How Fast An Operator Was JtR?

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Just a thought, maybe the strangulation was a by product of his method to silence them as he makes use of the knife, if say he grabs them from behind working his hand under the jaw line and say braces the back of the head against his chest or shoulded he only need to squeeze and draw them up off there feet to stop any sound then he may draw the knife along the throat or skewer the neck right through and cut forward if he keeps control of the head little blood will be apon him he would also be able to use the pain to control them make them lean over so as to bleed them out.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Wickerman.

Don't the murders of Coles & McKenzie suggest otherwise? Or, are you saying those murders were both messy and noisy?

What I was getting at, poorly apparently, was initially the possible strangulation was used to subdue and gain control over the victim and mess. It was apparently discarded for another later, ie something that worked better, or more effecient, pleasing, quicker, etc. A change was made for some reason.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"At this point we are unable to distinguish between suffocation and strangulation, and although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case."

Yes, indeed. I trust I need not point out the two cases in which it is confirmed?

"The question then may be posed, "...why does a man with a knife choose to strangle his victim?"

Suppose his knife is for work and his strangling is a by product of a hot temper whist delusional?

"Strangulation takes time & effort, and depending on the build & fortitude of the victim, the killer could be in for a noisy & strenuous exchange compromising the time and privacy he needs to complete his task."

Indeed. My lad had a black-eye and bruise when he was examined.

Noisy exchange? Like talking loudly?

Cheers.
LC

No argument there Lynn, though our eventual conclusions may differ

[Wickerman]

Taking a knife to a fully conscious individual who is standing up is going to result in a mess and very possibly excess noise.

Don't the murders of Coles & McKenzie suggest otherwise? Or, are you saying those murders were both messy and noisy?

[Wickerman]

But is there real evidence of strangulation?

I had already expressed caution:
"....although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case.".

Grabbing by the neck prior to cutting the throat may have caused some bruising but a deep cut to the throat may well sever, or partly sever, the windpipe so cause symptoms of asphyxiation

The results of asphyxiation on the body are quite different to death by loss of blood, commonly described as syncope. Incidentally, one argument against strangulation is the lack of obvious bruising around the neck. Its a shame the doctors never thought to describe the hyoid bone, then we should have known for sure.

I'm probably showing my ignorance here but I've never thought of the Ripper as first and foremost a strangler.

That is not surprising, we can only make suggestions, we can never know for sure.
What is to be expected for a knife wielding killer is what we see with Coles & McKenzie, the knife being the first weapon used, and no reason to suspect suffocation/strangulation.

To try and get back on thread, I can't see that strangulation is the fastest way to kill one's victim, precious time would have been lost rendering them lifeless, and the Ripper just did not have that time.

Correct, it is a risky activity. So if he did do this, he must have 'needed' to, as it most certainly was not necessary.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Cosidering the potential time frames it would seem "J" could do his work fairly quickly and by that is suggest a powerful man even if we consider emotive content aiding his hand ,and a man of some skill and confidence what gets me about J is he is like a ghost he dose his work and melts back into the night like he was never there, quite the fox are mr J.

[Elenahoyos66]

Hello Jon.

"At this point we are unable to distinguish between suffocation and strangulation, and although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case."

Yes, indeed. I trust I need not point out the two cases in which it is confirmed?

"The question then may be posed, "...why does a man with a knife choose to strangle his victim?"

Suppose his knife is for work and his strangling is a by product of a hot temper whist delusional?

"Strangulation takes time & effort, and depending on the build & fortitude of the victim, the killer could be in for a noisy & strenuous exchange compromising the time and privacy he needs to complete his task."

Indeed. My lad had a black-eye and bruise when he was examined.

Noisy exchange? Like talking loudly?

Cheers.
LC

Strangulation doesn't necessarily take time. Subduing women who are frail, sick and drunk isn't some great feat, either.

In most cases, depending on their size and stature, I'd say it would only take him about two minutes to apply some serious force, enough at which to at least render his victim unconscious, if not enough to actually kill them.

It rely's on the amount of force and pressure. In some instances, I'm sure he killed them by strangulation. In others, he possibly just knocked them out and killed them.

I think the only victim who was aware and alive of the mutilations was Kelly. We were told there was no sign of a struggle; I.E noises coming from the room besides the initial cry of "OH, murder" (which suggest that he's a blitz attacker). Although I'm sure she must have offered some resistance, is it possible to say that he killed her while he was still in the process of controlling her? Their was a certain type of bruise on her neck that suggested force before it entered - - which, I'm assuming, means that he killed her while she was alive.

All in all, like I stated before, 6 minutes for the previous victims, 15-20 with the known "last".

As for the torso murders, it isn't uncommon for serial killers to change their MO, but the torso murders seem fairly more sadistic than what Jack was doing.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Strangulation

Taking a knife to a fully conscious individual who is standing up is going to result in a mess and very possibly excess noise. The strangulation was used to gain control over the "working" conditions. It is strongly suggestive that this tactic was employed to control where the blood went and limit the possible noise created. In the case of Eddowes, it appears this tactic was abandonned and a new tactic to gain control over the scenario was developed that still achieved similar results. Whether it was employed for speed or for another reason(s) it is not completely clear. I find a practicality about it that is hard to ignore though.

[lynn cates]

conjecture

Hello Gareth. Thanks.

Not a bad conjecture.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

strangler

Hello Jon.

"At this point we are unable to distinguish between suffocation and strangulation, and although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case."

Yes, indeed. I trust I need not point out the two cases in which it is confirmed?

"The question then may be posed, "...why does a man with a knife choose to strangle his victim?"

Suppose his knife is for work and his strangling is a by product of a hot temper whist delusional?

"Strangulation takes time & effort, and depending on the build & fortitude of the victim, the killer could be in for a noisy & strenuous exchange compromising the time and privacy he needs to complete his task."

Indeed. My lad had a black-eye and bruise when he was examined.

Noisy exchange? Like talking loudly?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

a few points

Hello Amanda. Thanks.

"1. The fact that women were being attacked during the autumn of 1888, having their throats cut and suffering from varying degrees of abdominal injuries and evisceration, and in three cases body parts were removed, I think that we can be fairly certain that this was the work of one individual."

Whence the certainty? I find none.

"The fact that the murders stopped as suddenly as they started points to that, in my opinion."

This one eludes me.

"2. The physical strength needed to bring down these women by cutting their throats points to the perpetrator being a male. These women were seen with males and, although these individuals may not have been the Ripper, the fact that these women sought male company, and none were seen with another woman, does point to it being a male that did the attacks."

Were Polly or Annie seen with males?

"Most serious offences against women are done by men, so, yes. I think we can safely assume these murders were done by a male. Although, I agree with you, we cannot establish that as fact."

Then we agree. I think the perpetrators were male.

"3. All the injuries were done after life was extinct apart from the initial throat cut so the suffering of the victims was not the objective. These were not sadistic murders. However, I agree that we do not know if this individual was sadistic in other areas in his life, so you have a valid point there."

Very well.

"4.Well, we know the killer's interest in these murders and that was the exploration and destruction of their internal body parts."

How on earth could we know that?

"What other interests he may have had in life, we do not know, or ever likely to find out."

Agreed again.

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

"Interestingly - and this has only just occurred to me - perhaps what he achieved in such a short time span in Mitre Square might tell us something about the previous murders. Specifically, the time he had available to "finish the job" on those occasions, and what might have prompted him to stop when he did."

So you are of opinion that the assailant stopped when he saw Harvey's light in Church Passage?

Or heard him. Something like that, Lynn.

[Amanda Sumner]

Jack may have been first and foremost a strangler, the mutilations fulfilling some other desire.
__________________

But is there real evidence of strangulation?
Grabbing by the neck prior to cutting the throat may have caused some bruising but a deep cut to the throat may well sever, or partly sever, the windpipe so cause symptoms of asphyxiation by the sudden lack of oxygen, and of course the blood on its own would have restricted air flow and cause choking.
I'm probably showing my ignorance here but I've never thought of the Ripper as first and foremost a strangler.

To try and get back on thread, I can't see that strangulation is the fastest way to kill one's victim, precious time would have been lost rendering them lifeless, and the Ripper just did not have that time.

[Wickerman]

Something else that may be added to the list is the means & the reason why the killer thought it necessary to render them unconscious.
At this point we are unable to distinguish between suffocation and strangulation, and although there is evidence in support of this being applied in some cases, it is by no means proven in every case.

The question then may be posed, "...why does a man with a knife choose to strangle his victim?"
Strangulation takes time & effort, and depending on the build & fortitude of the victim, the killer could be in for a noisy & strenuous exchange compromising the time and privacy he needs to complete his task.

This apparently risky behaviour suggests to me that the need and the means by which he rendered them unconscious was important to him, that watching their life slip away slowly while under his firm grasp was part of the 'thrill'.

Jack may have been first and foremost a strangler, the mutilations fulfilling some other desire.

[Amanda Sumner]

Hello Amanda. If I may point out . . .

"The Ripper was not a sadist, their suffering did not interest him."

You will notice that you have no fewer than four assumptions here.

1. There was a unique ripper. (definite article)

2. The killer was male. (masculine pronoun)

3. The killer was no sadist. (Littlechild was convinced otherwise)

4. You know the killer's interests.

We all make assumptions--and I may be the biggest duck in the puddle. But, really, are ANY of these definitely ascertained facts?

Cheers.
LC

Interesting points Lynn, but we can be certain of some things, surely?

1. The fact that women were being attacked during the autumn of 1888, having their throats cut and suffering from varying degrees of abdominal injuries and evisceration, and in three cases body parts were removed, I think that we can be fairly certain that this was the work of one individual. The fact that the murders stopped as suddenly as they started points to that, in my opinion.

2. The physical strength needed to bring down these women by cutting their throats points to the perpetrator being a male. These women were seen with males and, although these individuals may not have been the Ripper, the fact that these women sought male company, and none were seen with another woman, does point to it being a male that did the attacks. Most serious offences against women are done by men, so, yes. I think we can safely assume these murders were done by a male. Although, I agree with you, we cannot establish that as fact.

3. All the injuries were done after life was extinct apart from the initial throat cut so the suffering of the victims was not the objective. These were not sadistic murders. However, I agree that we do not know if this individual was sadistic in other areas in his life, so you have a valid point there.

4.Well, we know the killer's interest in these murders and that was the exploration and destruction of their internal body parts. What other interests he may have had in life, we do not know, or ever likely to find out.

Amanda