Did Jack kill more than three?

[Mitch Rowe]

there is only the fact, that this murder happened shortly before the Eddowes murder in a range a single man could perform both. But is this enough?

YES!!!

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"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."

Maybe, Glenn; MAYBE there is no link. Thing is, neither you nor I know that for certain.
Knocking somebody on the head does not equal punching someone with your fist - unless the similarity you are looking for is applying physical violence to the head. If that is what we are looking for, we have two of a kind here.

I would like to add that this observation does not involve any element of desperation, Glenn. You would have noticed that listings on the evidenced violence inflicted on the victims is one of the most used tools on the boards when people try to establish which victims were related. You yourself have at occasions written that the evidence we are left with seems to point to the fact that only three victims - Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - can be reasonably argued to belong to the Rippers tally. This stance of yours, you support by saying that all three suffered deep cuts to their throats, and all three had their abdomens ripped open.

Thus, physical evidence is what you use to bolster your thoughts. I do the exact same thing, by pointing to the possibility that Tabram and Nichols seem to have been subject to physical violence to the head. Now, if that violence was inflicted by fistblows, headbanging, sledgehammers or dropping of bricks from considerable heigths is of secondary importance. The trait is there, and as such it ought not be overlooked.

If Tabram was the victim of somebody else than Jack, itīs fine with me. Honest! If Stride was Jacks victim, it is equally fine with me. I am no more stupid than I realize that their respective killers did not come about retroactively as a result of my convictions. Thus no desperation - just a weighing of the material, and an honest effort to try and make as good sense of it as I can.

The best, Glenn, as always!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mitch writes:

"YES!!"

...whereas I will lower the tone somewhat, and just write:

No.

Fisherman

[Doctor X]

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.

Irrelevant unless he is a forensic pathologist.

Account for the lack of spray pattern.

The understanding of blood spray patterns has advanced a bit since Blackwell.

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Doctor X writes:

"Irrelevant unless he is a forensic pathologist."

Are you, Doc?

The best,
Fisherman

[Doctor X]

"Irrelevant unless he is a forensic pathologist."

Are you, Doc?

"That would be telling."

However irrelevant because what is needed is a statement--evidence--from a forensic pathologist who has studied blood splatter evidence and/or the literature that states such a sequence you describe would not create the expected spatter/spray detectable by police in 1888. A slight spray on a wall detectable by luminal, obviously, would not count.

It is really that simple. Claiming you know a doctor who can have zero understanding of forensic pathology is as reliable as me claiming I am the LA County Coroner. If I am, I still need evidence.

I have provided it both directly and through correction of claims which may seem reasonable, but simply do not fit the physiology. You have been free to demonstrate how they are wrong--such as the time it takes to lose consciousness without a critical perfusion pressure.

And that is that.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

Doctor X writes:

"And that is that."

Well, Doc, frankly it isnīt. For I distinctly believe that one of the things I quoted from my doctor cousin has a tremendeous bearing here:

The individual traits of the deed will decide itīs final outcome.

The vessel in her neck was not completely cut through, and that could have importance.

The position of the neck as she fell would have played a role; that would have an impact on the degree to which the wound was totally open or not.

Etcetera, etcetera.

...which means that I feel pretty certain that you would find it hard to get hold of a forensic pathologist who would swallow your assertions whole. And just as you tell me that I have not come up with a credible explanation to how she could have been cut falling without rendering any blood evidence of it DISCERNIBLE TO THE POLICE OF THE DAY, I think that you can be called upon to show why you would be right - without any doubts at all.

Could prove hard, though...

The best, Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Doctor X

"That would be telling."

However irrelevant because what is needed is a statement--evidence--from a forensic pathologist who has studied blood splatter evidence and/or the literature that states such a sequence you describe would not create the expected spatter/spray detectable by police in 1888. A slight spray on a wall detectable by luminal, obviously, would not count.

J.D.

It pains me to criticise experts, but another example regarding the competance of the doctors who attended the Ripper crime scenes revolves around the way in which the medical men of the time seem to provide the killer with the ability to direct the spray of blood away from his person.

As you say did the medical expert witnesses posses the expertise to qualify their statements? Had they studied blood dispersal? I think not, I'm sure the killer was more saturated with the blood of his victims than has been let on by the expert witnesses of the day.

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. Did the killer know this? Or was strangulation part of the thrill?

As far as I can see there were no clear signs of asphyxiation observed on the other victims, so with regard to the title of the present thread do we omit Chapman from the series?

Observer

[CitizenX]

It pains me to criticise experts, but another example regarding the competance of the doctors who attended the Ripper crime scenes revolves around the way in which the medical men of the time seem to provide the killer with the ability to direct the spray of blood away from his person.

Observer

A person working in a slaughterhouse would have just such ability I would think.

Myself however wouldn't have a clue, all my knowledge of blood spray patterns come from Manga movies...

[Observer]

Hi Citizen X

All my knowledge of blood spray patterns came from the time when I accidently wandered into the home end at Milwall FC, and cheered when my team scored. A very enlightening experience indeed.

Yes a person working in a slaughterhouse would have the knowledge of blood spray patterns, but would your average police surgeon?

PS

Would the killer have been significantly spattered with blood? Enough for someone the next day to notice as much?

Observer

[Mitch Rowe]

**WARNING!! Disturbing Video Link!!**

I dont know how relevant this video is. But its a video of a kosher slaughter.
Notice that Sochet gets no blood on white apron or hands. In the second slaughter notice how cattle moves voilently after Sochet cuts the neck.

Could JTR have associated with Sochets? Maybe an underling or something?
Would partial strangulation or suffocation quell any violent thrashing of victims body? If so would JTR have known this by experience?

Here is the link...Again..Warning!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2smFj6iJt54

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

As far as I can see there were no clear signs of asphyxiation observed on the other victims, so with regard to the title of the present thread do we omit Chapman from the series?

As has been said before, it is quite likely that Eddowes may have been suffoctaed to some extent before the throat cut since she actually displays one well known sign of this: namely clenched fingers with her hands in a claw-like fashion. Asphyxiation can display itself in many various ways and this is one of them. However, as always, we will of course never know for sure.

All the best

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that snippet of Kosher slaughter, Mitch. I do hope that the good Doctor X took a close look too, since at least I could not discern any jet of blood shooting into the air. Though the animal was cut with the throat up, the blood all went down into a pool beneath it.
Now, where have I seen that before...?

The best, Mitch!
Fisherman

[perrymason]

I suppose this are of study will always fall into a discussion of specific wounds, their manner of creation, and the similarities of one victims wounds to another. But this thread doesn't ask that.....just do we see evidence that more than 3 of the Canonicals belong on "The Rippers" hit list. How about discernible objectives? A simple desire to cut and see blood and guts makes interesting fictional reading, but little sense for all 5, when we have ample evidence that at least 2 women were killed for their abdominal organs.

The third in this question would have to be Polly...she is the only one that closely matches the organ donors initial wounds, and the only victim that doesnt have medical evidence contradicting an interruption. Liz of course does....and with at least 4 minutes, and available privacy, yet not one attempt evident to even so much as touch her after the throat cut,.... its illogical to see this as a "Ripper" kill.

Without even delving too deeply into any wounds, the last victim is found indoors undressed in bed, she was likely approached differently, killed differently, and her body was treated differently postmortem, and her abdominal organs are left to decorate the tableau. Certainly not a man who desired abdominal organs to take with him.

As is evident in 2 cases, and probably in a 3rd. I have no idea if this was done by your Jack the Ripper fellow, or just likely 3 by one man. Maybe your Ripper guy is Mister Aimless in Room 13....he seems to be the one interested in just cutting, and blood and guts.

But is clear that one man likely killed 2 women for abdominal organs, possibly a 3rd, who was the first "canonical".

Sorry, I cant keep saying "Jack the Ripper" like this was an actual man, its a sign off on a hoax letter.

Best regards all.