Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack the Ripper learned don't eviscerate before you exsanguinate

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Would that be the Fiona Rule who said there was no real organised crime in 19th century Spitalfields? Did she invent the term The Lords of Spitalfields?

    You'll be quoting Arthur Harding at me next.

    I'm assuming you have Rule's book and Arthur Harding's and have carried out your own research into their claims.
    Assume what you want, but I am giving you the sources you asked for and that's all I need to do.

    All he needs to do is be more right than you and this seems to be demonstrated quite well in this discussion with you.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Sam
      Not forgetting, that in olden times the cutting of the throat was the main way persons were killed, unlike today when more people die from stab related injuries than having their throats cut. 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.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      I think that throat cutting in general is something that happens when the victim is blitzkrieged, or when the victim and attacker struggle, the killer holding the soon to be victim from behind.

      I believe that most evident in these murders is the surprise attack to subdue, but I don't believe that any had their throats cut while lying down. Cutting from behind while standing while tilting the head forward would stop any major spray. I think most were rendered unconscious or nearly so before the cut anyway.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        Cutting from behind while standing while tilting the head forward would stop any major spray. I think most were rendered unconscious or nearly so before the cut anyway.
        Some of them were cut twice on the neck. So at least one of them had to be made while on the ground. Also, any done standing up won't stop blood covering the front from the neck down, even with the neck bent forward, blood will vacate the slice because there is nowhere else for it to go. Their necks were cut down to the spinal cord. You are looking at blood loss from the neck the equivalent of 350ml/s or more.
        Bona fide canonical and then some.

        Comment


        • #64
          What I would like is for someone to educate me, and if anyone could help me with this I will be appreciative, is to the method of how this assailant murdered these women.

          Had any of the victims been alive during the mutilation or were they dispatched and than mutilated?

          I have read that it depends on the arterial spray/pooling of blood.

          If they were killed before their bodies were desecrated, how was this accomplished? Would strangulation have been enough to kill them or where they just knocked unconscious and died to their injuries?

          This would be interesting to know for it would most indefinitely give us a better understanding of the killers psychology. If the women were murdered within 15 minutes, I doubt that he waited for them to die by strangulation and therefore they were killed due to their injuries to which they succumbed to.
          Last edited by AuroraSarintacos; 11-09-2018, 12:18 PM.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
            What I would like is for someone to educate me, and if anyone could help me with this I will be appreciative, is to the method of how this assailant murdered these women.

            Had any of the victims been alive during the mutilation or were they dispatched and than mutilated?

            I have read that it depends on the arterial spray/pooling of blood.

            If they were killed before their bodies were desecrated, how was this accomplished? Would strangulation have been enough to kill them or where they just knocked unconscious and died to their injuries?

            This would be interesting to know for it would most indefinitely give us a better understanding of the killers psychology. If the women were murdered within 15 minutes, I doubt that he waited for them to die by strangulation and therefore they were killed due to their injuries to which they succumbed to.
            Hi AS
            I would posit that the evidence and circs show that he incapacitated/knocked them out first by blows to head and or strangulation then cut their throats, then started the other mutilations when they were dead.

            however, stride may have been still conscious when her throat was cut
            and Kelly may have already been passed out/asleep when hers was, IMHO.

            Comment


            • #66
              But would he have waited for them to die before he started to mutilate them? He seems like a blitz serial predator; not very well organized and stricking at random in a very quick fashion.

              And if that is the case of what you suggested how do we know for sure?

              I believe, given the fact that the bodies were all found in a relatively short time frame due to the police officers beat in that area when they were found, that he killed the women all within as little as 15 minutes, if not less. He worked very quick. If he were to subdue the women either due to strangulation/knocking them unconcious (no evidence to suggest the later) I doubt he waited for them to die from a cut throat before he carried out the mutilations.

              Is it possible that he subdued the women and they died as a result of their injuries, i.e a cut throat.

              Could he have rendered them incapaciated in some form of way, slit their throats, and carried out the mutilations at the same time their throats were cut? I can not see him waiting for the victims to die.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
                But would he have waited for them to die before he started to mutilate them? He seems like a blitz serial predator; not very well organized and stricking at random in a very quick fashion.

                And if that is the case of what you suggested how do we know for sure?

                I believe, given the fact that the bodies were all found in a relatively short time frame due to the police officers beat in that area when they were found, that he killed the women all within as little as 15 minutes, if not less. He worked very quick. If he were to subdue the women either due to strangulation/knocking them unconcious (no evidence to suggest the later) I doubt he waited for them to die from a cut throat before he carried out the mutilations.

                Is it possible that he subdued the women and they died as a result of their injuries, i.e a cut throat.

                Could he have rendered them incapaciated in some form of way, slit their throats, and carried out the mutilations at the same time their throats were cut? I can not see him waiting for the victims to die.
                Well if you cut someones throat who is already unconscious they aint waking up any time soon and will be dead within seconds.

                And yes some victims did show evidence of possibly being knocked out. Tabram had bruises to back of head and a couple of the others had bruises on face, all which could have come from blows.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Oh. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that. That is indeed food for thought.

                  However, having a cut throat does not necessarily mean you will die within seconds. You may become unconscious, sure, but it will take a while for your heart to pump out all the blood and this can usually last up to a couple of minutes. I think it's more realistic, in my point of view, for it to take the victims about four minutes to die of their injuries.

                  I just was interested to know if the victimes were already dead prior to their mutilation or they succumbed to death while he enacted out the injuries inflicted upon their bodies.
                  Last edited by AuroraSarintacos; 11-09-2018, 04:14 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    The limited post Jorgensen we have are highly suggestive of no head injury to knock out. Polly and Annie (and Martha for that matter) are highly suggestive of initial strangulation hence the swollen tongue. Where the post mortems mention the head they effectively rule out significant head injury (and in Annie even stating brain findings not associated with cause of death).

                    I've not got my calculations at hand at present to give the likely bleed time to death from blood loss, but all of the outdoors victims are suggestive of lying on the ground prior to the throat cuts.

                    Thus I'd suggest strangulation to unconsciousness, throat cut to ensure no recovery/scream, abdominal cuts whilst unconscious but probably prior to the heart stopping from blood loss. It should be remembered that 40% rapid acute volume loss is enough to ensure unconsciousness (ignoring the carotid arteries being cut) and loss of palpable pulses, with an inevitable death; however even an ascending aortic root or ventricle wound would take at least one minute to complete exsanguination, the carotid arteries significantly longer.

                    Paul

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
                      The limited post Jorgensen we have are highly suggestive of no head injury to knock out. Polly and Annie (and Martha for that matter) are highly suggestive of initial strangulation hence the swollen tongue. Where the post mortems mention the head they effectively rule out significant head injury (and in Annie even stating brain findings not associated with cause of death).

                      I've not got my calculations at hand at present to give the likely bleed time to death from blood loss, but all of the outdoors victims are suggestive of lying on the ground prior to the throat cuts.

                      Thus I'd suggest strangulation to unconsciousness, throat cut to ensure no recovery/scream, abdominal cuts whilst unconscious but probably prior to the heart stopping from blood loss. It should be remembered that 40% rapid acute volume loss is enough to ensure unconsciousness (ignoring the carotid arteries being cut) and loss of palpable pulses, with an inevitable death; however even an ascending aortic root or ventricle wound would take at least one minute to complete exsanguination, the carotid arteries significantly longer.

                      Paul
                      ... which all points to a very hurried business. In this context, IŽd like to point once again to the 1873 torso victim, where medicos said that it was possible that the cutting up had commenced while the victim was still alive.
                      The means to establish this was looking at muscle contraction - if a victim is cut up close in time to the point of death, the muscles will contract although the victim is clinically dead, If I understand it correct.
                      In the 1873 case, it was apparent that the victim had been bled off totally - not a drop of blood could be found in the vessels of the various parts (more than a dozen), and this means that the victim was hung up and bled off.
                      Of course, this was done before the body was dismembered, and still the muscle contraction was such as to propose that she had been cut up very close in time to her death.
                      The conclusion must be that she was killed (quite probably by two savage blows to her right temple; there were bruises indicating this on the face and scalp that had been cut away and thrown in the Thames), then she was immediately hung up and bled off, very likely by having her neck vessels cut open, and finally she was cut up in many pieces, all this in quick succession.

                      The likeness to what we see in the Ripper deeds is there - kill quickly, bleed off and then start cutting.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        So one could conclude that is may have been probable that some of the victims were still alive when he started to cut into them?

                        That's so terrible. How sad.

                        These poor women. . .it makes me terrified to think of what they went through during their last moments on earth.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
                          So one could conclude that is may have been probable that some of the victims were still alive when he started to cut into them?

                          That's so terrible. How sad.

                          These poor women. . .it makes me terrified to think of what they went through during their last moments on earth.
                          I think a modern view of the case would detect that they were strangled prior to having their necks cut. The medical examiners almost want to say as such but the wounds to the neck seem so traumatic as to have not left behind much evidence on the neck's directly, but there is a lot of bruising and thumbprints around their lower jaw in nearly all the victims except Kelly and we can't tell there because her face including jaw were slashed and hacked away. Chapman as well as Tabram have what even looks like slightly protruding tongues even in their morgue shots. I think a modern pathologist would say the signs point to strangulation for them.
                          Bona fide canonical and then some.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            I've always been of the personal opinion that Kelly fought back as hard as she could till she was either rendered incapacitated or killed during her struggle. Her throat could have been cut while she was in the process fighting off her attacker.

                            Out of all the victims I believe she was one of the few that knew she was going to die an unpleasant death, and this is one the most terrifying things I can ever imagine having to go through.

                            Hopefully she did not suffer for too long. Any other thought would just bring horror to my mind.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              She's also the only one with unquestionable defence wounds, which is surprising that the others lack

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
                                She's also the only one with unquestionable defence wounds, which is surprising that the others lack
                                IMO, that is because with the others he blitz attacked from the front and forced them by the neck and lower jaw to the ground. The modern view is likely manual strangulation followed by consciousness loss, followed by slicing the neck.

                                The gravitational thrust downwards can't happen in the case of MJK because she is already prostrate on a soft bed.

                                Bond believed she had a sheet thrust over her head and the knife wound made through the sheets, cutting her throat.

                                Defense wounds suggest a struggle. Which may happen to gel with witness hearing shouts of murder.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X