"Site" unseen?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. OK, let's play by your parametres.

They're not mine in particular. They are the parameters of common sense, backed up by the evidence of other murders. Bagster Phillips' 16 minute estimate for Annie Chapman's mutilations was utter bollocks. Simple as.

[lynn cates]

5 minutes

Hello Sam. Whose ever they are, I am willing to use them. The point is, Jack may be brave and clever, but not to THAT extent. Even 5 minutes is far to long, in a public place, AFTER a cry of "No."

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Even 5 minutes is far to long, in a public place, AFTER a cry of "No."

Do you think that, if she'd have tacked on "Please don't hurt me!", it would have made all that much difference to him, Lynn? That's not a sarcastic question, by the way - that's just one means of expressing the possibility that Jack would have been too far gone at that point to have let a whimper of "No" put him off.

[lynn cates]

bolt

Hello Sam. My point is that, once a noise was made, it makes sense that Jack would do a quick cut (as some claim he did to Stride) and bolt. After all, it was broad daylight, right?

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Hello Sam. My point is that, once a noise was made, it makes sense that Jack would do a quick cut (as some claim he did to Stride) and bolt. After all, it was broad daylight, right?

The best.
LC

Not if the killer you're discussing with Sam is Annie's. as you well know Lynn ....because that killers activities were not about any arbitrary post mortem mutilations, he wanted an abdominal organ from her so bad it may have been the reason he killed her.

What would scare that killer off....and at what point in his "routine" would he be willing to abandon his prize?
During the attack phase, where he gets them on the ground......or during the throat cut phase, when he first pulls out the knife,.... or during the mutilations phase?.....(because in the first 2 murders and the 4th, those 3 "phases" are SOP)

Since Liz's killer has his knife out as he attacks.....(because he chokes her with her scarf and likely cuts her while she fell, he needed to have it out and ready to cut during what may have been a 2 second attack/murder).... he has identified himself as a knife wielder at the outset. Should Liz have survived and an identification of her attacker been made, he's looking at attempted murder.....but Mary Ann and Polly may have been conscious only for the attack which didnt include a knife.....therefore.....Mary Ann and Annies murders could have stopped due to an interruption or fear of capture before the knife is revealed and he would only be charged with assault if he's caught. If the "no' was from Annie as she is being choked, he could have quit right there if he thought the neighbor Cadosche might peek over the fence, and risked only assault charges if caught... up until that point.

Thats one of the very significant differentiators in the styles exhibited within the Canonical 3. By not having a knife out when the attack begins on the first 2 women, Jack can abandon the murder attempt up until the moment he does withdraw the knife from his belt or coat pocket, when they are lying down and unresisting.... and face only assault charges if caught.

If Cadosche had of scared off Jack during the choking phase.... and he was later caught and identified by Annie, he pleads guilty to assault and goes to a workhouse likely. Liz Strides killer left himself no such out. From the minute he started the attack he had his knife out, and thats attempted murder. He goes to jail.

There are different points at which the murderer of Liz, and the murderer of Mary Ann, Polly and likely Kate could have stopped and avoided jail or a hanging....the murderer of C1, C2 and likely C4 could have choked them to unconsciousness before deciding if it was safe to even make a single cut.......non-lethal force, without a weapon per se.

But Strides killer cut her throat before he knew if he could cut her open....and with the approaching horse and cart, thats a dangerous lack of self control.

But then again, there is no evidence that he wanted to cut her open anyway.

Best regards all

[lynn cates]

choking

Hello Mike. You make many good points, as always. But I wonder if "No" can be articulated whilst being choked? Of course, it could be made to some extent, but wouldn't Albert have noted the garbled sound?

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam. My point is that, once a noise was made, it makes sense that Jack would do a quick cut (as some claim he did to Stride) and bolt. After all, it was broad daylight, right?

That's somewhat immaterial, Lynn. The fact remains that somebody - quite probably Annie Chapman - did make a noise in the back-yard of 29 Hanbury Street, and one can safely assume from this that she did so before she was killed and mutilated. It follows, therefore, that Jack was not put off by her cry of "No!", but proceeded to butcher her anyway. It would only have taken him 3 or 4 minutes to do so.

[perrymason]

That's somewhat immaterial, Lynn. The fact remains that somebody - quite probably Annie Chapman - did make a noise in the back-yard of 29 Hanbury Street, and one can safely assume from this that she did so before she was killed and mutilated. It follows, therefore, that Jack was not put off by her cry of "No!", but proceeded to butcher her anyway. It would only have taken him 3 or 4 minutes to do so.

Since its likely that she could only say anything if she could get breath in or out, its at the very start of his attack that she would have made any noise, and at that stage...as I mentioned, he wouldnt even have a knife in his hands. He could assess the immediate risk before he makes even one cut,......which makes his phased technique that is evident in the murders of C1, C2 and C4 all the more "cunning".

In those murders the only chance the women had to make noise is before, or as, they are choked or strangled....at which time both the killers hands were knife free.......if any of them got a squeal out as he attacks he can legitimately be charged as a mugger.....but not a Ripper.

No weapon in his hand until he has subdued the women and they are at best semi-conscious. In each of the 3 cases he could assess his situation at that point and proceed...or split if he hears noise and leave the women lying there uncut. The worst he would be visibly guilty of is assault....in terms of applicable charges.

Thats why when we see attacks that begin with knife usage we can legitimately question why the killer who had success 2 times before and immediately after the 3rd attributed murder using a knife free technique until after the women are unable to resist might change to a less advantageous methodology for kills 3 and 5.

Returning to that more effective technique between murders that must have had him more physically engaged with the victim while they were conscious.

Seems the Canonical Group theory has a single killer with periods of lucidity and the desire for self preservation, along with motivations for killing that change.

Not only do I not believe that the reasons serial killers kill anyone "change", I also think when faced with factors that suggest substantial behavior deviations of unknown subjects within a set series of kills, the fact that they are unknown and we know nothing about the motivations should indicate that we cannot group any murders that do not match in style and content with murders that do in fact have that style synchronicity and content until we know more facts.

Thread relationship to all this?

The speculation that a hypodermic could have been used to inject some substance into the victims that might cause paralysis and been undetectable after the throat cut is only applicable to 3 of 5 Canonical murders. All three were killed in the same fashion, and the killer showed the same postmortem focus. Abdominal cuts.

But....In 2 cases it is fairly clear that by the evidence that both were at least somewhat awake and conscious when they were attacked by a knife wielding man.

Do we chuck what we can see in the 3 murders so we can include murders that do not have even that small facet in common? Well....thats how we got a Canonical Group....so I guess for some people the answer is "yes".

Its not, for me....and thankfully for what I perceive, a growing number of students.

All the best

[lynn cates]

nay sayer

Hello Sam.

"The fact remains that somebody - quite probably Annie Chapman - did make a noise in the back-yard of 29 Hanbury Street"

Somebody. But not Annie I think. I presume it was the punter and the prostitute who discovered Annie's body which had lain there for an hour or two.

The best.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam.

"The fact remains that somebody - quite probably Annie Chapman - did make a noise in the back-yard of 29 Hanbury Street"

Somebody. But not Annie I think. I presume it was the punter and the prostitute who discovered Annie's body which had lain there for an hour or two.

Annie's body had NOT lain there for an hour or two, Lynn, so we can rule that out. If the body had been discovered by a prostitute and her punter, why did she just say "No!", rather than scream the bejasus out of her lungs? Furthermore, why didn't they run for the authorities? The whole idea is absurd.

Incidentally, the idea that the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street was frequently used by prostitutes is likely yet another ripperological myth, based on misreadings of the evidence that have become amplified into a "truth" over the years.

[lynn cates]

warum?

Hello Sam.

"Annie's body had NOT lain there for an hour or two, Lynn, so we can rule that out."

How can we know that? Certainly not on Dr. Phillip's testimony. Ah, but perhaps Richardson's? Of course, he is every whit as reliable as Packer (Stride) and Hutchinson (Kelly). I think the police had only 3 versions of his story.

"If the body had been discovered by a prostitute and her punter, why did she just say "No!", rather than scream the bej[e]sus out of her lungs?"

Would not Annie be a candidate for screaming loudly if she were assaulted after 5:30? And yet, what did Albert say about it?

"Furthermore, why didn't they run for the authorities?"

The answer is obvious. " 'ere now, and what were yer doin' at 29 Hanbury? Say, don't I know yer wife?"

"Incidentally, the idea that the back yard of 29 Hanbury Street was frequently used by prostitutes is likely yet another ripperological myth, based on misreadings of the evidence that have become amplified into a "truth" over the years."

Right. And Mrs. Richardson said she was not aware her back yard was used for immoral purposes. (Heh heh.)

The best.
LC

[perrymason]

Found this bit in The London Times on October the 2nd, and thought it related well to the discussion regarding inducing unconsciousness.....

"Sir, -- Paying my daily visit to my church this afternoon I was surprised to find the caretaker in a semi-stupified state. Asking her what was the matter, she told me that a man had just entered the church, and finding her all alone inquired whether I was in the vestry. On receiving a reply in the negative he said, "I see you are alone," and immediately took out a pocket-handkerchief and dashed it in her face. The strong smell of whatever liquid it had been steeped in dazed and stupefied her, and she for a moment or two lost her consciousness. The noise of some of the workmen on the roof seemed to have alarmed this scoundrel, and he bolted out of the church.

This incident, Sir, perhaps might afford a clue. At any rate, it will warn solitary women who are in charge of churches.

I am Sir, your obedient servant,

J. M. S. BROOKE.
Vestry of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Lombard-street, E.C. "

Best regards all

[curious]

Hi,
The top of Annie's hand (left, I believe) had a bruise on it.

Perhaps the man she'd been seen with had left and she stayed behind to "compose" herself. As she approached the steps to enter the building, her hand was grabbed from someone hiding in the shadows. She said "No" as she was being thrown again the wall, where she was suffocated by the killer prior to having her throat slit.

curious