Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    My post explains the concept of Overkill. A JtR trait.

    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    So In my opinion, in any event the cutting of the throats of all these victims is not set in stone as the work on one lone killer.
    Emma Smith died from internal injuries in a hospital due to a ruptured peritoneum from her private parts being attacked. She didn't have her neck slit.

    Martha Tabram didn't have her neck slit either. She was stabbed to death. She died from bleeding.

    Neither displays that the perpetrator had any experience with the slaughtering of animals by cutting their throats.

    Between Emma Smith, Tabram and Nichols, we have the evolution of a serial killer who doesn't know how to murder someone quickly and when they figure that out, doesn't know if slicing the neck completely down to the spinal cord will be enough to make adventuring into her abdominal cavity less bloody.

    The fact he sliced her neck down through all the major veins and arteries tells us that it MORE than what was needed to just cut the pulmonary artery. This is overkill and shows he hadn't got a clue.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      But there may not even have been any arterial spray.

      Here are two questions asked of Dr Biggs a modern day forensic patholgist the first in relation to arterial spay and the second with regards to in what positions the victims may have been in when killed.

      Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

      A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

      Q. The doctors in their reports offer opinions as to in which position the killer was in relation to the victims when carrying out the murders. Are these opinions reliable or simply guesswork?

      A. In answer to your question, it is really impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20thcentury, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

      So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping...) whilst she lay upon the ground (+/- prior strangling). Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If a number of envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’, then nobody can really argue in favor of a particular one any more than another.

      I suppose we will again see the armchair medical experts on here argue against what he says, as is the norm.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      A "medical armchair expert" like Jason Payne James says that if ALL the arterial vessels in the neck are cut, then there can be no acute spasm stopping the blood from exiting quickly.

      This is not in conflict with what Biggs says, and it is quite useful to know.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        As I think I've observed previously, the diagrams in that particular article are rather outdated and not very accurate. Reading the admittedly sparse surviving accounts of Nichols' wounds, it appears that she'd sustained far worse damage than is depicted in that drawing, which makes it look as though she'd been clawed by a cat.
        The wounds are described in the autopsy report. All we need to know is that there are two puncture wounds on her private area, then these 3 or 4 slices and then the large jagged gash.

        The experimentation is right there. He is bleeding her out and then at different points testing to see how much blood comes out depending on the type of cut he does. Punctures first, slices next and finally the larger deeper more frenzied jagged rip.
        Bona fide canonical and then some.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          So in other words, the killer could have been behind the victim (with them both standing), or he (or she!) could have been ‘above’ the victim (kneeling, squatting, crouched, lying, stooping...) whilst she lay upon the ground (+/- prior strangling). Or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on. Only persons present at the time really know what went on (and we can’t ask them!), and nobody can be certain about a ‘reconstruction’ now based on photos / medical records. If a number of envisaged scenarios are actually ‘possible’, then nobody can really argue in favor of a particular one any more than another.
          There is no blood down her front. A trait of the C5 murders and more.

          Her neck wasn't slit while she was standing vertically. Gravity and blood spray confounds such notions.

          Chapman's arterial spray is on the fence, low down.

          They were all prostrate before their necks were severed.

          The crime scene descriptions of blood pooling also confirm this.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Batman View Post
            • JtR stabbed Smith in the private region and got very bloody.
            What reason is there to doubt that Emma Smith was murdered by a gang?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Batman View Post
              Emma Smith died from internal injuries in a hospital due to a ruptured peritoneum from her private parts being attacked. She didn't have her neck slit.

              Martha Tabram didn't have her neck slit either. She was stabbed to death. She died from bleeding.

              Neither displays that the perpetrator had any experience with the slaughtering of animals by cutting their throats.

              Between Emma Smith, Tabram and Nichols, we have the evolution of a serial killer who doesn't know how to murder someone quickly and when they figure that out, doesn't know if slicing the neck completely down to the spinal cord will be enough to make adventuring into her abdominal cavity less bloody.

              The fact he sliced her neck down through all the major veins and arteries tells us that it MORE than what was needed to just cut the pulmonary artery. This is overkill and shows he hadn't got a clue.
              So all the variations must point to different killers !

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                There is no blood down her front. A trait of the C5 murders and more.

                Her neck wasn't slit while she was standing vertically. Gravity and blood spray confounds such notions.

                Chapman's arterial spray is on the fence, low down.

                They were all prostrate before their necks were severed.

                The crime scene descriptions of blood pooling also confirm this.
                Take the blinkers off, you are seeing what you want see, and interpreting it in a way that fits your theory.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  A "medical armchair expert" like Jason Payne James says that if ALL the arterial vessels in the neck are cut, then there can be no acute spasm stopping the blood from exiting quickly.

                  This is not in conflict with what Biggs says, and it is quite useful to know.
                  IF Being the word to which we do not have any definite answer, but as there appears to be no visible sign of specific arterial spray we must infer that that they were not all cut.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    IF Being the word to which we do not have any definite answer, but as there appears to be no visible sign of specific arterial spray we must infer that that they were not all cut.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    In the Nichols case, for example, we know that all the major vessels in the neck were indeed severed, but there is nevertheless no signs of any arterial spray. That makes me think that what Llewellyn said had a lot going for it: the cut to the neck came after the abdominal damage.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      The wounds are described in the autopsy report. All we need to know is that there are two puncture wounds on her private area, then these 3 or 4 slices and then the large jagged gash
                      For one thing, we don't have the autopsy report. For another, we can tell from various surviving sources that her wounds were far less tentative than depicted in that rather basic drawing.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                        What reason is there to doubt that Emma Smith was murdered by a gang?
                        Tom Wescott is the reason.
                        Bona fide canonical and then some.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          Take the blinkers off, you are seeing what you want see, and interpreting it in a way that fits your theory.
                          Okay so Trevor, have it your McDonald's custom menu way. People standing up having their throats slashed from behind or in front, don't bleed down their fronts according to you.

                          Have at it with bells & whistles on.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Batman View Post
                            Tom Wescott is the reason.
                            And why do you have so much confidence in Tom's guesswork, some of which has already been proved to be wrong?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              And why do you have so much confidence in Tom's guesswork, some of which has already been proved to be wrong?
                              Simply because Tom's work leads me forward and I find new things, such as the geographic profile telling us the hot zone is associated with the very place he spends time writing about. Including this particular thread.

                              If there is a formal rebuttal of his work, I would like to read that.

                              There are also lots of questions Tom's book brings up.

                              Anyway, he doesn't have to be absolutely 100% correct.

                              He just has to be more correct than others.
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                Simply because Tom's work leads me forward and I find new things, such as the geographic profile telling us the hot zone is associated with the very place he spends time writing about. Including this particular thread.

                                If there is a formal rebuttal of his work, I would like to read that.

                                There are also lots of questions Tom's book brings up.

                                Anyway, he doesn't have to be absolutely 100% correct.

                                He just has to be more correct than others.
                                But where he is leading you to? A complex conspiracy involving the 'Lords Spitalfields' and their minions, corrupt police officers and a Times-reading toff? A shadowy organisation led by a 'shadow man' who thought it a good idea to employ the chaotic alcoholic Pearly Poll as their agent?

                                One of Tom's red flags in the Smith case is that two women, Mary Russel and Annie Lee, accompanied Smith to the Whitechapel Hospital. The suggestion is that if the gang story had been true, two mere women wouldn't have dared to venture out onto the East End streets. I'm sure you see how silly that is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X