Quick question on modus operandi

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon,

If the victim was taken completely by surprise might not the initial shock have prevented them from calling out? In such circumstances, the killer could then have rapidly slit the throat, i.e. before the victim had time to regain their composure and respond.

Indeed, John !
They may not have even been aware of a knife until it was too late.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

If the victim was taken completely by surprise might not the initial shock have prevented them from calling out? In such circumstances, the killer could then have rapidly slit the throat, i.e. before the victim had time to regain their composure and respond.

Hello John.

"Taken", it what way?

When you say "by surprise", might I assume you mean the victim is standing with the killer behind her?

What is this "initial shock", is there physical contact or not?

How does she get from standing, to laying down on her back?

[Errata]

I've been playing with a theory that these women were not laying down when their throats were cut, but it's not foolproof. It also would not be as neat, but we don't get a lot on the condition of the clothing, so it's possible that some blood staining isn't mentioned. In fact we know it isn't because there should be blood on the back of all their clothes, but little mention is made of it.

It involves the killer throwing the money on the ground in front of her, and when she bends to pick it up he steps in, grabs her head and cuts her throat. The blood would drain down, leaving the front of the dress fairly clean he would then lower the body flipping her on her back. It might meet the basic needs of the evidence. Of course, if she knelt to pick up the money, then it wouldn't work. And it would probably stain her shoes, even the hem of her skirt... but that might be considered incidental.

I don't think it's the answer. It's possible an answer. But likely not the right one.

[John G]

Hello John.

"Taken", it what way?

When you say "by surprise", might I assume you mean the victim is standing with the killer behind her?

What is this "initial shock", is there physical contact or not?

How does she get from standing, to laying down on her back?

Hi Jon,

I would theorize that the killer could have grabbed the victim from behind and quickly brought them to the ground before slitting the throat. In fact, the throat could have been cut before the victim reached the ground.

[Robert St Devil]

In fact, the throat could have been cut before the victim reached the ground.

Hi John.

This could have happened with Elizabeth Stride if the blood on the back of her hand and wrist occured while she was reaching for her throat. The way the blood pools around the head and the pattern it makes on the fence off Hanbury hint that the victims of his street murders were flat on their back.

I wonder if he cut according to the lighting conditions. With Elizabeth, it is so dark in that passageway that the man could have walked past her and not known. Diemschitz has to light a candle; the constable has to flash his lantern. It would have been horrible lighting to see how to cut her abdomen. He wouldn't even have been able to see the cachous in her hand. With Polly Nicholls, there is vague lighting based on the reports of Paul and Cross, and her abdominal wounds were slighter than his more infamous murders. Cases can be made for better lighting in MSq and HSt. And with a full blown fire burning in its place, he should have sufficient light to see how to cut apart her leg.

[Pierre]

Hi John.

This could have happened with Elizabeth Stride if the blood on the back of her hand and wrist occured while she was reaching for her throat. The way the blood pools around the head and the pattern it makes on the fence off Hanbury hint that the victims of his street murders were flat on their back.

I wonder if he cut according to the lighting conditions. With Elizabeth, it is so dark in that passageway that the man could have walked past her and not known. Diemschitz has to light a candle; the constable has to flash his lantern. It would have been horrible lighting to see how to cut her abdomen. He wouldn't even have been able to see the cachous in her hand. With Polly Nicholls, there is vague lighting based on the reports of Paul and Cross, and her abdominal wounds were slighter than his more infamous murders. Cases can be made for better lighting in MSq and HSt. And with a full blown fire burning in its place, he should have sufficient light to see how to cut apart her leg.

Hi,

For a person who is capable of killing moving targets in almost complete darkness the light condition is no problem.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

For a person who is capable of killing moving targets in almost complete darkness the light condition is no problem.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,


I assume those targets are not human.

steve

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

I assume those targets are not human.

steve

Hi Steve,

I see. But I assume that they were both humans and animals and also, I am certain that you noticed the word "capable". And if you ask me if I actually know that there was any killing and/or attempts to kill both humans and animals, the answer is yes.

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Doubt fishing counts Pierre.

[Pierre]

Doubt fishing counts Pierre.

Of course it doesn´t. There should be a high standard for the concepts of "capable" and "killing moving targets". The concepts must include professional skill as well as dangerous and difficult aspects. The reason for that is the character of the murders in 1888-1889. They were connected to professional skill as well as dangerous and difficult aspects. There must be a high grade of danger, difficulty and so on, since part of the explanatory value lies in such dimensions.

Regards, Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

How about this report, From the Daily Telegraph, 3rd Oct 1888

"An alarming story was told to a detective yesterday, and it is understood that the Metropolitan police have for some time been cognisant of its details. If this statement be true, and there appears to be no reason to question it, then some time between the date of the Hanbury-street murder and last Sunday the bloodthirsty maniac who is now terrifying Whitechapel unsuccessfully attempted another outrage. The woman who so narrowly escaped death is married, but she admits having entered into conversation with a strange man for an immoral purpose. She alleges that he tripped her up, so that she fell upon the pavement. He made an effort to cut her throat, but she shielded herself with her arm, and in so doing received a cut upon it. Alarmed by his failure, and fearing her shrieks, the would-be murderer ran off, and the woman, when discovered, was removed to the hospital. She has since been discharged, and the wound upon the arm is still to be seen. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place ten days ago, in a bye-turning off Commercial-street. Unfortunately the woman was so much in liquor when she was assaulted that she cannot recollect the man's face or dress, and has been unable to give a description of him, which may account for the secrecy which has been maintained in regard to the attack. At the inquest upon Chapman, the victim of the Hanbury-street murder, all the evidence which was adduced was collected by the coroner, Mr. Wynne Baxter, assisted by his own officer and the Press. No intimation was given that the police possessed this information."

[harry]

Joshua,
A very likely way of easily getting a person to the ground.It is taught in some organisations.Face a person,a leg behind the person faced,and a solid push,especially if the victim is not expecting such an action.

[Errata]

Joshua,
A very likely way of easily getting a person to the ground.It is taught in some organisations.Face a person,a leg behind the person faced,and a solid push,especially if the victim is not expecting such an action.

My sister and I used to throw each other down the stairs doing just that. I can attest to its effectiveness, even when you see it coming.

[caz]

How about this report, From the Daily Telegraph, 3rd Oct 1888

"An alarming story was told to a detective yesterday, and it is understood that the Metropolitan police have for some time been cognisant of its details. If this statement be true, and there appears to be no reason to question it, then some time between the date of the Hanbury-street murder and last Sunday the bloodthirsty maniac who is now terrifying Whitechapel unsuccessfully attempted another outrage. The woman who so narrowly escaped death is married, but she admits having entered into conversation with a strange man for an immoral purpose. She alleges that he tripped her up, so that she fell upon the pavement. He made an effort to cut her throat, but she shielded herself with her arm, and in so doing received a cut upon it. Alarmed by his failure, and fearing her shrieks, the would-be murderer ran off, and the woman, when discovered, was removed to the hospital. She has since been discharged, and the wound upon the arm is still to be seen. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place ten days ago, in a bye-turning off Commercial-street. Unfortunately the woman was so much in liquor when she was assaulted that she cannot recollect the man's face or dress, and has been unable to give a description of him, which may account for the secrecy which has been maintained in regard to the attack. At the inquest upon Chapman, the victim of the Hanbury-street murder, all the evidence which was adduced was collected by the coroner, Mr. Wynne Baxter, assisted by his own officer and the Press. No intimation was given that the police possessed this information."

Interesting, Joshua. There are shades here of the initial attack on Stride, which could conceivably have involved something similar if Schwartz could not be entirely sure of what exactly he had been witnessing. Could Broadshoulders have tried to engage Stride in conversation then tripped her up, instead of, or in addition to shoving her, causing her to fall on the pavement and cry out?

Love,

Caz
X

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Caz. Yes, the Stride angle struck me too. I certainly don't think it's impossible that, given the language difficuty, this sort of attack is what Schwartz was trying to describe.

Has anyone seen any other reports or more information about this attack? If the (sadly unnamed) victim was admitted to hospital sometime around the 23rd September with a cut arm, would there still be records available?