Did Jack kill more than three?

[JSchmidt]

Just from gut feeling I'd suspect Tabram and the C5 to Jack's victims, not necessarily the only ones.
Why the C5? Because I still think it unlikely that a domestic dispute would produce a rather similar wound pattern. In the case of MJK the indoor location, the better lighting and more time with the victim could account for the extent of the mutilations.
But that is just my gut feeling, not that much evidence for or against it, I suppose I still have to read up on it all to a bigger extent.
Just as a sidenote: how much does throttling influence the blood pressure? Some of the victims seem to have been throttled before their throat was cut, does this influence the throatcutting in any way? (Apart from the victim holding still obviously.)
And regarding the possible psychic problems of our perpetrator: I'm still astonished by the fact that Japanese veterans of the Nanjing massacre who admitted to rape and slaughter seemed to be perfectly sensible and not a bit unhinged, even friendly and likable while telling their tales.
And I admit to blinking quite rapidly just after one of them told that sex weren't any good if not consensual. Most of us may think of that as obvious, but this veterans need to state this again, it just knocked me off track.
Sorry to derail this thread, watched the Nanking documentary from 2007 just yesterday and still am puzzled.

[Doctor X]

How is that for a start? Doctor X answers:

"Thing is, Doc – would the killer have as a clear picture of that? Donīt think so! "

...with

"Actually, he would"

Nothing wrong with self-confidence, Doc, but ...

When you open just the jugular, and the victim passes out within seconds given the blood loss--and absolutely no evidence of a struggle--any remarks of blood on her hands from trying to compress her opened vessels?--I think you notice this.

I think Jack would as well.

"Save that will not be the case from a standing individual. "

...that argument falls.

Actually no. 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. . . .

Plus though the jugular bleeds continuously, it does not do so producing one immense jet of blood, emptying the body.

Actually . . . it does.

. . . and I did leave my heart in San Francisco. . . .

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Fisherman]

How is that for a start? Doctor X answers:

"Thing is, Doc – would the killer have as a clear picture of that? Donīt think so! "

...with

"Actually, he would"

Nothing wrong with self-confidence, Doc, but ...

As for

"Save that will not be the case from a standing individual. "

...that argument falls. As did Stride. Who said standing, Doc? Plus though the jugular bleeds continuously, it does not do so producing one immense jet of blood, emptying the body. It is, so to speak, a heartless suggestion on your behalf!

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Let me just say, that Tom's suggestion of Charles Le Grand is ridiculous.

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

So was that what you meant regarding the "adament" and the like?

Bah. Just ignore him.

I believe you mean 'adamant' as in Adam Ant? Or did you put it in parenthesis to poke fun at Glenn's spelling? Either way, you're behaving like a poor man's AP Wolf. You even had the gall to insult Dan Norder on another thread. I'm amazed you're still breathing after that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Doctor X]

Aah, there's nothing like a decent Stride debate - especially when Tom 'I have already made up my mind' gets in the middle of it.

So was that what you meant regarding the "adament" and the like?

Bah. Just ignore him.

All the time, Dr X. All the time.

As I stated, a man has to have his responsibilities. . . .

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Aah, there's nothing like a decent Stride debate - especially when Tom 'I have already made up my mind' gets in the middle of it.
No one will, however, make me join that tedious battle. Let me just say, that Tom's suggestion of Charles Le Grand is ridiculous. At least in Kidney we have someone who lived with the victim (and as we know in nine cases out of ten, the spouse is the perpetrator), whom she left shortly before the murder and who himself appears to have been of questionable character. There is no link between Stride and Le Grand - end of story. It's a fairytale Stephen Knight would have been proud of.
---------------------------------------------

Doctor X writes:
"So you get your asses kicked by pregnant women?"

All the time, Dr X. All the time.

Best regards

[Doctor X]

Thing is, Doc – would the killer have as a clear picture of that? Donīt think so!

Actually, he would.

And whatīs with you and Nicole Kidman?

We all have our duties to perform. . . .

...and if the jet was directed straight down to the ground, then straight down on the ground is where the blood would end up.

Save that will not be the case from a standing individual. Remember, also, that the jugular was violated.

meaning that you could have anything between nothing and a second or so passing before the spurting was there.

Jugular . . . bleeds continuously.

This is further indication she was cut where she lay.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Natalie Severn]

Simon.....wakey wakey....!
But on the other hand Jack could have been a loner inside that club and at his chosen moment,quietly left, knife at the ready.And the woman he saw earlier is now standing next to the gates next to the club.
As he passes her he grabs her scarf from behind,twists the tourniquet,and cuts through the throat.
He leaves the body as it falls,-he congratulates himself----but needs to get swiftly on to his next victim.
It could have happened like that.All it needed was for him to declare that the Jews were not responsible for the murders......and we now know there were in fact gentiles at that club as well as it having Fenian sympathisers.

[Tom_Wescott]

Absolutely. We can't even be sure she was murdered. Diemschutz may have run over her with his carriage wheel and tried to make it look like a Ripper murder. Or some enterprising London inventor may have been experimenting with a new idea. Find the man who invented the Pez dispenser and I believe you will find Stride's killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

Your Post 176.

[Sorry, I don't know how to do the fancy-shmancy quote stuff]—

"Our files are so much fuller than theirs, allowing us to see what should have been obvious to the London police had they had but one intelligent person in their midst - that there's absolutely and unequivocably no reason to suppose that two women of the same age and profession, killed within a brisk walk of each other, in the same hour, and in the same manner, by an unknown killer, might bear some relation."

Am I misreading you? Is this prolix, or are you saying that Stride and Eddowes weren't despatched by the same person?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Jen writes:
"The point though, is that blood cut from an artery would spurt: even if she was at ankle height, the blood would fly out."

...and if the jet was directed straight down to the ground, then straight down on the ground is where the blood would end up. And it would leave the body at heart-stroke rate, meaning that you could have anything between nothing and a second or so passing before the spurting was there.
Eddowes was cut. Nichols was cut. Their necks would have been positioned so as to avoid having blood spurts flying out - the blood must have gone straight down in them cases if there were any jets at all, must it not?

The Blackwell quote you use, by the way, seems not to allow for her being cut on the ground at all...?

The disturbance scenario, Jen, whichever way you put it, requires a good measure of chance to be valuable. Nuffin more said.

"Hanbury Street was quiet, but someone had already opened the door to the yard once that morning, and the next-door neighbour was also up and about. I would think under those circumstances, risk of interruption must be quite high."

Yes, Jen, it would be an immense risk, as always when he was at work. The audacity is overpowering.
There is, though, no way that the risk will compare to that of killing outside a lively club, with clubbers coming and going. The backyard of Hanbury street was a sleepy such at that time - the yard most certainly was anything but it.

Good luck with that sadist, Jen! If you still feel slightly masochistic after that ordeal, there is always Casebook...!

The very best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:

"there's absolutely and unequivocably no reason to suppose that two women of the same age and profession, killed within a brisk walk of each other, in the same hour, and in the same manner, by an unknown killer, might bear some relation"

...which is also why Jack was the torso killer as well as the Ripper, making a quick dash to the west end killing that woman that had HER throat cut on the double event night, blaming her husband for it. Also, the guys who got whacked on Valentines day in Bugsy Morans garage were NOT shot by Scalise and Anselmi - there was just the one guy present, as always when someone is killed. And so on, and so on...

Phew, Tom! Really...!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Damien writes:

"I believe the killer was a criminal, maybe a robber, before starting his series - and I think the fantasy he had for many years broke out spontanously on a normal robbers job: Tabram. Maybe he tried to steal something of sleeping Martha - she woke up, and so he had to do something to keep her quiet.
After murdering his first victim he finally could performe his hidden fantasies. But indeed it could be something completely different
I don`t see any good reason to include Stride - and I don`t see any good reason to believe Nicholls was the first victim of this killer."

...and as "cadets" go, I have seen many worse theories. To me, this sounds through and through as a very plausible suggestion.

Some good thinking there, Damien; hereīs to you!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Can you name those contentious exceptions? Surely the cuts to Eddowes upper eyelids required some form of thought process.

You've got it, Observer, but I'd rather not discuss it here - it would take us down Eddowes-specific rabbit holes, out of alignment with the "General Discussion" heading of this thread. I note that some Stride-specific stuff is being discussed as well, but if you don't mind I'll restrain myself from following suit

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott writes:
"As I've pointed out before, at least three of the Ripper victims were probably robbed before being murdered, so a man robbing women at knife point in the vicinity can hardly be called a silly suggestion."


Tom, if you need to keep me in a good mood, moulding Canadians and Swedes into a big group, calling them laughable, is the wrong way to go about it.
If you had been slightly more polite, I could have settled for calling your knife-wielder "not very credible" or something like that.
Besides, I thought you promoted Jack for the Stride strike?

I really do not think that a man like Jack would have settled for some knife-pointing, something that may easily result in the ones pointed at yelling their heads off, attracting the police, the police asking questions etc - no, Tom, that is not Jack.

Fisherman