What had to have happened?

[Damaso Marte]

I think one of the most often overlooked parts of this case (especially given the arguments raging in the thread on anatomical knowledge) is that the killer tried to decapitate some of (if not all) his victims.

I remain unconvinced that there is any evidence for attempted decapitation in Nichols. I concede he may have attempted decapitation on Chapman (despite, last time in the decapitation thread, posters boasting of their ability to decapitate with a dagger and how easy this is). Beyond that I'm unfamiliar with any evidence for decapitation.

Lynn will surely reply to this with some comment like "why might that be?", but if you view it as "the killer wanted to cut something off", you could see it as a series of attempts, each less ambitious than the other: he tried to take a head off, gave up, tried to take a nose off, gave up, finally found out that breasts are easy to cut off.

[lynn cates]

decapittaion

Hello Sox. Good observation. Little doubt about Annie's case. And, if the meaning of the parallel deep neck wounds is the same, Polly also.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I have been reviewing the Nichols case from scratch recently.

There were early reports (Spratling I think) that the spinal cord had been cut through - that was a false statement.

This maybe misleading people.

Phil

[lynn cates]

mistake

Hello Phil. I don't think any medical evidence shows any of the WCM victims to have had their spinal cords severed. So, yes, a mistake.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"If you have ever dealt with an unmedicated schizophrenic, or even a medicated one who has a particularly serious case, they stand out. Most people would not give one the time of day, when they were on high alert for a crazed murderer."

Of course, Polly and Annie were both incapacitated and may not have recognised such a person. And when they were killed, there was no high alert.

Cheers.
LC

We don't know exactly what was wrong with Aaron Kosminski, even though the popular opinion among non-psychiatrist Ripperologists is that he had schizophrenia, even with the caveat that schizophrenics are not any more likely to be violent than other people (albeit, they are often argumentative, because they sometimes just don't understand what is going on).

Anyway, assuming for the moment that the killer was in some sense "crazy"; he had schizophrenia, was in a manic phase of bipolar disorder, had tertiary syphilis, or even high-functioning autism, people like that (in the case of the first two, this does not apply to people who are taking appropriate medication, but that was not available in 1888) would have trouble maintaining the dual task of playing out at the same time their own planned role in the attack, and manipulating the victim.

I don't think people like that would be particularly good at approaching a prostitute just for a plain old sex-for-hire exchange. Some of them probably did, but they probably had someone help them through the transaction the first few times-- or, more to the point, some of the guys at the pub thought it would be funny to buy a whore for the crazy guy. I can tell you for certain that this has in fact, happened.

We've debated JtR's anatomical knowledge, training schooling, etc., and I have usually come down on the side of him have the minimal amount possible. However, I don't think he was impaired in any way. (Other than possibly meriting a diagnosis of "antisocial personality disorder"). I don't think he was retarded, psychotic, autistic, or "crazy," in any way that was readily apparent.

Even before women were on high alert because of the JtR killings, prostitutes still probably avoided anyone who set off bells because their unusual behavior was readily apparent just in the short time it takes to say "How much?" Even women who were intoxicated probably noticed someone like a Kosminski was odd.

But again, I don't think people who come across as "crazy" are, on the whole, people who function well enough to go soliciting anyway. Yes, there's always a Charles Manson, functioning well, and still obviously batsh!t crazy, but he also sticks out, and I think police would have hauled him in for questioning, and we'd have a record of his presence, not just in the police logs, but elsewhere.

[lynn cates]

wrong flavour

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"people like that . . . would have trouble maintaining the dual task of playing out at the same time their own planned role in the attack, and manipulating the victim."

Completely agree. But planned attacks? Not my flavour.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

The pleasure is all mine.

Hi Lynn

Are you saying that these bruises were from Chapman and not the police officers who detained him?

[lynn cates]

harmless lunatic

Hello Jon. Thanks.

No, that could not be confirmed given the evidence we now have. I am merely pointing it out as possible.

But if PC Cracknell had been involved in a scuffle with Jacob, surely the police would have hesitated before making their initial pronouncement that he was "a harmless lunatic"?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

In Blighty, scuffling with the police is a national pre-requisite, doesn`t mean they are Jack The Ripper though.

[lynn cates]

fair point

Hello Jon. Thanks. Fair enough.

But I like to think Annie took a swing or two before she was done.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

But I like to think Annie took a swing or two before she was done.

.. and me .... but I bet those bruises on Isenschmid were from when he was picked up by the police as he probably struggled and he was a stocky bugger..

[Stewart P Evans]

Hmmm...

Hmmm...stocky, yes, but I didn't know that he was a bugger. You learn something new every day.

[lynn cates]

black eye

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Could be. But would they really black an eye? Not sure what kind of collateral damage that would be?

In a subsequent detention, I think his legs were bruised?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

daddy

Hello Stewart. Well, he did father seven children. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Apologies

Hi Lynn

In a subsequent detention, I think his legs were bruised?

I have checked the Isenschmid thread and I was mistaken. I thought the four policemen tapping his ankle was from his detainment on 12th Sept 88.
You were rght, it was 1891. My mistake - although I still believe he picked up a bruise or two when detained on 12/9/88.
You see, even I can make a mistake .. ;-)