Double event victims - Throat wounds

[Michael W Richards]

The wound that Stride received did not require a knife with a sharp point, as it was described it was drawn across the throat. Therefore the blunt or rounded knife seen later that night was inappropriately dismissed as a possible murder weapon.

If you suppose that the type of knife used isn't a very relevant factor in determining the similarities of the victims injuries, then you've ignored the efforts made by the physicians in that regard. Also, if you favour a local man, poor or very poor, just how many knives do you think he might have....unless of course he had a trade that required them.

I think that the type of wounds made to the throat are more telling than the knife used anyway, a double cut is what separates many of the victims into their own category...its rare to see that in contemporary cases.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

The wound that Stride received did not require a knife with a sharp point, as it was described it was drawn across the throat. Therefore the blunt or rounded knife seen later that night was inappropriately dismissed as a possible murder weapon.

The drawn across the throat quote is from Baxter.

I think that the type of wounds made to the throat are more telling than the knife used anyway, a double cut is what separates many of the victims into their own category...its rare to see that in contemporary cases.

Yes you're quite correct, whether it's a double cut in the fleshy bit of the throat like Nichols and McKenzie, or even a double cut on the spine itself like Chapman and Kelly.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes you're quite correct, whether it's a double cut in the fleshy bit of the throat like Nichols and McKenzie, or even a double cut on the spine itself like Chapman and Kelly.

Ive said it here before, but I believe Alice McKenzies murder fits better, based on that point and other observations, with the other 3 that you've mentioned better than Stride, Eddowes or Tabram, ....or Mylett....or Ada, or Annie, or Emma, or Elizabeth, or Francis, or the poor women who became Torsos.

The double cuts are very unusual.

That in and of itself doesn't provide us with a series by one man, but it does suggest that if not by the same person then likely one who was paying attention to the published details of the other murders.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Ive said it here before, but I believe Alice McKenzies murder fits better, based on that point and other observations, with the other 3 that you've mentioned better than Stride, Eddowes or Tabram, ....or Mylett....or Ada, or Annie, or Emma, or Elizabeth, or Francis, or the poor women who became Torsos.

The double cuts are very unusual.

For me, overall the McKenzie murder is perhaps the one which is most similar to Nichols

That in and of itself doesn't provide us with a series by one man, but it does suggest that if not by the same person then likely one who was paying attention to the published details of the other murders.

Ironically, most people have multiple killer theories, but for them this can be ignored by simply over looking the non C5-murders. The problem with this is putting the whole series of murders in to a context relative to each other.
I am one of the few who thinks all the (non-torso) Whitechapel murders were committed by the same individual.

The problem for those with a profile based context is not caused by whether a particular killing is a 'ripper killing' or 'not a ripper killing'. The problem starts with the idea of the 'interrupted ripper killings' - those of Nichols and Stride, and then demonstrating how a 'interrupted ripper killing' differs from a 'non-ripper killing'.

[GUT]

G'day Mr Lucky

I am one of the few who thinks all the (non-torso) Whitechapel murders were committed by the same individual.

Over what time period?

[Mr Lucky]

Over what time period?

Hi GUT

from Smith to Coles, excluding the torso

[GUT]

G'day Mr Lucky

Hi GUT

from Smith to Coles, excluding the torso

And only those listed on casebook or all unsolved murders in that time span?

And only those involving a knife?

[Mr Lucky]

And only those listed on casebook or all unsolved murders in that time span?

And only those involving a knife?

Hi GUT

The 'Whitechapel murder file' is the name given to the 11 unsolved murders of Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, McKenzie, Mylett, Coles and the Pinchin street torso. I'm only considering the first ten on this list.

Not all these are knife murders, technically Smith was a 'blunt instrument' (personally I think it was a blunt knife) and Mylett was strangled/garrotted

[Michael W Richards]

Hi GUT

The 'Whitechapel murder file' is the name given to the 11 unsolved murders of Smith, Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, McKenzie, Mylett, Coles and the Pinchin street torso. I'm only considering the first ten on this list.

Not all these are knife murders, technically Smith was a 'blunt instrument' (personally I think it was a blunt knife) and Mylett was strangled/garrotted

Which would translate into an opinion that any and all references made by any senior investigative officer about someone incarcerated or institutionalized for the Ripper crimes were in fact lies.

It would mean that skilled and unskilled murder techniques were used by the same person, that his knowledge of internal structures was sometimes present and sometimes not, that he was not consummately absorbed by the post mortem mutilations he performed and that he didn't seek out only the opportunities which would allow time for those cuts, and that this single killer was responsible for every unsolved East End murder in 1888.

Good luck with that.

For me, a Canonical Group that consists of Polly, Annie, Kate and possibly Alice is reasonable. The similarities are obvious, and the extraneous noise made by murders that are not like these 4 is silenced,... so a probable killer profile could be legitimately constructed.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Which would translate into an opinion that any and all references made by any senior investigative officer about someone incarcerated or institutionalized for the Ripper crimes were in fact lies.

?. I have given no such indication that you can 'translate' my opinions in such a way. I'm actually trying to discuss the throat wounds on the victims!

It would mean that skilled and unskilled murder techniques were used by the same person, that his knowledge of internal structures was sometimes present and sometimes not, that he was not consummately absorbed by the post mortem mutilations he performed and that he didn't seek out only the opportunities which would allow time for those cuts, and that this single killer was responsible for every unsolved East End murder in 1888.

That's right, that's the evidence, - what's needed is an explanation that fits with what's actually happened, and that's what I'm suggesting we do with the throat wounds of the double event victims.

For me, a Canonical Group that consists of Polly, Annie, Kate and possibly Alice is reasonable. The similarities are obvious, and the extraneous noise made by murders that are not like these 4 is silenced,... so a probable killer profile could be legitimately constructed.

A 'Canonical group' means exactly what in the terms of assigning culpability to someone?
what does putting the victims into various groups actually do anyway...?

....Perhaps there is something to be learnt from this kind of grouping together of the victims - let's try again with something else, what about how many hats they owned - Coles had two bonnets, so that means she was killed by a totally different killer other than the 'One hat killer' of Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Eddowes, What about Kelly - famously she didn't own her own bonnet, but on the night she was killed they found the remains of one in her fire!! - ripperological 'proof' that there's some kind of conspiracy.....a copy cat killer, knowingly passing his work off as that of the "One hat killer"!!! - the reality is putting the murders into different groups explains nothing of significance.

[Mr Lucky]

Here's a curious little bit of Dr Blackwell testimony, When asked by a juror " Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? ", he replies;-

I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up.

questions, questions...

"pulled the deceased backward, cutting her throat in that way"

If we stick with the ripperological explanation - that the killer is slashing the victims throats, this doesn't make any sense at all. - how does pulling her backward result in her throat getting cut ?

If she had been stabbed below the left ear, the blade facing away from spine and then she was pulled backwards by the killer , this action would result in the throat being cut.

An explanation that fits the evidence is more likely to be true.....

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Here's a curious little bit of Dr Blackwell testimony, When asked by a juror " Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? ", he replies;-



questions, questions...

"pulled the deceased backward, cutting her throat in that way"

If we stick with the ripperological explanation - that the killer is slashing the victims throats, this doesn't make any sense at all. - how does pulling her backward result in her throat getting cut ?

If she had been stabbed below the left ear, the blade facing away from spine and then she was pulled backwards by the killer , this action would result in the throat being cut.

An explanation that fits the evidence is more likely to be true.....

Thats of intrest to me I have at times pondered that method, attacking from behind jabbing the knife in and drawing forward with one hand on the mouth controling the head its a good clean way to do it! but what of the cuts on the bone /cartalige is he finishing the cutting there from the front say when they are prone.

[Michael W Richards]

Here's a curious little bit of Dr Blackwell testimony, When asked by a juror " Can you say whether the throat was cut before or after the deceased fell to the ground? ", he replies;-



questions, questions...

"pulled the deceased backward, cutting her throat in that way"

If we stick with the ripperological explanation - that the killer is slashing the victims throats, this doesn't make any sense at all. - how does pulling her backward result in her throat getting cut ?

If she had been stabbed below the left ear, the blade facing away from spine and then she was pulled backwards by the killer , this action would result in the throat being cut.

An explanation that fits the evidence is more likely to be true.....

I believe Blackwells comments refer to his belief that the scarf was being pulled and twisted while the cut was made, being validated by the nicking of the scarf while twisted.

Plus..if you stick with traditional Ripper beliefs, then the fact that she may have been cut "while falling" should factor into your opinion of her inclusion into the Canonical Group. Most assume the Ripper victims were lying on the ground when first cut.

Cheers

[Mr Lucky]

Thats of intrest to me I have at times pondered that method, attacking from behind jabbing the knife in and drawing forward with one hand on the mouth controling the head its a good clean way to do it! but what of the cuts on the bone /cartalige is he finishing the cutting there from the front say when they are prone.

Hi PC

Well It's nice to know that I'm not the only one who think's that the 'Zorro in a top-hat slashing throats' standard model of how the killer operates is way off the mark and that the wounds need a bit more consideration than they are usually given

In the model you're suggesting I think the question of whether the knife marked the spine or not would just depend on which direction the blade faced, however it would be likely that the knife handle would fit into the hand comfortably only one way (not all knife handles fit like this but most with only one sharp edge do). As the wounds were from the left on both victims I think this makes the throat being stabbed while the killer was behind her unlikely.

If the killer is stabbing into the side of the victims throat while he was standing at her side, the knife could be held the same way on both occasion but the noted differences in whether the spine was marked/not marked could be dependent purely on which direction the killer stood - either he was facing her or they both faced the same direction.

[Mr Lucky]

I believe Blackwells comments refer to his belief that the scarf was being pulled and twisted while the cut was made, being validated by the nicking of the scarf while twisted.

Plus..if you stick with traditional Ripper beliefs, then the fact that she may have been cut "while falling" should factor into your opinion of her inclusion into the Canonical Group. Most assume the Ripper victims were lying on the ground when first cut.

Cheers

Hi Michael

I don't stick with any traditional ripper beliefs at all - the original Leather Apron was a man called Nathan Rueben - Cross killed Nichols after he sent Paul to find a policeman - the killer stabbed his victims to death - one man killed all except the Pinchin street torso - eventually the killer had immunity from prosecution (Oops) - the explanation that fits best with the evidence is the one most likely to be true - Jack the Ripper's (the c5 killer) behaviour is motivated by external events rather than his internal drives - the killer is leaving clues not to help us but the exact opposite etc , etc

Generally speaking, I don't agree with anyone about anything ripperological.