Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Mr Lucky]

Wouldn't a jagged wound imply more than one cut?

With a "very sharp knife" as used on Chapman, yes I agree.

[Hunter]

Wouldn't a jagged wound imply more than one cut?

In a literal sense... Yes. And that is apparently what happened to Chapman. Many strokes trying to pick up where the previous left off. That is simply what Phillips was describing. By the time they had been carried around, there was a gap in the skin at the front of the throat.

[Wickerman]

In the case of Eddowes, I suspect that the superficial cut was added later - tracing over the stab wound's entry. Possibly done at the same time as the other facial damage.

Doesn't it raise the question, "why?".

When 'the first cut is the deepest', and had done all the damage, why trace the knife across the throat, but not to any appreciable depth?

You may not recall the later death of Rose Mylett, and the suggestion that she had been garrotted by a cord?

"...my opinion is that death was caused by strangulation by means of a cord being pulled tightly round the neck."
Dr Brownfield.

The question was posed if the previous victims may have also been garrotted first.
To which Brownfield responded:
"If he cut the throat along the line of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation."

Such a cut would not need to be very deep.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman,

Overall, one of the reasons I'm suggesting a different and quicker method is the lack of available time

Doesn't it raise the question, "why?".

When 'the first cut is the deepest', and had done all the damage, why trace the knife across the throat, but not to any appreciable depth?

Not sure if there is a answer.

Everything raises the question of 'why' to some degree ? , and as a counterpoint, in your case you would then have to ask, why the need to eliminate this garrotting mark ? - what about the other facial blade damage - what did that eliminate ?

Additionally , how would the killer know this garrotting mark would exist ? - and that is could be effectively erased by tracing the knife over it ? - he can't have gained this information from what a doctor had said about the Mylett case, as we have.

Questions....,Questions....

P.S. Hopefully, I'll put something up on the Eddowes thread about the throat wounds in a day or so.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Overall, one of the reasons I'm suggesting a different and quicker method is the lack of available time

Hi Mr Lucky.
With Eddowes, I think we place the time restraints on this murder ourselves.
Neither M'Williams nor Swanson were totally convinced that Lawende had seen the victim with her killer.
If their doubts are justified the killer was already at work in Mitre Sq. when Lawende & Co. left the club.

Everything raises the question of 'why' to some degree ? , and as a counterpoint, in your case you would then have to ask, why the need to eliminate this garrotting mark ?

Reasonable question.
Anyone previously convicted for garrotting would be known by police.
If he had previously been a gang member, his methods might be recognized.

Garrotting had been popular as a means of mugging, typically among a gang of three, one would be the 'garrotter', one the decoy, and one the thief.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman

Hi Mr Lucky.
With Eddowes, I think we place the time restraints on this murder ourselves.

I see what you mean here and largely agree , but I really mean from the killers perspective. - He was in a place and at a time when discovery was far more likely than with the previous locations - if he could save a couple of minutes by eliminating the throttling process then that may have been enough of an incentive to do just that.

Reasonable question.
Anyone previously convicted for garrotting would be known by police.
If he had previously been a gang member, his methods might be recognized.

Garrotting had been popular as a means of mugging, typically among a gang of three, one would be the 'garrotter', one the decoy, and one the thief.

Do you think the earlier victims were garrotted ? - if not then why did he not use this technique before ?

[Wickerman]

Do you think the earlier victims were garrotted ? - if not then why did he not use this technique before ?

We have no direct evidence of course that a cord was used, but we have circumstantial evidence of strangulation, yet no evidence on the throats of thumb & finger pressure.

As they were all laid out when their throats were cut, then how did he get them to comply by laying down in that position without strangling them first?
So, if they were strangled, how did he do it without leaving telltale pressure marks?

I've always thought the medical evidence suggested the first cut was enough to kill them.

According to the reports the stab to the side of the throat (as with Stride) has cut the main artery's.
As this cut was always separate from any other slice to the throats then he clearly knew the effect of this first stab.
Death was always due to loss of blood, or syncope, nothing apparently caused by the second cut.
So why bother?

So, in my view, 'Jack' was first & foremost a strangler, who carried a knife. Not a knife wielding lunatic.

[lynn cates]

strangled

Hello Jon.

"So, in my view, 'Jack' was first & foremost a strangler, who carried a knife."

Yes. Both Polly and Annie were strangled first.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

We have no direct evidence of course that a cord was used, but we have circumstantial evidence of strangulation, yet no evidence on the throats of thumb & finger pressure.

Not sure who you are referring to ?

Smith - ?
Tabram, press say she was , doctor doesn’t mention anything
Nichols appears to have been 'Burked' - there is clear evidence to support this, however Llewellyn doesn't mention any throttling/strangling.
Chapman - Philips said her breathing was interfered with, - a possible garrotting here -and what with the knife wound traced all the way round her neck, that could have possibly obliterated a cord mark?

As they were all laid out when their throats were cut, then how did he get them to comply by laying down in that position without strangling them first?
So, if they were strangled, how did he do it without leaving telltale pressure marks?

He’s Burked them, IMO , - at least he did pre double event, with Tabram, Nichols and Chapman.

So why bother?

Well, if Strides is a staged interruption (an 'interruption' without an 'interrupter'), for that to be accepted as such - additional unnecessary damage needed to be done to the next victim, Eddowes, whatever that damage may be. For example - why cut her nose off ?

So, in my view, 'Jack' was first & foremost a strangler, who carried a knife. Not a knife wielding lunatic.

I largely agree - Well I think he enjoys throttling them and then stabbing them, usually in genital area. However, this all went wrong on Buck’s-row when Robert Paul showed up, and that’s when the ripping started.

After that killing, he's created a mass of indecipherable 'clues' that still distract, befuddle and confuse 120-odd years later. As I've said before, quite contrary to the standard approach - he's not leaving the clues to help us.

[Errata]

Hello Jon.

"So, in my view, 'Jack' was first & foremost a strangler, who carried a knife."

Yes. Both Polly and Annie were strangled first.

Cheers.
LC

Maybe. Annie certainly showed more classic signs of strangulation than Polly, but even so strangulation is not the only explanation for those clues.

And garrotting is something specific. When a person is garrotted, we know it leaves marks. But the marks it leaves are inconsistent. The marks on the front of the neck from a standing garrotting are below or at the adam's apple. The marks on the back of the neck are up at the nape, near the hairline. Similar to the marks one would expect from a hanging. In order to obliterate those marks, the neck incisions would have to follow that track, which would mean the knife marks on the back of the neck would have to be noticeably higher on the back of the neck than the front. Something that would cause comment. And even if we are not looking at a full loop garrotting, the marks on the side of the neck would angle upward towards the hairline. And if the killer changed angles to accommodate the fall of the victim, we would be left with more than one set of marks.

The only time you get marks that are consistent all the way around the neck is if the killer is shorter than the victim, or if the killer is above a victim whose body is parallel to the ground. Lying on a bed, or bent at a 90 degree angle.

[lynn cates]

how

Hello Errata. Thanks.

But my point is that HOW these first two murders were carried out are virtually the same.

The last three, not. And there are many ad hoc explanations--none of which satisfy.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

But my point is that HOW these first two murders were carried out are virtually the same.

The last three, not. And there are many ad hoc explanations--none of which satisfy.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I don't think that there is any explanation that will satisfy you other than different killers. Could it be that the three later victims were much more wary than the first two victims so that their killer had to improvise a little bit more?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

wary

Hello CD. Thanks.

I think the problem with that is that such wariness/improvisation would more likely lead to haste. Now one COULD claim that Kate was done hastily, but, given the suggested added escape pressure, surely the extra mutilations/extraction could have been foregone, a la Liz?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Any marks left by a ligature/garrott need not be consistent.
In fact even if the knife did not run the entire length of the ligature mark it is unlikely the surgeon would recognise the tail end of the mark from ordinary bruising on the corpse.

The killer should have no problem seeing the mark he left as a guideline to run the knife through, as in this example:

Not sure who you are referring to ?

You're right, I should have added, "with Nichols & Chapman".

With both Stride & Eddowes we have no clues, yet both were wearing a neck scarf which may have reduced the burn effect on the skin.
Then Kelly, obviously, no clue either.

He’s Burked them, IMO , - at least he did pre double event, with Tabram, Nichols and Chapman.

It's a detail we rarely discuss, "how did he get them to lie down?".
In all cases it appears "quietly" and with little to no resistance.
There is circumstantial evidence which may suggest resistance with both Chapman & Kelly, but we are not sure.

[Hunter]

Phillips testified that he believed there was a struggle in the yard at 29 Hanbury St.

How elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were subdued is indeed a mystery. I've just about come to the notion that both were just quickly taken down and their throats immediately cut. Eddowes had abrasions on the left side of her face that were never explained.