Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did the murderer have anatomical knowledge beyond that of say a butcher?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
    Someone half the size of a human.
    With hairy feet.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

      How's the book going? Seems like forever waiting for your big reveal.
      Al, thanks for asking. ETA Forever and a day.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        It's this kind of rubbish that makes the more competent theorists dismiss your ideas out of hand.
        Even the most novice of theorists have learned why this claim does not fit the evidence.



        Not, 'cut their throats', but suffocate/strangle them from behind so they can't kick, punch or scratch him.



        At least you figured that much out.

        Hi Wicks.

        Attacks from the front might support my candidate as he was left-handed. I believe most, if not all, of the canonical victims had their throats cut from left to right.

        However, I would be interested to know what reasoning exists to refute throat cutting from behind.

        I would appreciate your thoughts.

        ++

        From what you said, I'm now picturing the mode of attack as suffocating/strangling from behind, incapacitating the victim to some degree, then tripping or otherwise maneuvering the victims down to the floor and then cutting their throats on the floor, presumably to minimize getting blood on himself.
        Last edited by mpriestnall; 10-12-2022, 06:31 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

          Hi Wicks.

          Attacks from the front might support my candidate as he was left-handed. I believe most, if not all, of the canonical victims had their throats cut from left to right.

          However, I would be interested to know what reasoning exists to refute throat cutting from behind.

          I would appreciate your thoughts.

          ++

          From what you said, I'm now picturing the mode of attack as suffocating/strangling from behind, incapacitating the victim to some degree, then tripping or otherwise maneuvering the victims down to the floor and then cutting their throats on the floor, presumably to minimize getting blood on himself.
          Hi mpriestnall.

          It appears the police may have entertained the idea of an attack from the front in the Alice McKenzie case. I theorized at one time the killer used offering her a pipe as a ruse and then dropped it on the ground. As Alice reached down to pick it up, he attacked.

          Echo London Middlesex July 18, 1889

          Comment


          • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

            Hi mpriestnall.

            It appears the police may have entertained the idea of an attack from the front in the Alice McKenzie case. I theorized at one time the killer used offering her a pipe as a ruse and then dropped it on the ground. As Alice reached down to pick it up, he attacked.

            Echo London Middlesex July 18, 1889

            Thank you.

            As I have evidence that my suspect was left-handed, I was wondering if attacks from behind would weaken his candidacy or not.

            I haven't figured that out yet!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

              Thank you.

              As I have evidence that my suspect was left-handed, I was wondering if attacks from behind would weaken his candidacy or not.

              I haven't figured that out yet!
              Hi M.

              IN THE CASE OF CATHERINE EDDOWES...

              From what I read, yes, it would definitely weaken the candidacy of a left-handed killer. According to her postmortem report, the cut to her throat commenced on the left side of her neck and trailed off on the right side of her neck [meaning, Jack the Ripper cut from left to right]. In addition, the cut angles downward:

              ​​​​​​A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe [of the left ear] below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear -Dr Frederick Gordon Brown

              This pattern is typical of a right-handed killer who attacks the victim from behind.

              However...

              The postmortem contrarily reports that:

              ​​​​​​We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the ensiform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

              Meaning that, "if" Jack the Ripper is kneeled alongside the right-side of Catherine Eddowes {as commonly believed}, "then" he cut from right to left, which would favor a left-handed killer.



              Still, to take it a step further...

              An attack 'from behind' means that strangulation was not part of his M.O. I, however, believe that Catherine Eddowes was strangled to death prior to her throat being cut. And as Dr Brown reports:

              I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground.

              Why? Well, for one, a minor case could be made that a person who has their throat cut might have an instinctive tendency to reach for their throat, which would make a high likelihood for blood to transfer onto their hands. But, no such mention was made in Dr Brown's report. Instead, he comments that her fingers were "slightly bent"; imagine yourself being garroted, in your struggle, you'd probably strain to remove the ligature from your throat, thereby bending your fingers as they attempt to pull it away from your throat.

              Of course...

              We could put this entire argument to rest had Dr Brown reported on Catherine Eddowes' lungs. Even though her throat was cut, she is still going to attempt to breathe for a moment before succumbing, meaning that her lungs are going to show aspirations of blood. However, no trace of blood in her lungs or airway would indicate that she was probably dead long before he cut her throat... with the most likely culprit being strangulation. {if only he had commented in his report...}

              Which brings me to the much maligned...

              Arterial spray.

              [Warning: Graphic pictures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843282/ ]

              If Catherine Eddowes' throat had been cut, the front of her clothing would look like the man's shirt in Figure 1. Instead, Dr. Brown reports:

              No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes.

              But wait...


              Didn't Kit Watkins of the Toronto Mail report in 1891 about "the black stains on the walls" in No. 13 Miller's Court [ie. the crime scene of Mary Kelly's murder]? Isn't that evidence of arterial spray??

              And didn't Dr. Thomas Bond report in his postmortem of Mary Kelly. that:

              ​​​​​​In the substances of the [left] lung there were several nodules of consolidation.

              Lung consolidation occurs when the air that usually fills the small airways in your lungs is replaced with something else. Depending on the cause, the air may be replaced with a fluid, such as pus, blood, or water.

              Meaning that, Mary Kelly was not strangled prior to having her throat slashed, and her blood sprayed onto the wall alongside her bed.

              So, in summary...

              More than likely, Jack the Ripper strangled his "street victims" prior to cutting their throats; however, with Mary Kelly, he cut her throat without strangulation & while she was very much alive.




              there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                Hi M.

                IN THE CASE OF CATHERINE EDDOWES...

                From what I read, yes, it would definitely weaken the candidacy of a left-handed killer. According to her postmortem report, the cut to her throat commenced on the left side of her neck and trailed off on the right side of her neck [meaning, Jack the Ripper cut from left to right]. In addition, the cut angles downward:

                ​​​​​​A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe [of the left ear] below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear -Dr Frederick Gordon Brown

                This pattern is typical of a right-handed killer who attacks the victim from behind.

                However...

                The postmortem contrarily reports that:

                ​​​​​​We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the ensiform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

                Meaning that, "if" Jack the Ripper is kneeled alongside the right-side of Catherine Eddowes {as commonly believed}, "then" he cut from right to left, which would favor a left-handed killer.



                Still, to take it a step further...

                An attack 'from behind' means that strangulation was not part of his M.O. I, however, believe that Catherine Eddowes was strangled to death prior to her throat being cut. And as Dr Brown reports:

                I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground.

                Why? Well, for one, a minor case could be made that a person who has their throat cut might have an instinctive tendency to reach for their throat, which would make a high likelihood for blood to transfer onto their hands. But, no such mention was made in Dr Brown's report. Instead, he comments that her fingers were "slightly bent"; imagine yourself being garroted, in your struggle, you'd probably strain to remove the ligature from your throat, thereby bending your fingers as they attempt to pull it away from your throat.

                Of course...

                We could put this entire argument to rest had Dr Brown reported on Catherine Eddowes' lungs. Even though her throat was cut, she is still going to attempt to breathe for a moment before succumbing, meaning that her lungs are going to show aspirations of blood. However, no trace of blood in her lungs or airway would indicate that she was probably dead long before he cut her throat... with the most likely culprit being strangulation. {if only he had commented in his report...}

                Which brings me to the much maligned...

                Arterial spray.

                [Warning: Graphic pictures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843282/ ]

                If Catherine Eddowes' throat had been cut, the front of her clothing would look like the man's shirt in Figure 1. Instead, Dr. Brown reports:

                No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes.

                But wait...


                Didn't Kit Watkins of the Toronto Mail report in 1891 about "the black stains on the walls" in No. 13 Miller's Court [ie. the crime scene of Mary Kelly's murder]? Isn't that evidence of arterial spray??

                And didn't Dr. Thomas Bond report in his postmortem of Mary Kelly. that:

                ​​​​​​In the substances of the [left] lung there were several nodules of consolidation.

                Lung consolidation occurs when the air that usually fills the small airways in your lungs is replaced with something else. Depending on the cause, the air may be replaced with a fluid, such as pus, blood, or water.

                Meaning that, Mary Kelly was not strangled prior to having her throat slashed, and her blood sprayed onto the wall alongside her bed.

                So, in summary...

                More than likely, Jack the Ripper strangled his "street victims" prior to cutting their throats; however, with Mary Kelly, he cut her throat without strangulation & while she was very much alive.



                I Concur
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • Pleurisy - Wikipedia
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                    Hi M.

                    IN THE CASE OF CATHERINE EDDOWES...

                    From what I read, yes, it would definitely weaken the candidacy of a left-handed killer. According to her postmortem report, the cut to her throat commenced on the left side of her neck and trailed off on the right side of her neck [meaning, Jack the Ripper cut from left to right]. In addition, the cut angles downward:

                    ​​​​​​A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe [of the left ear] below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear -Dr Frederick Gordon Brown

                    This pattern is typical of a right-handed killer who attacks the victim from behind.

                    However...

                    The postmortem contrarily reports that:

                    ​​​​​​We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the ensiform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the ensiform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

                    Meaning that, "if" Jack the Ripper is kneeled alongside the right-side of Catherine Eddowes {as commonly believed}, "then" he cut from right to left, which would favor a left-handed killer.



                    Still, to take it a step further...

                    An attack 'from behind' means that strangulation was not part of his M.O. I, however, believe that Catherine Eddowes was strangled to death prior to her throat being cut. And as Dr Brown reports:

                    I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground.

                    Why? Well, for one, a minor case could be made that a person who has their throat cut might have an instinctive tendency to reach for their throat, which would make a high likelihood for blood to transfer onto their hands. But, no such mention was made in Dr Brown's report. Instead, he comments that her fingers were "slightly bent"; imagine yourself being garroted, in your struggle, you'd probably strain to remove the ligature from your throat, thereby bending your fingers as they attempt to pull it away from your throat.

                    Of course...

                    We could put this entire argument to rest had Dr Brown reported on Catherine Eddowes' lungs. Even though her throat was cut, she is still going to attempt to breathe for a moment before succumbing, meaning that her lungs are going to show aspirations of blood. However, no trace of blood in her lungs or airway would indicate that she was probably dead long before he cut her throat... with the most likely culprit being strangulation. {if only he had commented in his report...}

                    Which brings me to the much maligned...

                    Arterial spray.

                    [Warning: Graphic pictures https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843282/ ]

                    If Catherine Eddowes' throat had been cut, the front of her clothing would look like the man's shirt in Figure 1. Instead, Dr. Brown reports:

                    No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs. No spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body. Several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes.

                    But wait...


                    Didn't Kit Watkins of the Toronto Mail report in 1891 about "the black stains on the walls" in No. 13 Miller's Court [ie. the crime scene of Mary Kelly's murder]? Isn't that evidence of arterial spray??

                    And didn't Dr. Thomas Bond report in his postmortem of Mary Kelly. that:

                    ​​​​​​In the substances of the [left] lung there were several nodules of consolidation.

                    Lung consolidation occurs when the air that usually fills the small airways in your lungs is replaced with something else. Depending on the cause, the air may be replaced with a fluid, such as pus, blood, or water.

                    Meaning that, Mary Kelly was not strangled prior to having her throat slashed, and her blood sprayed onto the wall alongside her bed.

                    So, in summary...

                    More than likely, Jack the Ripper strangled his "street victims" prior to cutting their throats; however, with Mary Kelly, he cut her throat without strangulation & while she was very much alive.



                    R.S.D,

                    Thank you very much. Lots of interesting points to consider.

                    Cheers,

                    Martyn

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

                      R.S.D,

                      Thank you very much. Lots of interesting points to consider.

                      Cheers,

                      Martyn
                      On the subject of arterial spray I asked Dr Biggs the following question and his answer is set out below

                      Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

                      A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        On the subject of arterial spray I asked Dr Biggs the following question and his answer is set out below

                        Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

                        A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.


                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Trevor, thanks for sharing.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          On the subject of arterial spray I asked Dr Biggs the following question and his answer is set out below

                          Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

                          A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Good point, Trevor, it “gushes & flows”… so it should have gushed and flowed onto the front of Catherine Eddowes’ clothing if her throat was cut while she was standing.

                          In some cases, such as Chapman & Kelly, the spray was slightly more dramatic… where their blood transferred onto the fence & wall respectively.

                          Martyn, i have considered a way for everyone to have their cake & eat it too. In the case of Polly Nichols, the bruises on either side of her face could be interpreted as being made by a right-handed man, meaning he cut her throat with his left-hand while he covered her face with his right-hand. In some of the other cases, there is evidence of marked bruising on the chest near the collarbone. The lack of blood gushing onto the front of their clothing indicates the women were on their back when their throats were slashed. In some of the street murder cases, what if…

                          Jack the Ripper was “sitting atop” the woman when he cut her throat. In this positioning, she would be lying flat on her back & her arms would be pinned underneath him so as to explain how they were found by the attending doctor. Jack the Ripper could have held Polly Nicholl’s face with his right hand while he cut with his left. In this positioning, he could have pressed with both hands upon their chest to subdue them. As well as explaining why the woman was murdered where they lie.

                          {the thought of how George Chapman subdued his wife popped into my head after my last post, martyn}

                          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                            That's your answer for everything, Dave Not Debs...
                            there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                              In some of the street murder cases, what if…

                              Jack the Ripper was “sitting atop” the woman when he cut her throat. In this positioning, she would be lying flat on her back & her arms would be pinned underneath him so as to explain how they were found by the attending doctor. Jack the Ripper could have held Polly Nicholl’s face with his right hand while he cut with his left. In this positioning, he could have pressed with both hands upon their chest to subdue them. As well as explaining why the woman was murdered where they lie.
                              like this perhaps:

                              She screamed for help and I went into their room I found him kneeling on her in bed, he had a table knife in his right-hand, and was apparently about to cut her throat

                              but subdued first (strangled) on the streets
                              Last edited by Aethelwulf; 10-14-2022, 04:58 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                                I'm curious as to the impact of Prosector's posts.

                                Reading these boards, prior to his/her posts, my memory tells me the overwhelming consensus was that the murderer didn't have a great deal of knowledge of human anatomy.

                                What was instructive to someone like me with less than a good knowledge of the murders, was Prosector's posts which made it clear that the two doctors who thought he did possess that knowledge were the two doctors with the most experience in these matters and it follows the two doctors whose opinions carried the most weight. From memory, Prosector detailed certain procedures involved in the murders that required more than the skills/knowledge of say a butcher.

                                'Just wondering: did these posts change a few minds? what is today's general consensus?

                                Thanks in advance.
                                No.

                                I read an interesting article a few weeks ago by a veterinarian.

                                He wrote that the murderer did not make incisions according to the prescribed surgical method.

                                His only doubt was that he did not know for a fact that the same method was used in 1888 as is in use today, and it would be interesting to hear from someone who knows (assuming he is living in the right century).

                                He explained in detail that the incisions - I remember he paid particular attention to the initial incision - made by the murderer were not in accord with surgical practice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X