Jacks Day Job?

[Fisherman]

Ashkenaz writes:

"It is difficult to engage you when you dollop jumbled text onto the page, where some of it is yours and some of it is mine."

Well, then, Ashkenaz, if you are having such trouble keeping things apart, please do not believe that the assumption that the victims were dead when they had their throats cut is something that came from me. That was your thinking, and I am much interested to find out how you are going to bolster it!

My last post (post 37) on this thread only contains my own words, so that one should be perfectly simple for you to take part of. It contains four reasons to why I think your reasoning is wrong, each authored by the responsible medicos concerned. It would be nice to speak of more important matters than my technical shortcomings, I think.

The best, Ashkenaz!

Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

Fisherman please learn to quote. It is difficult to engage you when you dollop jumbled text onto the page, where some of it is yours and some of it is mine.

[Fisherman]

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

[Sam Flynn]

The best, Ashkenaz! Wasn´t there a pianist who added a "y" to that name?

Yup - Vladimir Ashkenazy, a winner of the Tchaikovsky Prize and an internationally renowned virtuoso pianist, despite having comparatively small hands. He's still going strong, largely as an orchestral conductor these days. I think we can safely say that Jack was unlikely to have pursued either career.

[Fisherman]

Ashkenaz (whoa, that IS difficult to spell!) writes:

"If the throat cutting had no meaning at all to him, why would he do it ? The victim was already dead after all, so it was not done to kill."

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!

"Please explain your practicality idea. In what way was it practicable to cut the victims throats? "

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.

"He may not have noticed he had reached bone immediately he did. Hence the several notches."

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?
Wouldn´t you say that a number of notches in the vertebrae corresponds with the very same number of cutting movements, Ashkenaz? And if two strokes in the neck caused the gaping wounds on Chapman, whereas she had numerous notches and damage to the vertebrae - wouldn´t you agree that he that he increased his efforts as he felt that back bone? Did the knife bounce, resulting in the notches? Were they the results of severe trembling on his behalf?

"We are all at the drawing board"

Admittedly so. Let´s not waste our time there!

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

Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

To Ashkenaz:

You write:

"He was in a sexual frenzy as he cut their throats."

and

"By the time it registered in his brain that he had reached bone, he stopped and moved on to his next objective. It is not significant that the vertebrae had several notches. Neither does it indicate that an attempt at decapitation was made."

Yes I wrote this.

Taking it from the beginning, although I agree that the murders were probably sexually motivated, I would not go so far as to regard it as proven. Moreover, the cutting of the throat need not have had any elements of sexuality at all to it, as far as he was concerned. My belief is that the throat-cutting was merely a practicality.

Many psychologists would say it was a sexually motivated homicide. I agree with them.

I cannot see how the throat cutting was merely practicable. If the throat cutting had no meaning at all to him, why would he do it ? The victim was already dead after all, so it was not done to kill.

Either he obtained some sexual gratification from the act, or else it made his mutilations easier in some way. I have read that very little blood escaped the throat incisions as the victims were dead. So it cannot be that it was done in order that he would get less blood upon himself during the mutilations he wished to do to the victims.

Please explain your practicality idea. In what way was it practicable to cut the victims throats? What did it facilitate?

Moving on, you are stumbling a bit on the logic, are you not, when you first say that as his brain registered that he had reached the bone, he stopped and moved on, only to in the next sentence claim that it is unsignificant that the vertebrae had several notches.

I mean that he cut their throats in a frenzy, as quickly as he could. All the while distracted by thoughts of pursuit, escape and capture.He was distracted. He may not have noticed he had reached bone immediately he did. Hence the several notches.

When I say I do not think it is significant that there were several notches. I am saying that in my opinion no attempt was made by jtr to decapitate the victim. The multiple notches are explicable as above.

If he had stopped and moved on - then why were there several notches from the outset? Would that not be very clear evidence that he did NOT "stop and move on" as he reached the bone?

See above

Back to the drawing boards, perhaps?

We are all at the drawing board.


The best, guys!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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? What´s in it for you, David?

This, David, was what was said about the cut to Eddowes neck:

"All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages."

It is, of course, the voice of dr Brown we are listening to here, but Phillips was one of a few assisting doctors. And though we know that he saw an attempt to decapitate in Chapmans case, he does not raise his voice to witness about the self samt thing in Eddowes case?
Now, why would that be? Did he forget to take a look?
And why did he speak of an attempt of decapitation in Chapmans case? What´s your guess on that one, David? That he wanted to make himself a remarkable figure in the press? That he had nothing better to do than to stir things up a bit?

Of course not. Phillips was a very experienced medico, and since, in Chapmans case, he knew that he was facing a woman who had been subjected to very powerful physical violence at her neck by the use of a knife, he would be expecting to find something along the lines described by Brown in Eddowes´case: a cut down to the bone, either notching the bone itself or doing some damage to the invertebral cartilages.

To make him go far enough to suggest an attempted decapitation, now that would have taken something else, like obvious sawing movements through the structure of the neck, movements that obviously exceeded what could be rendered by a single cut or two.
The killer had been sawing away, simple as that, and that was what must have been evinced by the physical evidence.

Now, to say that Phillips could not be trusted, which you seem to imply, on such a thing is - if you forgive me - slightly ludicrous. To weigh together the evidence from two cases and come up with the gut feeling that the killer may not have been one and the same, that is another thing altogether. And in that case, there may of course be sentiments of prestige involved, as offered by many researchers. Moreover, David - we cannot be completely sure that Phillips was not right about the damn thing, can we? As far as I know we have not caught the guy/s who did it, have we?

In conclusion: clear physical evidence in the shape of sawing away at the neck is something that we should not throw in the waste paper bin. And the fact that Phillips said that it "may" have evinced an effort to sever the head is very little to lean against for you, since that was all he could say, was it not? For all he knew, the killer may just have enjoyed sawing for a bit, with no further intentions. That, though, does not mean that the evidence was not there and the most viable interpretation of it would have been that he was indeed trying to decapitate!

To Ashkenaz:

You write:

"He was in a sexual frenzy as he cut their throats."

and

"By the time it registered in his brain that he had reached bone, he stopped and moved on to his next objective. It is not significant that the vertebrae had several notches. Neither does it indicate that an attempt at decapitation was made."

Taking it from the beginning, although I agree that the murders were probably sexually motivated, I would not go so far as to regard it as proven. Moreover, the cutting of the throat need not have had any elements of sexuality at all to it, as far as he was concerned. My belief is that the throat-cutting was merely a practicality.

Moving on, you are stumbling a bit on the logic, are you not, when you first say that as his brain registered that he had reached the bone, he stopped and moved on, only to in the next sentence claim that it is unsignificant that the vertebrae had several notches.

If he had stopped and moved on - then why were there several notches from the outset? Would that not be very clear evidence that he did NOT "stop and move on" as he reached the bone?

Back to the drawing boards, perhaps?

The best, guys!
Fisherman

[Ashkenaz]

A point I have made numerous times, and that once again fills it´s place, is the fact that any skilled butcher would have known how to decapitate! And we have the medicos words that decapitation was tried - and failed! - in the cases of Kelly and Chapman. The bone in the neck was notched in both cases.
So no, I do not for a minute think that we are dealing with a trained butcher here! Such am man, described as he has been on this thread as a man who confidently cut get the job done with a blindfold on - would such a man come up with jagged, tentative wounds and stabs like those on the lower abdomen of Nichols? I don´t think so.

The best!
Fisherman

The "experts" tell us that these murders were sexually motivated. The act of murder and mutilation stand in for sex.

How likely is it then that he was paying great attention to what he was doing ? He was in a sexual frenzy as he cut their throats. By the time it registered in his brain that he had reached bone, he stopped and moved on to his next objective. It is not significant that the vertebrae had several notches. Neither does it indicate that an attempt at decapitation was made.

He was in a sexual frenzy.He was insane. He was rushing, he had to get his jollies and get away from the crime scene to avoid capture.

[DVV]

...and allow me to add (to repeat) that if the killer really had tried to behead his victims in the streets, Mary Kelly's spine would have logically bore more furious signs of such an attempt.
Throats savagely cut through the vertabrae: that's all we have.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

My Dear Fish,
you certainly noticed that Phillips only said "as though an attempt..."

But 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?

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

Let me begin by saying that enjoy excanging with you too!

That said; To the breaches!

Now, David, you write:
"That is not what Jack did. On the contrary, the notches appeared to be at different levels, one under the other."

Lets start by admitting that none of us know how many notches there were, where they were and how deep they went. It seems reasonable to accept that Nichols neck-bone will have been notched at the places the killer put her wounds, but Nichols never led the medicos to comment on a botched decapitation job!

This is what was said about Chapman, by Phillips:

"There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck."

Now, it will not have gone unnoticed by Phillips that two fierce cuts with great weight behind them, will produce damage to the backbone and the muscular structures involved. But clearly, this went beyond what could be expected - why else would he mention it? It is a little bit like the Tabram case, where some people seem to believe that htere was nothing much in Killeens assertion that two blades were used: it was not something the good doctors cooked up to keep the press happy, I feel!
And there we are, divided by the Rippers cuts once again, I´m afraid.

The best, David
Fisherman

[DVV]

"if there had been attempts of decapitation, the spine would have been notched all around, I guess."

If-he-knew-how-to-go-about-it, perhaps, David, or if-it-really-meant-all-that-much-to-him. If not, then he was left with a woman flat on her back, little time and no real drive to cut that head off, just a thought that it would show the press and the East-enders...

My dear Fish,
sorry to insist that much, that's half for the pleasure of discussion, and half, I admit, because the alledged "attempt of decapitation" is one of the topoi with which I deeply disagree.
First, I'm pleased see in the quoted sentence above that the "attempt of decapitation" has become something like a "very vague and uncertain attempt of decapitation."
Second, as early as Nichols' murder, or let's say Nichols and Chapman's, the killer may have understood that he could not behead the woman by one or two cuts in the spine (if he ever thought so and had a a fantasy of decapitation). Indeed, that would have been (in his expert or non-expert mind) a matter of "sawing".
And when you saw something hard, once you get an impression of "stagnation", as a reflex you try to saw in another place and try to make another notch that could, finally, join the first one.
That is not what Jack did. On the contrary, the notches appeared to be at different levels, one under the other. And Kelly's spine wasn't more deeply notched than Chapman's, as far as we know (though in Miller's Court, the killer had time enough and found himself in a relative safe place, compared to the streets).

That's why I can't interpret the notches as attempts of decapitation. I would without hesitation vote for an evidence of Jack's savagery and physical strength.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Logical reasoning all around, David - and who´s surprised?

Still, I believe that it can be reasoned just as logical if not more, the other way around. This is how:

"this would be an important fantasy, not a mere bonus, in my view"

Only if it was a belonging of his, David. Not, however, if it was done - as at least partly suggested by Dan Norder in an impressive dissertation here on the boards - in response to the reports in the press. It is the topic of another thread altogether, but I think a reasonable case can be made that he "staged" the scenes more and more as he went along.

"About the instrument, it was so simple to look at butchers at work, and get a hatchet, or a stronger knife..."

Yes, but it would still - at least in the case of the strong knife - be a question of knowing where to cut. And if he never held any important fantasy of his own when it came to decapitating, then why would he bother all that much. If the eviscerations was his only genuine drive - and I believe it was - than that would be enough to him, thank you very much!

"if there had been attempts of decapitation, the spine would have been notched all around, I guess."

If-he-knew-how-to-go-about-it, perhaps, David, or if-it-really-meant-all-that-much-to-him. If not, then he was left with a woman flat on her back, little time and no real drive to cut that head off, just a thought that it would show the press and the East-enders...

"A beheaded woman would have completely altered the "tableau"

Of course - but like I have tried to show, there need not have been any real relevance in it. Reading too much into things could be a danger in itself, I think. Some people, for instance, interpret the cut throats as something that says very much about the Ripper. I agree with that - but only to an extent that speaks of his practical senses. I don´t believe that cutting throats satisfied any deep wish on his behalf at all.

The best, David, as always!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi again Fish,
i'm really unconvinced about decapitation.
First, this would be an important fantasy, not a mere bonus, in my view.
About the instrument, it was so simple to look at butchers at work, and get a hatchet, or a stronger knife...
Again, if there had been attempts of decapitation, the spine would have been notched all around, I guess. That was not the case.
And one important thing in the murders, is the way the victims have been found: lying, legs open... Somehow, they seem an awful picture of a woman making love, or having been Killed "in action" by some incubus.
A beheaded woman would have completely altered the "tableau".

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Hello David!

You ask:
"If he had this desire, why didn't he come with the proper instrument to do so after his supposed failure in Nichols case, then Chapman's, then Eddowes..."

...and I think you can see my answer coming, can´t you: Because he did not know what instrument to use, and because his main intention was not decapitation - just like the facial mutilations, I think the notion of it all was just an added "bonus", perhaps in response to the picture painted of himself in the press.

The reason I only mentioned Chapman and Kelly, by the way, is that I have not seen any medico suggest an intention of decapitation in any of the other cases. I think that the number of notches in the bone would have been what urged a medico to realize that the cutting of the neck was not the sole purpose of the incisions made there. It took only a cut or two for the Ripper to reach the bone, and if you find a significant number of notches in the bone, it stands to reason that they did not come about as a result of the savagery of the cutter. If there were such significant amounts of notches to the bone in the cases of Chapman and Kelly, but not in the Nichols and Eddowes cases, then that would account for leaving them out in this respect, I think.

The best, David!
Fisherman