Was Jack enraged by watching soliciting

[GregBaron]

Neck...

Greg.
Given how the women were dressed, jackets with collars, and a suspect, regardless of which one you choose, are typically described as also wearing a jacket. I think you need to reconsider.

The effectiveness of the "Sleeper hold" depends on the amount of pressure that can be applied to either side of the neck, cutting off blood supply to the brain.
This kind of hold is always demonstrated (as in your pic) with a bare arm around an exposed neck.
Neither was the case with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, or even Stride.

The sleeper hold is hard to apply and looses effect when both parties are fully clothed.
So, I would have say, this was not the method used, but then, I am inclined towards the ligature as the method to render them unconscious.

Regards, Jon S.

I expect there would be some evidence of a ligature Wickerman but I agree it would be a method that fits with the evidence..

I don't think he used the sleeper hold either (he grabbed the throat by the hands) and regardless of their dress, the neck was available and that's where he struck...



Greg

[Wickerman]

I expect there would be some evidence of a ligature Wickerman but I agree it would be a method that fits with the evidence..

According to Dr. Brownfield, the reason for the "2nd cut" could have been to obliterate the mark left by the ligature. The 2nd cut therefore, had a dual purpose.
Maybe,... maybe not, but that is a good enough reason why we see no scaring around the neck.

I don't think he used the sleeper hold either (he grabbed the throat by the hands)

In that case there should be pressure point marks left by the thumbs & fingers, but none are noticed by any of the doctors.
In fact, the medical men were also puzzled as to why these victims did not cry out. Had there been physical evidence of manual strangulation (as you describe), there would be no mystery to comment on.

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I dont see any reason why we should assume that any killer of any Canonical would have become enraged seeing the women soliciting, or actually "working". Enraged suggests that the predator felt anything about his prey, or about women in general, and I dont believe that all the Canonical murders have evidence that the killer was angry, incensed, raging, fuming, irate, livid or any other of the adjectives applicable.

The last murder does have acts that seem angry,...the slashes on the face, there is evidence the killer and victim struggled, .. the totality of the damage done. Kates nose also might have been something that was done spitefully or angrily, or the sectioning then placing some of her colon.

But in the case of Polly Annie and Liz, there appears to have been little or no struggle, the cuts seem to be either to kill, l or to open and extract like in the cases of C1 and C2, but not simply to deface or damage.

I personally dont see any evidence in the murder of Polly and Annie that indicates the killer saw them as anything other than receptacles. The kills do treat a dead body without respect, but that, again to me anyway, signifies that their killer was accustomed to seeing live things opened up once they were dead. I dont see the acts performed on them as anything but steps to reaching the objectives....find Unfortunate alone, get her in the dark, silence and kill her, then open her and take whatever the prize was. Liz Stride was killed by someone who wanted her dead, and apparently he didnt want anything further. That could be the result of an emotional killer,... maybe a jealous man, or a drunk man being refused favors, ..but that does mean what she did for a living at that moment was important to him, or them.

Polly and Annie were killed to allow post mortem mutilations. Liz was killed. Kate was killed but its unclear whether the post mortem work was contrived or the result of impulses and compunctions. Mary is probably the only victim that may have been killed because of her work, because I dont believe that her killers objective was to take her heart and her injuries do suggest some anger on the killers part.

These murders, once treated like individual murders, do not suggest a string of murders committed by a sexual sadist. Some do, and some seem as cold and clinical as an autopsy.

Cheers all.

[RivkahChaya]

So oral sex would not exist in the marriage bed, but would exist with prostitutes. But because it is not a generally accepted practice, not a lot of people know about it. ...

The problem is, most people think it's disgusting. Not just hygiene issues, it's whole "but he pees out of that thing" problem.

Hold on to your hat, Errata.

Some women think up giving blow jobs all on their own, without having anyone suggest to them that they ought to do that, and some women like doing it.

Now, don't misunderstand that as "women become prostitutes because they like sex." I'm just addressing the whole "married women don't have oral sex with their husbands."

It seems to me there's another angle to porn that you are forgetting, which in Victorian England would have been pretty relevant. Sometimes you were on a long stretch without the person you wanted to be with. You know, a couple might be separated if he was in the military, or something. When that happens, you can have some pretty vanilla fantasies about what you did with your partner back when you had access to him, and what you'll do when he gets back, which may not involve anything new or exotic, just really copious amounts of "same old."

Trust me. My husband was in Iraq for a year, and I got pregnant two weeks after he got back.

Hi Richard
I highly doubt [JTR killed because seeing prostitutes at work enraged him]. First of all, most serial killers deepest motivation comes from the pleasure they derive (or urges released) from their acts. For JtR it was what he could do to a woman with a knife-murder, mutilation,extracting organs.

I completely agree. Aside from the fact that the "hating prostitutes" thing sounds like TV-movie psychology, if JTR wanted to target prostitutes, Mary Jane Kelly is the only victim who really seems to have been a genuine pro. She worked at a brothel, or so she said, and also apparently claimed to have been on retainer for someone. Even if she was lying, or exaggerating, the intent was there, and the stories probably got around. We also know that Polly Nichols was actively soliciting, but we also know that Eddowes' boyfriend insisted she was not a prostitute. That doesn't mean that at some desperate point in her life she may not have once slept with someone for money, food, or shelter, but does that really brand you for life? I wrote movie review for a local rag for a couple of years, and published two short stories, but I know better than to go around calling myself a professional writer. I also got paid to do a very tiny part in a play, way below scale, because they needed a woman who could juggle. It was just for a couple of weekends, and I didn't have any lines, so I don't call myself an actress. Or a professional juggler, for that matter.

If JTR really wanted to make a point about prostitutes, don't you think he would have attacked women who were unquestionably professionals? Women who worked in brothels, or who had a definite territory staked out, and were a familiar sight, on a regular basis? And what about the men? If it was the act of solicitation that angered him, wasn't he angry at men too?

I think it's a much simpler answer that he got off on killing women, and casual prostitutes, or sloppy drunks, who were ill and stumbling around, were easy targets. Real professionals probably had better plans, and a better sense of danger.

Eddowes was an undernourished scrap of a woman still hungover.

Also, she had "Bright's disease." We don't know exactly what she had, but this statement from the coroner means that he probably observed kidney inflammation and edema due to proteinuria, which yes, could be diagnosed then. If her bladder was intact enough for there to be any urine, it was probably very dark, and not from blood seeping in from outside wounds.

Because alcohol is a diuretic, drinking might have made her feeling better, because it jump-started her kidneys, and relieved edema, but depending on exactly what kind of disease she had-- Bright's disease is really a symptom, not a diagnosis-- alcohol could have made her more disoriented than you would expect for the amount she had actually drunk.

It's too bad there's are no tissue samples anywhere, because it would be interesting to know exactly what was wrong with her. I'd love to know what her blood-glucose level was when she died.

[GregBaron]

Neck bruising...

In that case there should be pressure point marks left by the thumbs & fingers, but none are noticed by any of the doctors.
In fact, the medical men were also puzzled as to why these victims did not cry out. Had there been physical evidence of manual strangulation (as you describe), there would be no mystery to comment on.

But C1 and C2 did show such evidence Mr. Wickerman....

From the Times: C1

There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers.

From a post-mortem report: C2

He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest.

These seem to indicate the throttling or chokehold that I suggested..


Greg

[lynn cates]

well done

Hello Greg. Bravo! You should be a medical examiner.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

C&P

Hello Greg. Bravo! You should be a medical examiner.

Thanks Lynn, yes, either that or a Master cut-and-paster....!



Greg

[Errata]

But C1 and C2 did show such evidence Mr. Wickerman....

Greg

The jaw bruise is not indicative of strangling. It seems more consistent with gripping the jaw to tilt the head back, which is a not uncommon thing in throat cuttings. I was also under the impression that the bruises on the chest were developed, maybe a day old. The bruise on the temple was accounted for by a fight the previous day I think.

I wonder if putting bag over their head would do it? I realize that anything other than a plastic bag is less than ideal, but using the bag opening like a ligature would probably create enough problems breathing that a tightly woven cloth would significantly impair getting any oxygen. The ligature wouldn't have to be so tight as to leave a significant mark, and it might account for the asphyxia without the ischemia... it would still take awhile though.

[Cogidubnus]

Theories

Frankly I find it hard to believe that "Jack" inflicted a second neck cut, purely to eradicate the evidence of manual strangulation...Assuming that is, that he even existed as a single entity (note my respect for Lynn/Mike and others!).

Regardless of that argument, I don't think he gave a toss whether or not anybody subsequently deduced his technique...he just went ahead and did it anyhow and left the bodies....

I think it's possible that the only real physical clues lie in HOW he left the bodies...but that's no more than a personal opinion...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

40%

Hello Errata.

"It seems more consistent with gripping the jaw to tilt the head back, which is a not uncommon thing in throat cuttings."

Indeed. It was found on 40% of the C5. Both Polly and Annie exhibited it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

eradication

Hello Dave. Completely agree. Why should he care about eradication?

I think the main question one should ask is, "Why the second cut on Polly and Annie's necks?"

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Hello Dave. Completely agree. Why should he care about eradication?

I think the main question one should ask is, "Why the second cut on Polly and Annie's necks?"

Cheers.

He strangled them to knock them out, but didn't have great confidence in his throat cutting ability, nor much time, so took a doube swipe to make sure ?

[Wickerman]

Sorry I missed your reply..

But C1 and C2 did show such evidence Mr. Wickerman....

Actually no, those bruises on Polly Nichols indicate the killer holding her head down with his left? hand, like so.. while he cut her throat.



Therefore, his hand would be positioned thus..



There are no bruises on the neck of Chapman, but there were scratches consistent with her scratching her neck to remove something very thin but tight.

Regards, Jon

[Wickerman]

Hello Dave. Completely agree. Why should he care about eradication?

I think the main question one should ask is, "Why the second cut on Polly and Annie's necks?"

Cheers.
LC

1 - Anyone who had been arrested for using a ligature might see the need to eradicate the scar with a second cut, just as Brownfield suggested.

2 - He may have had a reputation in a local gang, and known for robbery using the ligature. Any subsequent gang member could raise this point to the authorities.

People who carry a knife can be numbered in the hundreds, and what kind of knife?
Those who carry a ligature might be numbered in the tens, and ligatures leave distinctive marks (two, three or four cord), as Brownfield explained.

Anyone found carrying a ligature can hardly claim it is for self defence, as you could with a knife.

Regards, Jon

[Wickerman]

Cheers.

He strangled them to knock them out, but didn't have great confidence in his throat cutting ability, nor much time, so took a doube swipe to make sure ?

I think you will find they were two different types of cut.
One was a short stab and rip at the jugular. That was the killer strike.
The second cut was a long deep slice around the circumference of most of the neck.

Regards, Jon