Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[ianincleveland]

i dont know about in 1888,but a few years ago i got to know a street prostitute quite well(not as a client) and she told me some of the weirdos she attracted,whether there are more sexually dysfunctional people out there than we realise,or they go looking for street prostitutes as an outlet im not totally certain.being a drug addict she got herself in some really dangerous situations,she even banged on my door once to get rid of some creep.Im pleased to say shes clean now but the risks she took for money were bad,no doubt the Spitalfields prostitutes of 1888 did the same.

i also think JTR,like Peter Sutcliffe had a bad experience somewhere along the line with a prostitute and was possibly even impotent.and his rage probably increased over a period of time before he murdered,i wouldnt be amazed if he hadnt thumped a couple of prostitutes first.

[FrankO]

Hello (again) Malcolm. Yes, it is very odd. Odder still is the fact that Kate's dress was cut; Polly and Annie's merely lifted up.

Perhaps the waistband hindered him in lifting her dress, so he cut the waistband?

All the best,
Frank

[lynn cates]

cutting remark

Hello (again) Malcolm. Yes, it is very odd. Odder still is the fact that Kate's dress was cut; Polly and Annie's merely lifted up.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the club

Hello Malcolm.

"what is strange and growing too, is that these 3 murders don't seem that linked to the others, like they once were.... copycat?"

You get that feeling too? Welcome.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. Two cuts were shewn by a jagging of the skin on the left side.

The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum

odd path of cut, not sure what to make of this!

[Malcolm X]

You’re quite right, Malcolm, she was different. It wasn’t until Chapman was killed that people could say anything about anatomical knowledge as her body wasn’t opened to the extent that organs were pulled out and/or taken away.

That the insides of Nichols were left unharmed may have been due to an inexperienced Ripper, but two things are interesting to note in this respect. Fistly, that PC Neil, who found Nichols a couple of minutes after Cross & Paul, heard PC Thain pass Buck’s Row through Brady Street, some 135 yards from where he stood. And secondly, that blood was still oozing from her throat wound(s) when PC Neil shone his bulls eye upon her. These two facts support the notion that the Ripper was disturbed by the sounds of Charles Cross, walking into Buck’s Row from Brady Street, preventing him from doing more to Nichols' body.

All the best,
Frank

yes it's very interesting, if it's quiet the one thing you'll notice is the sound of a policeman walking at range, let alone seeing the light of his lamp bouncing off surrounding walls. it's amazing how much you dont hear during the day due to all the background noise, but at night you notice all of this, especially as a night porter/ secuity man, you suddenly hear every little noise.

you become like a cat, someone can still sneak up behind you, but by God they've got to be quiet, so this definitely rules out a flat footed Cop, with heavy boots on.

JTR was almost definitely disturbed, yes i'm very happy with this, and probably with Eddowes too, now you know why he looked for an indoor murder.... maybe!

.
.

[Errata]

Could one of you explain your grounds for believing that the Eddowes incision went anyway but down, from anyone's perspective? You would be contridicting Brown's testimony if you did--which is fine, but I'd like to hear the rationale.

And doesn't the odd slash from hip to perineum rule out the cut going from pubis to sternum? Never mind the odd path of the cut.

[FrankO]

yes but Nichols looks different too, this is maybe an inexperienced JTR though

You’re quite right, Malcolm, she was different. It wasn’t until Chapman was killed that people could say anything about anatomical knowledge as her body wasn’t opened to the extent that organs were pulled out and/or taken away.

That the insides of Nichols were left unharmed may have been due to an inexperienced Ripper, but two things are interesting to note in this respect. Fistly, that PC Neil, who found Nichols a couple of minutes after Cross & Paul, heard PC Thain pass Buck’s Row through Brady Street, some 135 yards from where he stood. And secondly, that blood was still oozing from her throat wound(s) when PC Neil shone his bulls eye upon her. These two facts support the notion that the Ripper was disturbed by the sounds of Charles Cross, walking into Buck’s Row from Brady Street, preventing him from doing more to Nichols' body.

All the best,
Frank

[Hunter]

I know where you’re coming from, Hunter, and I quite agree with you. Nichols abdomen were ‘just’ slashed and when only a week later Chapman’s abdomen were cut open, no ‘meaningless cuts’, intestines drawn out and womb taken away, Wynne Baxter and very likely Phillips were trying to make sense of these 2 murders by suggesting they took place with the sole or main purpose of getting a womb and that someone with a medical background had committed them. Then Eddowes was killed & mutilated and I agree that at least some were still looking at this murder from the perspective offered by Baxter & Phillips based on the murders of Nichols and Chapman. At least, that’s why I think Phillips suggested Eddowes may have been done by a different hand.

You summed it up quite nicely, Frank. Baxter's 'theory' was all over the press right when the double event happened and weighed heavily on the responses of the physicians at the Eddowes inquest. Many students have missed this and unwittingly misinterpret what they meant in their testimonies.

[Hunter]

Hi, Hunter,
What I understand you're saying here is that the killer researched the female body?

Hi, fellow Tennessean.
Yes, possibly; at least to the extent that was necessary to satisfy some curiosity or purpose.

By books, undoubtedly, since that was all that was available at the time. medical? maybe -- or pornographic material -- I have not idea how that would exactly help with murdering someone . . .

If, what I understand, you are referring to the way most of these women were killed, instead of the mutilations themselves, they may or may not have been much help. The method of actual murder could have been by trial and error and this depends on who his first victim may have been. There does seem to be a metamorphosis of sort; starting with throttling and strangling the victims to some more effective and controlled means of dispatch with the latter street victims.

Medical books, would they have photos of dissections? autopsies? So, would the photographs most likely be of older people? could that possibly account for the age of the victims?

They would have been illustrations. The method of transposing photographs to mass produced print sheet had only been invented about 7 or 8 years before and didn't see general use in circulation until the turn of the century.

And when you say: "To me at least, this explains the victims targeted" what were you considering here?

Simply they were the easiest to obtain for- what Sugden called- "A murderer of strangers." Even prostitutes had a class hierarchy. These were on the lowest rung of the ladder, living hand to mouth; doing whatever it took to survive, not only day by day, but hour by hour. He may have been like a Ted Bundy and been charming and manipulative, but with these women, as desperate as they were at the time of their death, he really didn't have to be... Just keep the conversation short, get down to business quickly and let them lead him to the murder location. It wouldn't have required much charisma. He wasn't long with any of these victims.

Ask yourself this question. Why weren't any prostitutes from the West End killed during this time... or those who worked in a more controlled or stable environment like brothels, hotels or their own residence that wasn't a dump like Miller's Court? There were plenty of these women around.

Interesting look at the killer.
Could he have been trying to autopsy the victims?

I doubt it. Whatever his fantasy was, or the mentality that fueled it, showed an unleashing of rage along with it for some reason to me. Mary Kelly's uterus, a kidney and a breast could be extracted and then purposefully placed under her head like a pillow in one instance... and the flesh stripped from her bones and her face lacerated in another.

[Malcolm X]

I know where you’re coming from, Hunter, and I quite agree with you. Nichols abdomen were ‘just’ slashed and when only a week later Chapman’s abdomen were cut open, no ‘meaningless cuts’, intestines drawn out and womb taken away, Wynne Baxter and very likely Phillips were trying to make sense of these 2 murders by suggesting they took place with the sole or main purpose of getting a womb and that someone with a medical background had committed them. Then Eddowes was killed & mutilated and I agree that at least some were still looking at this murder from the perspective offered by Baxter & Phillips based on the murders of Nichols and Chapman. At least, that’s why I think Phillips suggested Eddowes may have been done by a different hand.
Agreed all around.

All the best,
Frank

yes but Nichols looks different too, this is maybe an inexperienced JTR though

[Malcolm X]

The 'Juews' is the subject. In this part of London and in this period the Jews were being blamed for all manner of social ill's. Naturally, as hard working peoples and conscientious about business and family they believed they were wrongly targetted.
In this context, from the perspective of an out-of-work Londoner, the GSG can be interpreted as, The Jews will not take the blame for whatever they do.

You might be surprised just how much East-end business was in Jewish hands. Take for instance the tailoring industry, the Jews were being blamed for driving down the wages of the "sweaters". That if it was not for the Jews the common working man/woman would have a higher standard of living in the East-end. True or not, the GSG is quite consistent with public sentiment in the area.

Regards, Jon S.

yes I agree totally, the East End grew at an alarming rate at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and most of these were immigrants that moved here to find work, either from up north/ Ireland/ Europe, London could not cope with this huge influx of immigrants, they also spread west of the city too, before this.... the early Georgian era, London was still quite a small city.

but for me, we have 3 murders that are linked far too much, by pure suspicion only; to Dutfields yard, the graffiti, anti-semetism, it feels exactly the same as realising that J.Hoffa was abduced and killed by the Mafia, soon after he was released from prison.

what is strange and growing too, is that these 3 murders dont seem that linked to the others, like they once were.... copycat ?...... maybe yes, but starting with L.Stride only.

..

[FrankO]

What I suggested stemmed from the discussion about the extent of anatomical knowledge displayed in some of these murders and a suggestion as to how someone who could do what was done here could acquire it. Certainly, this discussion alone, has always been wrought with controversy. And depending on one's bias, the opinions of the contemporary medicos are often configured to fit some conclusion without understanding how it was treated as these events unfolded.

I know where you’re coming from, Hunter, and I quite agree with you. Nichols abdomen were ‘just’ slashed and when only a week later Chapman’s abdomen were cut open, no ‘meaningless cuts’, intestines drawn out and womb taken away, Wynne Baxter and very likely Phillips were trying to make sense of these 2 murders by suggesting they took place with the sole or main purpose of getting a womb and that someone with a medical background had committed them. Then Eddowes was killed & mutilated and I agree that at least some were still looking at this murder from the perspective offered by Baxter & Phillips based on the murders of Nichols and Chapman. At least, that’s why I think Phillips suggested Eddowes may have been done by a different hand.

But if we look directly at the evidence alone- what I stated in the second paragraph- there may be some deductions that are more plausible than others. That the uterus was targeted on three occasion is certain; there's no coincidence here. That someone would have a reason for doing so and know where it is specifically located is also reasonable to me. How this knowledge was acquired could have stemmed from the natural adolescent male's curiosity about the female body. As I said, that curiosity will result in a quest for knowledge to some degree and is fueled by fantasizing. I challenge any heterosexual male to claim that they weren't curious about girls, didn't explore their female characteristics and didn't fantasize about it. There would be no human population if they didn't.

Agreed all around.

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

the clue is :- the graffiti means nothing on it's own....because if you were intending this to be normal street graffiti, then you would have a Subject for reference.

The 'Juews' is the subject. In this part of London and in this period the Jews were being blamed for all manner of social ill's. Naturally, as hard working peoples and conscientious about business and family they believed they were wrongly targetted.
In this context, from the perspective of an out-of-work Londoner, the GSG can be interpreted as, The Jews will not take the blame for whatever they do.

You might be surprised just how much East-end business was in Jewish hands. Take for instance the tailoring industry, the Jews were being blamed for driving down the wages of the "sweaters". That if it was not for the Jews the common working man/woman would have a higher standard of living in the East-end. True or not, the GSG is quite consistent with public sentiment in the area.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Phillips

Hello Michael. I was referring to Dr. Phillips' perspective.

Cheers.
LC