where did 'Jack' go after his slayings?

[Abby Normal]

The problem with the Ripper as huntsman scenario is that both Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman sustained two throat incisions, an element of ‘overkill’ suggestive that this was a man who lacked experience in the despatching of human or other animal prey. As far as I’m aware, seasoned hunters or slaughterers inflict a single throat incision and then allow the animal to bleed out. Had the Ripper been such a man, he would surely have applied this technique to hunting humans, certain in the knowledge that a single throat incision would bring about the desired result. But he didn’t. And that, to my way of thinking, is extremely telling in context of this man’s knowledge and prior experience.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Hi Gary
i disagree. perhaps he was being doubly sure. More than likely, if he did have experience as hunter or slaughterer and slitting animals with one neck slice, perhaps a humans neck anatomy is different than an animals and this is why it took 2 as he was more unfamiliar with slicing a human neck.

I don't think you can rule out a slaughterer or hunter based on 2 neck cuts as opposed to one.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Greg,

Would it really be a time-waster to slip off a coat prior to performing the mutilations? This would have taken seconds to acheive, and would have been well worth the non-existent effort in order to prevent fluid seepage on his outer layers. I've no problem at all envisaging an 'Oh let's take my coat off now before I get it too bloodied' mentality on the part of the killer. As for the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murderer, I doubt very much that he did much "wandering". Instead, I rather suspect that he made a direct beeline for home, depositing the apron and/or scrawling a message en route.

Another oft-overlooked point, I feel, is that serial killers with single private accomodation (Gacy, Dahmer, Fish, Nilsen etc) have tended to take them there for the murders, rather than risking capture by playing cat and mouse on the streets. I suspect very strongly that Jack's "choice" of killing venues (i.e. chiefly the streets) was governed by a lack of better options.

Best regards,
Ben

Would it really be a time-waster to slip off a coat prior to performing the mutilations?

Hi ben
I think it would. remember, he has to take a knife out of his pocket and put it back in, along with organs. In what sequence would he do this while also taking off his coat and putting it back on? All along having to beat a hasty retreat on a moments notice.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Greg,

Would it really be a time-waster to slip off a coat prior to performing the mutilations? This would have taken seconds to acheive, and would have been well worth the non-existent effort in order to prevent fluid seepage on his outer layers. I've no problem at all envisaging an 'Oh let's take my coat off now before I get it too bloodied' mentality on the part of the killer. As for the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murderer, I doubt very much that he did much "wandering". Instead, I rather suspect that he made a direct beeline for home, depositing the apron and/or scrawling a message en route.

Another oft-overlooked point, I feel, is that serial killers with single private accomodation (Gacy, Dahmer, Fish, Nilsen etc) have tended to take them there for the murders, rather than risking capture by playing cat and mouse on the streets. I suspect very strongly that Jack's "choice" of killing venues (i.e. chiefly the streets) was governed by a lack of better options.

Best regards,
Ben

Another oft-overlooked point, I feel, is that serial killers with single private accomodation (Gacy, Dahmer, Fish, Nilsen etc) have tended to take them there for the murders, rather than risking capture by playing cat and mouse on the streets. I suspect very strongly that Jack's "choice" of killing venues (i.e. chiefly the streets) was governed by a lack of better options

Hi again Ben
This is a great point. i have always felt that JtR must have had a private single abode to go to after, but this has made me think that perhaps he did not have a TOTALLY private place. I could see how rationally (if he had a totally private place) one would think it was less risky to dispose of bodies than kill/mutilate on the streets. perhaps he only had a semi private place-safe enough to clean up and store organs, but not enough to bring back and kill prostitutes.


Maybe he lived with his mother.

[Hunter]

How many times he slashed the throat is a moot point (Kate's throat was cut only once). He could have had some experience in slaughtering animals ( as was discussed on another thread) but his reason to do each would have been different.

Methodically dressing an animal for food is different from mutilating a human for some perversive reason and the results would indicate that. There is no need to mutilate an animal any more than is necessary to prepare it for consumption. The killing of these women was a quite different motive... though he may have benefited to some degree from the previous experience.

[Garry Wroe]

How many times he slashed the throat is a moot point (Kate's throat was cut only once).

Precisely my point, Hunter. He began the series by inflicting two throat wounds but seemingly learned from experience that one was sufficient. A practised huntsman, it seems logical to suppose, would have been aware from the outset that a single incision was more than adequate for the task at hand.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[smezenen]

There have been plenty of times that I have had to re-cut a deer throat becouse my first cut wasnt deep enough in fact I pretty much take 2 or 3 swipes at it just to make sure they are bleeding good. I dont see more than one cut indicating anything other than he cut more than once.

[Garry Wroe]

What, even when the first incision leaves a deep notch in the spinal column, Smezenen?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Hunter]

This is off topic, but I must ask Smezenen a question. Why cut a dead deer's throat at all? Once its field dressed (heart, lungs removed and attatched vessels from the inside) its bled out. Ruins a good mount too if one decides to do that.

[smezenen]

This is off topic, but I must ask Smezenen a question. Why cut a dead deer's throat at all? Once its field dressed (heart, lungs removed and attatched vessels from the inside) its bled out. Ruins a good mount too if one decides to do that.

Hunter,
You cut their neck before you field dress to allow the animal to bleed out as much as possible. Any blood left in surface and sub-surface viens will cause the meat to spoil faster. And of course it makes the actual act of dressing alot less messy. If you are intending to mount a head you would make your cut as low on the neck (between the front shoulders) as possible, but any good taxidermist can put things back right when he makes the mount.

[smezenen]

What, even when the first incision leaves a deep notch in the spinal column, Smezenen?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Well if my first cut went that deep, then no, but im afraid my knife just isn't as sharp as Jack's. LOL.

[Hunter]

Hello Smezenen,

I am a part time taxidermist and cutting across the hairs makes a good repair problematic. Most mounts that are done now are full shoulder mounts that go down past the brisket. If blood spoils the meat that readily then the whole animal would spoil because the muscular tissue is full of blood. Once the body cavuity is empty, the body is drained as well as it is ever going to be anyway.

[The Good Michael]

Hunter,

I am from hunting territory, Minnesota, where every male I know (save for me) goes hunting. Once a deer or elk or black bear is dead, it is field-dressed by first gutting the animal. All nasty things should drop out, such as organs and blood as you've suggested. I have never heard of a need to cut an animal's throat, though I suppose some have done it in case of a wounded animal and a quick dispatch wanted.

Cheers,

Mike