cutting throats

[bolo]

Hi Observer,

point taken. It's still difficult for me to picture the technical details of the cutting-while-falling scenario but I can see how it leads to a neck wound like Liz's, that's why I can accept it as an explanation as to why her neck wound is different to Polly's and Annie's. For now.

kennyo,

as the cutting of the victims' throats is one of the signature elements of the Ripper case, there most certainly is more behind it than just a quick way of killing someone. The nature and layout of the neck wounds can give us clues on other circumstances of the killings (see the cutting-while-falling scenario for example), so we should examine (and compare) them as closely as possible.

Of course there's a limit to what can be done with the results of these examinations. I think it's valid to use it as proof as to how the wounds were inflicted, etc., but probably wouldn't go as far as using it as a base to rule out one or more victims from the canon.

Regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Bolo.

"It's still difficult for me to picture the technical details of the cutting-while-falling scenario"

I know what you mean. Hopefully, I shall obtain a place for some filming and be able to reproduce this. Actually, the whole sequence turns out to be quite simple--and astonishingly fast.

Concerning throat cutting, it was not as uncommon as some would have you believe. Here's a suggestion. Try trawling a London newspaper for any given week of 1888. Count the stabbings/throat cuttings (don't forget the self inflicted ones!). What do you find?

Cheers.
LC

[bolo]

Hi Lynn,

I'd be very interested in a reenactment like that, it's something I've thought about doing myself but I don't have any resources to make it happen.

Another approach would be software-based digital 3D rendering of some scenes, this would allow us to play around with parameters like direct or indirect lighting, different perspective, zooming, etc., with only a few mouse clicks. A series of 3D clips like that could make a nice toolset for discussions like this.

Regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

technology

Hello Bolo. It would indeed. Perhaps one of us should chat up Dave Gates (Protohistorian). He would be, I think, the right chap for such a project.

Cheers.
LC

[Scorpio]

Hi all -

This is actually a question about how the forensics work.

There is so much discussion of Jack's left-or-right-handed-ness. The general assumption at the moment seems to be that he strangled them, laid them on the ground and then cut their throats. Since the cuts on the victims run L-R, people believe (him) to have been left-handed.

My question is: how do they know he didn't cut their throats from behind? It seems the most convenient, since he could easily have a prostitute face away from him without arousing her suspicions, and it would allow for the arterial spray without soaking him in blood. If he cut them from behind, wouldn't that imply he was right-handed, if the cuts run L-R?

Do they know he was in front of them because of the angle of the cuts? How is that conclusion drawn?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Hi, a knife attack administered from behind would have resulted in a lot of arterial blood deposited in a fashion that an experienced surgeon would have recognised at the scene. I dont recall anything like that, with the possible exception of Kelly. Is that arterial blood sprayed on the wall beside her head in that infamous photo ? .

[CountessHappyBunny]

confusion.

Thanks everyone for all the insight!

I apologize if this is a foolish question, but: when the coroner says the cuts are from Left to Right, does he mean from the left side of the victim's body, or HIS (the coroner's) left?

[lynn cates]

L/R

Hello Countess. He means the knife began on the left side of the victim's neck and continued right before tailing off.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Observer:

"I believe that if Liz Stride was lowered to the ground, and then had her throat cut, then the odds that she was murdered by JTR increases."

Agreed. Plus there are a good deal of other circumstances involved, not hindered by any "if" that point straight away from Jack.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisher

Although In my mind it's odds on that Liz Stride was cut whilst lying down.

Hi Observer,

point taken. It's still difficult for me to picture the technical details of the cutting-while-falling scenario but I can see how it leads to a neck wound like Liz's, that's why I can accept it as an explanation as to why her neck wound is different to Polly's and Annie's. For now.

Hi Boris

I'd agree, especially taking into consideration the distrubution of blood as found at the scene. Regarding the wound, have you considered a cut administered while Liz Stride was in a prone position, but with a different knife to the one as used on Polly Nichols, or Annie Chapman.

all the best

Observer

[corey123]

I think people are making the mistake of thinking that Jack was a normal human being. He wasn't, he was a demented maniac who in a frenzied orgy of killing did his level best to almost take the head off the victim. There would have been no cool calculated judgement, no sitting back and saying 'hmmm I wonder how I'll cut this throat tonight?' No, he'd be like a fox in a hen hutch, slash slash slash. The different wounds to the victims throat mean nothing, nothing at all.

Hello Kennyo,

I am afraid I will have to disagree with you here. I have a question, If "Jack the Ripper" was not calculating, how do you think the inverted v's appeared on Eddowes face?

Yours truly

[corey123]

Hello Scorpio,

I am of the opionion that the throat in all but one case was cut whilst the victim lay on their backs, hence the blood was soaked up into their clothes and the fact that some of the early victims were asphixiated before death would have lessoned the innicial "jet" of blood.

yours truly

[Fisherman]

Corey writes:

"how do you think the inverted v's appeared on Eddowes face?"

That has been discussed at length at a number of occasions, Corey, and I thing the best suggestion by far is that those cuts came about as he cut away the tip of her nose. If you take a look at the report on her damages, you will find that there are TWO cuts to the bridge of the nose, and it would seem that the first effort to cut away the nose was hindered by an angling of the blade that did not allow him to cut all the way through. The reminiscence of that cut is a cut to the nosebridge situated over the one that took the tip off.
As he made the first cut, the blade travelled into the flesh over the cheek bones at both sides and then stopped. That would be how the so called inverted v:s came about. He then retracted the knife, and made a renewed cut a bit further down the nose, this time succeeding to remove a part of the nose.

Take a look at the thread "The two upside down V:s" under Eddowes. Look up post 69, by Jon Smyth (Wickerman), and you will see what I mean!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

nosy

Hello Fish. Right you are! And, in my humble opinion, the nose was the main thrust of the mutilations.

(See my Kaufmann thread--post regarding the socialists who cut off the nose and ears of a police informant.)

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Hi Fisher

I think you are correct regarding the V slashes Eddowes recieved.

I think it was Sam Flynn a couple of years back who demonstrated the V slashes with the aid of an apple, it convinced me.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Observer:

"I think it was Sam Flynn a couple of years back who demonstrated the V slashes with the aid of an apple"

Sam found a nose on an apple ...??

Just kiddinŽ, Observer. I know Sam has done lots of work on Eddowes and the purportedly "artistic" wounds she received.

The best,
Fisherman

[corey123]

Hello Fishermen,


Not quite a good example. I was leaning more toward a question that Kennyo could answer to support that Jack the Ripper killed in a frenzy. I don't personally think he did because if he infact did, I do belive poor Eddowes would have a nose.

Observer,

I do belive I remeber seeing Sam do that.

Yours truly