J. H. Scott

[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]

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.

[Mister Whitechapel]

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

[John G]

Shaggyrand

For Strides crime scene to make any sense, she had to be dead when she was placed on the ground, and her throat had to have been cut after she was dead and prone.

The medical testimony at the inquest was
"She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed..."

Had she been alive and alert when her throat was cut, she could have sought help. The blood in the carotid artery is under relatively high pressure and should have sprayed onto her clothing and all over the area of her wound. However, her clothes were free of blood as well as her chin, which is inconsistent with her being alive when her throat was cut.

Witnesses describe the blood as "flowing" with about 1 lb. of clotted blood next to her. This is the pattern produced by blood draining from a body with no blood pressure.

If she was dead before she was placed in the yard then the cut throat is post-mortem mutilation which makes this similar to the other killings.

Stride's killing, however, is different in that the post-mortem mutilation is much less extensive and clearly occurs at the scene. It doesn't fit cleanly into the same pattern as the other killings.

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.

[John G]

How odd.

A working knowledge of criminology usually includes familiarity with the case histories of serial killers who, acting alone, abducted their victims and dumped their bodies.
For example:
1. The green River Killer dumped the bodies of at least 48 women without an accomplice.
2. William Devin Howell, acting alone, killed 7 women and dumped their bodies behind a strip-mall.
3. Ronald Dominique killed 23 men and dumped their bodies near New Orleans

I could go on, but it clearly isn't necessary to have an accomplice or form a conspiracy to kill 5 women and dump their bodies.

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.

[Pcdunn]

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?

[Jack Whicher]

Nope.

Nope doesn't add much.

Care to share why?

In Chapman's case the examining physician said she was dead before a witness saw the empty courtyard. If they are correct, Chapman was killed and then transported to the scene.

This means she was transported in something (wandering down the street carrying a disemboweled body would attract attention)

The videos were intended to show that a body will it into a remarkably small container.

[Jack Whicher]

GUT-
I was wondering that as well but I figured that would just be brushed aside quickly as escalation. If he was dumping bodies and if we count Stride as a Ripper victim... Her murder is more difficult to explain.

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?"

[Jack Whicher]

Shaggyrand

For Strides crime scene to make any sense, she had to be dead when she was placed on the ground, and her throat had to have been cut after she was dead and prone.

The medical testimony at the inquest was
"She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed..."

Had she been alive and alert when her throat was cut, she could have sought help. The blood in the carotid artery is under relatively high pressure and should have sprayed onto her clothing and all over the area of her wound. However, her clothes were free of blood as well as her chin, which is inconsistent with her being alive when her throat was cut.

Witnesses describe the blood as "flowing" with about 1 lb. of clotted blood next to her. This is the pattern produced by blood draining from a body with no blood pressure.

If she was dead before she was placed in the yard then the cut throat is post-mortem mutilation which makes this similar to the other killings.

Stride's killing, however, is different in that the post-mortem mutilation is much less extensive and clearly occurs at the scene. It doesn't fit cleanly into the same pattern as the other killings.

[Shaggyrand]

GUT-
I was wondering that as well but I figured that would just be brushed aside quickly as escalation. If he was dumping bodies and if we count Stride as a Ripper victim... Her murder is more difficult to explain.

[GUT]

If all the victims were dumped and probably murdered somewhere that the killer had time and privacy, why were there none of the usual mutilation on Stride? If her killer was JtR and he killed her somewhere else, he probably wasn't interrupted, so why do you think he didn't finish?
Sorry if you already answered this, skimmed the theater but could have missed it.

I'd ask why then why not do a MJK to all of them.

[Shaggyrand]

If all the victims were dumped and probably murdered somewhere that the killer had time and privacy, why were there none of the usual mutilation on Stride? If her killer was JtR and he killed her somewhere else, he probably wasn't interrupted, so why do you think he didn't finish?
Sorry if you already answered this, skimmed the theater but could have missed it.

[Rosella]

Actually, Jack, Thankyou for your reply, however I asked whether there was any evidence at all that your suspect, the Rev Scott, suffered from sexual-sadistic urges, not other clergy killers, or JTR, who, by the way, I don't agree was a sadist at all. Where is there any proof, even with Mary Kelly, that Jack tortured his victims or mutilated them while they were alive?

Anyway, to get back to the Rev Scott, is there any evidence that he was seen hanging about with prostitutes, expressed any hatred of women, was used to using knives, or had any knowledge of anatomy?

[GUT]

Well, that is rather like saying the proof of the crime itself is that the crime was committed, isn't it?

Or the old philosophical argument:
Plato was a Greek.
Plato was a philosopher.
Therefore, all Greeks are philosophers.

The police of the time thought JtR had "a great hatred" of women-- would you translate that into "sexual-sadism"? Remember, sadism is inflicting pain and torture upon living people... Jack seems to have killed his victims swiftly, and then begun the slicing up and pulling out of innards. He did not vivisect them... Aha! If we accept your notion that he killed elsewhere and placed the bodies where they were found, then we must throw out all contemporary evidence as wrong, and state that we cannot tell whether he did or not.

Spot on Dunny, but that seems to be the way it's done ignore evidence that doesn't suit your theory and twist other bits.

[Pcdunn]

Bit of flawed reasoning, isn't it?

Yes
Mary Ann Nichols
Annie Chapman
Elizabeth Stride
Catherine Eddowes
Mary Jane Kelly

Whoever JR is, he clearly "suffered from 'sexual-sadistic urges' and felt the need to gratify these with the poorest women of this area."

There are numerous instances of clergy serial killers.

Well, that is rather like saying the proof of the crime itself is that the crime was committed, isn't it?

Or the old philosophical argument:
Plato was a Greek.
Plato was a philosopher.
Therefore, all Greeks are philosophers.

The police of the time thought JtR had "a great hatred" of women-- would you translate that into "sexual-sadism"? Remember, sadism is inflicting pain and torture upon living people... Jack seems to have killed his victims swiftly, and then begun the slicing up and pulling out of innards. He did not vivisect them... Aha! If we accept your notion that he killed elsewhere and placed the bodies where they were found, then we must throw out all contemporary evidence as wrong, and state that we cannot tell whether he did or not.