Was Jack enraged by watching soliciting

[Beowulf]

"Jack" apparently, never intended to have sex with any of his victims. So, once again why focus on secretions?

Regards, Jon S.

I agree. The way their throats were cut suggests he stood behind them. Strikes me as if he was stalking, pouncing when the moment was right on a lone woman in a dark empty street. MJK might've seemed a great idea, as she was indoors, more time for his favorite sport with no interruptions.

I think his motive was solely the thrill of the rip.

[Errata]

I think any discussion on methods other that soliciting a prostitute to get her alone and kill her has to include possible scenarios. He cut their throats from behind, so nothing about that rules out a stalker, but none of these women apparently put up a fight (scratching, hitting, kicking, etc.). Now I think there is o way a woman hears a guy coming up behind her and doesn't turn around, yet these women weren't blitzed in the classic sense (he didn't run and tackle them for instance). So how do we think he got from stalking her, to watching her, to killing her without her making a sound?

[GregBaron]

Murder in mind...

Why do many say he cut their throats from behind? Isn't the general consensus that he rendered them helpless, laid them on the ground, and then, perhaps while lifting and turning the head with the left hand, cut the throat from the victims left to right......

If he literally cut their throats from behind while standing - blood would be everywhere, including the victims clothes....

Anyway, that's probably off topic. I also don't think Jtr had any interest in sex with the victims, his sex was his knife... plus, he didn't have the time; it was strictly kill, carve and skedaddle...........


Greg

[Errata]

Why do many say he cut their throats from behind? Isn't the general consensus that he rendered them helpless, laid them on the ground, and then, perhaps while lifting and turning the head with the left hand, cut the throat from the victims left to right......

If he literally cut their throats from behind while standing - blood would be everywhere, including the victims clothes....

Anyway, that's probably off topic. I also don't think Jtr had any interest in sex with the victims, his sex was his knife... plus, he didn't have the time; it was strictly kill, carve and skedaddle...........


Greg

I think Kate Eddowes has her throat cut while she was still upright. And Liz Stride was upright. Annie Chapman was on her back, Mary Kelly was half reclined, and Polly Nichols I think was on the ground, but I'd have to check her clothes to be sure.

[Cogidubnus]

I also don't think Jtr had any interest in sex with the victims, his sex was his knife... plus, he didn't have the time; it was strictly kill, carve and skedaddle...........

I mostly agree with you Greg...the sex is all in the increasingly sensual movement of the knife and the caressing of the organs...however, I believe there is one more factor which gives a kick...the posing of the body...knees slightly raised, legs slightly apart, abdomen exposed...it's present with Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly...it may well have been present with Nicholls until Paul disturbed the crime scene by attempting to pull the clothing down...Stride who knows (I'm not going there ok!)...

It's, to my mind at least, another measure of who/what Jack was...

All the best

Dave

[Damaso Marte]

I think Kate Eddowes has her throat cut while she was still upright.

I don't think that's a mainstream view - my recollection of the last time we discussed this is that even Lynn Cates thinks Eddowes's throat was cut when she was on the ground.

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Damaso. Thanks. Cannot see how it could be otherwise.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I believe the women were punched or half-throttled or in some way stunned, then placed on the ground for the throat cut - apart from Kelly whom I believe to have been attacked while she was in bed.

[Errata]

I don't think that's a mainstream view - my recollection of the last time we discussed this is that even Lynn Cates thinks Eddowes's throat was cut when she was on the ground.

No. You're right. I was thinking of the fine hole opening in the artery, which is characteristic of a cut with less pressure applied, thus upright. But the blood evidence doesn't support it. So no. She was not upright.

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Robert. Right. And Polly and Annie bore the evidence of it.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I have a suggestion. I want everyone to find a very understanding friend, and try to put them flat on the ground while they are still conscious. Surprise them, manhandle them, for the love of god don't hurt them. But give it a try. And make sure you keep your hands on their shoulders at all times, because presumable Jack had his hands around their neck. If you move your hands, your victim just screamed. Adjust for other theories.

It's not easy. And not only is it not easy, you're attention is divided between trying to strangle them, trying to keep them quiet, and trying to put them on the ground. I'm not saying it's impossible. Obviously it's possible. I'm saying that it can't be "Oh he stunned them and put them on the ground." Anymore than it is "Oh I just picked a car up off my neighbor". It's a difficult enough thing that detail is required.

And I'm not knocking anyone's theory with this. There is a sort of distancing from many facts in this case, which totally belies the effort involved. Outside of a Judo master, no one just puts someone on the ground. No one just cuts through throat cartilage, no one just cuts open an abdomen through several layers of clothing, no one just chokes a person without a sound, and without a fight. These things happen, but they don't JUST happen, like someone just crosses a street. The truth is, Jack had to be either raging out or exceptionally fit to do what he did. It takes physical effort, struggle, time, force, I mean, a total workout.

Personally I always thought a blow to the head or a throat punch would be a good subjugation move, but there's no evidence of either.

[Robert]

Hi Errata

Nichols was drunk. Chapman was dying. Eddowes was an undernourished scrap of a woman still hungover. Stride is an inbetweeny, I don't particularly want to get into her. The one who does seem to have put up a fight was Kelly, who was younger and, I believe, attacked in a different way.

These women had stamina, but did not have instantaneous physical strength.

[Errata]

Hi Errata

Nichols was drunk. Chapman was dying. Eddowes was an undernourished scrap of a woman still hungover. Stride is an inbetweeny, I don't particularly want to get into her. The one who does seem to have put up a fight was Kelly, who was younger and, I believe, attacked in a different way.

These women had stamina, but did not have instantaneous physical strength.

No they didn't. Which is why it was possible to overcome them. The problem with getting an upright person flat on their back is twofold. The first issue is leverage. You can't just shove someone to the ground. The second s the body's defense mechanisms pertaining to balance. Which is to lock your legs when being pushed down, and stepping out when being pushed horizontally or vertically, and these defenses engage as long as there is even a scrap of consciousness. Almost every form of hand to hand combat focuses on one of two ways. Tripping someone, or flipping someone. A leg sweep is a trip, a hip throw is a flip. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Jack likely wasn't trained to flip people. Which means that he has to disengage the legs, kicking the back of the knee is a good way, but he cannot let up the pressure around the neck. So he's pretty close to be kicking at her legs, which makes it less effective, never mind having about an equal chance of going down with her. And also bruises the crap out of legs.

So if these women are even a little conscious, he working really hard. Or he has a plan. He may have some way already worked out. Of course it's easy if the women are out cold. And they may have been. But strangulation is tricky. It's easy to leave enough space over the trachea to allow for a fairly loud scream. And air hunger is a terrible thing. The women should have fought like hell, and then he is in the rather undignified position of being tossed around like a man on a bronco holding on to women who are doing insane things to get a breath. It's sort of never like the movies where a woman sits there, her eyes bulge, she grabs his arm and then dies. There is bucking and thrashing and flailing.

I obviously have always had serious problems with the lack of evidence that these women even gave a damn that they were dying. They weren't scratching, they weren't biting, they weren't churning the ground, none of the classic signs of a struggle. It is a source of eternal consternation for me, because I haven't figured out how he did it. But I'm with you when you say that they weren't strong. And if you say he put them on the ground, I'm willing to believe you. The question is, how? How did he do it, and how did he do in such a way that not an iota of evidence was transferred to his victims? They didn't get a mark on him, they didn't take a piece of him or his clothing, and they didn't affect their environment. And there was no evidence of any blow that might have rendered them senseless. So how do you do that?

Maybe he was naked and they were so surprised that he managed to get his hands around their neck without making a sound?

[Robert]

Well Errata, he evidently did get them on to the ground. I don't see how this would have been easier for him, if he tackled them from behind.

[Errata]

Well Errata, he evidently did get them on to the ground. I don't see how this would have been easier for him, if he tackled them from behind.

It isn't about easier. He didn't tackle them, they don't have the attendant scrapes on hands and knees nor broken faces if he pinned their arms while taking them to the ground. I know he got them on the ground. I just don't know how he did it, and it's kind of important. I mean, he didn't twitch his nose and they magically went from vertical to horizontal. And getting someone flat on their back isn't in and of itself remarkable. I can do it. But I also used to do it for a living, so I know how much effort it takes, and how prone to injury a person is doing it.

It's not that he did it that's remarkable. It's how he did it, or rather, how he DIDN'T do it that's remarkable. His victims have no deep scrapes, no broken bones. No cuts outside of the mutilations, no bumps, no particular bruising. They don't scream. They don't get a piece of him or his clothes. Nothing is torn off of them. They don't churn up the ground, break their nails, bite the crap out of their tongues... it's kind of insane.It's like they were smothered between a pair of mattresses, which is a hilarious visual of two sets of guys running at her from either side with a mattress, but that didn't happen either.

So of COURSE he got them on the ground. But the question is, how? And it's as important as how he mutilated them, or how he got away scot free. Probably inextricably linked to how he got away. It's a part of the story that gets elided over, but doing so is the same as saying "And then he cut her up some" instead of going into the details of the mutilations.