Did Jack kill more than three?

[Doctor X]

Im sorry but how the objectives were obtained has nothing to do with whether an "organ harvester" is possible or probable...

Actually, it does.

So...an organ harvester might be a hired street gang member contracted to get the organs desired, . . .

Contract offerers like to have useful results, not a slashed up pile.

If you want an untrained man as your Jack, then anyone could have done any of these.

Yup.

Thats the main problem with that theory.....you cannot exclude anyone, . . .

It is not for including or excluding; it is for matching the evidence and reality.

Thats how you get Lewis Carroll as a suspect.

That is why we have other evidence to call such into question.

--J.D.

Im sorry but how the objectives were obtained has nothing to do with whether an "organ harvester" is possible or probable.... he doesnt need to know "Jack" about which way is best to accomplish his goals, particularly if we are dealing with an untrained man, without knowledge...as many of you are so quick to offer.

So...an organ harvester might be a hired street gang member contracted to get the organs desired, and the only experience he may have had was cutting or stabbing women before. Or he might be a slaughterhouse guy rather than a butcher. Or he might be an accountant...or the ever popular drooling feeb.

If you want an untrained man as your Jack, then anyone could have done any of these. Thats the main problem with that theory.....you cannot exclude anyone, not knowing if he has a taste for this by his occupation. A man with a knife that will kill is enough. Thats how you get Lewis Carroll as a suspect.

How fast, the number of actions performed, and under what circumstances separates the Ripper from the thug.

Best regards

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"It does remain possible, as Fisherman states, that the killer cut Stride's throw as he was lying her on the ground, but I think that's less likely than his having done it after she was in position."

Should be "throat" there, and not "throw", should it not, Tom? Anyways, this is what I have been saying in post after post after post after post - but there is no way that it is going to get through to our esteemed Doctor X, Tom.
My take on it is more or less exactly the same as yours here, making this one of them rare moments where we agree: Though the probability that she was down before she was cut would be the more obvious one, the possibility that she was not still remains.

Send for the champagne, Tom; weīre agreed!

You pay.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

One would think an organ harvester would be more careful and better trained. I wonder about him presenting a mangled Chapman uterus and "Dr. Frankenstein" telling him to do better . . . "and see if you can get me a kidney. I will pay extra!"



Yours truly,

--J.D.

[FrankO]

Hi J.D.,

Actually, after I posted, I realized I used "you" as you used "you" but you clearly meant "you" as in the general "you" as opposed to a specific "you," whereas my reply, while intended the general "you," I may have implied a specific "you" as in you.

Thank you (as in the 'not me but you-you') for clearing that up.

I think I blathered on this previously with regards to the "medical skilz" of Jack. Basically, there is a reason for mid-line incisions that then go around the umbilicus [Navel.--Ed.]. Such an incision splits along the fascia rather than cuts into muscle; however, more critically, the umbilicus is difficult to cut through and has a rudimentary attachment. This is why, it seems, with his previous abdominal mutilation, he removes a portion of the wall when his incision does not give him access. He gets around this--literally--with Eddowes--making a sizable "arc" around Eddowes' umbilicus as well as cutting along the inguinal region to free the flap to gain entrance to the abdominal cavity. This is not how a surgeon, or anyone trained to dissect a human body would do it.

Thanks for this bit of information as well.

Now, why would he take away the "free flap" he created? Requires some speculation. He may have just taken it for the hell of it.

I see that you not only agree with me that how to open the abdomen has nothing to do with whatever the hell the Ripper took away with him from the crime scene, but also that the taking of that piece of belly wall doesn't seem to fit much with the notion that we're dealing with an organ harvester - which was the original point I was trying to make.

All the best,
Frank

[Tom_Wescott]

Doctor X again, arrogant as ever:

"Someone will, I am sure, inform me if he has ceased spinning in circles.
Maybe Jack suspended Stride one inch above the ground to avoid creating a spray . . . that could happen!"
Sure."

Dr. X is more or less accurate. Stride's neck was centered over a rut in the ground used as a gutter. She bled only out of her left carotid artery (which was cut, not severed) and therefore her 'spray', if there was any, went primarily into this gutter and flowed towards the steps at the side of the club. A pool also collected on a large stone that was used to line the gutter. But because of this gutter, the blood did not collect under her as it did in the case of Nichols. I hope this helps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. It does remain possible, as Fisherman states, that the killer cut Stride's throw as he was lying her on the ground, but I think that's less likely than his having done it after she was in position. I personally don't believe that Stride was conscious when she was lowered to the ground and think it's possible she had fainted.

[Doctor X]

Please elaborate, because as a layman I can't see what opening has to do with taking away.

Actually, after I posted, I realized I used "you" as you used "you" but you clearly meant "you" as in the general "you" as opposed to a specific "you," whereas my reply, while intended the general "you," I may have implied a specific "you" as in you.

Just so you know. . . .

I think I blathered on this previously with regards to the "medical skilz" of Jack. Basically, there is a reason for mid-line incisions that then go around the umbilicus [Navel.--Ed.]. Such an incision splits along the fascia rather than cuts into muscle; however, more critically, the umbilicus is difficult to cut through and has a rudimentary attachment. This is why, it seems, with his previous abdominal mutilation, he removes a portion of the wall when his incision does not give him access. He gets around this--literally--with Eddowes--making a sizable "arc" around Eddowes' umbilicus as well as cutting along the inguinal region to free the flap to gain entrance to the abdominal cavity. This is not how a surgeon, or anyone trained to dissect a human body would do it.

Now, why would he take away the "free flap" he created? Requires some speculation. He may have just taken it for the hell of it.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[FrankO]

Hi Doc,

Because you do not know how to open an abdomen.

Please elaborate, because as a layman I can't see what opening has to do with taking away.

Thanks,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Doctor X again, arrogant as ever:

"Someone will, I am sure, inform me if he has ceased spinning in circles.
Maybe Jack suspended Stride one inch above the ground to avoid creating a spray . . . that could happen!"
Sure."

I can provide you with the answer to that first point of yours - I have never been spinning in circles. I have pointed out to you that a scenario where Stride was cut on the ground, though it is the most probable one, is not the only POSSIBLE one.

You are now trying to pick cheap points on disclosing that having your throat cut an inch above the ground is not a very credible option, and I can only say, Doc, that it is my belief that most posters out here have already reached that conclusion on their own.

Of course, I have never stated that she WAS cut one inch over ground level. What I HAVE said is that the chances that the blood spray could have been covered by the pool of blood that left her as she lay on the ground actually increase with a decrease in height over ground level at the time the wound was inflicted.

If our man grabbed her by the scarf and pulled her off balance - and there is a fair chance that this is what happened - then the two most probable opportunities to cut her throat would be
A/ as she was standing up or only just commencing her fall, and
B/ as she was already on the ground.

This you have managed to realize, Doc, and I congratulate you on it. Believe me, most other posters have achieved as much too.
But the problem is that although these are the most probable scenarios and the ones that flow easisest with statistics, there are other possibilities too:

He could have pulled her off balance, and gone down on his right knee, resting her upper body on his left knee as he cut, a few decimetres above the ground.

He could have pulled her off balance - and lost his own footing in the process, cutting her when they fell together. We know from the fact that her dress was well plastered with mud that the yard would have been wet and slippery. That means that she could have been cut at virtually any level above the ground.

There are other scenarios too, as I am sure that anyone with an open mind will realize. Blackwell, for one, belonged to those who did. And pointing out that it all took place 120 years ago is not all that relevant when it comes to blood traces; the pressure of the arteries was there in 1888 too, Doc, and Blackwell would have been very wary of that.

Now, if you have anything factual to add, instead of adding insults that have no bearing at all on the stuff we are debating - be my guest, and add that factual discussion to the issue. Since you yourself have stated that a forensic pathologist would be a source of knowledge here, I re-urge you to produce such a character.

If, however, you have nothing topic-related to offer, I suggest you put your swaggering arrogance out of itīs misery and stop insulting the intelligence of the posters here by telling us things we already know. It is as little fun as it is productive.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

Someone will, I am sure, inform me if he has ceased spinning in circles.

"Maybe Jack suspended Stride one inch above the ground to avoid creating a spray . . . that could happen!"

Sure.

Yours bored,

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Hi Michael!

You know from before that I donīt buy the Ripper as being responsible for all five slayings in the so called canon. To me, Liz Stride does probably not belong to the tally.

What you say, basically, is that Kelly and Stride have so many foreing elements to them, that they make the series incomprehensible when added. And of course, you are to some extent right.

Then again, if we consider the facial mutilation of Eddowes, that too seems a strange thing to add to the behaviour of our man - if Eddowes belonged to the series...

If we look upon chemical or bological experiments carried out in laboratories, Michael, we will be dealing with experiments where those who carry them out will do all they can to create the same environment at every experimental occasion, in order to rule out external elements that may have an impact on the outcome of the experiment.
In the Ripper killings, this does not apply. Still, we for some reason seem to assume that what the Ripper would have done at each occasion, if he had had it his way, would have been to subdue the woman, cut her throat, rip her up and take away her uterus. We accept though, that this did not happen at each occasion, since there were external elements interfering, rendering it impossible to go through with the scheme at some occasions.

Thing is, we have no idea of how many external influences there was around at each occasion, Michael - the mood of the killer, the sudden appearance of people at the murder sites, an aggressive dog showing up, the victims saying something, stirring him, him cutting himself by mistake... The possibilities are innumerable, and each and every one of them may mean that things that from the outset may seem illogical to us when we try to fit his actions into a tight frame, were actually very logical in their true context.
Add to this that the killer may have to some extent have interacted with the press and the societal reactions to the killings - meaning that he may have felt pressurized to increase the violence in the deeds, to top each killing at the next occasion - and you will soon realize that although simplification may be useful in trying to understand his actions, it may also leed astray big time!

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Doctor X - as tedious as ever - writes:
"So I guess Fisherman just wasted 10+ pages arguing for something he could not support."

Doc, I HAVE supported it, dozens of times. Thing is, you wonīt let me support it. On my behalf, you crave forensic pathologists to support my stance, whereas you expect all the rest of us to merrily accept whatever nonsens you have to offer.

Letīs do it the other way around, Doc: Prove to me, beyond any doubts, that arterial spray produced from a wound during a fall, cannot be covered by blood streaming out from that same wound afterwards.
Oh, and donīt just come up with the self same crap you have been trying to shove down my throat for these last few days - I want substantiation from a forensic pathologist, no less.

If you cannot accomplish this, Doc, I suggest you give your ego a rest and realize that unsettled matters are of very little use to prove that you are right. And basically, since what you need to prove is that it is impossible to cover drops of blood with a pool of blood, I think the pathologist you are going to need will prove somewhat hard to come by.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

. . . why take away part of the belly wall if you're interested in harvesting organs and preferably whole ones?

Because you do not know how to open an abdomen.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

So I guess Fisherman just wasted 10+ pages arguing for something he could not support.

Something about "shooting fish in a barrel" is appropriate. Why I always use a 12-gauge.

--J.D.

Hi JS,

I can assure you that I am in no way "focussed" on the abdominal organs. I am only making a case that within the Canon murders, one or more men with that focus may have killed some of the victims assigned to "Jacks" ledger sheet.

Because the physical evidence would support that assumption with at least 2 victims.

What is not in our "evidentiary" basket is solid grounds for a "Canon" in the first place, a credible explanation for the 3rd alleged victim only receiving a single cut if a Ripper victim, and any accredited evidence that shows Mary Jane met her killer the same way all the others did...outdoors while likely soliciting.

Wounds inflicted by a knife are hardly definitive indications of any one mans work, clearly any man matching the approximate age and description of some suspects....5'6"-5'8", 35-38 years old, using a knife at all like the one that may have created the cuts on the Canonicals, could easily make cuts that appear similar to The Canon's wounds.....and with Mary Jane, her killer may have had the benefit of knowing everything done to the prior victims....which is why we see many similarities and repetitions, but none of the focus that is present in the abdominal organ donors wounds.

Best regards.