Did Jack kill more than three?

[Doctor X]

I do not know . . . if he is not interested in killing a man?

Jack could have also heard him coming.

Who knows?

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[CitizenX]

Killing a man for sexual gratification? .... no absolutley not.

Killing a man to evade capture? ..... almost certainly.

Kevin

[Doctor X]

Killing a man to evade capture? ..... almost certainly.

I do not think you can justify such certitude. Aside from the major difference in staging--from getting a prostitute secluded and off-guard to waiting for a guy to approach hoping he does not notice you first, give alarm, have to take him down, et cetera--you have the problem of drive.

What drove Jack is up for speculation, of course, but if he is only interested in killing women, he lacks that drive for killing a man. To unpack if further, he may choose women simply because he feels he can dominate a woman and not a man. Speculation, yes, but it calls such certitude into question.

Here is another explanation: perhaps he created a body to give him time to kill and mutilate another. Perhaps he wanted to distract attention. All the way to something about Stride turned him off. Speculation, yes, but it all calls such certitude into question.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Observer]

Hi Natalie

Hi Observer,
I suggest you read the medical reports of the Police Surgeons, most of them made available by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner in "The Ultimate JtR Source Book".
On Page 228/229/239 there is Dr Brown"s report in detail,on Catherine Eddowes.
The doctor"s reports leave no doubt that the medics were very well trained,and yes, absence of blood spurt has been mentioned in almost all ,as being an indication that throat cut and mutilation followed death via compression of the carotid artery>strangulation and /or tourniquets being made of the women"s scarves which had the same effect,viz strangulation to stop blood spurt.
All victims are believed to have been lying down when their throats were cut.Liz had two big bruises either side of the upper chest which fitted with that thinking.
Natalie

I have read the inquest statements of the various police surgeons involved in the Ripper series, and I agree that the Doctors were very well trained. However I beg to differ regarding whether the doctors in question testified to the effect that strangulation was the main cause of death. It is somewhat confusing, but in Nichols case the only mention of any injuries that might hint at strangulation came from Dr Llewellyn stating

"Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue.

On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw.

It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb.

On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."

Strangulation? Nichols does not appear to show the classic signs of strangulation in her mortuary photo, also Dr Llewelynn does not mention any discolouration of the face.

Chapman does show the classic signs of strangulation however, and I'd go with you in this instance regarding limited blood spurt.

Eddowes does not show the classic signs of strangulation, and Dr Brown when asked by the Coroner

"Can you tell us what was the cause of death?"

answered

"The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat"

No mention of strangulation. Further Dr Sequeira, when asked by the coroner if he could account for the absence of noise during the attack on Eddowes replied.

"The death must have been instantaneous after the severance of the windpipe and the blood-vessels."

So it seems as if Sequeira favoured immediate cutting of the throat following the inital attack.

And now Stride. Dr Brown stated

"for the commencement of the wound and the injury to the vessels would be away from him, and the stream of blood - for stream it was - would be directed away from him, and towards the gutter in the yard"

Stream of blood. Blood spurt? So it seems as if Strides heart was still beating before the throat slitting. Strangulation dosn't seemed to have worked here.

It's hard to determine whether Kelly was strangled. If It was her cry of "oh Murder," then It dosn't seem as if the killer had his hands around her neck at this point. There does seem to be some blood spurt however, and I'd hazard a guess and say that the cause of death regarding Kelly was that she struggled with her killer who held her down and slit her throat.

In hindsight it could well be that we are both right. The killer did initially grasp the victims throat, but only rended the victim insensible, then he cut their throats. Of course if this be the case then blood spurt would be inevitable, and as I said in an earlier post were they qualified enough in blood spray patterns to say that the killer would not necessarily be covered in blood.


All the best

Observer

[CitizenX]

Here is another explanation: perhaps he created a body to give him time to kill and mutilate another. Perhaps he wanted to distract attention. All the way to something about Stride turned him off. Speculation, yes, but it all calls such certitude into question.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

I think to propose a diversionary tactic is really giving Jack more credit for planning than he deserves.

As for being turned off Stride....now that I can believe more than the being disturbed in the act theory.

All along, in this thread, people have been trying to find a link between each victim, maybe discussing what differs between them may be a better option.

So if we were to continue along this line what is so diiferent about Stride that would turn him off?

Kevin

[Doctor X]

Stream of blood. So it seems as if Strides heart was still beating before the throat slitting. Strangulation dosn't seemed to have worked here.

*Butts in . . . knocks over vase*

I had wondered if perhaps Jack tried strangulation then moved to slitting the throats . . . then realized he could just kill them by slitting their throats.

Strangulation to the point the heart stops--dead!--would not require anything else to assist the victim across the River of Styx. So why, then, cut the throat?

Of course one can speculate wildly.

Yours quizzically,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

I think to propose a diversionary tactic is really giving Jack more credit for planning than he deserves.

Understood, but why? Again, it requires speculation. For example: if you think he wrote the graffito--and he wrote it to divert attention--you have just bolstered the case that Stride is a distraction.

Again this all depends on speculation--my suggestion of him being turned off by Stride was pure speculation. I can argue that Jack--to show his dominance--did two just to drive the police nuts. Of course, it would have been more effective if he mutilated both! Those criticize the assumption that all must be connected do have a point that proponents can argue in circle: assume a connection and you are likely to find one.

As for being turned off Stride....now that I can believe more than the being disturbed in the act theory.

Interesting . . . it just came to me between the glasses of cabernet . . . "in wine is truth." Frankly, given the pictures of accepted victims and the state of prostitutes, even I cannot image a reason for him to be "turned off" by Stride!

So if we were to continue along this line what is so diiferent about Stride that would turn him off?

I would have to think about that a bit. Good question.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[perrymason]

Certainly on face value alone, Mary Jane's killer wanted little more that to just cut. She by far has the greatest number of injuries inflicted upon her that would serve only a "mutilations fetish", as they were not wounds to allow a killer access to anything specific,... the only cuts that were, were the cuts that allowed the removal of the heart.

I dont think Ive ever heard anyone suggest, thankfully, that the actions taken in Marys room were consistent with prior Ripper attributed kills, ....it is assumed that he went beyond his normal activities, finding himself indoors and able to cut as much as he wanted. Thats one answer.

Another is that the man who kills Mary isnt the man who killed some of the others.

If the victims are looked at strictly for the results achieved by their killers,...it appears that 2 were killed so organs could be taken, 1 seems to conclude before organs were extracted, but meets the preliminary abdominal organ accessing criteria,..one seems to just have been murdered, and one was effectively taken apart, leaving all abdominal organs extracted but left by the corpse.

The reasons for associating the two anomalies with the 3 that are quite consistent in many ways, is that he was interrupted when about to continue with one.....a supposition that is discredited by the lack of any evidence he was in fact disturbed, and medical evidence and opinion that he had ample time alone to at least begin abdominal cutting had he wanted to.....and the other is associated because its assumed his real desires were for just cutting and more cutting, and the outdoor venues prevented that.

The desires of the man that killed Annie, and Kate are self evident in his actions...maybe he liked killing, and maybe he liked cutting, but he wanted abdominal organs more.

Pollys may have wanted them....Liz's killer shows no signs that he was interested in any more cutting than that single killing cut, meaning that she is the only victim that appears the objective was simply murder.....and Mary Janes killer had no interest in the obtaining of abdominal organs...even when already extracted.

Best regards.

[Observer]

Hi Fisherman,and Glenn

Observer writes:

"Of course Chapman could be an exception as she displayed sign's of asphyxiation. If her heart had stopped beating before her throat was cut then there was less likelyhood of spurting."

Actually, Observer, Chapman is a case where we do have very obvious signs of blood spurting - it reached, I believe, around 14 inches up into the air, and ended up on the fence she was lying by.

The best, Observer!
Fisherman

Then as I said in another thread, are the Doctors right when they say that the killer need not necessarily be covered in blood, are they qualified to to say as much?

Even if he took precautions to avoid the spray would he remain stain free. I think not.

Who's to say a rogue spurt didn't hit him between the eyes? We're talking a lot of blood here, surely he was soiled to some extent?

As Glenn said apart from Chapman, who definately shows signs of strangulation, Eddowes also displays signs of stangulation, but it's obvious that this is not the cause of death, as blood spurting is observed. It is important to know whether the killer was covered in blood. It could point to him being a single man living alone, it would almost certainly disqualify him from living in a doss house.

Observer

[Doctor X]

One criticism with that, Michael, is the assumption that one of the ends was the reason for the killings--taking of organs. You could read it as he killed before. He mutilates the belly and genital region and decides on a trophy. His major "thing" is mutilation. With Eddowes, he goes further--mutilating her face . . . among other things. Why?

Well, that calls for speculation from an extension of his "thing" in which he needs more and more to achieve the "high" he gets to he just wanted to make things difficult for the police to explain.

Having taken the trophies . . . he may not need to keep body parts. Mary Kelly becomes an opportunist exercise to mutilate. Though he does take her heart, a far harder organ to extract than a kidney or a uterus.

That is, of course, one way to "read" it.

Having typed that, the heart is more difficult to extract because of the rib cage. One of the reasons I do not think Jack was a surgeon or a person with such training is that he carried the wrong tools. For all we know, the reason he did not take Eddowes' heart is the difficulty--would have taken too much time with the tools he brought.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

The desires of the man that killed Annie, and Kate are self evident in his actions...maybe he liked killing, and maybe he liked cutting, but he wanted abdominal organs more.

In those cases, he could only feasibly get at their abdominal organs in the short time he had at his disposal, and lingering any further in the exposed "operating theatre" of the open street was not only impractical, but risky in the extreme. It could easily have been a case of making do with what he could get away with, rather than with what he "wanted" the most.

[Doctor X]

It is important to know whether the killer was covered in blood. It could point to him being a single man living alone, it would almost certainly disqualify him from living in a doss house.

In the back-and-forth between Fisherman and I, my objection to Stride being "sliced" in a position other than left lateral decubitus [Laying on her left side.--Ed.] is the lack of spray in the area, not on Jack.

If he is opposite the vessel--standing to her right, or cutting her left vessels while she is laying on her left side--he can indeed avoid getting covered in blood. In fact, that video of the kosher slaughter shows that--the butcher stands opposite the side of the neck he slices.

So I am not certain that Jack had to be "covered in blood" with his killings.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Observer]

Hi JD

Then it looks as if the killer was aware of the extent of arterial spurting. I'd still say he would have been soiled to some extent.

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

If the victims were strangled first, there wouldn't have been any arterial spray, but even if there was, it would have been a simple case of tilting the body and neck region away from himself before cutting. Even if he got the odd spot on his sleeves, for example, he wouldn't have been solied to an extent that would preclude him from passing unnoticed either on the streets or in a doss house.

Best regards,
Ben

[Doctor X]

Observer:

I do not know how he then avoids getting some "stuff" on him when he is mutilating the abdomens. Even if he avoids the "hose." I remind people that the jugular can give a continuous "jet" as well--just not as far as arterial bleeding unless the person is suffering from a venous hypertension.

Also, as one of the descriptions notes--Eddowes? Too tired to look up--in his "expert" dissection he violated bowel. Good luck that not getting on him.

So . . . as you note, it seems unlikely he goes from there to a "doss house." Frankly, I never bought that idea. Jack has to have some place secure to bring his trophies . . . even if he quickly disposed of them, ate them, or even sold them. Doss houses are, as described by Rumbelo, not exactly "private."

Yours fatiguedly,

--J.D.