Jacks Day Job?

[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]

[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]

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 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]

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]

[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.

[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 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

[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 Fish,
First, my dear, I never said that YOU were hiding yourself behind Phillips. I wrote: WE have not to...
Which means: doctors provide their observations and opinions, but these are not the alpha and omega of an inquiry. Indeed, the investigator keeps their opinions in mind, but also deals with other kind of views, experts, etc. If not, Phillips should have taken the role of Abberline.
The matter we are debating is a good example: Phillips observed that the throat was so savagely cut that the backbone was notched. Nobody contests this post-mortem examination.
Then, Phillips, as you said, interpreted this as a possible attempt of decapitation. That is a mere suggestion (and we are free to discuss it, instead of saying: since Phillips suggested so, that must be the truth). And Phillips, even if his suggestion/deduction was (and is) welcome, he was there, to some extent, out of his strict medical field and role.

Plus, from what we know, even when in his own field, Phillips could be mistaken: did Annie Chapman's killer possess a great anatomical knowledge?
Phillips thought so. But a lot of people disagree, and they have reasons to disagree, even if they are not medicos themselves.

My opinion is that "decapitation", failed or not, can't be a detail without importance in a murder. It would be a strong part of the killer's fanta. So, as you interestingly asked: how much did Jack "want" to behead his victims?
My answer would be: he did not want, whether very very vaguely, one time (this, I would concede because it would be stupid from me to be 100 percent sure of anything)...

On the contrary, I'm almost certain that cutting throats savagely to the bone is a great and significant part of JtR signature. Can this be the result of a failure??? I really can't think so! And that's why I find Phillips' suggestion unconvincing, or, at least, worth discussing - though he was a doctor.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"First, my dear, I never said that YOU were hiding yourself behind Phillips. I wrote: WE have not to..."

...therby advising me not to... ...but letīs not be edgy here!


Thus I will grant you that the matter is worth discussing; for that it is.

I am still, however, waiting for the medical evidence you stated showed that the damage done by the knife was similar inbetween the cases. Or, to be more truthful, I am not waiting for it, since I know that it does not exist.

And I will once again tell you that Phillips did NOT state that it seemed that Edoowes had been the victim of a failed decapitation attempt, although he was present as her body was examined.
And therefoer we have a very good reason to believe that the injuries to the neck in fact DIFFERED to a substantial degree inbetween Chaopman and Eddowes, to such a degree, in fact, that the knifework on Chapmans spine evinced that much more effort had been put into the cutting there, whereas in Eddowes case the power in the cut had only resulted in what could be expected: a deep cut, damaging the spinal column in correspondence with the cut itself - and no more!
This difference would be what the medical reports speak of, instead of the similarity you propose. If itīs there, itīs there, David, and if a medico takes the trouble to mention it, it is pretty obvious. What you are suggesting is principally that Phillips would have noticed that the cuts travelled some distance into the vertebrae in Chapmans neck, and that it would have made him move for a verdict of failed decapitation. But I will once again tell you that any half-witted medico would have realized that a fierce cut through the tissues of the neck, severing it down to the bone in one mighty stroke, must also damage the spinal column since this would have acted as a brake for the blade. And so, there wouls have been no surprise at all in such a discovery.
But Phillips WAS surprised, and the damage doen was NOT only a logical sequel to the knifeīs journey through the neck tissues. It was much more than that.

"My opinion is that "decapitation", failed or not, can't be a detail without importance in a murder."

Not one thing that happened in that room at the will of the killer was without importance. But if we need not attach any deeper meaning to the fact that he cut her calf, then the same thing applies to a failed attempt to decapitate.
The calf, the filleting of the thigh, the cut off nose, the cutaway breasts, the cut buttock, the opened thorax, the excised kidney, the lifte out liver - what symbolic meaning shall we read into them, David? For if there must have been a deep message hidden in a failed decapitation, then it stands to reason that there must be the very same thing attached to all of his moves.

"On the contrary, I'm almost certain that cutting throats savagely to the bone is a great and significant part of JtR signature."

Ah! I do not agree - practicality, David, just practicality. That, however, is not saying that he never took a liking to it!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish,
Phillips never returned a "verdict", he was making a deduction / suggestion ("The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had been made..."). Why should we be more catholic than the Pope?

Chapman's spine : "there were two distinct, clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel from each other and separated by about half an inch".

Kelly's: "the neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th and 6th being deeply notched"

And Dr Bond never deduced an attempt of decapitation, though the similarities are obvious!

As to Eddowes, the fact that her spine was notched in one place, well, that indicates that her killer showed an even more vague desire for decapitation...

Amitiés,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I have to admit, that David makes some good points here.
It is definitely true that both Nichols and Eddowes had their throats cut pretty much as deeply as Chapman, and that neither Llewellyn, Brown or Bond suggested any intent to decapitate.

Sure, Phillips never mentioned this attempt to decapitate point in connection with Eddowes, but then again he may simply just have changed his mind about it, as he also may have changed his mind about Eddowes not being a Ripper victim (and just like Llewellyn had to change his mind about the left-handedness of Nichols' killer).
The more I think of it, I have to agree with David that this most likely was a personal interpretation on Phillip's part (and he did a lot of those) and that the very deep throat cuts - although not necessary for the act of killing - may have been a part of his mutilation desires.

David is also completely right that Phillips was quite keen on making personal observations and that they may not always have been accurate. It is, of course, no secret that Phillips has never been my favourite among the medical men.
So I may have to sway over to David's way of thinking here.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

You write:

"Chapman's spine : "there were two distinct, clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel from each other and separated by about half an inch".
Kelly's: "the neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th and 6th being deeply notched".

David, you are leaving out a little bit here, are you not? We all know that Chapman had two cuts to the neck. Thing is, there was more than two corresponding notches in the vertebrae when you (or Phillips, to be exact) took a look at what had happened to the spinal column. Down there, the damage was significantly larger than what could be expected as a result of the two parallel cuts.
For some reason you fail to recognize this, and keep telling us that there were no differences in how the cuts to the neck affected the spinal columns in the differing cases. This is blatantly wrong - but if you feel a genuine need to disregard written evidence, taken down by an experienced doctor who had carried out the post-mortem, I guess there is very little I can do about it.
To me, such things carry the greatest of weight, importantly contributing to the small pile of incontravertible facts that have been handed down to those who want to look into these murders. If anybody thinks that such things, perhaps going against their own theorizing and caonvictions, is a nuisance that we may easily rid ourselves of, I will not have any part of it. Nor will I hinder those who wish to follow such lines.

All the best, David! Donīt think we will get any further down this avenue.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"The more I think of it, I have to agree with David that this most likely was a personal interpretation on Phillip's part (and he did a lot of those) and that the very deep throat cuts - although not necessary for the act of killing - may have been a part of his mutilation desires."

I donīt think they were anything like that at all, Glenn. I think it was a practicality, but perhaps a practicality that he enjoyed performing, nothing more than that.
And like I have told David, Glenn, Phillips KNEW that Chapman had had her neck fiercely cut. He KNEW that he was to expect damage too the spinal bone in the neck. If there had not been any such damage, it would have been surprising indeed, considering the throat was cut all the way round and down to the bone.
What you are suggesting here is either that Phillips misinterpreted that damage, and exaggerated it in his report, or that he even may have chosen to lie about it to draw the attention to himself.
Me, I think that much as we may have reason to judge the quality of a medicos work, we should be very, very careful to read any sort of miscarriage of medical ethics into any doctors reports, long as we have no substantiation at all to offer.

The best, Friend!
Fisherman