Did Jack kill more than three?

[Mitch Rowe]

Rough Handling

If this sketch can be believed. It looks as if poor Annie received some rough handling from her killer.
--I personally think the sketch is accurate.--

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi all!

One thing that becomes interesting if we are to accept that Nichols had a punch or two landed fistwise on her face, is that it seems to go along with a more crude technique, which is afterwards gradually brought into something more smooth, if you will allow the expression.

And give this some consideration: If he felt from the outset that a couple ow blows to the head would do the trick, then what about the comparison Tabram/Nichols? They may both have received blows to their heads as a prelude to the killing.

The best,
Fisherman

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.

All the best

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.

Since her scarf played some role in his attack, he probably pulled back so she loses her footing, twisted the scarf so she faced the wall, and as he dropped her, ran the knife across her throat.

Best regards.

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

One thing that becomes interesting if we are to accept that Nichols had a punch or two landed fistwise on her face, is that it seems to go along with a more crude technique, which is afterwards gradually brought into something more smooth, if you will allow the expression.

And give this some consideration: If he felt from the outset that a couple ow blows to the head would do the trick, then what about the comparison Tabram/Nichols? They may both have received blows to their heads as a prelude to the killing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Doctor X writes:

"Having pontificated all of that there is one interesting point you may wish to consider: a take-down to the ground should result in some physical evidence of impact. Now, that may be prevented by clothes and the fact that it is difficult to bruise extensively when you are dead!"

Yes, Doc, it is food for thought. For if she was thrown to the ground by the assailant in the yard, it was in fact the second time around that she suffered such treatment. B S man reportedly threw her down too - resulting in no apparent bruising.
Of course, there are major differences inbetweeen people when it comes to how easily they bruise. Still, it is slightly strange.
Anyhow, my guess is that she was not dead as she fell to the ground in the yard. Perhaps already cut, but not dead.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And on we go, Doc...

"Unless you have her parallel to the ground very near the ground"

Heureka, Doc! What matters the harshness of the journey, once you reach your goal?

"It looks like neither of us "buy" her standing."

Heurek... Wait a minut; haven´t I said this already...???

No, I don´t buy her standing for a minute, Doc. Never have, never will.

As for:

"Have"

...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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Did Jack kill more than three?

Nope.

The rest were suicide.

Monty

I feel a new book coming on.

All the best

Did Jack kill more than three?

Nope.

The rest were suicide.

Monty

ok Monty..I can see thats the case with Mary Jane and Martha.... ...actually we do have a non-canonical who stabs her own throat, dont we? And a young man in Poplar slits his own throat in his fathers store, while his father tried wrestling the knife from him, on the day Mary Jane is buried. Life is strange Monty.

But, if the contention is that Jack the Ripper was an unskilled knifesman without anatomical knowledge, then how does anyone here expect to group "inexperienced" kills under one mans name? Surely there were other unskilled or unknowledgable men out there, maybe killing also..., what makes anyone think that using lack of skill/knowledge as the base criteria is going to help you recognize just a single particular unskilled mans work?

Enough so to form a Canon?

Either someone back then thought privately at least that there indeed was some skill and knowledge present, which would help separate the wheat from the chaff enough to say that only these 5 bear the specific patterns.....or, they really had no idea how many or whom specifically Jack the Ripper killed....and yet had to have some answer.

That pressure or question they must answer is not our problem, but it was theirs.

They answered to their superiors, and the elected or appointed officials answered to the populous..the folks whose votes they need. And the East End was becoming clearly a flashpoint for rebellion. Announcements like...."We have no idea who did this murder either, and we have no clues. You cannot be protected by us." might not have fared well.


Best regards.

[Monty]

Did Jack kill more than three?

Nope.

The rest were suicide.

Monty

I think its entirely possible some women were punched at the start of the attack, Kates face, although ravaged in other ways, does have what appears to be bruising that may or may not a result of the cutting.

It would seem that the only way many people seek to get some sense of an accurate victims list is to compare wounds. Needless to say, knife wounds created by a man in his physical prime and with a knife at all similar that the one(s) used on Canonicals, would likely produce some similar results...after all, the people who believe he killed 5 also probably subscribe to another questionable conclusion, that he had no anatomical knowledge, or skill at "field type" surgery. If he was so unskilled, who's to say that anyone of a hundred, or a thousand men couldnt have committed murders of Canon assigned women? Since there are deaths within that 5 that do show skill, both with knife and some knowledge, maybe its best we separate those.

Study the non-canonicals, like Alice McKenzie, who started up the Ripper scare all over again the following Spring/Summer. She has wounds, that at the very least, are similar in almost every aspect to a Ripper slice and dash.

Wounds alone cannot help determine if they are Rippered or not, using all of the data may though.

Best regards.

[Doctor X]

Fisherman:

Having pontificated all of that there is one interesting point you may wish to consider: a take-down to the ground should result in some physical evidence of impact. Now, that may be prevented by clothes and the fact that it is difficult to bruise extensively when you are dead!

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Do you readily recall if there was any indication whether or not the bruises were "fresh?"

Do we not wish there were photographs!

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

An interesting point concerning Nichols, is that the bruises she received in the face apparently were of such degree that Dr Llewellyn actually considered that they could be a result of one or several fistblows.
Not that it matters a great deal, but it's an interesting observation as it illustrates the level of roughness in the Ripper's 'blitz-style' modus operandi.

All the best

[Doctor X]

First off, ["Snip!"--Ed.] A minute and a half, two minutes have been among the suggestions.
As she bled to death, I would say "seconds" is a bit on the meagre side, to say the least.

As you note "seconds" for loss of consciousness and that is an irreversible condition without reestablishment of cerebral perfusion pressure--you are not "out" and, like, someone can rouse you--and there was no way anyone could do that in 1888.

But adding things up, I remain by my stance that the killer may well have left a living woman behind, of whom he did not know whether it would be able to save her or not.

There was no treatment for her condition. He severed her trachea. He knew what he left would "tell no tales." So I do not see this as a significant problem:

And that would be very uncharacteristic if it was Jack holding the knife.

She was as dead as disco.

It is interesting that you say that I can keep writing that, since I have not yet written it. I do hope I have made myself clear this time around, for it is getting slightly tedious to be pointed out as holding a view I have never had.

"Cutting as falling" is going to leave a spray. Unless you have her parallel to the ground very near the ground--essentially on the ground. It may seem a minor "quibble" but I do not see anything but on the ground not leaving a "spray." Even suspended over the ground is going to provide a spray pattern.

A question: If we imagine the killer standing in front of Stride, the two facing each other - now, if he was holding a knife in his right hand, and suddenly wielded it over her neck, with the movement you use when you play a backhand in tennis; . . .

Forehand I thought for a right handed Jack attacking the left of her neck. Nevertheless, I do not buy the standing situation for reasons I blathered above. I think he took her to the ground.

Now, I am NOT (!) proposing that it was done thus, and I am not saying that she stood up when cut, mind you. I am just asking you if a lashing out of a knife in such a manner would have been able to produce the length and depth of that wound.

Possibly, but as I blathered above, it is much easier to do it on a person lying on their left side. The problem is one can also do that standing more on the victims right side to some degree--to provide the "power stroke" across the anterior next--trachea.

However, the problem with that is that will leave a spray to some extent. I am assuming the police were thorough enough to not miss said spray.

It looks like neither of us "buy" her standing. This is odd, because it would be "easy" for him to simply be on her right side, maybe slightly posterior . . . whispering sweet nothings . . . then pull her head directly right with his left hand while cutting with the right. The blood goes opposite him, she goes limp, et cetera. The problem with that is there should be a lot of blood on her left side and a spray. As far as I know, neither is described.

Go get your stopwatch and have a go at someone you distinctly dislike, and you will realize what I mean.

Have.

The bigger Jack was in relation to his victim, the easier it is.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Damien]

Hi Doc X

I don`t think the ripper took so much care. Why should he wait to bleed his victims out – It was dark and the blood could not be seen on his (dark) cloth. As long as he would show normal behaviour after the murders, no one would take care about bloody cloth.
The main aim (if you had to fix it on one thing) was to rip and disembowel the woman, to take organs and leave them lying in the streets. Why should he wait some time to achieve his aim? This would endanger his goal.
What`s the reason you think he did this – maybe I didn`t understand…

And maybe you can convince me…

Damien