Ripper Anatomy Class

[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.

[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]

...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.

[protohistorian]

Joel you kick more ass than a demolition derby! Dave

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

Ah, this is what happens when I google instead of putting in the effort to reach for a book (which happen to be right behind me) Still Sunday for me I'm afraid, that's my excuse A more accurate reason would be that in all honesty I've not looked very closely at any of the murder yet besides Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

Thanks for clearing that up fisherman.

[Fisherman]

You´re welcome, Joel. You are not the first one who has casually counted Stride into the Rippers tally, in spite of the numerous differences involved in her case - her position in the yard being one such parameter.

Can I please take the opportunity to thank you for your participation on this thread? I am just catching up reading it, but it is already quite apparent that your efforts have resulted in some excellent information!

The best,
Fisherman

[joelhall]

Don't mention it.

Actually, a couple of years ago I never believed Stride to be a victim of the series, but after so long you tend to forget details you read, so I cannot for the life of me now remember why I thought this, so have pretty much just lumped her together with the others. I shall have to have a look at it when I find the time. This isn't easy as Laura and I are both suffering from 'baby-induced fatigue' here

I'm going to go into (much) more detail about each murder at a later date, to help clarify why I think what I do. I will be posting each of these separately however, as they won't be short articles, especially the Eddowes and Kelly murders.

[Errata]

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.
.

Here's why I may call Shenanigans. I haven't decided yet.

Firstly, I am pretty sure the blood on the wall by Chapman was a cast off and not an arterial spurt. There is no reason for there to have been arterial spurt in any of these women. Spray requires a small cut, or a stab. A long deep wound just pours blood out. Akin to a water balloon. Puncture it with needle, it sprays. Stab it with a knife, it just empties. And the "hesitation marks" don't seem deep enough to cause spray.

Secondly, finger marks on the jaw. Strangling doesn't make those happen, and gripping the jaw to tilt up the neck is unnecessary on the ground, not to mention awkward. Even crouching behind the head on the ground, which would require tilting the head, does not require such force as to bruise the jaw. Were any of the victims' noses broken? That could argue for atypical strangling. Also scrapes on the back of the head could argue for the head being tilted on the ground, but I don't think I have seen that anywhere.

Thirdly, lack of blood on the front of the clothes absolutely rules out a throat cut while standing upright. I had never thought of that before. Excellent point. However, there are still two standing positions that could accomplish a blood free bodice. The first, and to my mind the most likely is bent over forwards. It's terribly easy to get someone to bend over by dropping something, but more likely is that bending forward was how these women plied their trade. If the throat's were cut while the victim was bent over, the blood would pour straight down, and if you catch the body as it falls and flip it over, she is now lying on her back in her blood, and any remaining blood would leak out the sides. What would negate this theory is if there was no blood on the front of the neck, or no spotting on the chest or bodice. So if that is the case let me know. The other position of course is bent backward. Grab someone by the lower jaw and bend them backwards, cut the throat, and just lower them to the ground. The problems with this are that you are going to be covered in blood, and it requires a bit of force with a still conscious person.

Fourthly, the cuts themselves seem inconsistent with having been done on the ground. Several of the cuts seem deep at the ear, which seems extremely difficult with the point of your knife hitting the ground an inch beyond the ear. I would expect a cut straight across the front of the neck, and very deep given the extra force in leaning over someone. Essentially I would expect a body weight behind the cut.

Why I am not yet calling Shenanigans:
I have no idea why else a victim's tongue would be protruding.
I'm clearly not as versed in the facts of these cases as you guys are.
I can prove none of the above.

What would be really useful would be if we could see the relative depths of the throat cuts. If it is deeper by the ear than in the front, that says one thing. Uniform depth another. I'm not even sure that information is available.

If anything above is wrong or physically impossible let me know. I don't have a suspect or a theory. For me it's all about method and motive. I have a pet motive, but it isn't influenced by the throat cuts. This is just trying to understand something that seems so bizarre.

[protohistorian]

I have my broom ready Errata! Dave

[joelhall]

Here's why I may call Shenanigans. I haven't decided yet.

Firstly, I am pretty sure the blood on the wall by Chapman was a cast off and not an arterial spurt. There is no reason for there to have been arterial spurt in any of these women. Spray requires a small cut, or a stab. A long deep wound just pours blood out. Akin to a water balloon. Puncture it with needle, it sprays. Stab it with a knife, it just empties. And the "hesitation marks" don't seem deep enough to cause spray.

The blood vessels don't work like a water balloon however, as our blood is inside vessels not sitting inside our bodies like a balloon holds water. Cutting different types of vessel has different effects.

What is needed for arterial spray is simply severence of an artery whilst the heart is beating. The blood in the arteries comes direct from the heart and aorta, and is under high pressure, rising with the heart's contractions. Larger arteries show large spray with ups and downs corresponding with the beat of the heart, whilst the smaller ones and capillaries how more sustained squirting under lower pressure. In the case of the carotid arteries being severed blood could, depending on the blood pressure of the victim, spray quite far - up to a couple of feet - and would continue for at least 30 seconds.

If the arteries are cut and the heart is beating there is going to be blood sprayed from them. The oozing blood comes from veins. In Kelly's murder the spray on the walls is quite noticable.

Secondly, finger marks on the jaw. Strangling doesn't make those happen, and gripping the jaw to tilt up the neck is unnecessary on the ground, not to mention awkward. Even crouching behind the head on the ground, which would require tilting the head, does not require such force as to bruise the jaw. Were any of the victims' noses broken? That could argue for atypical strangling. Also scrapes on the back of the head could argue for the head being tilted on the ground, but I don't think I have seen that anywhere.

This is absolutely correct. Of course, I've not seen any suggestion that the marks on the jaw are connected to strangling. the killer would have been at the head end of the body, tilted the head back and slaiced across the throat with a sharp knife. Except of course in Kelly's case.

Thirdly, lack of blood on the front of the clothes absolutely rules out a throat cut while standing upright. I had never thought of that before. Excellent point. However, there are still two standing positions that could accomplish a blood free bodice. The first, and to my mind the most likely is bent over forwards. It's terribly easy to get someone to bend over by dropping something, but more likely is that bending forward was how these women plied their trade. If the throat's were cut while the victim was bent over, the blood would pour straight down, and if you catch the body as it falls and flip it over, she is now lying on her back in her blood, and any remaining blood would leak out the sides. What would negate this theory is if there was no blood on the front of the neck, or no spotting on the chest or bodice. So if that is the case let me know. The other position of course is bent backward. Grab someone by the lower jaw and bend them backwards, cut the throat, and just lower them to the ground. The problems with this are that you are going to be covered in blood, and it requires a bit of force with a still conscious person.

If you cut someone's throat whilst they are bent over you have two options - to do it from behind or from the side. If you attempt it from the side, then they will notice the blade and try to fight you off. This will result in defensive marks on the body among other things, which are absent.

Doing it from behind poses a bigger problem - you must lean over them, and it is quite a hard task to achieve, especially whilst standing and bent over. Doing this would result in the victim falling face down with you on top of them... and of course blood would be on the chest and clothes, as blood obviously obeys gravity. Pulling the head back in this position would allow the venous blood to ooze down onto the chest of the victim.

Fourthly, the cuts themselves seem inconsistent with having been done on the ground. Several of the cuts seem deep at the ear, which seems extremely difficult with the point of your knife hitting the ground an inch beyond the ear. I would expect a cut straight across the front of the neck, and very deep given the extra force in leaning over someone. Essentially I would expect a body weight behind the cut.

Very simply a sharp blade drawn across the throat could go quite deep - again think of the shochet at work. With the killer at the top of the head pulling the head back under the jaw and drawing the knife from left to right would make a very clean cut - and allow the killer to put his weight behind the blade to get deep.

Why I am not yet calling Shenanigans:
I have no idea why else a victim's tongue would be protruding.
I'm clearly not as versed in the facts of these cases as you guys are.
I can prove none of the above.

The tongue swells at the root and protrudes with strangulation, which lowers the blood return from the head by compressing the veins in the neck, and therefore increases blood pressure inside the head. Strangulation, especially with a ligature, can also cause haemorrhaging of the tongue.

As for proof it's all there in front of us really, the hardest part is being able to understand what the clues mean.

What would be really useful would be if we could see the relative depths of the throat cuts. If it is deeper by the ear than in the front, that says one thing. Uniform depth another. I'm not even sure that information is available.

There is inormation in the inquests that cuts were made so deep the vertebrae were hit by the blade. Given this I think its fair to say that the cuts were straight at the base, made by a sharp, straight bladed knife, which would of course have a variable depth given the circular shape of the neck - the two end points of the cut would indicate the depth of the cut across.

This is a bit like slicing and orange half way down. The cut itself is straight, but relative to the surface of the organe it varies in depth along its length.