Arrangement at her feet

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Tom.

"Baxter did? I know that Dr. Phillips, his assistant, and Superintendent Arnold felt that Eddowes was an imitation, but I'm not sure Wynne Baxter was of that opinion."

Yup. It's in his summation of the Stride inquest. Of course, he noted what was, to his mind the great similarity in all 4--the killer made away quickly and quietly.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hi Maria. In post #11 I meant to say BEFORE death. Sorry for the confusion. I go into more detail on this theory in Berner Street pt. 2 in Ripper Notes, which I think you said you've ordered? It might make more sense there.

The injuries to Chapman's fingers could be evidence for the rings having been removed before or around death, which are 2 quite distinct scenarios.
I have your Berner Street Part 2, Tom. First time I read it (last summer) I found it pretty boring with all the geographical/location stuff descriptions, but then again, what did I know, I was a clueless newbie at that time. I've started reading it again recently and might finish it up on the plane tomorrow, as I'm taking it along to Paris. (How romantic.) I'm very interested in the St John's Working Men's Club on Sander Street and Backchurch Lane, which you mention in the article.
Hey, but how can you discuss Chapman on a BERNER STREET article??

Malt liquor was not to be found in Stride's body, but that's to say nothing of more expensive alcohol. Considering she was with a series of well-dressed men that evening, She should be expected to have more money on her person than when she left the lodgings.

I know Tom, and the only explanation to me is that she might have drunk it all up.

no two murders were the same, nor should they be expected to be.

Agree.

Quote Maria:
In my opinion it went like this: Non threatening approach, perhaps pay, blitz attack as in grab the throat, cut, empty pockets, mutilate, flee.

Except none of this is consistent with the medical and/or witness evidence in every case.

What other medical/witness evidence, apart from Chapman's injured ring fingers and the BS attack on Stride?
I'm not sure where you've discussed the medical evidence on the Stride attack before, but I recall having read such a thing. Is this in Berner Street Part 2?

[c.d.]

You lost me here, Tom. How does the medical evidence help us determine whether it was a fake robbery or a prostitute/client scenario?

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

In my opinion (as I've said in a previous post) it went like this: Non threatening approach, perhaps pay, blitz attack as in grab the throat, cut, empty pockets, mutilate, flee.

Except none of this is consistent with the medical and/or witness evidence in every case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria. In post #11 I meant to say BEFORE death. Sorry for the confusion. I go into more detail on this theory in Berner Street pt. 2 in Ripper Notes, which I think you said you've ordered? It might make more sense there.

Malt liquor was not to be found in Stride's body, but that's to say nothing of more expensive alcohol. Considering she was with a series of well-dressed men that evening, She should be expected to have more money on her person than when she left the lodgings.

As for the victims, we should really all discuss them individually and not collectively, because no two murders were the same, nor should they be expected to be.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

So we have a knife wealding mugger who threatens to cut up his victim to keep them quite, and then somehow decides to put the knife in his pocket(?) and strangle them?

Agree. Another reason why the mugger scenario doesn't cut it in this case.
In my opinion (as I've said in a previous post) it went like this: Non threatening approach, perhaps pay, blitz attack as in grab the throat, cut, empty pockets, mutilate, flee.

[Wickerman]

..... These ladies thought they were in complete control and all it took was less than a second to be sure of oneself and then your throat's cut ......

So in your opinion these ladies were on their feet when their throats were cut?

[Wickerman]

Phillips described the weapon used as being more akin to a slaughterer's knife than a medical man's instrument (long knives being used in the post-mortem room).
Indications of some anatomical knowledge coupled with a weapon similar to a slaughterers knife hardly suggests Phillips was impressed, not at this stage.

Bearing this in mind, is there sufficient reason to suggest Phillips exaggerated when he said "arranged'? I suggest his wording has more to do with his upper-class vocabulary.

[mariab]

This from your post #11, Tom.

The injuries to her fingers indicate that her rings were removed AFTER death.

If you agree that Chapman's rings were taken off prior to her murder, then where does the blitz come in? That's evidence of robbery prior to attack.

So which one is it? I wonder if her fingers would have been injured around the time of death, if he took the rings just after cutting her throat.

If Chapman was a 'nonchalant' approach followed by a blitz attack, then explain the utterance of 'no' and the dead silence that followed this prior to the 'bump' on the fence heard by Cadosh.

I meant “nochalant“ as in approaching them in a non-threatening way initially, THEN following with a blitz attack. Also “nochalant“ is his continuing with the attack on Chapman without being bothered by hearing Cadosh walking up and down behind the fence. To be quite honest (and without meaning being disrespectful), her reaction to the attack seems pretty “nochalant“ too. Interestingly enough, it's reminiscent of the BS attack on Stride.

If the Ripper took his money back after death, then explain why the ONLY Ripper victim we can feel relatively sure had money on her (Stride) was missing her money but her clothes were not rifled nor her body turned over?

I've been scratching my head over this for months (that is, as long as I've been interested in Ripperology), and I've commented on this in my post #22. I'm quoting my previous post:
Yet Stride was seen with different men all night of September 30, 1888, which might explain her having spent some money for drinks, but then, she should have gained some money too on such an “active“ night. Unless she really drunk a lot, which we know she did.
Did she spent all her money on drinks?

To The Good Michael:
Apart from alcohol induced bravado, don't underestimate the preoccupation with money, Michael. These women might have been mentally counting their coins, thinking “Good, now I have another 4 pence for a bed/another mug of ginger beer tonight“ when the (blitz) attack occurred.

[The Good Michael]

I want to agree with Tom here. All these victims were drinking or drunk and were out prowling the streets knowing that a dangerous murderer was on the streets and was preying on women such as they. They felt in control of these situations because they had been doing it over and over again and because alcohol creates bravery. These ladies thought they were in complete control and all it took was less than a second to be sure of oneself and then your throat's cut and only air and blood is coming out where sound should be, if you even had time or air in which to scream.

Have a nice day.

Mike

[Wickerman]

So we have a knife wealding mugger who threatens to cut up his victim to keep them quite, and then somehow decides to put the knife in his pocket(?) and strangle them?


Curious..

[mariab]

In this type of situation the woman will feel as though she is in charge.

Oh, now I get it. You are referring to a prostitute-client scenario. But even then I severely doubt that old, sick, drunk, homeless Victorian unfortunates would feel “in charge“. It's a clever plan to let them feel secure, with their mind on the money to gain and thinking that this was an everyday job/encounter.

[Tom_Wescott]

So, I think that any suggestion of "awe for the Ripper", with the Chapman murder, is jumping the gun at this stage.

Then a good many Ripper writers have 'jumped the gun', because Phillips was clearly impressed with the work. And I was speaking only of Chapman, not Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

It appears that his was a “nochalant“ approach followed by a blitz attack. It wouldn't have worked so well otherwise.

If Chapman was a 'nonchalant' approach followed by a blitz attack, then explain the utterance of 'no' and the dead silence that followed this prior to the 'bump' on the fence heard by Cadosh?

If the Ripper took his money back after death, then explain why the ONLY Ripper victim we can feel relatively sure had money on her (Stride) was missing her money but her clothes were not rifled nor her body turned over?

If you agree that Chapman's rings were taken off prior to her murder, then where does the blitz come in? That's evidence of robbery prior to attack.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Michael and all,

It's important to remember Dr. Phillips' state of mind at that time. He was virtually in awe of the Ripper's audacity and his abilities.....

It was my understanding that the Chapman murder was Dr. Phillips's introduction to the case. The strongest recommendation Phillips gave was that the murderer showed "indications of some anatomical knowledge". He was not involved in the Nichols murder and he had expressed nothing which might be described as 'awe' until after the Double-Murder.

I'll need to look but I thought medical appreciation was only expressed on how Eddowes kidney had been 'skillfully' extracted.
So, I think that any suggestion of "awe for the Ripper", with the Chapman murder, is jumping the gun at this stage.

Regards, Jon S.