Did the Ripper Stab His Victims BEFORE Going for the Jugular?

[MACO]

Forgive me if this has been asked...


The common line of thought is that the Ripper strangled his victims first to near death and then slashed their throats - so as to limit the blood spray.

I was wondering, however, if it could have been possible that Jack unexpectedly stabbed his victims in the gut FIRST to stun them. Then he could grab them by the throat to bring them down to the ground, where their throats were cut. This method would be strictly used to avoid as much resistance as possible as I think it would be hard to fight off being strangled when you're clenching your stomach, which was stabbed. A shock effect, in essence.

This could all obviously be refuted by the Stride case as there were no abdominal wounds. But this could also be taken against the possibility of Stride not being a Ripper victim. However, all of the other victims could have had the initial stab wounds "covered up" by the soon-to-come abdominal mutilations Jack bequeathed after his victims were dead.

Just a thought. What do you think? What had been discussed about this before? Thanks in advance.

MACO

[Fisherman]

Hi Maco!

I think that in order to accept this, we must also accept that the Ripper carefully concealed the initial stab by making the following incision in the belly with a cut that exactly covered the path caused by the stab...

...and why on earth would he do that?

The best!
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Forgive me if this has been asked...
The common line of thought is that the Ripper strangled his victims first to near death and then slashed their throats - so as to limit the blood spray.

I was wondering, however, if it could have been possible that Jack unexpectedly stabbed his victims in the gut FIRST to stun them. Then he could grab them by the throat to bring them down to the ground, where their throats were cut. This method would be strictly used to avoid as much resistance as possible as I think it would be hard to fight off being strangled when you're clenching your stomach, which was stabbed. A shock effect, in essence.

This could all obviously be refuted by the Stride case as there were no abdominal wounds. But this could also be taken against the possibility of Stride not being a Ripper victim. However, all of the other victims could have had the initial stab wounds "covered up" by the soon-to-come abdominal mutilations Jack bequeathed after his victims were dead.

Just a thought. What do you think? What had been discussed about this before? Thanks in advance.
MACO

Hi Maco

I guess it depends which victims you attribute to JtR.

I see it like this: Jack experimented with his knife, so its possible Wilson and Millwood were early victims. His area of interest was stabbing the genitals. However he learned that someone who is stabbed makes a lot of noise.

Building to a frenzy he thought he'd try and silence his victim and attempted to strangle Martha Tabram before stabbing her. However poor old Martha regained conciousness there was some noise, he slashed at the throat and he got covered in Blood.

So Jack changed his MO. He strangled them lowered them to the ground and slit their throat. This stopped them interrupting him in future, and the blood flow was angled away from him so that he didnt get covered in blood. The resulting lack of blood preasure also meant less blood.

Old Jacky didnt want to get in any more mess than he had too. The main area of interest for him was the uterus and reproductive organs.

So to answer your question I think it unlikely that he would have stabbed first. There is no medical evidence to support this suggestion and he would have gotten covered in blood had he done so...which I think he wished to avoid.

All the Best

Pirate

[joelhall]

it seems rather than looking at the reality of murder in a public place, everyone is intent on playing the forensic expert. focusing on the question of how he avoided spatter is looking at things back to front - this was the consequence not the cause of his actions.

why would the killer care about limiting spray? his goal was speed. there are ways to kill without the nasty spray, such as strangulation. this takes time, so he picked the knife. if a killer were that bothered about blood then why would he make the cuts he did? we are not told he slashed across the throat & arteries, but that he almost severed heads! messy. this is not the actions of someone trying not to get covered in blood. this is the action of someone trying to kill as quickly as possible in a public place to help his rapid escape.

in my opinion the wrong question keeps being asked. instead of 'how did the killer avoid arterial spray?' the question should be 'why was there no evidence of arterial spray?'

for me the answer is simple - they were lying either on their fronts or their sides with the killer behind, who ripped up through the neck violently, then turned the victim over, once they had lost consciousness.

in my conclusion, which ill share soon, the entire thing, from attacking the victim, to leaving the scene takes a matter of minutes at most.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

Within the Canonical group there is only one victim that appears to be interacting with the murderer when he has his knife out, and thats Mary Jane. There is no evidence at all that he used the knife, or even had it in his hands, when he subdues the earlier women, and there is no evidence based on the demeanor of the victims in death to suggest he even struggled much with any of them but Mary Kelly. One cannot strangle with one hand very effectively.....if he had the knife out before they were fully compliant, and for that matter cannot keep them still with one hand....and if he cuts them first, before the cut that ends their ability to breathe and speak is made, then what is to prevent them from screaming or fighting with him?

You have, in the remaining 4 Canonicals, 3 women that appear to have had their throats cut while on the ground.....which of course they did not volunteer to lie down for, and one which may have been cut while falling, while at the same time, the killer held her scarf tightly and twisted. That can be accomplished with the one hand, cutting off her air using her scarf from behind.

There is no evidence that any cuts or stabs were made before any of the first 4 Canonicals victims necks were cut. Its a trademark....this Ripper killer only cuts into the bodies post-mortem apparently, and may not have even had a knife in his hands until they were semi or unconscious. It does contrast with the evidence on the fifth murder though....he apparently attacked with a knife before she was unconscious or subdued.

Best regards.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Michael

It does contrast with the evidence on the fifth murder though....he apparently attacked with a knife before she was unconscious or subdued.

Maybe this was because she was asleep ?

[perrymason]

Hello Michael

Maybe this was because she was asleep ?

Hi John,

My personal view is that she very probably was asleep when her killer arrived at her door. I believe that sleep was interrupted by the visitor, which woke Diddle upstairs and caused Mrs Prater to be awake when Mary greets her unannounced guest with surprise and a little annoyance....like "oh-murder....I was wondering who could be tapping on my window near 4am, and its just you"... and that she allowed the visitor to enter her room, despite the fact that she was sleeping, in nightclothes, and it was near 4am.

If that is correct, then it would only be logical to assume that Mary's killer might also have been a close male friend.

The fact that she is attacked with a knife while she can struggle and fight back....something that seems unlikely in the 4 remaining Canon victims, might also reveal something about her killer....who might be relishing hurting Mary.....when it seems the initial attack on the others was to get them compliant so he can cut their throats without resistance or noise. In some ways, the killer of Polly, Annie and Kate shows us that his intentions were to cut them only when they are dead or dying and perhaps unconscious...he is not showing any particular malice towards the victim,.. as a knife attack and slashing does do. He uses overwhelming force to get them compliant, he does not show us that he wanted or needed to hurt or punish the victim, ...just that he wanted what came after the attack and their mortal wound.

All the best.

[poorhoney]

Hi all,

To answer the original question, my immediate reaction is no, he did not stab them first. To do so would have led to noise and panic on the victim's part not to mention the ability to possibly fight back, none of which the killer wanted.

-Honey