Did Jack kill more than three?

[Sam Flynn]

I think . . . "surmise" . . . "opine" . . . that he strangled Tabram--if you accept her as a victim--then decided to cut her throat because it took too long.

Correction, JD - Tabram wasn't partially strangled (as far as we know), and her throat was not cut. Good post otherwise - it's by no means clear to me that the "canonical" Ripper victims had been strangled. Perhaps Chapman, although even there I don't think we can be 100% certain.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Sam,

Possibly Eddowes as well, although it can only be a wild guess based on the fact that her fingers were clenched (as far as I recall) - this is generally one of many signs of suffocation/strangulation.

However, we will never know and of course there is no mention of her tongue protruding or her face being swollen.
Then again, suffocation can leave signs in a very different way and of course there are also ways to partially suffocate someone without leaving much physical signs at all - enough only for the person to pass out. So the issue about the Ripper victims being suffocated is a difficult one.
The most common sign that is being recognized today as a clear sign of suffocation (when others fail to appear) is hemmorhage in the eyes (as Dr X correctly points out) - unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been something the doctors in those days paid any attention to (or knew about) since there is no mentioning about it in connection with any of the victims. If there was, we would be more certain.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And I'm the one who's stubbornly made up his mind????

Not about the victims, only about your theory.

You even had the gall to insult Dan Norder on another thread. I'm amazed you're still breathing after that.

Yes, that certainly beats me too. You need more lives than a cat to do that. Which thread was that?

All the best

[perrymason]

I think it was Observer who said a few pages back something about what the killer "attempted"....and I thought Commitment might be a good notion to toss in here.

When killing outdoors, he must be aware of the dangers of discovery or capture, and his activities, regardless how vast his dreams may be, must be scaled down to only short term objectives...if he doesnt want to get caught. But he commits to some actions, ones he feels he can accomplish within the brief window of time allotted.

Mary Ann Nichols killer went immediately to abdominal mutilation after the throat cut.

Annie Chapmans killer went immediately to abdominal mutilations, and took abdominal organs, after the throat cut

Liz Strides killer cut her throat only.

Catherine Eddowes killer went immediately to abdominal mutilations...and for the second time, takes abdominal organs, the uterus being common to Kate and the prior organ donor...perhaps after the facial wounds, but after the throat cut..

Mary Janes killer....what first...slashed at her? cut her throat, and then what...stripped one thigh, and part of another? Then he emptied her abdomen and left all the contents? Placed organs about her? or did he slash the face till it was unrecognizable next?

I think there is commitment in all of those murders, including Liz Strides...because her killer committed to just killing her, and Mary Janes, because her killer committed to destroying her..some might argue due to the outdoor venues and time...but theres no evidence that outdoors wasnt just fine by Jack.

Best regards.

[Mitch Rowe]

Correction, JD - Tabram wasn't partially strangled (as far as we know), and her throat was not cut. Good post otherwise - it's by no means clear to me that the "canonical" Ripper victims had been strangled. Perhaps Chapman, although even there I don't think we can be 100% certain.

Philips did surmise that it was possible that JTR used a cord to strangle and then cut the neck along the cordline. But you are right in that we really cant be sure any victims were strangled. But a cord around poor Annies neck as she was going down the backyard stairs while JTR was behind and above her would explain the lack of screaming and struggle on Annies part.

I always thought that if JTR did strangle till victim passed out and then cut the throat that it was possible he was bleeding victim so that less blood would be in body and so less messy for JTR.

Looking at the photo of Tabram though. It does look a little like she was strangled.

[Sam Flynn]

Philips did surmise that it was possible that JTR used a cord to strangle and then cut the neck along the cordline.

Not in respect of Annie Chapman, Mitch. And, even here, Phillips only mentions "suffocation" - not even "strangulation".

[Mitch Rowe]

Not in respect of Annie Chapman, Mitch. And, even here, Phillips only mentions "suffocation" - not even "strangulation".

Well...I have a job to do. I need to find Rose Myletts inquest transcripts.
But for now this is what it says in her victim desription:

Dr. George Bagster Phillips agreed with Baxter, making note that there were signs of strangulation on Annie Chapman's body. According to Phillips, the murderer 'had studied the theory of strangulation, for he evidently knew where to place the cord so as to immediately bring his victim under control.'

EDIT>>> Also if a cord was used this would explain the queer statements made by Phillips decribing Annies and Bond describing MJKs neck wounds.
They described the cuts going fully round the neck. Did the Ripper use a cord and attempt to obliderate the evidence by cutting round the neck? I think that its possible.

[Doctor X]

Correction, JD - Tabram wasn't partially strangled (as far as we know), and her throat was not cut.

*Starts stamping feet . . . throws toys from pram*

What I get for pontificating without my sources in front of me. I THOUGHT she had the "puffy face" and all of that . . . but you just discovered how good my memory is.

Good post otherwise

"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

- it's by no means clear to me that the "canonical" Ripper victims had been strangled. Perhaps Chapman, although even there I don't think we can be 100% certain.

Well . . . I am going to wait until I am able to crack my books before screwing that up again.

Philips did surmise that it was possible that JTR used a cord to strangle and then cut the neck along the cordline.

See? SEE?!!

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Yes, that certainly beats me too. You need more lives than a cat to do that. Which thread was that?

I guess that was directed to moi? I do not respond to fools, particularly those who toss out foolish claims on topics for which they have no knowledge, and who then throw tantrums about it. Given the response this individual has generated from his claims, it appear I am not in a minority.

Regarding this Dan, however, he jumped into a confession of faith from a troll who had previously cited a non-psychologist/psychiatrist support an erroneous claim by making patently erroneous claims himself.

He did not take correction at all well, and he tried to play the "im t3h expurt" card.

Whatever. Wrong is wrong; it is not personal. If he or anyone else wishes to make it personal, that remains their error; I do not waste my time with such.

I deal with those who believe not only Bigfoot exists but he is a "transdimensional being;" those who believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, who think the dead wander about and visit people, et cetera With all due respect, this Dan is tame.

And on that subject, "I have nothing more to say."

--J.D.

[Vigilantee]

Apologies if I repeat anyone, not enough time to read all these posts since I've been busy elsewhere, but on Stride:

>But for example, Liz could have been cut while falling, not lying down, and >we have a witness that says he and at least one other man, Pipeman, saw >BS assault Liz between 1 and 11 minutes before her throat gets cut,.. >Blackwells Time of Cut estimate,...and feet from the location.


I think thats possible, but there are a few problems, BS was assaulted in the street in front of the yard and screams. This is onviously not where her throat is cut as theres no blood in this area several yards from where her body is found. Its very unlikley that LS would have gone into the yard with someone who'd just assaulted her. How many prostitutes do you know who would do that? Theres always the possibility that she knew him then I guess some kind of understanding could have mitigated the assault, but I find that hard to believe.

In addition to this we have the witness testimony of Mrs M who claims she was there watching the scene nearly all the time between 12:30 and 1:00.
Of course we know thats an exaggeration because she failed to see the assault incident. However she did see the couple on the corner who its generally recognised was there between 12:30 and 12:40 and she did see the man with the black bag, who appears to have passed by sometime between 12:50 and 1:00, she also claims to have heard the calls for police 'just after' going inside, so must have been there till nearly the time the body is discovered. Her absence would thus have been between 12:40 and 12:50, and I doubt if it was the full 10 minutes as this would have hardly counted as being there nearly all the time, so I'd guess she was absent from say 12:43 till 12:49 at the most. This doesnt give the murderer much time to attack and escape. It makes BS a serious suspect, but if as I think he too rapidly left the scene at 1:45 theres still a good four minutes for jack or whoever to do the work he did. And an interuption at 12:48 would take him off the scene before Mrs M returns. I believe she says she hears footsteps at around this time as well? Perhaps this is the same noise that disturbs the killer, possibly people leaving the club to head to the allied Imperial Club by Mitre Square (where there was an overlapping membership), obviously the killer could have travelled with them.

So with possibility of disturbance theres no reason why LS could not have been a Ripper victim in the early stages of the attack process. And of course theres equally no reason why it couldnt have been someone she knew in an unrelated assault, but given the circumstance I doubt if it were her initially assaulter if he was a stranger. No prostitute in their right mind would enter a secluded spot with a stranger who'd just knocked them to the ground.

[JSchmidt]

I seem to remember from Sugden, that at least some throttling seemed to have been involved in the murder of Martha Tabram, but not necessarily strangulation (which I define in THIS case as cutting the oxygen supply to the brain of the victim until she was dead).
What I'm getting at is that I understood it as a control technique, not his killing technique. But that may be a memory glitch on my part, maybe I interpolated JtR and another true crime story.

[Doctor X]

In between things, I looked through Sugden and could not find a specific reference to evidence that she may have been strangled.

Thought it was there . . . will keep looking.

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Doc!

When I wrote that I was far from certain that Jack/the killer would not have known, I did not mean that he would not have known that opening the jugular is likely lethal. I was speaking about to what extent he would have known that he had cut deep enough.
In the darkness, perhaps with her body lying with the back towards him, reaching over and in - I say that he could not have known for sure what damage he actually inflicted. Ergo, he would not have known that he had made sure her death - leastwise not an immediate such. Which is why I think that he left the yard, not knowing if he was leaving a potential witness against him.

Next:

"Try standing over a victim and, with your right hand, cut from the left of the throat as described. It is much easier to do it with the victim on the side and obtain the results. Try doing it kneeling astride the victim . . . still easier than with the victim prone.

I will give you some time to test this . . .

. . . try not to do it on anyone we know. . . . "

But for the fact that I can give no promises on that last point whatsoever ...

...this is of course a core issue of the Stride murder.
To begin with, I think it applies more to make a guess that the cut would have been delivered from a carefully chosen position if we accept that Jack was the killer. If it was a domestic, with a first-time killer, we must allow for less consideration on part of the cutter.

We know that the cut was a clean one, and that it was carried around the neck to a significant extent. That means that it was not made by someone lashing out with the knife - the circular movement seems to have been there. And that circular movement is of course easier to achieve if the victim is still troughout the cut.
Could it have been achieved without a circular movement of the killers hand? I think it could. But if the hand did not travel around the neck, then the neck must have been accomodating by rotating as the blade was attached.
If she was grabbed from behind by the scarf and pulled of balance, and if she fell backwards towards her attacker, then he would have to steer the body to either side, if he wanted to avoid her falling onto him.
If he was right-handed, carrying the knife in right hand, then the left hand would have been the one that gripped the scarf.
So he pulls, she falls backwards, he uses his left hand to direct her fall so that her body passes him on his left side. That would bring her body into a rotation to her left too, meaning that she would not end up on her back, but instead on her left side when she reaches the ground.
As she falls, he lets his right hand and the knife reach in for her throat. She keeps falling, he cuts and retracts the arm. She is quite close to the ground as the blade sinks in, her own weight helps to ensure depth of cut, and her rotation renders the cut reaching round her neck. As the knife exits her neck, she is falling the last stretch to the ground, with her left side of the neck closest to it, meaning that any blood that exits the jugular vein before she reaches Mother Earth will be directed to the ground, thus leaving no trraces of bloodspurts as the blood keeps pumping out over the exact same spot after she has fallen...

Something along these lines. I feel that I can´t rule that out on the existing evidence. It would explain why no crying out was heard and it would explain why she was found on her left side. There were no suffocation signs on Stride, and if she was thrown to the ground first, and only thereafter cut, the chances that she would have cried out were there.

Do I favour it over a scenario where she was cut lying on her side? No, I don´t. That scenario makes more sense when it comes to analyzing the character of the cut, I think. But if she was cut in that poisition, it would have been hard for him to silence her efficiently at the same time!

On the Tabram topic - was she suffocated? - like Sam says, there is no evidence for it. But to me her face does look swollen on the picture, and it seems the tongue is protruding slightly between her teeth. The possibility is there, far as I can see.

The best,
Fisherman

[JSchmidt]

Wouldn't want to start any false rumors there pals, could be just me misremembering something.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I guess that was directed to moi? I do not respond to fools, particularly those who toss out foolish claims on topics for which they have no knowledge, and who then throw tantrums about it.

Well, if you're inferring to my mentioning of the C5 being considered a fact by many people, it is hardly any secret that this is the case. Not only on these Boards but also by some authors on the subject. The fact that they're also referred to as 'canonical' (generally accepted) shoud give you a clue.
This tendency has been prominent during several discussions here on casebook since I started here, and when you get statements like:
"At least 8 victims (6 killed), and cyclical, no doubt about it [...]
Stride has to be included. If you look at the time frame concerned it was a very quick and expert killing (rapidly executed and escaped without a trace).
It would be crazy to think Stride was not a victim."
(Vigilantee)
... then this further illustrates the point. Vigilantee is hardly in aminority or especially unique, though.

I deal with those who believe not only Bigfoot exists but he is a "transdimensional being;" those who believe the Earth is only 10,000 years old, who think the dead wander about and visit people, et cetera

Needless to say, it would help if you stopped littering your posts with irrelevant philosophical nonsense (which hardly makes them easier to understand) not to mention stopped bombing some threads with irrelevant images - stuff like that is only weighing down the website's server, especially since Casebook just recently had a major server breakdown meaning alot of people here had to go in and rescue what could be saved from the old Boards.
Then it's hardly considerate towards Stephen to continue to litter the pages with irrelevant images.
We had a poster called Pilgrim who continued to do this in spite of being told off about it - he also expressed himself rather confusing at times and his posts could evaporate into strange quasi-philosophical allegories.
I am beginning to think that he and you actually are one and the same person.
It's a shame, because I actually think you started out this thread with some rather interesting posts.

All the best