J. H. Scott

[Jack Whicher]

Jack-

Maybe I overlooked it but have you identified other victims in your theory or only the C5? He was still rector for another 5 years, correct? So if there were no other victims why did he only kill in his first year there? You mention his wife and daughter in a way that, and I could be remembering wrong but you dd include them in the quote about strange unknown labors and being exhausted, might sound like they are being implicated as well. Is that correct? Any victims that you think would fit where he ended up after 1895?

Shaggyrand,

Why did he quit?

Assuming he did, I have no explanation other than it's not uncommon for serial killers to find other outlets for their urges and stop killing.
I refer you to the FBI publication: Serial Murder, Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators:

"It has been widely believed that once serial killers start killing, they cannot stop. There are, however, some serial killers who stop murdering altogether before being caught. In these instances, there are events or circumstances in offenders’ lives that inhibit them from pursuing more victims. These can include increased participation in family activities, sexual substitution, and other diversions."

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-july-2008-pdf

J. Whicher

[Jack Whicher]

When read in full, without the highlights, its pretty conclusive.

Chapman was murdered and mutilated in the yard.

We have no signs of blood outside No29, despite an exstensive search, yet do inside the yard. We have clotting and significant blood loss flowing, not oozing, flowing from the neck.

Monty

Quite possibly true.

The difficulty is that one is not compelled to that conclusion by the evidence.

The same evidence also supports strangulation elsewhere and post mortem mutilation at the dumping scene.

Given that dichotomy in the proof, it seemed worthwhile to examine all possible alternatives.

[Jack Whicher]

Hello Jack,

You've obviously given some thought to the problem, however I feel your conclusions cannot be supported. Thus, whilst I accept that Dr Brown's opinion that, following the severance of the carotid artery, death would have been instantaneous can no longer be supported in light of modern forensic opinion-Dr Biggs believed that she may have survived for several minutes after her throat was cut- the cessation of cerebral blood flow may have rendered her unconscious very rapidly. Moreover, prior to becoming unconscious she would have been rendered insebsible, I.e due to the interrupted blood supply to the brain, and therefore incapable of putting up any kind of resistance: as you are no doubt aware, the brain requires a constant oxygen supply, and interruption to the blood flow, and therefore oxygen supply, could have resulted in rapid unconsciousness, particularly when you consider the fact that the wound was both deep and extensive.

Furthermore, it is also possible that Eddowes was strangled prior to having her throat cut; this would also have brought about rapid unconsciousness: for instance, in a review of filmed hangings unconsciousness occurred rapidly, I.e within 8 to 10 seconds: Sauvageau, 2010. I would further note that whilst strangulation does sometimes leave a bruise this is not always the case.

You have also failed to take into consideration the fact the Eddowes was extensively mutilated. This means that the killer may have been with the body for 5 to 10 minutes, plenty of time for Eddowes to have expired.

And then, of course, there are the witnesses who observed Eddowes enter Mitre Square with a suspect no more than 10 minutes before her body was discovered. Given the time it would have taken to overpower the victim, cut her throat, carry out extensive mutilations, remove organs, and leave the scene without attracting attention, it is submitted that this evidence completely undermines the theory that that Eddowes was killed elsewhere and her body dumped, I.e for that to have happened she would presumably have to have been abducted, murdered and mutilated elsewhere, and then returned to the Square within a 10 minute timeframe, and without anyone noticing.

Hello John G

Are we discussing Stride? My earlier post has a typo (Eddowes for Stride) that I cannot edit. I posted again to clarify.

That said, I will reply about Eddowes.

Officer Edward Watkin, No. 881 of the City Police, who found the body at 1:44 AM said: "She was lying in a pool of blood."

However, Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, surgeon to the City of London Police testified: "There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around..." "There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket."

Dr. Brown's testimony was corroborated by Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate: "On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect."

Her throat is cut, regardless of when she becomes unconscious, she remains clinically alive for several minutes. Until anoxia silenced the sympathetic nervous system, Eddowes would have blood pressure and would bleed while being disemboweled.

But she didn't. Her abdomen was cut open, her liver removed, and her intestines thrown over her shoulder all without any blood getting on her clothes.

A prone body with no blood pressure will leak blood,post-mortem, from a neck wound such as this due to a gravitational flow from body regions that are higher than the severed artery.

I've seen one crime scene like this where the neck wound was not post mortem: a woman was stabbed in the neck multiple times, and the first stab severed the spinal cord at C1. She lost blood pressure and suffered immediate, total paralysis. The blood flow looked just the way these are described although there was considerable evidence of blood spatter.

So, IMHO, Eddowes was dead (probably from strangulation) long enough for brain death to occur before mutilation commenced. Same for Stride.

These are NOT whack-whack-knife-attack-and-run crimes. These women appear to be strangled until brain dead, mutilated, and then posed (ritual) which adds to the time JR would spend with the bodies post-mortem.

The longer the time it takes to kill and mutilate the more likely dumping is involved; thus the inclusion in my description.

I can illustrate this with a possible scenario:

1. JR meets these women and takes them to a place where he strangles them.

2. They go willingly because his chosen place seems safe (church, hospital, work house, etc.) and because he seems safe (officer, police, doctor, pastor, social worker, etc.)

3. Now JR has a problem: the body in his parlor connects him to the murder.

4. So he puts the body in something and carries it to the place where it is eventually found.

5. There he mutilates it, poses it, and leaves.

6. Because the women have been dead for several minutes, they have no blood pressure which leads to the relatively bloodless bodies and crime scenes.

Keeping in mind that possible and probable are very different, this is possible.

J. Whicher

[Monty]

Monty,

In Chapman's case the explanation is that there was no such spraying of arterial blood.

1. There was no spray of arterial blood on the wall of the house; there were six spots of blood 18 - 24 inches off the ground. They ranged in size from slightly smaller than an American penny to a "point."

This is not a spray of arterial blood; it's too small. I would describe this as a blood spatter of the sort created by the abrupt change in motion of a blood covered item.

2. There was no spray of arterial blood on the fence. There were two "smears" of blood that were apparently a transfer from Chapman's head.

Relevant inquest testimony:

Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed:"[Coroner] Were there any drops of blood outside the yard of No. 29? - No; every possible examination has been made, but we could find no trace of them. The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together."

Mr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional-surgeon of police, said: "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted."

The amount of blood left by an attack on a living person is much more extensive than "a few spots of blood on the back wall".

J. Whicher

When read in full, without the highlights, its pretty conclusive.

Chapman was murdered and mutilated in the yard.

We have no signs of blood outside No29, despite an exstensive search, yet do inside the yard. We have clotting and significant blood loss flowing, not oozing, flowing from the neck.

Monty

[Jack Whicher]

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

How is this explained?

Monty

Monty,

In Chapman's case the explanation is that there was no such spraying of arterial blood.

1. There was no spray of arterial blood on the wall of the house; there were six spots of blood 18 - 24 inches off the ground. They ranged in size from slightly smaller than an American penny to a "point."

This is not a spray of arterial blood; it's too small. I would describe this as a blood spatter of the sort created by the abrupt change in motion of a blood covered item.

2. There was no spray of arterial blood on the fence. There were two "smears" of blood that were apparently a transfer from Chapman's head.

Relevant inquest testimony:

Joseph Chandler, Inspector H Division Metropolitan Police, deposed:"[Coroner] Were there any drops of blood outside the yard of No. 29? - No; every possible examination has been made, but we could find no trace of them. The blood-stains at No. 29 were in the immediate neighbourhood of the body only. There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall, near the head of the deceased, 2ft from the ground. The largest spot was of the size of a sixpence. They were all close together."

Mr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional-surgeon of police, said: "On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid, and immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck, which was well clotted."

The amount of blood left by an attack on a living person is much more extensive than "a few spots of blood on the back wall".

J. Whicher

[Shaggyrand]

Jack-

Maybe I overlooked it but have you identified other victims in your theory or only the C5? He was still rector for another 5 years, correct? So if there were no other victims why did he only kill in his first year there? You mention his wife and daughter in a way that, and I could be remembering wrong but you dd include them in the quote about strange unknown labors and being exhausted, might sound like they are being implicated as well. Is that correct? Any victims that you think would fit where he ended up after 1895?

[Shaggyrand]

Double post apparently my bad.

[GUT]

Dear GUT,
My Apologies,

I was under the impression that those posting on this board were interested in discussing/analyzing the Ripper case.

I now know there are also those avoid discussing 'works-in-progress' and only consider complete, annotated solutions which do not challenge their preconceptions, prejudices, or previously published works. As I have no way of sorting out who is which, I am evidently bothering some posters here. This was not my intention; please accept my apologies for disturbing you.

Unfortunately, I have no way of selectively posting so as to avoid disrupting the serenity of such posters; please simply disregard my future posts.

Sincerely,
J. Whicher

Yeah I know, I'm nasty like that, preferring evidence over wild speculation, just one of those idiosyncrasies I have.

[GUT]

Yes, in fact I'm sure it's a tactic that I've used myself on occasion-whoops, probably shouldn't have let that slip! Mind you, at least I'm in exhalted company: the same strategy seems to have been employed by the writers of most of the published works I've read on the subject!

Now ain't that the truth about published works.

[Jack Whicher]

Yeah but just ignore the bits that don't fit your theory.



I think I'm getting the hang of this whole ripper thing.

Dear GUT,
My Apologies,

I was under the impression that those posting on this board were interested in discussing/analyzing the Ripper case.

I now know there are also those avoid discussing 'works-in-progress' and only consider complete, annotated solutions which do not challenge their preconceptions, prejudices, or previously published works. As I have no way of sorting out who is which, I am evidently bothering some posters here. This was not my intention; please accept my apologies for disturbing you.

Unfortunately, I have no way of selectively posting so as to avoid disrupting the serenity of such posters; please simply disregard my future posts.

Sincerely,
J. Whicher

[John G]

Yeah but just ignore the bits that don't fit your theory.

I think I'm getting the hang of this whole ripper thing.

Yes, in fact I'm sure it's a tactic that I've used myself on occasion-whoops, probably shouldn't have let that slip! Mind you, at least I'm in exhalted company: the same strategy seems to have been employed by the writers of most of the published works I've read on the subject!

[GUT]

Just to add to my earlier post, Dr Brown was asked by the coroner if Eddowes could have been murdered elsewhere. His reply: "I don't think there's any foundation for that theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think the deceased moved the least bit after that."

Yeah but just ignore the bits that don't fit your theory.

I think I'm getting the hang of this whole ripper thing.

[Pcdunn]

"Employment:
His job does not involve manual labor."

What's the reason?

As I understand it, because that is a point in the FBI profile of an organized serial killer, so poster Jack is looking for a candidate that fits this profile. Not a bad approach, I suppose, but that profile was written in the twentieth century and was probably based on the cases of twentieth-century serial killers who have been identified.

The Ripper is sometimes claimed to be the world's first serial killer. I'm not a crime historian, so couldn't tell you with any certainty if this is true or not (although Elisabeth Bathory who ordered servant girls murdered by the dozens so she could bathe in their blood may well have been the earliest)-- but I wonder if our boy Jack the Ripper might not be an exception to the rule.

What was J. H. Scott's full name, by the way? I'd like to do some research on him.

[Patrick S]

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.

Evidence does not show that. Read up on Richardson's testimony.

[John G]

Just to add to my earlier post, Dr Brown was asked by the coroner if Eddowes could have been murdered elsewhere. His reply: "I don't think there's any foundation for that theory. The blood on the left side was clotted, and must have fallen at the time the throat was cut. I do not think the deceased moved the least bit after that."