Ripper Anatomy Class

[Fisherman]

Joel Hall:

"Stride was of course found back down in the wet dirt, with non on her front, so we know that she was lowered onto her back."

She was no such thing, I´m afraid - Stride was found on her left side, resting on her upper left arm, and the crime scene evidence suggests that she was never on her back. There was lots of mud on the left side of her clothing, but none on her back. The left side of her face, as well as her hair, was also matted with mud.

The best,
Fisherman

[joelhall]

Yeah but shechita munachat presents its own problems both in livestock and in this case. Stuff thats probably better suited to another thread, but I will say this:

The major issue I have with a shechita munachat theory is that it requires deliberate positioning. Even if the cuts werent still wrong for a shochet, It requires posing the women for a throat cut, which is something I imagine one would only take time to do to preserve Kashrut, like in cows. And there is no way to make a human kosher. And any delusion a person might have that is so far off base in regards to their own trade is enormous. Like a doctor thinking that women lay eggs. Thats the kind of delusion that doesn't stay a secret. Especially if you have a few shochet trading tales outside the local socialist club and one asks "So, have you guys found any way of removing the lungs in women to test them for holes without inadvertant punctures, or do you just test them inside the body cavity?"

Why on earth would a person cut someones throat when they are flat on their back? That's bizarre behaviorally, but also unnecessary given that you've just choked them to death, and even if they were barely alive they certainly weren't going to stay that way for long. I may cry Shenanigans on this. They say that based on a lack of arterial spurt right? Or is there another reason?

Really all munachat involves is being on the back. There is no need to be able to make a human kosher of course - the killer is mudering them not eating them. There is no need to really position an unconscious body, simply lower it to the floor.

It seems like a wasteful use of time to strangle someone and then cut the throat. However the evidence that the victims were on their backs when the throat was cut is apparent in the details. Of course it does not take very long to cause syncope by strangling, but it takes much longer to kill someone by this method. In films they do it in 20 seconds, in reality it can take several minutes, so you may choke someone and they will pass out, but when you leave they are going to come round once the blood pressure has returned to normal and gaseous exchange has improved to the brain.

In Nichols' case the victim was found on her back with no blood on the chest of clothes or body, which is quite odd if the victim was standing and blood was escaping from veins in the neck. The blood in fact had run to the side of the neck onto the floor. This could of course only happen if the victim was in that position while her throat was cut.

The Chapman case is even more telling, as there is blood spray evidence. Where the victim was lying on the ground on the fence next to her were blood smears in line with the neck, 14 inches from the ground. If of course the victim had been killed standing, the blood would be found higher up on the wood, going in a downwards direction when the body was lowered.

she also had swelling to the face and a protruding tongue, which was put down to strangulation.

Stride was of course found back down in the wet dirt, with non on her front, so we know that she was lowered onto her back.

Eddowes was in much the same state as the others - no blood on the front of the clothes.

Mary Kelly was a different kettle of fish, as far as I can tell, but of course was also murdered lying down, although not having been strangled beforehand.

[Rubyretro]

Why on earth would a person cut someones throat when they are flat on their back? That's bizarre behaviorally, but also unnecessary given that you've just choked them to death

,

If someone had been choked, they'd be on the ground.

[Errata]

Now if I were to cut someones throat (don't worry I'm not a homicidal maniac) I would choose the most obvious method - grab them from behind, pull the head back with my left hand by grabbing the chin, and slice the throat with my right, in a left to right motion. This killer has done his killing with the women lying on their back.

I'm sure having seen shechita first hand you will be familiar with munachat.

Of course, the shochet is not allowed to strangle the animal first.

Yeah but shechita munachat presents its own problems both in livestock and in this case. Stuff thats probably better suited to another thread, but I will say this:

The major issue I have with a shechita munachat theory is that it requires deliberate positioning. Even if the cuts werent still wrong for a shochet, It requires posing the women for a throat cut, which is something I imagine one would only take time to do to preserve Kashrut, like in cows. And there is no way to make a human kosher. And any delusion a person might have that is so far off base in regards to their own trade is enormous. Like a doctor thinking that women lay eggs. Thats the kind of delusion that doesn't stay a secret. Especially if you have a few shochet trading tales outside the local socialist club and one asks "So, have you guys found any way of removing the lungs in women to test them for holes without inadvertant punctures, or do you just test them inside the body cavity?"

Why on earth would a person cut someones throat when they are flat on their back? That's bizarre behaviorally, but also unnecessary given that you've just choked them to death, and even if they were barely alive they certainly weren't going to stay that way for long. I may cry Shenanigans on this. They say that based on a lack of arterial spurt right? Or is there another reason?

[joelhall]

Joel you kick more ass than a demolition derby! Dave

Just as well I kept my old combat boots.

On a more serious note, I'm preparing some photos from post-mortems and anatomical cadavers which I will use to illustrate some of the points I made more thoroughly.

Rather than attach the photos to the boards however, I will provide an external link.

Joel

[protohistorian]

Joel you kick more ass than a demolition derby! Dave

[joelhall]

...and please forgive me medicos for my ignorance, but is not the most parsimonious explanation for us discussing the issue at this late date is that singular or few elements on some corpses were interpreted in this fashion by medical personnel. I fully acknowledge medical personnel have much more knowledge than the average Tom, Dick, and Harry (ladies also), but they are human and the human cognitive package is famous for misconceptions, bad interpretations, and most notably, the amplification of evidentiary phenomena in support of clearly unrelated observations.

What if what we are seeing in our historical study is something akin to the modern equivalent of the intelligent design argument. 1 inch of renal artery could be a function of skill but just as easily be a function of 1 hands location as mapped in the mind of the doer providing feedback for the manipulation of the other hand in a blind situation. A person with no visual cues to operate on still has the basic level of feedback of where one hand is in relation to another. It a finger on hand 1 was grasping at the attachment point, and hand two moves close enough in a blind situation for a knife blade to touch it, a blind sweep of the knife would be near one inch in length. To a medico the distance of remaining trunk is evidence of skill, when in fact it is evidence of methodology. Dave

If you mean could the killer having attempted to pull the kidney have found the renal blood supply and ureter, then yes. If you mean with a deep enough cut having cut through the peritoneum, he could have severed at least the blood vessels, then maybe.

The most obvious answer is of course that having discovered the kidney and attempted to remove it, he would have realised that it was still attached to the body and feeling around the side (not hard given the size of a kidney) could easily have discovered the renal artery and vein, and the ureter.

As for suggestions that he may have mistake the kidney for the heart - even a layman would not probably fall for this. Anyone who has run up stairs will know your heart is in your chest, and hearts would be on sale in butcher's shops, as would kidneys, so mistaking the shape would not be likely.

[joelhall]

Could it be that Jack just choked them to become unconscious and then kill them? Everyone except Mary Kelly...

Possible. Although Kelly's killer was left-handed, and used a rather blunt knife to cut the throat. I would plump for a different killer.

[joelhall]

Good point. What I meant was the long ear to ear cut is unnecessary. Ear to trachea is enough. Some of the "hesitation" marks look like an attempt at slicing 50% of the circumference of the neck, which would be both awkward and quite a bit more than needed.

Shochets will in fact make a wide cut. But they know it isn't necessary to kill the animal. It is necessary to make the animal kosher, to ensure the animal died so quickly it would feel no pain. Having seen kosher slaughtering at work (worst field trip EVER), had a shochet cut a human throat, the cut would be ear to ear, but so deep that the head would be almost severed. A shochet blade is perfectly capable of decapitating a human. And the amount of force required to cut a cow's throat from ear to ear and about four inches deep is extraordinary. Shochets also have incredible blade control, since they cannot so much as scrape against the spine.

Most of the throat cuts are not long enough for shechita, most are far to deep, an at least one hit bone. I think it unlikely that a guy who slits throats for a living in the heat of the moment would change his technique. It's certainly possible, but that would speak to a level of disassociation that is phenomenal, and quite possibly renders any motive moot.

Actually the blade must continue right across else the jugular and carotid on the other side will not by bled, and it must be deep enough to severe the majority of the oesophagus as well as the trachea. You make a good point about the effort in cutting a calves throat. If one were to practice this on a human, particularly one a women with a thin neck, it would be alsmost impossible given the habit developed to miss almost severing the head completely. A half cut to the trachea would not allow the blood to escape properly, making the meat forbidden for consumption.

Now if I were to cut someones throat (don't worry I'm not a homicidal maniac) I would choose the most obvious method - grab them from behind, pull the head back with my left hand by grabbing the chin, and slice the throat with my right, in a left to right motion. This killer has done his killing with the women lying on their back.

I'm sure having seen shechita first hand you will be familiar with munachat.

Of course, the shochet is not allowed to strangle the animal first.

[protohistorian]

anatomical knowledge

I realize I am a provincial hick, but if I wanted to kill someone with a neck injury, this would be my target. Dave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve

[protohistorian]

The plundering of Annie Chapman (M2)

It is time to say it again. If you see an error tell me, these diagrams don't fix theselves (stoopid,lazy diagrams). The red lines represent wound tracks. Dave

Description by Dr. Phillips, " No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..."

[protohistorian]

one for the experts

Here is Annie's neck diagram. If I have done this correctly, it severs the hypoglossal nerve. This may make this statement completely inaccurate.

Dr. Phillips says,"He thought it was highly probable that a person could call out,..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglossal_nerve

Dave

[protohistorian]

bladder and uterus

All I can say about looking for images suitable in demonstrative value for Annie's wounds is that if you do not have a bladder control problem when you start looking, you will believe you do by the end of the search. Now, a diagram showing the spatial relationship of the bits. Dave

[protohistorian]

M2. Annie Chapman

description, "The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_intestine

Dave

[Errata]

Actually the only way of cutting the arteries from the outside by slicing is also the cut the trachea. If you feel for your carotid pulse, you will push your fingers into the neck by the side of the trachea. To cut this while leaving the trachea unmakred during a slicing action is impossible.

A shochet will make a wide cut. The blade is always longer than the neck is wide. Shechita involves completely severing the trachea, carotid arteries and jugular veins in one movement to drain the blood.

Good point. What I meant was the long ear to ear cut is unnecessary. Ear to trachea is enough. Some of the "hesitation" marks look like an attempt at slicing 50% of the circumference of the neck, which would be both awkward and quite a bit more than needed.

Shochets will in fact make a wide cut. But they know it isn't necessary to kill the animal. It is necessary to make the animal kosher, to ensure the animal died so quickly it would feel no pain. Having seen kosher slaughtering at work (worst field trip EVER), had a shochet cut a human throat, the cut would be ear to ear, but so deep that the head would be almost severed. A shochet blade is perfectly capable of decapitating a human. And the amount of force required to cut a cow's throat from ear to ear and about four inches deep is extraordinary. Shochets also have incredible blade control, since they cannot so much as scrape against the spine.

Most of the throat cuts are not long enough for shechita, most are far to deep, an at least one hit bone. I think it unlikely that a guy who slits throats for a living in the heat of the moment would change his technique. It's certainly possible, but that would speak to a level of disassociation that is phenomenal, and quite possibly renders any motive moot.