where did 'Jack' go after his slayings?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Garry Wroe]

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

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;143369]

.

I've replied on another thread that I totally agree with you Smezenen.

I also almost entirely agree with Ben on his assessment.

Still there is one point raised by Abbe that is very interesting : what if Lawende was wrong ? What if the woman identified by him at the morgue as being the same woman outside Church Passage was an honest mistake ?
(afterall, he saw her for a few seconds in the half light, with no reason to commit her to memory -maybe he was totally convinced by the identification, but still wrong ?).

I agree with Ben, that given the time line, it's very unlikely...but not impossible.

I agree with Phil Carter that it almost beggars belief that Morris, with his door ajar, didn't hear the couple cross the square, and that JtR would walk through the light thrown by the open door , and know that someone was awake in proximity ?

Maybe Morris told the truth -he didn't hear anything, because there was nothing to hear : the couple didn't cross the Square because they came in from Mitre Street and stopped as soon as possible. The Pc on the beat attested that he met no one -therefore no witnesses at the Mitre Street end.

If that was the case, then our description of JtR by Lawende is false. Therefore we can't use this description to determine our thoughts on the social class of JtR.

...and having said that, I think that he went to a lodging house...I don't see a problem with it ..

What if the woman identified by him at the morgue as being the same woman outside Church Passage was an honest mistake ?
Hi Ruby
I don't beleive he ever identified her body and also only was shown her clothes which he reponded that they were the type of clothes the woman was wearing not even that they were the clothes she was wearing.

He also is the only 'witness' who described the 'suspect' as fair (blond) and also of shabby or poor appearance.

he also said at the time he would not be able to identify the man.

And this is the witness who Anderson pins his ascertained fact that he knew who the killer was.

I also agree with Smez

[GregBaron]

Experience...........

Excellent point Garry and one that has apparently silenced everyone.

Using my imagination, I came up with, 'maybe he returned to the neck

after disembowelling to try to cut the head clean off', and therefore the 2 incisions

were done at different times, but to do this twice seems reaching....

I'm going from memory here but I believe it was Polly and MJK

where there was some indication of attempting to take the head clean off

but the effort was foiled by the whatever-you-call-it bone. I'm not sure

if hunters remove animal heads but here again it shows he didn't know what

he was doing or how to do it. I think many of us have a tendency to make Jack into a genius

when more than likely he was just a lucky psycho who was winging it. Also,

as someone pointed out earlier, the police and authorities may not have been

that interested in blood except as it related to the time and method of the victims

demise. Didn't someone even wash Polly's blood away before proper authorization?


Greg

[Garry Wroe]

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.