"Site" unseen?

[Sam Flynn]

Victims 1, 2 and 4 however were flat on their backs and not resisting when they are killed.

Actually, we don't know that, Mike - neither that they were all supine, nor that they didn't put up some sort of struggle before succumbing to the killer's knife. Certainly, on the latter point, we have ear-witness testimony that makes it almost certain that Annie Chapman cried "No!" just before her demise - such exclamations usually accompany some sort of resistance. As to the others, we do not have the luxury of any witnesses who were as close to the action as Albert Cadoche.

[perrymason]

Actually, we don't know that, Mike - neither that they were all supine, nor that they didn't put up some sort of struggle before succumbing to the killer's* knife.


* I say "killer", rather than "Ripper", because it's by no means certain that Jack killed Polly Nichols. After all, her killer left her womb unharmed

No we dont know that Sam, we only know that ALL the physicians that saw those women and their condition suggested that they were flat on their backs when their throats were cut....and that they saw no signs that the women resisted the killer physically while he got them lying down.

Seems a fair bet that they were right I would think.

All the best.

[Observer]

Hi Mike

An injection site could have been missed yes. Was a syringe used? not in my opinion.

Hi Lynn

With regard to the bruises why look further than the assault which killed her ?

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

rethinking

Hello Sam. Your dictum:

"[W]e have ear-witness testimony that makes it almost certain that Annie Chapman cried "No!" just before her demise[.]"

might require some rethinking. Do you honestly believe that Jack, after daylight, on a market day no less, would struggle with AC, strangle and mutilate her for (what did the post mortem indicate?) a quarter hour after she cries out, and the devil take all the witnesses?

Isn't this the chap whom some aver ran off from Diemschutz?

But this is for another thread.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

chronology

Hello Observer. I did not realize the assault killed her. I thought her death came AFTERWARD?

The best.
LC

[Dr. John Watson]

I don't agree that the victims were flat on their backs when their throats were cut, and the medical evidence supporting such a hypothisis is weak. My personal view has always been that they were attacked from behind, with the killer covering their mouth with one hand while he slices their throat with the other. He allows them to fall to the ground, then rolls them over and multilates the body. It's true that blood spurts from the carotid artery for some distance, but only for a few seconds. After that, only seepage occurs. Killing from behind would allow the killer (Jack) to avoid being covered in blood, and pulling the victims head back would tend to direct spurting blood away from her body, lessening the amount of blood on her clothing.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. Your dictum:

"[W]e have ear-witness testimony that makes it almost certain that Annie Chapman cried "No!" just before her demise[.]"

might require some rethinking. Do you honestly believe that Jack, after daylight, on a market day no less, would struggle with AC, strangle and mutilate her for (what did the post mortem indicate?) a quarter hour after she cries out, and the devil take all the witnesses?

That's evidently what happened, Lynn - apart from the "quarter hour after" bit. Bagster Phillips' estimate of a quarter of an hour was ridiculously overcooked - and was, even without the hindsight of Kate Eddowes' four-minute murder. It's almost certain that Jack commenced mutilating Annie Chapman even as Cadoche passed by the other side of the fence. He'd have finished the mutilations within 5 or 6 minutes, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Observer]

Eh?

Ok Lynn, regarding the bruising, why look past the assault prior to her immediate death, where the killer possibly forced her to the ground by gripping her shoulders. This and the fact that he may well have momentarily knelt on her, to subdue her. He then very rapidly slit her throat of course killing her.

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi John

I don't agree that the victims were flat on their backs when their throats were cut, and the medical evidence supporting such a hypothisis is weak. My personal view has always been that they were attacked from behind, with the killer covering their mouth with one hand while he slices their throat with the other. He allows them to fall to the ground, then rolls them over and multilates the body. It's true that blood spurts from the carotid artery for some distance, but only for a few seconds. After that, only seepage occurs. Killing from behind would allow the killer (Jack) to avoid being covered in blood, and pulling the victims head back would tend to direct spurting blood away from her body, lessening the amount of blood on her clothing.

Then why was there no evidence of blood spurt in Dutfields Yard the night Liz Stride was murdered? If Liz Stride had been murdered in the manner you describe, surely there would have been evidence of blood spurt on the walls and ground. Of course I realise that there are those who believe that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim. And to Fisherman, although it's theoretically possible I do not agree with Dave Yosts theory.

all the best

Observer

[Dr. John Watson]

Hi John



Then why was there no evidence of blood spurt in Dutfields Yard the night Liz Stride was murdered? If Liz Stride had been murdered in the manner you describe, surely there would have been evidence of blood spurt on the walls and ground. Of course I realise that there are those who believe that Liz Stride was not a Ripper victim. And to Fisherman, although it's theoretically possible I do not agree with Dave Yosts theory.

all the best

Observer

Hello Lynn!

I don't think either police or physicians were interested in searching for evidence of blood spurt during the initial examination at the murder site. Besides, it was dark outside, the ground was wet from the recent rain, and there had been a lot of foot traffic in the yard, all of which would make it difficult to spot a splotch of blood, even if they had been looking for that. The only place they were likely to see evidence of blood spurt would be on the side of the building, and it would be there only if Liz had been facing in that direction at the time her throat was cut. Witnesses did report seeing a considerable quantity of blood flowing from the body toward the kitchen door, leading me to believe she was facing toward the back of the yard, with her right side toward the building. And for what it's worth, I do believe Liz was a victim of Jack.

[lynn cates]

sure handed

Hello Observer. If your scenario is correct, then all I can say is that there are some American style football teams who want Liz to play for them. If she could hold on to the cachous through all that, she would never fumble a ball.

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

time frame

Hello Sam. OK, let's play by your parametres. Here we go:

"It's almost certain that Jack commenced mutilating Annie Chapman even as Cadoche passed by the other side of the fence. He'd have finished the mutilations within 5 or 6 minutes, without a shadow of a doubt."

Fine.

Now, Albert heard "No" as if from the yard at the beginning of the sequence. (Do you have a stopwatch Sam? If so, depress the button now.) OK, what next? Well, strangulation must begin. Remember, if AC says "No," she is not yet strangled. This leg should take 60 seconds, plus or minus 30.

Next, lay her down. Grab a knife. Cut, not once but twice. Now, up go the skirts and eviseration begins. (Clock still running? Good.)

Now, you are Jack and you know that someone is making a noise next door, going to the privy. That happened at the beginning of the sequence. Yet you are blithely cutting away at AC. Let your watch go up to your 5 or 6 minutes.

Sam, what are you thinking with each tick? The bloke next door could look over. A PC or a resident might pop through the passage and shout, " 'ere now, what's all this then?" Someone may look out a window. Recall, the sun came up at 5:23--seven minutes before you began. It is broad daylight. If you ARE caught, what then? You are trapped.

Stop the watch. What's that you are wiping from your brow? Nervous? Why?

Get the point? (Now, no puns about AC getting the point.)

The best.
LC

[lynn cates]

reconstruction

Hello John. We know precisely how her body was found. It is very simple to reconstruct.

Given your belief in Jack, perhaps you can reconstruct Liz's evening including the final sequence in, and just outside, the yard. But it may not prove elementary, Dr. Watson.

Cheers.
LC

[karensa]

I'll finish up the thread but had to add this to clarify

Who said/where was it said that any victims were on their backs and not resisting? Someone pointed out I was missing the facts that 3 victims had been on their backs, unresistant...but it's raising the question "says who?" I can't see how that could've been determined since nobody was there and they all ended up on their backs before it was over.

I just can't see how it could be determined (back then that is) what position they were in when the throats were cut. If it was standing up rear entry, they wouldn't have seen it coming, all he had to do was raise the blade and slice and they'd drop before they knew what happened (and no resistance). He could've done that from the front too.

Can you point me to the info on the manner of death so I can see what this is about - or why this is a question, I guess is what I'm saying.


Edit: A PC or a resident might pop through the passage and shout, " 'ere now, what's all this then?"

That made me lol....ahh, the Brits are ever so polite! I can just hear it

[lynn cates]

curare

Hello Mike. To get back on topic (mea culpa!) I wonder if:

1. Curare were available to a medical person?

2. How quickly it would act?

3. How traceable it is?

The best.
LC