Miller's Court - The Fire

[Mayerling]

Eddowes was killed in a darkened square where the killer would be presumably under much greater time pressure than in the case of an indoor murder, and yet significantly, if not substantially, more skill was demonstrated than in the case of Kelly.

It would depend on the motivation of the criminal towards each victim as he/she progressed. Eddowes mutilations were dreadful enough, but Kelly's body was butchered horribly, and I think it was done purposely.

Jeff

[Errata]

Eddowes was killed in a darkened square where the killer would be presumably under much greater time pressure than in the case of an indoor murder, and yet significantly, if not substantially, more skill was demonstrated than in the case of Kelly.

But more knowledge was displayed with Kelly, which is where it gets interesting. Up until Kelly, everything the Ripper did could have been a result of paying attention and simple logic. Even finding a kidney, which is admittedly difficult, is not impossible. Merely improbable.

But most people even today do not know that the pericardial sac even exists, much less that is is a separate thing from the heart proper. And the killer could not see the heart. He came at it from below. So this is not a situation where he saw something odd and sort of figured it out. He knew going in. He knew the heart was in a sac. He cut into the sac from below without exposing the heart, and removed the heart from the sac. That's frankly astonishing. it's a level of knowledge that was not shown in any other murder.

Of all the weird things about this case, that's gotta be like, number 2 on the list.

[Robert St Devil]

But more knowledge was displayed with Kelly, which is where it gets interesting. Up until Kelly, everything the Ripper did could have been a result of paying attention and simple logic. Even finding a kidney, which is admittedly difficult, is not impossible. Merely improbable.

But most people even today do not know that the pericardial sac even exists, much less that is is a separate thing from the heart proper. And the killer could not see the heart. He came at it from below. So this is not a situation where he saw something odd and sort of figured it out. He knew going in. He knew the heart was in a sac. He cut into the sac from below without exposing the heart, and removed the heart from the sac. That's frankly astonishing. it's a level of knowledge that was not shown in any other murder.

Of all the weird things about this case, that's gotta be like, number 2 on the list.

Excellent post, Errata. Very insightful! I still believe the post mortem reports provide some of the best evidence available for this case, and I have been challenged by the recent posts disclaiming them; however, I'm no coroner.

Your post offers insight into profiling The Ripper's anatomical knowledge. Do you think a relation exists between [his ability] to deftly remove Mary Jane's heart AND the acute manner in which he removed Annie's uterus as described by Dr. G.B. Phillips?

[Errata]

Excellent post, Errata. Very insightful! I still believe the post mortem reports provide some of the best evidence available for this case, and I have been challenged by the recent posts disclaiming them; however, I'm no coroner.

Your post offers insight into profiling The Ripper's anatomical knowledge. Do you think a relation exists between [his ability] to deftly remove Mary Jane's heart AND the acute manner in which he removed Annie's uterus as described by Dr. G.B. Phillips?

It might exist, but it doesn't have to. So I'd need a pressing reason to say it does, and I don't have one.

[Rosella]

The skills exhibited by the Ripper during his killing spree do turn up on several threads, which as you know sometimes take some different twists and turns after the original premise has been posted. This one (started in 2013) discusses it a bit.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7595&highlight=Ripper+Anotomical+knowledge

[Ausgirl]

Yes, I think so. At least, according to my experiments in a darkened room with a tealight. Although feeble by modern lighting standards, once your eyes adjust it's surprising how much can be accomplished with just a candle for illumination, although it would have to be positioned/held fairly close to the bed.

I have wondered whether a lifetime of electric lights and, for many of us, outdoor light pollution has degraded the quality of night vision in a vast number of people, compared to what it might have been like in the 19th Century.

Your post reminded me of my youth in the countryside, and how very dark it got out, yet I didn't have much trouble finding my way around, especially if there was a bright bit of moon. I also could read without eye strain in the most abysmal gloom, which my Nan said would turn me blind but never did....

Anyway, we had a fairly rustic lifestyle there and not much in the way of light at night -- after decades in the city and no grandparents to make me put a book down for (a way too early..) bed-time, hehe, I'd forgotten how well I used to see in the dark.

Point being, perhaps experiments of that nature (re your tealight) might yield more accurate results if conducted by off-the-grid hippies or someone of the ilk, if indeed exposure to constant light does tend to affect the eyes that way.

And more to the point, if we are by and large comparatively night blind due to this, perhaps it's easier to assume Mary's killer needed a lot more light than he actually did.

[The Good Michael]

But most people even today do not know that the pericardial sac even exists, much less that is is a separate thing from the heart proper. And the killer could not see the heart. He came at it from below. So this is not a situation where he saw something odd and sort of figured it out. He knew going in.

If he had had any experience butchering animals, he would know this. Also the peritoneum covers organs and protects the abdominal cavity. That is also sac-like and had this been the work of the same man, he would have encountered membranous tissue to get through first.

Mike

[Joshua Rogan]

And the killer could not see the heart. He came at it from below.

Although it would have been a very restricted view, I'm sure, Dr Bond's autopsy report said:

"The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings."

Of all the weird things about this case, that's gotta be like, number 2 on the list.

I have to ask....what's your number 1?

[Fleetwood Mac]

But more knowledge was displayed with Kelly, which is where it gets interesting. Up until Kelly, everything the Ripper did could have been a result of paying attention and simple logic. Even finding a kidney, which is admittedly difficult, is not impossible. Merely improbable.

But most people even today do not know that the pericardial sac even exists, much less that is is a separate thing from the heart proper. And the killer could not see the heart. He came at it from below. So this is not a situation where he saw something odd and sort of figured it out. He knew going in. He knew the heart was in a sac. He cut into the sac from below without exposing the heart, and removed the heart from the sac. That's frankly astonishing. it's a level of knowledge that was not shown in any other murder.

Of all the weird things about this case, that's gotta be like, number 2 on the list.

I've never heard of the pericardial sac and wouldn't have a clue where the kidney is or how to remove it. I would have thought that most people are like me as they have little interest in where organs are positioned within the human body.

I think it's fair to say that this person did a lot of reading at the very least. And, we had a lad on here, think he went by the name of Prosector, who was from that line of work and claimed certain things he undertook simply wouldn't register with the average man on the street.

Just out of curiosity, there are plenty of serial killers who are destructive but they don't take particular organs with them, such as Peter Sutcliffe; perhaps because they have no idea how to. I would have thought it highly unusual that someone is cutting through a body to take away certain body parts that are concealed within the body, and that suggests to me this person was someone who knew what he was doing.

Whether or not he could perform such tasks through reading alone is open to debate, but I'd estimate that he had some sort of medical training as experience counts for a lot, particularly when up against it with polis attention and limited time.

[Errata]

Although it would have been a very restricted view, I'm sure, Dr Bond's autopsy report said:

"The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings."



I have to ask....what's your number 1?

The complete lack of resistance by every victim. Maybe half being too surprised to fight or scream I could see, but all of them? Not a single struggle? I mean maybe the bruises on Nichols face were from having her jaw forced up, but why aren't her hands torn up from trying to get free or fight back? It's like they were all brained with a frying pan first, except that of course they weren't.

That to me is by far the weirdest part.

[Abby Normal]

The complete lack of resistance by every victim. Maybe half being too surprised to fight or scream I could see, but all of them? Not a single struggle? I mean maybe the bruises on Nichols face were from having her jaw forced up, but why aren't her hands torn up from trying to get free or fight back? It's like they were all brained with a frying pan first, except that of course they weren't.

That to me is by far the weirdest part.

Interesting point. some thoughts:

they were already incapacitated in some way-drunk, weak/ill, and or passed out/asleep.

He was very strong, quick and honed his technique to the point where he left little time for struggle before he subdued them.

But the asleep thing is getting me thinking:
what if, instead of the victims leading him to a secluded spot under the pretext for sex, he came upon them already asleep and attacked them then.

I think this works well for all them perhaps except stride and eddowes?

but works especially well for Kelly, tabram, chapman, Nichols and McKenzie?

Just throwing it out there to see what other people think??

[Ausgirl]

The complete lack of resistance by every victim. Maybe half being too surprised to fight or scream I could see, but all of them? Not a single struggle? I mean maybe the bruises on Nichols face were from having her jaw forced up, but why aren't her hands torn up from trying to get free or fight back? It's like they were all brained with a frying pan first, except that of course they weren't.

That to me is by far the weirdest part.

I concur with Abby re the "they were all a bit tired/drunk" etc., with the victims being rather more stupefied under a blitz attack abruptly severing their windpipes than they might have been a few hours earlier. It's crossed my mind that this might well have been his primary criterion for victim choice.

Perhaps the facial bruises offer a clue, as well - if he cut their throats swiftly from behind and then grabbed their faces to prevent screaming/struggling, I think I'd allow for shock (plus weariness/drunkenness) to prevent any obvious struggle.

The sleeping thing is interesting.. a new thought to ponder. But the same principle would apply, I think, as a blitz attack on an awake, yet impaired woman -- there'd be a moment or several of panic, perhaps. but by then her windpipe's already severed and he's tipped her backward and prone, to carry on with whatever, probably all of this in a matter of three or four seconds. Whatever adrenaline may kick in would barely have time register.

*Edit: but then, I'm wondering why all of the victims didn't have extremely bloody hands. If something happens to your throat, it's an instinct to reach up and protect it - and if there's blood gushing out surely it'd be all over said hands? So this makes me think that the tipping backwards thing was very rapid indeed and maybe .. what? He sat over them, pinning their arms, until they moved no more..?

It's an interesting aspect of the crimes to think about, for sure.

[Robert St Devil]

I understand Errata,s post. It,s more than just the lack of screaming or crying out. It,s what you should ,,expect,, to find if you encountered a victim with a slashed throat (ie. the struggle). You might expect a hand to be covered in blood (ok, Eliz, hand was) as it reached ip for the throat. Or claw marks on the neck trying to remove the kerchief. Or a broken jaw rendering the victim unconscious. Or broken fingernails. Or blood soaked and ripped clothes from a struggle. Or how each woman offers the appearance of dying in the spot she was attacked. It,s almost as though survivability was the last thing on these women,s minds, which is ofd in the case of Annie who was a fighter.

[Abby Normal]

I concur with Abby re the "they were all a bit tired/drunk" etc., with the victims being rather more stupefied under a blitz attack abruptly severing their windpipes than they might have been a few hours earlier. It's crossed my mind that this might well have been his primary criterion for victim choice.

Perhaps the facial bruises offer a clue, as well - if he cut their throats swiftly from behind and then grabbed their faces to prevent screaming/struggling, I think I'd allow for shock (plus weariness/drunkenness) to prevent any obvious struggle.

The sleeping thing is interesting.. a new thought to ponder. But the same principle would apply, I think, as a blitz attack on an awake, yet impaired woman -- there'd be a moment or several of panic, perhaps. but by then her windpipe's already severed and he's tipped her backward and prone, to carry on with whatever, probably all of this in a matter of three or four seconds. Whatever adrenaline may kick in would barely have time register.

*Edit: but then, I'm wondering why all of the victims didn't have extremely bloody hands. If something happens to your throat, it's an instinct to reach up and protect it - and if there's blood gushing out surely it'd be all over said hands? So this makes me think that the tipping backwards thing was very rapid indeed and maybe .. what? He sat over them, pinning their arms, until they moved no more..?

It's an interesting aspect of the crimes to think about, for sure.

Hi Ausgirl
because he killed them, or rendered them unconscious by strangling (or punching?)before he slit their throats.

The only one where there was a deviation in this was stride because of the circumstances and she did have blood on her hand-and I think he may have cut her throat while she was conscious and her hand did go instinctively to her throat.

[Ausgirl]

Hi Ausgirl
because he killed them, or rendered them unconscious by strangling (or punching?)before he slit their throats.

My main issues with that are 1/ in the case of a punch or blow hard enough to knock them cold, there'd be evidence of blunt force, surely? And 2/ strangling is a slow and arduous way of killing somebody, leaving time for the victim to struggle about. This is why I'm kind of convinced he took them down swiftly, from behind, and cut their throats either immediately before, during or after this act. Simply throwing a person suddenly off balance like that might have prevented them from struggling, for the split second it took to cut their wind-pipe through. He could, that way, have rendered them helpless or dead in a matter of a scant few seconds, which could explain the lack of struggle and blood on their hands - the simply hadn't the time to react, and being weary and/or drunk likely did not help matters.

The only one where there was a deviation in this was stride because of the circumstances and she did have blood on her hand-and I think he may have cut her throat while she was conscious and her hand did go instinctively to her throat.

This one reason I love this forum so.. details like that pop up, which I'd never considered before.

The bloody hand could indeed indicate she was more alert or wary than other victims. It could also indicate a different killer, one that hadn't got JtR's super effective blitz technique down pat.. and thus, Liz had time and wherewithal to reach for her throat.

I'm thinking the 'sleeping' or catnapping idea is a good one to consider.. but where and in what position would have they done so, in the streets?