How Fast An Operator Was JtR?

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello Elena. Thanks.

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

Agreed. And this fits Polly and Annie precisely.

"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."

Agreed again.

"It relies on the amount of force and pressure. In some instances, I'm sure he killed them by strangulation."

Yes, Polly and Annie.

"In others, he possibly just knocked them out and killed them."

Possibly. But we have no evidence.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skillful

Hello PCFT. Welcome to the boards.

I agree that Polly and Annie's killer was powerful. He also seems deft with a knife. His cuts were deemed skillful.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Jon.

"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"

Quite. And perhaps Kate as well?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

far seeing

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"No argument there Lynn, though our eventual conclusions may differ"

It is of no consequence--you are one of only a few to see this far.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

obvious

Hello DLDW.

"A change was made for some reason."

Yes. And one, at least, is quite obvious.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Let us spray.

Hello PCFT.

"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 shoulder 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 upon him he would also be able to use the pain to control them make them lean over so as to bleed them out."

But the arterial spray?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

good questions

Hello GUT.

"But I ask are those time frames correct?"

Possibly not.

"And did Dear old Jacky commit all the murders."

Ahem. Cough, cough.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

knowledge and availability

Hello Jon.

" I'm just not sure anyone has researched the range of chemical compounds available in the 19th century to render someone unconscious in minutes."

Not to mention knowledge of such agents and their availability to the average bloke.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Not to mention knowledge of such agents and their availability to the average bloke.

Cheers.
LC

Mike Richards believes Schwartz was a secret agent, a double one if my memory serves me well. Hope this helps

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

" I'm just not sure anyone has researched the range of chemical compounds available in the 19th century to render someone unconscious in minutes."

Not to mention knowledge of such agents and their availability to the average bloke.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Average, may be a relative term

[lynn cates]

access

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Indeed. But not sure very many people in Whitechapel would have access to ANY kind of chemical agent?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Indeed. But not sure very many people in Whitechapel would have access to ANY kind of chemical agent?

Cheers.
LC

Well, we have two examples in Dr Neill Cream & George Chapman for whom 'availability' was not a problem.
I wouldn't call these men exceptional in any way.

That said, there is still no cause to believe 'Jack' used something untraceable, my preference is still a garrott of some kind.
All I'm asking is, was there really something available that has not been considered?

[Jon Guy]

Well, we have two examples in Dr Neill Cream & George Chapman for whom 'availability' was not a problem.

Indeed Jon.
In those days you could get opium and cocaine over the chemists counter, and I bet there were other poisons banned to us but readily and easily available to Victorians.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi Elena
Good post. I agree that it would have been relatively easy and quick for jack to render his victims unconcious -several of them were already half way there and kelly may have already been unco when she was attacked. A quick punch or blood choke (Compressing the arteries of the neck will knock you out in seconds) would have done the trick, I would think.

Now, IMHO I think that people dismis the posibility that Torso Man and Jack were the same a little too quickly. We have the victims in the same approx. time frame and area, all poor prostitutes (OK I will settle for poor, vulnerable women), signature abdominal mutilations, all unsolved cases and both ending around the same time.

The apparent difference in MO (limb and head removal) may be do to ease in removal of bodies from a private residence. As in the torso murders occurred when the killer could bring them home, and the ripper murders, when he could not.

[Errata]

Hello Jon.

" I'm just not sure anyone has researched the range of chemical compounds available in the 19th century to render someone unconscious in minutes."

Not to mention knowledge of such agents and their availability to the average bloke.

Cheers.
LC

I did. I didn't write anything on it because there was nothing to write. Of all the known chemicals or substances that can cause unconsciousness or disorientation that were known in the 19th century, none could have been used in these murders.

He could not have used an ingested drug. Firstly he couldn't be sure these women would be willing to take some food or drink he offered. Secondly the metabolism of all these women would have been radically different. And nothing would have activated in less than half an hour to an hour. So he would basically be babysitting her until she passed out, and she could have gone down in a busy street, which would have been awkward. Of the injection drugs that could do it, there weren't many. Most require being introduced straight into the bloodstream, which means the women would have to cooperate. There were two that could be muscular, in which case he could just jab her with a syringe in the ass or something, but despite no needle marks being found, involuntary shots (which anyone with a kid has seen) cause a pretty wicked bruise. Which would have been a glaring anomaly.

We have to rule out anything that must be injected or ingested. So we are talking about inhalants. but given the portability required, we can rule out any actual gas. Thank god because most explode when released from pressure. Of whats left, everything is either
A. far too powerful, (resulting in the dosing of Jack as well, even through a cloth over the nose or the like. These were byproducts of experiments, and the reports on their discovery and handling are kind of hilarious.)
B. highly damaging causing serious burns, blisters and scars not only at the point of contact but also in the lungs
C. causes other highly evident symptoms. Mostly horrifying vomiting, but some cause bleeding from... well everything, some cause seizures, some cause total mucus overload.
D. Are accompanied by a smell that lingers for hours.

The two liquids used most commonly as inhalant anesthesia were ether and chloroform. Both have extremely persistent odors which can best be described as sickeningly sweet. They don't both smell the same, but they both fall into that rotting meat/flower range of smell. And both smells last for hours. Even in the rain.

Some chemicals that caused the effect desired by the killer also had unfortunate tendencies, like exploding, eating through containers, launching a fireball when uncorked... There were a few that were stable but they all caused violent vomiting, usually accompanied by seizures or rictus, scarring of the lungs and inhalation of vomit. None of which happened.

In another 15 or 20 years, there would have been any number of things he could have used that would have left little to no trace. But not in 1888. Most chemicals would not have been available to anyone outside of a particular manufactury job. Which had they been used would have been useful, but they weren't. Most required specific knowledge on how to handle the compounds. Most were simply unavailable because a particular chemist had discovered it and had it hanging out in their lab until they found a use for it. It was not a good year for inhalants.

There was nothing out there that could do this. Not even opium. Not without signs that would have been obvious. He didn't use a drug.