etc.

[Ashkenaz]

Ashkenaz
Slow down, please! Wherefrom did you get the idea that the victims were dead when he cut?? They were not, as effectively proven by the medical reports!

Strangulation renders the victim unconscious quickly. It kills quickly too. Apparently just two minutes without oxygen is enough to secure brain death.

In some of the ripper books that I have read it says that little blood was found about the victim even though the carotid arteries had been severed.

The explanation is that the victims were already dead when those blood vessels were opened. At death, the heart no longer beats. Without a beating heart there is zero blood pressure. Some blood oozes out, but this is localised blood within close proximity to the trauma.

The medical reports prove nothing. In fact they are all scientifically wrong. A severed artery is just a milestone on the route to death, it s not the cause of it.

It matters not whether a victim was stabbed, shot, boiled alive, electrocuted or drowned. Everybody actually dies of the same thing. And it is not any of the things you quote from those reports.

Silence, Ashkenaz - much valuable if you are to set about cutting up a woman! I believe that this was his sole reason for severing the necks - and thus also the windpipes of his victims!
His sexual interest - if your psychologists are right - would have lain in the eviscerations.

Let us suppose that you are right, and the victim was alive, though unconscious as jtr cut her throat. In such a circumstance, there is not silence, but actually quite a lot of noise !

I saw a murder victim being beheaded in the Middle East at ogrish.com. It is not something I want to see again, but here is what happened: The head came away, and the body continued to breath. It was very laboured and noisy. I'm not sure for exactly how long it continued as the video stopped quickly after the deed. But silent it was not !

Aha, so now you are NOT saying that he cut til he felt the bone, and then moved on? Now you are saying that he cut one, two, three, four, God knows how many times, without noticing that he reached the bone - and then moved on?

Please go back and read my previous post. I've already told you what I think.

Wouldnīt you say that a number of notches in the vertebrae corresponds with the very same number of cutting movements, Ashkenaz? ?

Possibly. But surely this depends on his hacking style. Perhaps he sawed back and forth with the blade in contact with the vertebrae. Perhaps the blade made a grove in the bone with the first contact. Perhaps the blade remained in that grove for several further sawing motion. If so, there may be just one grove/notch for several sawing strokes.

So we cannot assume that he number of notches equal the number of sawing actions

The best, Ashkenaz! (Wasnīt there a pianist who added a "y" to that name?)

I'm not sure. Ashkanazi is the Hebrew or Yiddish word for the Jews of Northern Europe.

There must have been a Jew in my ancestry, as until the generation before mine there were Jewish names in my family. Ashkenaz is one of them. It was my great grandfathers name. I have a lithograph of him. Another repeating name is Rue. This is short for Ruven, which I'm told means: Behold a boy child. There is also a Serug, but I dont know what that means. My family lived in London then, and my great grandfather is buried in East London.

Neither my grandfather, nor my father knew the significance of these names. We are/were all fair and blue eyed.
Fisherman[/QUOTE]