What's your profile for Jack?

[DVV]

That's terribly non-specific. Is that on this site?

What would be so terribly non-specific ? The way Eddowes has been lowered to the ground ? We've got more than enough imo.

Deconstructionist is notthe applicable term to describe me, for accuracy's sake.

I know.
Ils se reconnaîtront.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And death is only a possible outcome of strangulation or suffocation. If onepursues it to that extent.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Let's slow down

Suffocation, by what means?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

That's terribly non-specific. Is that on this site? And does it go into detail as to the method? My library is quite scarce currently. Deconstructionist is notthe applicable term to describe me, for accuracy's sake.

[DVV]

The murderer could have intended to kill by strangulation. Just not the followthrough to do so. To be technical about it. I intend to do many a thing all the time, but no one would be able to tell by my lack of action. Splitting thin hairs. There is maybe no perceivable intent. Wow, that's annoying. Apologies.

I don't understand this post.
The difference between strangulation and suffocation has already been thoroughly discussed.
Fact is that no victim has been strangled, they have all been killed by the murderer's knife.
All the medics said the murderer was rather strong physically. Enough to strangle his poor little victims, had he intended to do so.

[DVV]

The Coroner :


"It had been shown by the evidence of Dr Gordon Brown that the murderer must have taken hold of the deceased woman and cut her throat..."

Of course, ultra-modern deconstructionists are welcome to argue that "he" could have taken hold of the deceased with his feet.

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

And

The murderer could have intended to kill by strangulation. Just not the followthrough to do so. To be technical about it. I intend to do many a thing all the time, but no one would be able to tell by my lack of action. Splitting thin hairs. There is maybe no perceivable intent. Wow, that's annoying. Apologies.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo DVV

Okay, how exactly did Eddowes killer use his hands to lower her to the ground? I have yet to see anything conclusive. Could be oblivious here. It happens.

[DVV]

It's all the same

No victim has ever been strangled.
All we have are signs of suffocation.
The murderer never meant to kill his victims by strangulation.
It merely helped him to lower them to the ground.
Were Stride and Eddowes lowered to the ground before they got slaughtered ?
Yes, absolutely. By the murderer's hands, not at knifepoint.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Indeed no signs

A thought just occured to me in regards to "sailor man". What if his red bandana thing was used as a means to subdue Eddowes into position to slit her throat? It could explain the lack of blood on her front and if it was cut the need for cutting the apron for transportation of the how you say, "goods". Or something of the sort.

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello KW, Damaso, Jon.

Jon is correct. After Annie there is no evidence of strangulation.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Garry
Thanks for the response but I disagree. The mans statement would make no sense unless it was preceded by a Stride comment that contained the word prayer in it.

Also, there is little doubt in my mind that Stride was a victim of the ripper. A man wearing apeaked cap was seen by several witnesses that night-the broad shouldered man seen attacking Liz and the man talking to Eddowes along with the man who was heard making the prayer statement. My bet is the ripper was wearing a peaked cap that night.

Hi Abby,

It depends which word was stressed. If he said: "You would say anything but your prayers", I would agree that Stride must have mentioned prayers. But if he said: "You would say anything but your prayers" the meaning is somewhat different and he would be the one introducing prayers into the conversation.

It sounds to me like an expression that wasn't unique to this man or this occasion, to mean "I don't believe a word of it" or "pull the other leg, it's got bells on", so I would plump for the stress on prayers, ie she came across as a story teller (which we know she was regarding the Princess Alice disaster, for example) and the man was ribbing her for it. "Oh yeah, I bet you'd say anything to get your hands on thruppence, but never your prayers".

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Actually there is not much evidence either way. Best thing we can do is look at what really happened and go from there.

The conclusion can only be that JTR was out at that time, caught Chapman by coincidence and lives out his fantasy. Reason he is out that early on a weekend is that he has been out drinking and is on his way home. And who drinks in these pubs, you got it, the local man.

On his way home?, Chapman was murdered almost 5 hours after the pubs shut.

The fbi profile in fact stated that JTR was out drinking in local pubs just like Hagamannen did. Alcohol works like a trigger, he uses it to put him in the mood to commit the crimes he get a sexual pleasure from.

The pub was the only place to socialize, even if you picked up a woman on the street it was customary to take her for a drink.

He uses his hands first to subdue victim through strangulation(=indication he trust his hands indicate manual labour eg working class)

There's no evidence on the throat that he used his hands.

He takes with him the organs that gets him sexual aroused and the knife(s) which he carries with him all the time, not just when he is out to kill. Thats why he does'nt drop them on the crime scene.

If you compare any other random deaths you'll find the only one's where the knife is found, are suicides.

[Damaso Marte]

He uses his hands first to subdue victim through strangulation(=indication he trust his hands indicate manual labour eg working class)

Lots of assertions like this are made on this forum all the time - other popular ones include "facial mutilations, therefore he knew the victim"

I would love for a statistical social scientist to evaluate questions like this: do any attributes of the murders actually suggest, based on empirical evidence, what we often say they suggest?

[Kuniworth]

Actually there is not much evidence either way. Best thing we can do is look at what really happened and go from there.

Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes are all murders commited while takning huge risks. Chapman is in early morning hours, Nichols in a gateway in a street, Stride almost in the street and Eddowes during a massive manhunt. The way he meets the victims is by chance, the risks are so great that there is every chance he could be caught. That is not a rational risk taking of a calculating offender.

Chapman murder in the morning with the hanbury street is simply a case of seizing the oppurtunity as it present itself. Had JTR been out looking for victims aroused or in an urge to kill he would have encountered potential victims earlier that night. And had he been careful with planning, and that dominated over arousal, he would not have chosen the backyard of a house in the morning hours.
The conclusion can only be that JTR was out at that time, caught Chapman by coincidence and lives out his fantasy. Reason he is out that early on a weekend is that he has been out drinking and is on his way home. And who drinks in these pubs, you got it, the local man.

However if Abby Normal is right on Stride, that JTR is actively trying to persuade Stride to come with him several times(Which PC Smith and Marshall seem to indicate), and he dresses up to get Mary Kelly to come with him that is clear signs of the progressive state of lust murderers.

The fbi profile in fact stated that JTR was out drinking in local pubs just like Hagamannen did. Alcohol works like a trigger, he uses it to put him in the mood to commit the crimes he get a sexual pleasure from.

If we conclude the fact that JTR is the average joe with a sexual orientation for lust murder and neither the cunning mastermind or raging lunatic a lot falls into place. He does not leave a lot of clues around because he is not stupid, he understands how to get out effectively due to local knowledge and not beeing a lunatic.

He uses his hands first to subdue victim through strangulation(=indication he trust his hands indicate manual labour eg working class)

He takes with him the organs that gets him sexual aroused and the knife(s) which he carries with him all the time, not just when he is out to kill. Thats why he does'nt drop them on the crime scene.