Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[El White Chap]

Wasn't it Dennis Rader who killed the Oteros, not Ridgway?

That's exactly why he worked for Bedfordshire and not the London Police force

[Harry D]

Gary Ridgway when murdering The member of the Otero family thought he had strangled some of them to death, only for them to regain consciousness

Wasn't it Dennis Rader who killed the Oteros, not Ridgway?

[Fisherman]

Hi Mr B

It has been established that certain serial killer's do indeed obtain pleasure from strangulation, controlling the moment of death as you put it.
Observer

Thinking of Bundy, perhaps? He specifically described the exact moment when the light died out in his victims eyes as he throttled them as the one thing that brought him the true reward he was looking for.
Of course, the darkness prevailing when the Ripper killed his victims would perhaps have denied him that particular pleasure, but feeling the body go limp could perhaps have given him the same sort of satisfaction that Bundy spoke of - a feeling of omnipotence and total control over life and death, resembling a feeling of divinity.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Any ideas?"

Well, since you asked. (heh-heh)

". . . we must admit there is no obvious evidence to suggest that either Stride or Eddowes had their throats cut while standing."

Certainly not Kate. But Liz could have been on the way down.

"Therefore, we must consider how the killer(s) managed to get these victims down, horizontal, and apparently, without too much fuss or resistance, and no bruises to the head."

Agreed. But an inductive inference is one thing; clear signs, as with Polly and Annie, quite another.

Cheers.
LC

But there is no evidence to show they didn't.

This all comes down to personal beliefs and don't get me going on that topic again

[lynn cates]

cigar

Hello (again) Jon.

Your post #166 is soooo close.

and:

". . . but that would leave finger marks, bruises.
There are none."

is spot on.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

inductive inference

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Any ideas?"

Well, since you asked. (heh-heh)

". . . we must admit there is no obvious evidence to suggest that either Stride or Eddowes had their throats cut while standing."

Certainly not Kate. But Liz could have been on the way down.

"Therefore, we must consider how the killer(s) managed to get these victims down, horizontal, and apparently, without too much fuss or resistance, and no bruises to the head."

Agreed. But an inductive inference is one thing; clear signs, as with Polly and Annie, quite another.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

On the late 19th century battlefield not too many people where killed via a knife attack to the windpipe.

Overkill is not uncommon with serial killers.

Are soldiers not taught how to kill swiftly and silently in that fashion and did I detect a hint of sarcasm in your reply?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;300137]My guess would be that grabbing the throat quickly and throttling was the best way to prevent a cry of alarm.
Going straight for the throat with a knife, with a struggling and unsubdued woman, would be a recipe for disaster.
Also the throttling would educe the subsequent blood flow.

A victim is more likely to struggle when someone is trying to strangle them and more likely to shout out, as against someone holding them from behind with one hand across their mouth and a knife in the other and sticking it in the throat severing the windpipe causing almost instantaneous death and then drawing it across.

[J6123]

Surely if you are intent on murder and you are brandishing a long blade knife which you subsequently use to cut the victims throat and then rip open the abdomen why not simply use the knife in the first instance. Throttling doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things it is not a quick method even to the point of immobilization. Strangling someone to death takes 4-5 mins on average according to serial killer Arthur Shawcross

Gary Ridgway when murdering The member of the Otero family thought he had strangled some of them to death, only for them to regain consciousness

If throttling was the method as you suggest then why cut the throats afterwards, why not simply carry out the mutilations and remove the organs if that was his intent?

it makes sense if he wanted to quickly incapacitate the victim as quietly and cleanly as possible - there's no blood spillage with strangulation. plus he's totally in control of the woman (physically that is, not necessarily verbally), and the victim has little if any chance to put up any resistance.

if on the other hand he pulled the knife out first and started slashing.....he's less in control, she might get a scream off, he'll get soiled with blood.

[J6123]

does anyone know how to delete a post?

thanks.

[Observer]

Hi Mr B

Controlling the actual moment of death was a luxury he couldn't afford? How about carefully nicking the eyes of Eddowes, and rifling her pockets? How about turning out Chapman's pocket's and arranging her meagre belongings in a neat pile, and then removing her rings?

It has been established that certain serial killer's do indeed obtain pleasure from strangulation, controlling the moment of death as you put it. Did the Whitechapel killer fall into this category? I don't know, he was not apprehended. I would not rule it out though.

Observer

[Wickerman]

My guess would be that grabbing the throat quickly and throttling was the best way to prevent a cry of alarm.

No question, I entirely agree, but that would leave finger marks, bruises.
There are none.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

I'm with you there - almost. I don't think he was cognisant of, or cared, whether he had killed by strangulation. The victim had been disabled by strangulation, the throat wounds made doubly sure he could do as he pleased without immediate disturbance, and were done in such a way that he could control blood flow. Controlling the actual moment of death was a luxury he couldn't afford. The main event was what came next, otherwise we would have had 5+ Strides.

MrB

[Lechmere]

My guess would be that grabbing the throat quickly and throttling was the best way to prevent a cry of alarm.
Going straight for the throat with a knife, with a struggling and unsubdued woman, would be a recipe for disaster.
Also the throttling would educe the subsequent blood flow.

Why not just strangle?
It would not be obvious that death had resulted and was probably unsatisfactory to the culprit as suitably final. Given that there is some evidence to suggest the posing of the victims to create shock and awe I would suggest that simple strangulation would not have satisfied his needs.

[Wickerman]

Surely if you are intent on murder and you are brandishing a long blade knife which you subsequently use to cut the victims throat and then rip open the abdomen why not simply use the knife in the first instance. Throttling doesn't make sense in the grand scheme of things.....

Trevor.
For the longest time I have suggested that 'Jack' was primarily a strangler, who used a knife. Not a knife wielding lunatic.
As you point out, if the killer was a 'knife-man' why not just cup your hand around their mouth from behind and stab them, 'commando-style', or something similar?
This killer may have derived pleasure from the act of strangling, and I suspect he was proficient at it.

In the same way we wouldn't expect a gun-man to use a knife first, why should we expect a knife-man to use his hands first?
There had to be a reason.

I suspect the reason was, he derived pleasure from 'literally' holding their life in his hands.