Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

So was Kelly, Stride, Eddowes, and probably most of the women in town during that era.

I may need to be a bit clearer: the main thing to me was that her torso was found together with a chemise that she had probably been wearing in connection with her death.

[Fisherman]

To what extent would exsanguination happen normally if, say, a decapitated (and dismembered) body had been hanging around for "N" hours, or even days?

I couldn´t really say. But the doctors in the 1873 case commented on how it was obvious that the victim had been drained of blood since there was not a drop in any of her vessels. In the normal case, although blood will leak out, gravity will ensure that some blood remains in the body - the blood under the lowest positioned outlet wound, as it were. It is only if you, say, hang a victim from her feet and cut her neck that you will get a complete exsanguination, if I have understood correctly. And the medicos thought that the 1873 victim had been subjected to something along those lines, apparently.

Plus it seems the Pinchin Street victim had suffered something similar.

What I wonder about is how common this is?

Bernice Warden would of course also have been at risk to loose all her blood, come to think about it.

But are there more examples?

[Fisherman]

Here´s the wording from the Lancet:

"It would appear that after the victim had thus been stunned the body was immediately deprived of all its blood by a section of the carotid arteries in the neck, since there were no clots in any of the veins of the body."

A section of the carotid arteries is suggested - like the Ripper did, of course.

Compare this to Phillips´ words on the Pinchin Street victim:

"There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels. The heart was empty..."

And Phillips also opted for a cut neck.

[Elamarna]

I couldn´t really say. But the doctors in the 1873 case commented on how it was obvious that the victim had been drained of blood since there was not a drop in any of her vessels. In the normal case, although blood will leak out, gravity will ensure that some blood remains in the body - the blood under the lowest positioned outlet wound, as it were. It is only if you, say, hang a victim from her feet and cut her neck that you will get a complete exsanguination, if I have understood correctly. And the medicos thought that the 1873 victim had been subjected to something along those lines, apparently.

Plus it seems the Pinchin Street victim had suffered something similar.

What I wonder about is how common this is?

Bernice Warden would of course also have been at risk to loose all her blood, come to think about it.

But are there more examples?

Hi Fish,

Probably not 100% correct on draining, if suspended from head or neck and femoral artery exposed, you would get much same result.
However the principle is correct that one would need to suspend the body perpendicular to the ground.


Steve

[jerryd]

I seems things have cooled of a little on the thread, which is good to note. So, leaving Tait aside, let´s take a look at something I always found a bit odd.

When the Pinchin Street torso was found, a chemise was also found, bloodied and dirty.

The chemise had been cut all th way up front and also from the neck lining down to the sleeve openings on both sides.

To me, this tells a very clear story: The victim was on her back as the chemise was cut, and the cutting made allowed the killer to expose the body completely. My personal guess is that the victim was dead at this stage.

However, the question I would like for you to comment on is why the victim was dressed in a chemise at this stage?

As far as I can tell, there are three working suggestions to answer the question:

1. The victim was staying with the killer, and had dressed in a chemise to go to bed.

2. The victim was abducted in the chemise from her own lodgings.

3. The killer supplied the chemise.

I don´t like the first suggestion, on account of how I regard the killer as a killer of strangers. This of course does not have to be true, but the fact that he dumped Jackson in her own, marked, clothes speaks to me of an indifference probably based on how he had no ties to the victim. For example.

I don´t like the second suggestion, on account of how it would be hard to abduct a woman alive without being noticed, plus such a thing would probably have been commented on in the press.

I do like the third explanation a lot because it goes hand in hand with my thinking about a ritualistic behaviour tied to the murders.

Any thoughts?

Hi Christer,

Regarding #3 in your scenario. "The killer supplied the chemise."

With the Pinchin torso I wonder if that might be a possibility that the killer supplied a chemise. Possibly to avoid identification of the woman's own clothing as was done with Elizabeth Jackson. The clothing material was even used in trying to identify the Whitehall torso. Maybe the killer was getting smarter?

He is why I say this. Look at the date of the article and read the last two paragraphs.

Lloyds Weekly Newspaper
Sunday, September 15, 1889, London, Middlesex

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Regarding #3 in your scenario. "The killer supplied the chemise."

With the Pinchin torso I wonder if that might be a possibility that the killer supplied a chemise. Possibly to avoid identification of the woman's own clothing as was done with Elizabeth Jackson. The clothing material was even used in trying to identify the Whitehall torso. Maybe the killer was getting smarter?

He is why I say this. Look at the date of the article and read the last two paragraphs.

Lloyds Weekly Newspaper
Sunday, September 15, 1889, London, Middlesex

Ha! Now there´s a coincidence and a half!!

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Probably not 100% correct on draining, if suspended from head or neck and femoral artery exposed, you would get much same result.
However the principle is correct that one would need to suspend the body perpendicular to the ground.

Steve

Of course, it does not matter in which end of a vessel you make a hole - as long as the hole is positioned closest to the ground.
However, I find it less likely that somebody will cut the foot off in order to drain out the blood - it seems more likely the neck will be used for the purpose!
If the femoral artery is opened up in the thigh or groin, there will be blood left in the lower part of the leg if the body is hung from the neck, won´t there?

[jerryd]

Ha! Now there´s a coincidence and a half!!

Maybe the chemise found on the body was cut to get it onto the body.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Christer,

Regarding #3 in your scenario. "The killer supplied the chemise."

With the Pinchin torso I wonder if that might be a possibility that the killer supplied a chemise. Possibly to avoid identification of the woman's own clothing

Then why bother putting her in a chemise at all? Any old piece of cloth, a sack, or even brown paper would have sufficed to wrap up some body parts. I really can't imagine the killer thinking, "I'll put her in somebody else's chemise - that'll fool 'em".

[jerryd]

Then why bother putting her in a chemise at all? Any old piece of cloth, a sack, or even brown paper would have sufficed to wrap up some body parts. I really can't imagine the killer thinking, "I'll put her in somebody else's chemise - that'll fool 'em".

The chemise found on her led them to believe to she was from a poorer class. Maybe she wasn't?

I was really thinking out loud, Gareth. But I remembered the bloody chemise being found floating down the Thames at generally the same time the torso was discovered and it made me think it might be hers.

[Fisherman]

Then why bother putting her in a chemise at all? Any old piece of cloth, a sack, or even brown paper would have sufficed to wrap up some body parts. I really can't imagine the killer thinking, "I'll put her in somebody else's chemise - that'll fool 'em".

The logical answer to the initial question must be "because the killer wanted the victim to wear a chemise".

[RockySullivan]

With all the ramblings about a serial killer, you have to accept that firstly, if you dont have 3 or more murders, which can be conclusively be linked by identifiable and common traits then you dont have a serial killer.

Secondly and most importantly before you can say you have a serial killer or a murderer, you have to show that deaths were as a result of murder. In most of these cases you cannot do that, and it beggars belief that despite being told this, here you all are still referring to them in the same old way.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is police thinking Trevor. If you can't prove it's a murder you stop and eat donuts.

[Abby Normal]

The invasion of other people's homes. I suspect very strongly that the Torso killer(s) had their own premises, so why resort - ever - to killing on the streets?

a drastic change in MO nonetheless of another serial killer, which is what Frank was asking.

and Bundy had his mobile bolt hole with his car, so why resort to killing with out using it?

[Abby Normal]

Here´s the wording from the Lancet:

"It would appear that after the victim had thus been stunned the body was immediately deprived of all its blood by a section of the carotid arteries in the neck, since there were no clots in any of the veins of the body."

A section of the carotid arteries is suggested - like the Ripper did, of course.

Compare this to Phillips´ words on the Pinchin Street victim:

"There was throughout the body an absence of blood in the vessels. The heart was empty..."

And Phillips also opted for a cut neck.

seems like the similarities just keep coming...

cut throats, chemises.. what next?

[Abby Normal]

The logical answer to the initial question must be "because the killer wanted the victim to wear a chemise".

yup..perhaps because he liked ripping or tearing it off the body?