J. H. Scott

[John G]

It must also be noted that suitcases, in the form that we know them today, did not exist in the late 19th Century, certainly not in a size to hold a body.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/history/history-humble-suitcase-180951376/

Travelling 'trunks' were the norm, making the notion that 'The Ripper' carried the corpse of his victims to their point of discovery in one of these all the more improbable. Again, it must be stressed that 'hand held luggage', short of a Gladstone or carpet bag was not a thing in 1888. Or it would be something extremely noticiable in its exceptionality .

If we therefore switch the method to a canvas sack, as you also postulate, then we are then left with the unfortunate result of blood stains quite probably seeping through, and smearing from the inside, all over the clothes and face of the victim before being unloaded.

And let's not forget the arrangement of poor Eddowes's internal organs, placed over the right shoulder. Are you perhaps suggesting she was (quite literally) disembowled at some other location, carried and/or transported to Mitre Square, 'dumped' and then stopped to arrange the scene?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

Good post. And there's also the matter of three witnesses who saw Eddowes by Mitre Square, with a suspect, about 10 minutes before her body was discovered. And, of course, we have Mrs Long who saw Annie with a suspect on Hanbury Street just 15 minutes before her body was discovered close by.

[Shaggyrand]

I agree with you that it is more difficult to explain. The difficulties are enough that one can make a good case against Stride being a Ripper homicide.

To me, the lack of post-mortem mutilation is very difficult to reconcile with a 'dumping' scenario.

Would you mind sharing your view of why "Her murder is more difficult to explain?"

I simply meant that if JtR had been dumping bodies the lack of mutilation removed Stride as a Ripper victim. It can no longer be assumed that her killer was interrupted. Not in any meaningful way. Unlike asking why all the victims weren't as extreme in their mutilations as Kelly, which is easily explained in this scenario and others as escalation. If we accept dumping, it would seem to me that Stride would be pretty much out of the running as a Ripper victim. Unless you could account for a reason, which is difficult if we accept your scenario.
If that makes sense to anyone besides myself. Which is possible.

[John G]

I simply meant that if JtR had been dumping bodies the lack of mutilation removed Stride as a Ripper victim. It can no longer be assumed that her killer was interrupted. Not in any meaningful way. Unlike asking why all the victims weren't as extreme in their mutilations as Kelly, which is easily explained in this scenario and others as escalation. If we accept dumping, it would seem to me that Stride would be pretty much out of the running as a Ripper victim. Unless you could account for a reason, which is difficult if we accept your scenario.
If that makes sense to anyone besides myself. Which is possible.

Makes perfect sense to me. Clearly, if he had the time and inclination to move the body, he would presumably have had time to mutilate the body. Of course, if he was interrupted just after killing Stride then his only realistic options would be to make a run for it or confront the person who's interrupted him. What he's not likely to do in this scenario, unless he's completely crazy, is to pick up a dead body and go wandering off in search of a suitable dump site.

[Patrick S]

One question put to Jack that I've not seen answered, so I'll throw it out again:

JH Scott is your JtR. Aside from that fact that he fits "the profile", what evidence do have about him to indicate that he was the kind of man would not be repulsed by the murders, much less the "sexual sadist" who committed them?

Profiles are all fine and good. There are probably ten men within a five mile radius of my home that fit the profile you listed on this thread. Yet, should women in my area start turning up murdered, the police would not round them all up for questioning. They need something else.........for Scott, what is it that flagged him as your JtR?

[Patrick S]

I simply meant that if JtR had been dumping bodies the lack of mutilation removed Stride as a Ripper victim. It can no longer be assumed that her killer was interrupted. Not in any meaningful way. Unlike asking why all the victims weren't as extreme in their mutilations as Kelly, which is easily explained in this scenario and others as escalation. If we accept dumping, it would seem to me that Stride would be pretty much out of the running as a Ripper victim. Unless you could account for a reason, which is difficult if we accept your scenario.
If that makes sense to anyone besides myself. Which is possible.

Agreed. Jack lists Stride as a Scott/Ripper victim and includes her as one whose body was carried and dumped. Thus, the lack of mutilation can't be explained. He got Stride where he wanted her, cut her throat.....and called it quits? Why?

[Harry D]

Nope doesn't add much.

Care to share why?

I wanted to but it's so obvious why this theory's a nonstarter that I can't be bothered to say why.

[Jack Whicher]

Um, yes, but... Living people who fold themselves into small containers are hardly the same thing as dead people who cannot move. You know why a corpse is called a "stiff" in gangster films, right?

It's called a 'stiff' because long after death, rigor-mortis sets in and the body becomes quite rigid.

Before that, there is a period of 2-4 hours when they are remarkably limp and pliable.

[Jack Whicher]

It must also be noted that suitcases, in the form that we know them today, did not exist in the late 19th Century, certainly not in a size to hold a body.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/history/history-humble-suitcase-180951376/

Travelling 'trunks' were the norm, making the notion that 'The Ripper' carried the corpse of his victims to their point of discovery in one of these all the more improbable. Again, it must be stressed that 'hand held luggage', short of a Gladstone or carpet bag was not a thing in 1888. Or it would be something extremely noticiable in its exceptionality .

If we therefore switch the method to a canvas sack, as you also postulate, then we are then left with the unfortunate result of blood stains quite probably seeping through, and smearing from the inside, all over the clothes and face of the victim before being unloaded.

And let's not forget the arrangement of poor Eddowes's internal organs, placed over the right shoulder. Are you perhaps suggesting she was (quite literally) disembowled at some other location, carried and/or transported to Mitre Square, 'dumped' and then stopped to arrange the scene?

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

The use of large canvas bags to store clothing and other belongings pre-dates 1888. Sailors' duffle bags are one example, and Spitalfields was close to shipping. A seaman's tarpaulin duffle bag would not be out of place in Spitafields Parish.

As to blood stains seeping through, again nautical canvas bags were often 'tarred' to make them watertight. Tarred canvas cloth (tarpaulin) was quite common, and cloth that would keep seawater out would keep blood in; thus eliminating the possibility of leakage or staining.

A sailors duffle bag is big enough to carry a dead body for dumping. As proof I refer you to the murder of Jenna Ferguson. She went missing from a church rehabilitation and was later found in a duffle bag dumped dumped next to a trash container. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...as-utah-woman/

If a killer in Seatac, Washington can carry a woman's body in a duffle bag, it is reasonable to assume JR could do likewise.

It would be possible to for JR to carry a woman's body concealed in a naval tarpaulin duffle bag without blood leaking out.

[Mister Whitechapel]

The use of large canvas bags to store clothing and other belongings pre-dates 1888. Sailors' duffle bags are one example, and Spitalfields was close to shipping. A seaman's tarpaulin duffle bag would not be out of place in Spitafields Parish.

As to blood stains seeping through, again nautical canvas bags were often 'tarred' to make them watertight. Tarred canvas cloth (tarpaulin) was quite common, and cloth that would keep seawater out would keep blood in; thus eliminating the possibility of leakage or staining.

A sailors duffle bag is big enough to carry a dead body for dumping. As proof I refer you to the murder of Jenna Ferguson. She went missing from a church rehabilitation and was later found in a duffle bag dumped dumped next to a trash container. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...as-utah-woman/

If a killer in Seatac, Washington can carry a woman's body in a duffle bag, it is reasonable to assume JR could do likewise.

It would be possible to for JR to carry a woman's body concealed in a naval tarpaulin duffle bag without blood leaking out.

Well, at least now you've eliminated one of your own two initially suggested methods of transporting the body.

And the question of the victim's own blood causing quite the mess inside this canvas bag? If it's as tarred and as watertight inside as you, quite rightly, say, there is going to be pools of blood washing the clothes and face/body (bodies) during the long, slow, heavy walk to these drop-off points.

[Jack Whicher]

Hello Jack,

Nope. Like your rigor mortis argument which I addressed earlier, this is also not accurate. Dr Biggs, a modern forensic pathologist, has debunked the arterial spray argument. Thus, he points out that, contrary to many people's assumptions, arterial spray is actually uncommon. Arteries usually go into spasm when cut, effectively controlling bleeding. Moreover, the initial spray is blocked by surrounding structures so that blood either remains in the body or simply gushes, flows or drips out. (See Marriott, 2013)

It's also worth pointing out that Stride probably had her throat cut when on or close to the ground, which would have also reduced the risk of arterial spray, i.e due to gravity.

Back to the drawing board I'm afraid.

To counter the theory that Eddowes was killed and her body dumped, you take the position that she was alive when her throat was cut and that this occurred where her body was found.

The problem with that is the lack of blood spray or spatter at the scene.

You attempt to explain the absence of blood spray or spatter at the scene with a claim that her arteries spasmed and controlled her bleeding to a "flow."

The problem with that is the blood would run down her body and soak into her clothing. This did not happen; her clothing was completely free of blood.

You attempt to explain the lack of blood on her clothes by claiming that she was lying down when her throat was cut and remained prone without moving during the entire time she bled to death.

The first problem with that is JR is right handed and this is a left-handed cut. Case book explains this by positing that JR was kneeling above the women facing their feet when cutting throats. If Eddowes was alive he could not be in this position and restrain her with one hand while cutting her throat (no restraint marks/bruises.)

The second problem with that is that people don't die or lose consciousness immediately from a severed carotid artery. LOC and death occur from blood loss; the slower the rate of loss the longer they remain conscious and active. This period of consciousness gives them time to try to stop the bleeding or to get help. If her blood loss was so controlled by arterial spasm and/or compression by surrounding tissue, she would have survived long enough to try to get help, yet Eddowes did none of these.

Although she was not restrained (no ligatures marks) or knocked unconscious (no head trauma,) she made no attempt to save herself. She made no attempt to put a hand to her wound to stop the bleeding or crawl a few feet to the door of an occupied building.

This then is your claim:

1. In a struggle which leaves no footprints, marks, bruises, defense wounds, disordered clothing, or any evidence of trauma, Eddowes is pushed to the ground.

2. While completely prone her throat is cut. Even though she was unrestrained, she does not defend herself (no evidence of defense wounds.)

3. JR then flees, leaving her to die.

4. Even though Eddowes is conscious and within a few feet of a door to an occupied building, she makes no attempt to get help.

5. Even though Eddowes is conscious she makes no attempt to stop the bleeding or even touch her wound to see how bad it is.

6. Even though conscious and capable of self help, she remains absolutely motionless while she bleeds to death.

Really?

Finally: people whose carotid artery is cut are quite active as shown by the video of hockey Sabres goalie Clint Malarchuk when his carotid artery was severed by a skate during the St Louis Blues vs Buffalo Sabres game on March 22, 1989. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR-wA4SmbO4)

[Jack Whicher]

To counter the theory that Eddowes was killed and her body dumped, you take the position that she was alive when her throat was cut and that this occurred where her body was found.

The problem with that is the lack of blood spray or spatter at the scene.

You attempt to explain the absence of blood spray or spatter at the scene with a claim that her arteries spasmed and controlled her bleeding to a "flow."

The problem with that is the blood would run down her body and soak into her clothing. This did not happen; her clothing was completely free of blood.

You attempt to explain the lack of blood on her clothes by claiming that she was lying down when her throat was cut and remained prone without moving during the entire time she bled to death.

The first problem with that is JR is right handed and this is a left-handed cut. Case book explains this by positing that JR was kneeling above the women facing their feet when cutting throats. If Eddowes was alive he could not be in this position and restrain her with one hand while cutting her throat (no restraint marks/bruises.)

The second problem with that is that people don't die or lose consciousness immediately from a severed carotid artery. LOC and death occur from blood loss; the slower the rate of loss the longer they remain conscious and active. This period of consciousness gives them time to try to stop the bleeding or to get help. If her blood loss was so controlled by arterial spasm and/or compression by surrounding tissue, she would have survived long enough to try to get help, yet Eddowes did none of these.

Although she was not restrained (no ligatures marks) or knocked unconscious (no head trauma,) she made no attempt to save herself. She made no attempt to put a hand to her wound to stop the bleeding or crawl a few feet to the door of an occupied building.

This then is your claim:

1. In a struggle which leaves no footprints, marks, bruises, defense wounds, disordered clothing, or any evidence of trauma, Eddowes is pushed to the ground.

2. While completely prone her throat is cut. Even though she was unrestrained, she does not defend herself (no evidence of defense wounds.)

3. JR then flees, leaving her to die.

4. Even though Eddowes is conscious and within a few feet of a door to an occupied building, she makes no attempt to get help.

5. Even though Eddowes is conscious she makes no attempt to stop the bleeding or even touch her wound to see how bad it is.

6. Even though conscious and capable of self help, she remains absolutely motionless while she bleeds to death.

Really?

Finally: people whose carotid artery is cut are quite active as shown by the video of hockey Sabres goalie Clint Malarchuk when his carotid artery was severed by a skate during the St Louis Blues vs Buffalo Sabres game on March 22, 1989. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR-wA4SmbO4)

Eddowes should read Stride

[Jack Whicher]

Hello Jack,

I'm not saying that serial killers don't dump their victims bodies. I'm saying that there is no evidence that JtR's victims were dumped -quite the contrary- and therefore if they were there must have been a conspiracy to cover up the fact.

Of all the areas in my thinking, the body dumping is the one I'm least comfortable with, but I come to it because evidence shows Chapman was dead at the time John Richardson testified the courtyard was empty. That and the post-mortem nature of the injuries.

If Richardson was lying he's either a publicity addict or the Ripper; dumping seemed to be the most probable way of reconciling his testimony with the time of death.

[Monty]

There was arterial blood spraying upon the wall and fence at Hanbury Street.

How is this explained?

Monty

[GUT]

There was arterial blood spraying upon the wall and fence at Hanbury Street.

How is this explained?

Monty

He bought it in a spray bottle and sprayed it there?

[RockySullivan]

Of all the areas in my thinking, the body dumping is the one I'm least comfortable with, but I come to it because evidence shows Chapman was dead at the time John Richardson testified the courtyard was empty. That and the post-mortem nature of the injuries.

If Richardson was lying he's either a publicity addict or the Ripper; dumping seemed to be the most probable way of reconciling his testimony with the time of death.

John Richardson changed his story over and over and it makes no sense. He's lying...look at the story of the man who accosts him in the street when he's in the company of a reporter and Richardson freaks out and calls the man the ripper. He's lying about something thats for sure