How Fast An Operator Was JtR?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[GUT]

G'Day PC Fitzroy-Toye

Welcome on board.

Cosidering the potential time frames

But I ask are those time frames correct?

Ans did Dear old Jacky commit all the murders.

GUT

[Wickerman]

... 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.

On that note, but merely throwing in a suggestion, is the use of a chemical compound to render the victim unconscious.

We have discussed chloroform in the past, but the potential for this to burn the skin, for which no evidence was found, makes it an unlikely proposal.

There are other possibilities, ether or chloral hydrate, each with its own problems. I'm just not sure anyone has researched the range of chemical compounds available in the 19th century to render someone unconscious in minutes.
Naturally, the 'final solution' would need to leave no scent or physical trace, either on the skin or internally.
It would certainly answer the ever present problems of a lack of bruising.

And no, I don't 'believe' this was the method used, but neither do I think it has been satisfactorily ruled out.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

G'Day PC Fitzroy-Toye

Welcome on board.



But I ask are those time frames correct?

Ans did Dear old Jacky commit all the murders.

GUT

Why thankyou Gut ! as for the time frames I can only go by what is presented and yes there are fair margins for leeway! as for the numbers Im taking into account mainly the cosidered five but at the moment I leave much as an open book after all we are still debating the case so many years later says something about the nature of the case dose it not! at the moment Im trying to immerse myself in his mind set and see what kind of a creature I form from what I feel being there.

[GUT]

G'Day Mate

If you get into his mind you might start killing unfortunates.

Be Careful.

G.U.T.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

G'Day Mate

If you get into his mind you might start killing unfortunates.

Be Careful.

G.U.T.

Well yes there is that to think of but I think Im more balanced than him, mind you I could be wrong Ill have to ask me, myself and I and see what they say........

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

G'Day PC Fitzroy-Toye

Welcome on board.



But I ask are those time frames correct?

Ans did Dear old Jacky commit all the murders.

GUT

Why thankyou Gut ! as for the time frames I can only go by what is presented and yes there are fair margins for leeway! as for the numbers Im taking into account mainly the cosidered five but at the moment I leave much as an open book after all we are still debating the case so many years later says something about the nature of the case dose it not! at the moment Im trying to immerse myself in his mind set and see what kind of a creature I form from what I feel being there.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Wickerman

On that note, but merely throwing in a suggestion, is the use of a chemical compound to render the victim unconscious.

We have discussed chloroform in the past, but the potential for this to burn the skin, for which no evidence was found, makes it an unlikely proposal.

There are other possibilities, ether or chloral hydrate, each with its own problems. I'm just not sure anyone has researched the range of chemical compounds available in the 19th century to render someone unconscious in minutes.
Naturally, the 'final solution' would need to leave no scent or physical trace, either on the skin or internally.
It would certainly answer the ever present problems of a lack of bruising.

And no, I don't 'believe' this was the method used, but neither do I think it has been satisfactorily ruled out.

I've considered it but have not persued. I agree it has not been satisfactorily ruled out. Be interesting to know what was available and to whom. Nothing wrong examining the possibilities. If it was the method, it might just change the focus as it pertains to suspects. Cheers.