Did Jack kill more than three?

[Mitch Rowe]

Mitch,

If the sketch is accurate, then Jack may have been right handed.

Maybe he used the handle of the knife in his right hand to administer the damage to the face and head.

NOV9

Interesting observation!
Ill re-read the inquest testimony and if the description fits the sketch I think you would be correct!
It would be nice to catch a break like that! I hate to be spinning my wheels. And after spinning for years I feel the tank is about empty LOL!

[CitizenX]

Wasn't the black eye that Annie received from a fight with Eliza Cooper the week before and I think it was fading. The mortuary photos don't show any descernable shiner..and there is no mention of one in the autopsy or inquest either. It would have been an important finding..

I think the sketch was made without ever even seeing the body

Kevin

[Mitch Rowe]

Thats right(Or left)there is a photo that dont seem to show injuries. But Im sure injuries were described. And I was only thinking about Annie receiving a blow to the chest but perhaps she got a black eye too.

But still Nov9 observation can be helpful. Polly also had injuries. Maybe I can make some sense of it if I take notes to the injuries received to face of victims.

[Doctor X]

Did Jack kill more than three?

Nope.

The rest were suicide.

Monty

Typical closed-minded Ripperologist! Clearly Mary Kelly died of natural causes!

Staph. epidermis . . . the silent killer. . . .

Right:

My problem with her getting "sliced" in the process of falling is the lack of blood spraying. To avoid it, Fishman, you have to have her so close to the ground that she is on the ground.

..I can only note that you do not mention the outcome. No big deal; if I was the one that had suggested perhaps less than a second, I might have refrained from elaborating on it too.

Hey . . . I was happy . . . I would elaborate, but they only allow me an hour on the internet. . . .

--J. "Prisoner 655321" D.

[Barksey]

Re: Tabram

"The Hewitts' comment suggests a possible solution to the problem. But there is another - that the victim's cries were stifled by strangulation before or during the knife attack. That, according to the Illustrated Police News is what happened: 'the difficulty of indentification arose out of the brutal treatment to which the deceased was manifestly subjected, she being throttled while held down and the face and head so swollen and distorted...'. Unfortunately, with the bulk of the police files now lost, it has proved impossible to corroborate that particular detail" (Sugden, page 18)

He does appear to be suggesting that she was strangled/choked to some extent.

Jen

[Barksey]

And Chapman:

" There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises each of the size of the top of a man's thumb....The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and the sides of the jaw, but the bruises on the front of the chest and the temple were of longer standing" - Bagster Phillips, (in Old Faithful Evans/Skinner page 97-8)

It looks as though the dark marks on the lower face in the illustration compare with BP's description of bruises on the chin and jaw.

Jen

[Vigilantee]

No one was there to see the killer leave, so noone was there to see if there was an interuption or not. Even a cat knocking over a bucket would make him run.

Hi

There is one more reason for me to believe Stride was not a ripper victim:

Indeed there is only a slight chance for two women being killed in the same night in the same district at nearly the same time.
But there is also a very very slight chance for the ripper being interrupted by Diemschütz exactly after cutting the victims throat without performing additional wounds! The ripper was a fast killer – his murders show us a performance leading straight to his goal. After cutting the victims throat the ripper would not wait too long to do the next step – never thought about the ripper having a tea-break, haven`t you?

I don`t think the ripper heard Diemschütz before cutting the throat – and I don`t think the ripper heard Diemschütz after cutting the throat, because I would expect any additional wounds (maybe just a small scratch or stab done by a knife) on Stride`s body.
And so the interruption had to take place exactly while cutting Stride`s throat – or the killer wasn`t the ripper and his goal was just to kill her.

Damien

[Doctor X]

Thanks Barksey, knew I had read it somewhere.

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"Fisherman and The Doc.....you arent forgetting that the inquest statement of Dr Blackwell includes, for the only time in the Canonicals, that she may have been cut "while falling"...which can explain her body position, and the lack of any signs that he even touched her after the cut."

Tell me I did not read that, Michael!
I have used most of my time on this thread trying to point to it, Michael, and now you beg me not to forget it...?

Am I beyond comprehension here, for some reason?

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:
"Kind of a lame link, there, Fisherman.
Firstly, according to a newspaper report about Killeen's findings (which you were kind enough to point out to me) Tabram appears to have received a blow to the skull, not in the face.
Secondly, we don't know how Tabram got this - she could just as well have received it from falling to the hard floor in the landing."

Lame, Glenn? Would that not depend on the extent to which it actually applied?
I recognize the fact that it could have come about as a result of a fall in Tabrams case - I have already pointed to it on the Killeen and Tabram thread - and I think that one of the main pointers to this being the case is that there are no abrasions of the skin recorded. Whacking a hammer against somebodys skull, for instance, is something that remains visible from the outside of the skull afterwards, but the effusion of blood found by Killeen seems to point to no abrasion being about - it was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the skull-bone.

That, though, does not mean that it could not have come about as a result of the killer whacking her on the head with something that would cause no abrasion. Could have been a combination too; he could have sat on top of her, lifted her head, and knocked it against the landing floor.

Thus we are dealing with an obvious possibility that the effusion was inflicted by violence against the head on behalf of the killer, and that points to the chance that he felt that whacking his victims on their heads could have been a way to render them helpless from the outset.

If we allow ourselves to theorize that he found Tabram sleeping rough on the landing, whereas he followed Nichols in Bucks Row, that would of course explain the difference in approaches - you do not easily punch somebody lying on the ground, whereas it is a method that offers itself when you are dealing with someone standing up.

No need to regard it a lame link, Glenn. And, of course, even a lame link is a link. And you don´t find too many of those lying about, do you?

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Doctor X writes:
"My problem with her getting "sliced" in the process of falling is the lack of blood spraying. To avoid it, Fishman, you have to have her so close to the ground that she is on the ground."

If, Doc, you cut somebodys carotid artery, the blood will exit that artery in gushes of blood. Such a gush of blood is powerful enough to shoot some distance up into the air. This is what you have been telling me all along, and it is something I have been going along with throughout; it is a correct description.

Now, let us, for theory´s sake take poor Liz out of the picture, and replace her with a guy with a hose. Two things are going to happen with that hose, which is interestingly enough not distributing water - but blood:

1. First, a hard gush of blood, perhaps a decilitre or two, will exit it, with power enough to let it travel up to a metre into the air.

2.After that, three or four litres of blood will run out of it, in a slow but steady stream.

In our first experiment, we will let the guy holding the hose point it away from him, in a ninety degree angle to the ground.
Wham; there´s the gush, shooting away and landing a metre away from him, producing a blood trace on the ground looking like a firework exploding.
After that, a pool of blood is formed under the exit of the hose, as the remaining litres of blood run out and end up on the ground.

In experiment number two, we let the hoseman point the hose directly to the ground. Whoops, there goes that gush again! It produces the same "exploding fireworks" image, but this time you have to bee quick to recognize it, because what happens? Exactly, the three, four following litres of blood exit the hose, and the pool the blood forms COVERS the "fireworks" on the ground.

And as if that was not enough, the hoseguy actually lies down in the pool, further diminishing whatever possibility there was from the outset to recognize that hte first blood that was shed was a powerful gush.

Doc, don´t make me explain this again, please! I cannot be any more clear on the matter than this. And I honestly feel that it is a very clear possibility, although I am NOT saying that it must have happened thus.

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

If, Doc, you cut somebodys carotid artery, the blood will exit that artery in gushes of blood. Such a gush of blood is powerful enough to shoot some distance up into the air. This is what you have been telling me all along, and it is something I have been going along with throughout; it is a correct description.

Not just the carotid, but the continuous jet of the jugular.

The problem with your experiment is the carotid and jugular are not garden hoses. The spray will not go in just a 90 degree angle from the cut--it will spray in many directions. You will get a spray pattern. Thus:

Exactly, the three, four following litres of blood exit the hose, and the pool the blood forms COVERS the "fireworks" on the ground.

only occurs if she is close enough to the ground to be basically on the ground.

Doc, don´t make me explain this again, please! I cannot be any more clear on the matter than this.

You have yet to explain successfully the absence of the spray pattern in any of your attempts.

That is rather that.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn writes:
"Kind of a lame link, there, Fisherman.
Firstly, according to a newspaper report about Killeen's findings (which you were kind enough to point out to me) Tabram appears to have received a blow to the skull, not in the face.
Secondly, we don't know how Tabram got this - she could just as well have received it from falling to the hard floor in the landing."

Lame, Glenn? Would that not depend on the extent to which it actually applied?
I recognize the fact that it could have come about as a result of a fall in Tabrams case - I have already pointed to it on the Killeen and Tabram thread - and I think that one of the main pointers to this being the case is that there are no abrasions of the skin recorded. Whacking a hammer against somebodys skull, for instance, is something that remains visible from the outside of the skull afterwards, but the effusion of blood found by Killeen seems to point to no abrasion being about - it was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the skull-bone.

That, though, does not mean that it could not have come about as a result of the killer whacking her on the head with something that would cause no abrasion. Could have been a combination too; he could have sat on top of her, lifted her head, and knocked it against the landing floor.

Thus we are dealing with an obvious possibility that the effusion was inflicted by violence against the head on behalf of the killer, and that points to the chance that he felt that whacking his victims on their heads could have been a way to render them helpless from the outset.

If we allow ourselves to theorize that he found Tabram sleeping rough on the landing, whereas he followed Nichols in Bucks Row, that would of course explain the difference in approaches - you do not easily punch somebody lying on the ground, whereas it is a method that offers itself when you are dealing with someone standing up.

No need to regard it a lame link, Glenn. And, of course, even a lame link is a link. And you don´t find too many of those lying about, do you?

The best, Glenn!
Fisherman

Fisherman,

There is no link.
A blow to the skull is not the same as receiving possible fistblows towards the face and chin area.
I just find it incredible how people are starting to come up with more and more desperate attempts to include Tabram in the series.

All the best

[Damien]

Hi Vigilantee

Thats the point. No one saw somebody fleeing. And in addition this murder doesn`t look to me like a Ripper-Murder beeing interrupted - some reasons I already mentioned...or tried to mention. There is no single clue leading to the ripper - there is only the fact, that this murder happened shortly before the Eddowes murder in a range a single man could performe both. But is this enough? I don`t think so.

So I believe it wasn`t the ripper who killed Stride. The cutting of the throat was all the murder wanted to do. There was a quarrel between the man and Stride, both were angry on one another. And so he cut her throat. He fleed. Diemschütz came. That`s all.

I can`t imagine the Ripper having a quarrel on a street and then trying to murder anyway. I think he liked women having no idea what was gonna happen to them. I think he would have left Stride and look after another possible victim.
But indeed we only have Schwartz` statement to assume a quarrel - and that`s another strange thing, I know....

Damien

[Fisherman]

Doctor X writes:
"You have yet to explain successfully the absence of the spray pattern in any of your attempts. "

No, Doc - I have yet to convince you. And that is a whole different matter. There are other doctors around, you know, one of them being a cousin of mine. He had no trouble accepting my scenario when I spoke to him last evening. He added that it was impossible to make any assertion whatsoever about Stride, since he did not know how her specific wound looked, how the specific jet of blood from her artery would behave and the circumstances surrounding this special case. But generally, he recognized the possibility that my scenario could well apply in a case like this.

Another doctor who would have been of the exact same opinion was of course Blackwell.
A third, who would not agree, is of course you - but so it goes. Each one to his own.

The best, Doc!
Fisherman