Attempted decapitation

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Errata,

I'm not entirely sure what he means by the attempted separation of the muscle. Certainly there is no muscle inside the spinal column. Separation of the muscle typically refers to where a surgeon carefully severs the connection to the bone and ligament. And I'm not really able to picture what that means on a neck.

'The throat had been severed as before described. The incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct, clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel from each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck.' - Dr Phillips

But it's a fair point that the idea of Nichols murder being interrupted can only be arrived at retrospectively. I don't think her murder was interrupted.

Well I don't think the investigators thought the killer was interrupted at first, they seemed to be unable to understand why the killer had attacked her throat as well as her abdomen, when either wound was sufficient to kill, They would have concluded they the killer stayed around longer than he needed to, in order to inflict the extra wounds, rather than been interrupted,

[Mr Lucky]

If you accept the C4 or C5 as done by the same hand, you may be able to spot a common desire to cut things off...possible attempts to cut off heads in Nichols and Chapman, attempt to cut off a nose in Eddowes, and finally successful cutting off of breasts in Kelly.

Hi Damaso

This is the only press quote I know which mentions something similar in regards to Nichols;-

A further examination revealed the horrible nature of the crime, for the lower parts of the woman's body were found to be laid open, some sharp cutting instrument having been used, and three or four separate gashes inflicted. One part of the person had been sliced off, and from the vagina to the breast bone the knife had ripped the poor creature right up. There were other gashes, right and left, dividing the stomach and its coatings to the intestines. Any one of the wounds was sufficient to cause death, apart from the gashes across the throat.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Mr Lucky,

Probably worth noting that in the case of Mary Kelly there is also a "near" decapitation, as well as her right arm... almost completely severed from the body.

It seems unlikely to me that the person who had evaded identification for a few years while making Torsos wouldnt completely decapitate and/or dismember his victims when given an opportunity,.. therefore I think that Marys, Pollys, Annies and Kates killer...the ones with the most emphatic throat wounds.... was(were) not the person(people) who made the Torsos.

I believe that its possible that the appearance of attempts to dislodge the heads was a result of the overkill method used to cut the throats,...if they were lying down when he cuts their throats he may have been putting most of his weight down on that knife.

I dont know if anyone has identified the specific manner in which these deep double cuts were made, ...i.e. slicing back and forth repeatedly, a few deep sawing strokes with some force applied, whether the knife was long enough to have the killer sitting abreast on the victim and place both hands on the spine of the blade and see-saw it with force but without much in the way of sawing or slicing....but it would be interesting to know whether the actual physical methodologies were similar.

What I mean by that is that I believe that anyone, given enough of a particular impetus and lacking the moral control over mind and body, could attempt to duplicate a heinous act like in these cases. And I doubt that they would do it differently if they then repeated the act once again. I think formulas, and comfort zones play into these questions.

I also think that one way to look for possible differentiation from C1 to C5 would be in the specific way the knife was used in each case. Similar results dont necessarily mean "the same as".

Best regards

Hi MR

It seems unlikely to me that the person who had evaded identification for a few years while making Torsos wouldnt completely decapitate and/or dismember his victims when given an opportunity,.. therefore I think that Marys, Pollys, Annies and Kates killer...the ones with the most emphatic throat wounds.... was(were) not the person(people) who made the Torsos

Unless of course the decapitation in the torso victims was for ease in disposing the bodies and not for "pleasure".

I believe that its possible that the appearance of attempts to dislodge the heads was a result of the overkill method used to cut the throats,...if they were lying down when he cuts their throats he may have been putting most of his weight down on that knife.

Absolutely agree with this!

[caz]

Good post, Observer.

Because we can't get inside the killer's head to see what he fantasised about doing at any given point, or what he intended to try when setting out with his knife each time, we can only go by what he actually chose to do on the few occasions when he had a bit of time and privacy. Given the nature of the hunting ground, it's entirely possible that he had to quit every one of his crime scenes before he would have done by choice, say, if he had been alone with his victim on a desert island. But then part of the thrill could have been doing it in these highly risky situations. We just don't know.

We also don't know whether his fantasies remained consistent or changed like the weather, but the evidence suggests to me that they did change, either because he grew bored very quickly, or found that one thing wasn't as pleasurable or easy as he had imagined so he abandoned it in favour of some other idea. For example, I think a copycat in Kelly's case would have tried to stick more rigidly to what had been done to previous victims, and simply taken away the uterus and/or kidneys he had removed, rather than go to the extra trouble of slicing off breasts, taking out the heart and doing whatever was done with it. But the ripper had no such restrictions, only the limits of his own imagination while he was able to carry on working.

I would have to say, on balance, that he didn't really have the luxury to think too much when he finally had a dead body on his hands, and just went with his gut (and gutting) instincts, doing what came naturally to him, but most unnaturally to all but a handful of individuals across the planet.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi Observer

'the attempt to separate the muscle' Phillips quote, I'm taking to mean some sort of prising apart with force.

There was some slight damage to Nichols vertebrae possibly caused as you describe.

Basically the overall thing I'm curious about is that the belief that the killer of Nichols was foiled in his attempt to steal her uterus (and therefore he was interrupted) is rooted in nothing but a retroactive perspective from the Chapman killing.

The police always knew Nichols had been recently killed, Llewellyn told them that, but when did they first think that the killer had been interrupted?

Hi Mr Lucky

I can understand your point of view, organ removal is a running theme regarding Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, if indeed her heart was taken. But what if Tabram (as I believe) was a Ripper victim? Few serial killers (the mutilating variety) evolve "ready made" so to speak regarding the signature that eventually identifies them. Most build up to that point. As you say it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the killer of Polly Nichols was interupted, thus no taking of body parts occured. It could also be that the revealing of internal organs whilst mutilating Nichols aroused something in the murderer after the fact, and he resolved that the next woman he killed he would bring something home with him to remember the deed.

Regards

Observer

[curious4]

Detached arm

I believe in this case the arm being "situated away from the body" Edward is consistent with the suggestion it was almost detached from the body. There are quotes that suggest the arm was attached only by "sinew".

Best regards

Sorry Michael, but once again where did you get this information? Dr Bond gives a very precis and comprehensive description of the body, including the way it was positioned. If the arm had been almost detached, as you say, I feel sure he would have noted it.

It is very important to clearly differentiate between fact, rumour and speculation when posting, as indeed I myself have been told when letting my imagination run riot. Otherwise false "facts" enter into circulation - and we have enough of those already.

Best wishes,
C4

[Damaso Marte]

If you accept the C4 or C5 as done by the same hand, you may be able to spot a common desire to cut things off...possible attempts to cut off heads in Nichols and Chapman, attempt to cut off a nose in Eddowes, and finally successful cutting off of breasts in Kelly.

[Errata]

Hi Observer

'the attempt to separate the muscle' Phillips quote, I'm taking to mean some sort of prising apart with force.

There was some slight damage to Nichols vertebrae possibly caused as you describe.

Basically the overall thing I'm curious about is that the belief that the killer of Nichols was foiled in his attempt to steal her uterus (and therefore he was interrupted) is rooted in nothing but a retroactive perspective from the Chapman killing.

The police always knew Nichols had been recently killed, Llewellyn told them that, but when did they first think that the killer had been interrupted?

I'm not entirely sure what he means by the attempted separation of the muscle. Certainly there is no muscle inside the spinal column. Separation of the muscle typically refers to where a surgeon carefully severs the connection to the bone and ligament. And I'm not really able to picture what that means on a neck.

But it's a fair point that the idea of Nichols murder being interrupted can only be arrived at retrospectively. I don't think her murder was interrupted. The only murder in fact I can see being interrupted is Kate Eddowes. Best estimate is that he had the least amount of time with her, he took a kidney, but they do come in pairs. There's no evidence he didn't finish with her, but he was a compulsive killer, and I can only think that single kidney would have gnawed at him a little. But that's the murder where I think he was most likely to be interrupted. A guy on the other side of a fence would certainly make him freeze, but a moment of listening would have told him that the guy wasn't scrambling over the fence to get a look. The cop coming up the alley of Mitre Sq.? THAT's a threat.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Mr Lucky

If you'll permit me to interupt,what makes you think Chapman's killer intended to remove her head? The depth and severity of the cuts to Annie Chapman's neck would have invariably caused some notching of the vertebra.

Hi Observer

'the attempt to separate the muscle' Phillips quote, I'm taking to mean some sort of prising apart with force.

There was some slight damage to Nichols vertebrae possibly caused as you describe.

Basically the overall thing I'm curious about is that the belief that the killer of Nichols was foiled in his attempt to steal her uterus (and therefore he was interrupted) is rooted in nothing but a retroactive perspective from the Chapman killing.

The police always knew Nichols had been recently killed, Llewellyn told them that, but when did they first think that the killer had been interrupted?

[Observer]

Hi Mr Lucky

If you'll permit me to interupt,what makes you think Chapman's killer intended to remove her head? The depth and severity of the cuts to Annie Chapman's neck would have invariably caused some notching of the vertebra.

[Mr Lucky]

In short, no.

Hi Errata,

Thanks

Later on he seemed to want a kidney, which he did not take from Chapman, and I don't think it can be argued that her murder was interrupted. I think it's safe to say he was somewhat conflicted on the issue

Hmm, very interesting point about the interruption as there's the supposed moving about in the yard next door by Cadosche. Could that have prevented his taking of the kidney from Chapman?

[Mr Lucky]

That depends, what had he intended to do?

Hi Lynn

Doesn't matter really, the point is that he had been unable to finish it and would you cite the removal of Chapman head as evidence of this.

[Errata]

Hi Guys!!

I'm starting to feel like I'm trying to weld treacle to a balloon here, but I'll have another go;-

Basically, what I'm trying to do is present a hypothetical situation and ask a question based around the specifics of that situation.

So, Dr Phillips had noticed an attempt to separate the vertebrae of Chapman neck, if the killer had actually manage to fully decapitate Chapman would you cite this as evidence that the killer of Nichols had been interrupted before he had finished doing what he intended?

If there's anything else you like to bring up, about Kelly's arm or whether the killer had watched his own knee surgery or not I would be very pleased to hear about it ,but after you've answered the question. Thanks very much !!

In short, no.

At length, we have a killer who apparently isn't sure what exactly he wants from a murder. Certainly he figures it out with Chapman. But just because he successfully took a head doesn't mean that it ends up being what he wanted. I would think that had he successfully gotten a head then he would have known the trick to it and would have no problems taking the heads of his other victims if he wanted it. Apparently he didn't. Later on he seemed to want a kidney, which he did not take from Chapman, and I don't think it can be argued that her murder was interrupted. I think it's safe to say he was somewhat conflicted on the issue.

[lynn cates]

intent

Hello Lucky.

"So, Dr Phillips had noticed an attempt to separate the vertebrae of Chapman's neck, if the killer had actually managed to fully decapitate Chapman, would you cite this as evidence that the killer of Nichols had been interrupted before he had finished doing what he intended?"

That depends, what had he intended to do?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Errata, your point is correct. The description simply means that the arm was situated away from the body (as opposed to lying next to the body).

Edward

I believe in this case the arm being "situated away from the body" Edward is consistent with the suggestion it was almost detached from the body. There are quotes that suggest the arm was attached only by "sinew".

Best regards