Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miller's Court - The Fire
Collapse
X
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Errata View PostThe 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.
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.Last edited by Ausgirl; 04-19-2016, 10:19 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Errata View PostThe 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.
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??
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View PostAlthough 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?
That to me is by far the weirdest part.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Errata View PostBut 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 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Errata View PostAnd the killer could not see the heart. He came at it from below.
"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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Errata View Post
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.
Mike
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View PostYes, 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Robert St Devil View PostExcellent 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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Errata View PostBut 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.
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?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John G View PostEddowes 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 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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by John G View PostEddowes 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.
Jeff
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Robert St Devil View PostWould a candle have been sufficient for the murder? I don,t think it,s out of the question, considering it may have been set on the bedside table
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: