Different Killers

[John G]

Hello John. Thanks.

I don't think "stolen" is correct. How about panhandled?

Right. No evidence of violence. Of course:

1. his words

2. his charts

3. his wife

indicate he was a violent man--but only when delusional.

If Mrs. Fiddymont's man had been merely fighting, he should have known where to cross the street? He crossed the same street three times! Clearly confused.

His coat? To be sure. But since "LA" was observed in precisely that way, I am suggesting habitual. It had NOTHING to do with concealment.

"And then, of course, we'd have to accept that he wandered around for an hour and half, prior to showing up at the pub, covered in blood and gore, in a delusional or semi-delusional state, without having attracted the suspicions of a single witness."

The dustman, perhaps? Recall a dustman had spotted a man with some blood stains at that time.

It you take Cadosch's timings--from "No" until the fall--there was time for a struggle AND the bruising to her face. (See Dr. Phillip's remarks.)

The parallel cuts are, of course, crucial to my hypothesis.

I made no claim about a sexual homicide.

Other girls may have turned down his request for coins. Bu they may nave been better able to escape. Recall both Polly and Annie were severely impaired.

Finally, I agree that JI was nothing like today's serial killer. Had he been I should have passed him over--quickly.

Cheers.
LC

Hullo Lynn,

A robust response, I would have expected nothing less!

To be fair I think you make as strong an argument as possible in favour of someone I regard as a weak suspect (but then aren't they all- I seem to be arguing in favour of Dr Bond's involvement on the other thread, but I'm sure that's open to challenge as well!)

Okay to address your points. Although Jacob certainly talked violently there seems to be scant evidence that he was actually physically violent outside of the domestic or institutional setting. This offers some support to his wife's observation that "I do not think my husband would injure anyone but me." And, of course, domestic violence was much more common at that time.

Regarding the asylum. As I noted earlier, I do feel that to a certain extent he could of started to act aggressively in response to mistreatment. He did complain about being treated roughly by a police officer and, at the very least, I strongly suspect that a Victorian asylum like Colney Hatch would be far removed from the rarefied atmosphere of the somewhat idyllic Magic Mountain (although, of course, that only existed in literature!)

Was he Fiddymont's man and was he delusional at the time? Possibly, although the evidence is speculative at best. And, as I noted in my previous post, this doesn't explain how he avoid drawing suspicion on himself following Chapman's murder and evisceration unless, of course, you count the possibility of a solitary dustman!

Turning to the issue of a possible struggle. I think this is somewhat of a stretch, particularly if Chapman was ill: Coroner: "was there any evidence of a struggle." Dr Phillips: "No; not about the body of the women. You do not forget the smearing of blood about the palings."

In respect of whether the murders of Nichols and Chapman were sexual homicides. Well, Keppel et al. (2005) certainly seemed to think so. Referring to the sexual component of picquerism, they conclude: "He used a knife to penetrate the victim, and satisfied himself through the eroticized power of violence, the domination of the victim, and the mutilation and bleeding of the victim, rather than sexual intercourse." (15) I therefore feel that the study I cited is relevant and supported by authority.

You mention that other girls may have been better able to escape, and argue that Annie and Polly were severely impaired. Well, Annie was certainly not impaired by drink, at least according to Dr Philips. She had been ill, but such an argument is self-defeating as it brings into question her ability to resist her attacker, or the likelihood that she would have the awareness to realize the danger she was in, particularly as her killer probably acted with great speed and efficiency.

The same arguments apply to Polly and her drunken state. Moreover, given that many street prostitutes of the period were partial to drink, wouldn't many of the other girls he may have accounted during his lengthy wanderings over London have been equally impaired?

Finally, I return to the point of the mutilations and organ removals. As noted earlier, experts consulted by Trevor Marriott have questioned whether a butcher would have anything like the relevant skill to effectively eviscerate a human being. In fact, they seem to conclude that it may have been beyond the capabilities of a highly skilled medial professional, give the time frame and poor lighting conditions.

I would therefore conclude, in light of these findings, that the suggestion that a delusional pork butcher could have accomplished such a feat is fanciful in the extreme.

[Batman]

Bottle in the hand, unconscious grin

Ever seen a drunk person with a bottle fall over and pass out with the bottle still in hand?

Heck any professional drunk knows how to crash-land without spilling a drop and even sit it up straight while being subject to a self-inflicted sudden lights out.

Seriously, this idea falling people always drop stuff is nothing but a fairy tale. In fact, when you fall back, you would automatically cling to what you could, including whatever is in your hand. Better something, anything, than nothing.

Plus dropping a bag and dropping sweets end in two different results. A bag you can wipe down but sweets that will taste like muck. Once dropped or spilled, that's it over for them unless you have a taste for strong organics from the horses travelling that path.

[FrankO]

The rear attack hypothesis holds that her throat was cut from the rear. The lack of blood on her front which should be there because gravity doesn't suspend itself suggests she was killed while lying down.

...

In addition to this the absence of blood is not a mystery at all. It is pooled behind her head and running on the ground. As expected if she was killed while lying down.

This is why Dr. Blackwell deposed at the inquest:
In reply to a juryman, who asked whether he could give any information as to whether the throat was cut while the woman was lying down or standing up, the doctor said: I formed the opinion that probably the murderer took hold of the silk scarf, which was tightly knotted, and pulled the woman backwards, and cut her throat in that way. The position of the blood would indicate that her throat was cut when she was lying down or as she fell. It is, perhaps, most probable that she was on the ground first before her throat was cut.

The best,
Frank

[Batman]

Hello BM. Stride's holding the cachous refutes your hypothesis about lying down, as does the absence of mud on her back.

Watch my reenactment and LEARN--especially about arterial spray. And DO stop talking twaddle. You're beginning to bore me.

Cheers.
LC

What completely obliterates the idea that dying people never hold onto anything is the amount of forensic evidence to the opposite including handfuls of hair, skin, guns, knives, handbags, even shopping bags in each hand. After floods, hurricanes, tidal waves we have bodies galore of people holding onto things, including each other, even in death. Then you have the fencing response and all sorts of spinal injury causing clutching. The fact is people hold onto things in death as much as they do in life. Even suicides grip their briefcases all the way down several floors. People hold onto their possessions and some don't give it up so easily.

And besides the rear attack doesn't explain why they would hold onto anything any more than if they where on the ground!

P.S - it's not my hypothesis. It's Dr. Phillips. See the inquest. She was killed after being grabbed by the shoulders and thrown onto the ground. You hold a modern view.

[lynn cates]

refuting the prone hypothesis

Hello BM. Stride's holding the cachous refutes your hypothesis about lying down, as does the absence of mud on her back.

Watch my reenactment and LEARN--especially about arterial spray. And DO stop talking twaddle. You're beginning to bore me.

Cheers.
LC