c3 or not?

[Jon Guy]

However, I think one can assess from the attitude of the Metropolitan police in general that they probably wouldn't have come up with the idea even if it was sparkling sunlight. But just my view.
Besides, at this desperat stage of the Ripper hysteria it appears as if the police finally realized that unusual extraordinary measures was needed. Isn't the photo in Miller's Court the first real crime scene photo in Britain, or am I incorrect?

I am always impressed at the way the City police dealt with the Eddowes murder scene, and their insistance to wait till daylight at Goulston Street, which do appear to make the Met look a little sloppy in their procedures.

I do keep hearing on docu`s that Millers Court was indeed the first body in situ crime scene photo. I would be very interested to know if there was an earlier photo.

[Dan Norder]

she was stabbed 39 times

and she wasn't mutilated.

Unless you think it actually took 39 stabs to finally kill her, those two statements are contradictory. Some, if not many, of those knife wounds were done for mutilation purposes regardless of who actually performed them.

with the only similarity being the choice of victim

...and the geography, and the date, and the time of night, and the position of the clothing, and the position of the body, and the overkill nature of the crime and... geez, what isn't a similarity? Just that her killer didn't cut her throat with an excessive gash: one part of an MO. Most serial killers don't keep their MOs exactly the same from murder to murder.

And, as pointed out by more than one person over the years, the nature of the Nichols murder arguably has more in common with the Tabram murder than it does the Chapman murder.

It is an insane idea, to say the least.

So anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of whether they are respected professional criminologists, Ripper authors or even the actual people originally involved in the Whitechapel murders investigation, are insane to think that? Groovy.

[Jon Guy]

Good evening, Jon.

Well, I assume most vagrant women indulging in part-time prostitution in the East End were middle age anyway.
As I said, prostitution was - and still is - one of the most dangerous occupations, and it would only be a matter of time before something like this happened. Overkill by knife is certainly nothing unusual in connection with prostitute murders, even if it was seldom heard of in those days. But it had to happen sooner or later, and past that there is really no similarities whatsoever between Tabram's murder and the one done on Nichols only three weeks later. And then of course we have PC Barrett's account of meeting a soldier close to the scene of the crime at the right time.

In my view, Tabram was killed by a sadistic client, where a deal had gone wrong, and that the perpetrator most likely was a solder. Most certainly not the Ripper. However, it's quite possible that it was the news of this murder that might have triggered him into finally putting his fantasies into action.

As for strangulation: although it appears as such on the photo we must remember that there is no such indication in Killeen's report. Nor can we be sure of that all of the Ripper victims were subjected to asphyxiation.

All the best

You points are all valid, Glenn.

As for strangulation, in this case and the others, I do believe there is formidable evidence to suggest intereference with breathing having taken place.I admit Kileen did not mention this but I don`t think a truly detailed account of the wounds from the Doctor has survived.

Philip Sugden makes some interesting points regarding strangulation.

I do believe the strangulation theme is worthy of it`s own thread as there is some compelling arguments possible.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Oh yes, Dan. I am well aware of the fact that you - in contrast to many 'respected authors' - seem to attribute every possible knife attack in London to the Ripper, probably including the torso murders already back in the 1870s. And that the Ripper was the only one capable of committing overkill on victims.
Indeed, what else is new?

The fact is, your I don't recall seeing your ideas being supported by 'respected authors'. And at the same time you dismiss some 'respected authors' views on the Kelly murder. I don't see that stopping you.

I am also well aware of your idea about Tabram's murder having more in common with Nichols' than Nichols having with the others in the alleged c5, which in itself is an unbelievable theory. I think it's really out there and based on really bad analysis. In short: I don't buy it.
But hey, we've been here before, haven't we?

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

You points are all valid, Glenn.

As for strangulation, in this case and the others, I do believe there is formidable evidence to suggest intereference with breathing having taken place.I admit Kileen did not mention this but I don`t think a truly detailed account of the wounds from the Doctor has survived.

Philip Sugden makes some interesting points regarding strangulation.

I do believe the strangulation theme is worthy of it`s own thread as there is some compelling arguments possible.

Well, there are several problems with this, Jon.
Firstly, as far as Tabram is concerned, the only indication is signs of possible a protruding tongue. The amount of blood also indicates that she at least was alive when she was killed, although that of course doesn't rule out that she may have become unconscious from asphyxiation. But my problem is that there is simply enough evidence in Tabram's case.

Secondly, we can't even be sure if it's of any importance, since we have no confirmation on that all of the alleged Ripper victims actually were suffocated, although I believe it's possible. The only possible signs in Eddowes case may be clenched hands and the small amount of blood, but again, nothing is mentioned in the report, as far as I can recall.
And definitely there are no signs of suffocation in Nichols' case.

It may be that the doctors simply left it out, but we do at least have a note about in Chapman's case.

So my point is, that we should take the idea of asphyxiation for granted with the Ripper - in either direction, although there are possible signs on some victims. Again, I think we simply may have too little information.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:

"my point is, that we should (not) take the idea of asphyxiation for granted with the Ripper - in either direction, although there are possible signs on some victims. Again, I think we simply may have too little information."

Indeed we have, Glenn. And that should not surprise anybody - an 1888 police force that found a woman with her throat cut to the bone would not start to look for signs of strangulation if they were not there in an obvious manner from the outset. Some such signs are very easily overlooked, like for instance small bleedings in the blood vessels of the eyes.

Therefore it is quite logical that Nichols, who was an early victim, was never checked for signs of strangulation or suffocation. It was only as the series grew and it became obvious that the women despatched for some reason did not seem to make a sound, that the police got interested in an explanation to that fact.

So even if we are left with no clear evidence, the fact that the deeds were silent makes a guess that strangulation/suffocation was involved a logical one, I feel.

When it comes to Tabram, I really hope that your assertion that believing that she was a Ripper victim points to insanity on the students behalf is not a correct one. That would put me in the line of fire! Strangely, I´m with Dan Norder on this one (which should make him feel uneasy...!).
One point that was left out by Norder in his comparison is that cut on the lower abdomen. My feeling is that this cut - three inches long and one inch deep - ought to have evoked the interest of anybody researching sexual violence even if Tabram had been an isolated case. As it is, we know that it was NOT isolated - it took place during the very period when a man roamed the streets of East end, searching for lower abdomens to cut up.

Anybody who wants to call the placing of that ONLY cut on Tabrams body accidental or random will have a lot of explaining to do.

The best, Glenn!

Fisherman

[Mitch Rowe]

We cant take a cut throat for granted either.
Personally.. I never try to exclude any Victim to a known killer like JTR. Im only hesitant to include when I have nothing significant to connect them with. For Martha Im on the borderline. Im not satisfied that she is a JTR Victim but I cant exclude her. But I think there are more similarities than differences so if an author finds a suspect as JTR who was a suspect in Marthas case I will listen.

[anna]

Hi guys,
I don't actually buy the strangulation theory.
1)He is on a time limit,so cannot afford any sort of delay,so has to be sure that they get dispatched instantly,with no room for the victims causing a delay...if he messed it up the first time he attempts it,he hasn't got a second chance,the game's up,they've seen who he is,and he has a vicious furious woman to cope with aswell...and he has to then kill her in that situation, to protect his identity.
2)To strangle them he has to be behind them,so that they don't see his hands coming up towards their necks.But,he has to get his hands around their necks,which is easier said than done.To do this,he has to place his hands around their hair and the bottom of their bonnet,the edge of his hand will probably touch their shoulder,it wouldn't make sense that he could do this without them getting at least some idea that he was up to something..unless you can think of any reason a guy would do this if a customer about to perform a sex act...he has no reason to be in the neck,hair,bonnet area.
Unless they are expecting him to kiss their necks,which in these cases,I think we can rule that out as a possibility!
I go for chloroform,and always have done,it is quick,guaranteed to do the job,and only requires a hand to come up to the face and hold the piece of cloth or whatever in place.It also leaves no room for error.
Just my thoughts,guys.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And that should not surprise anybody - an 1888 police force that found a woman with her throat cut to the bone would not start to look for signs of strangulation if they were not there in an obvious manner from the outset. Some such signs are very easily overlooked, like for instance small bleedings in the blood vessels of the eyes.

Therefore it is quite logical that Nichols, who was an early victim, was never checked for signs of strangulation or suffocation. It was only as the series grew and it became obvious that the women despatched for some reason did not seem to make a sound, that the police got interested in an explanation to that fact.

So even if we are left with no clear evidence, the fact that the deeds were silent makes a guess that strangulation/suffocation was involved a logical one, I feel.

That's true, Fisherman.
However, we should remember that there was no mention about suffocation (unless I recall incorrectly) in Eddowes' case either, and I consider her to be among the latest in the series (if not the last).

And of course it's a good point about the cutting of the throat making it difficult to estimate suffocation but we must remember that there were other signs available, like there are today: in Chapman's case it was possibly established by the protruding tongue and swollen face.
(Today the most apparent sign would be haemmorhage in the eyes, but obviously this doesn't appear to have been used in 1888.)

And no, I don't see Tabram as a Ripper victim.
What I find insane, however, is when some people try to see more similarites between her and Nichols than between Nichols and the others in the so called canon when in fact there are numerous points that differ Tabram from the others.
As for the cut - well, we've been here before - it appears to be a cut going deeper than the others., that's all. It does not appear to be a 'rip' or an attempt to open her up (which the one on Nichols clearly was) - anyone who tries to establish that when in fact the medical info states the opposite, will have their work cut out (no pun intended) for them.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

2)Unless they are expecting him to kiss their necks,which in these cases,I think we can rule that out as a possibility!
I go for chloroform,and always have done,it is quick,guaranteed to do the job,and only requires a hand to come up to the face and hold the piece of cloth or whatever in place.It also leaves no room for error.
Just my thoughts,guys.

Hi anna,

Well, this appears to have been checked out by the doctors, as they did look for narcotics or any other anaesthetics. Apparently there were no sign of it. Besides, cloroform leaves a certain smell, which the police and the doctors undoubtadly would have noticed.
Let's also differ between 'strangulation' and 'asphyxiation' - they are not necessarily the same thing and asphyxiation can be performed in many different ways. But as usual, we can only speculate here.

All the best

[anna]

Thanks for the answer Glenn,I had no idea that strangulation and asphixiation could be two different things,(apart from the fact that one is easier to spell than the other!!!).
Anna.

[DVV]

Hi Anna,
dying because of exhaust fumes, for example, that is asphyxia.
But I'm not sure that was the MO...
Doctors were rather speaking of "suffocation". What did they mean, I don't know. Half strangulation, maybe?
David (broken-English poster)

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi David,

Your interpretation of 'asphyxia' is a bit limited, I think.

'Asphyxia' is not merely connected with exhaust fumes or medical suffocation, but according to Vernon J. Geberth's Practical Homicide Investigation manual, there are several kinds of asphyxia and usuallly the expression is used as a common word for loss of oxygen or respiration, including by suffocation or strangulation.

What we would be talking about here is 'mechanical asphyxia', namely "created by pressure on the outside of the body, which prevents respiration".
Of course, this would include strangulation so I was wrong in using the word 'asphyxia' anyway, although I was right in saying that 'asphyxia' can be done in many different ways.

What I should have said was that there is a difference between manual strangulation and suffocation.
In other words, one can create asphyxia or suffocation on a victim in many ways without using manual strangulation. Strangulation is only one way of doing it.
Sorry about the confusion. Hope I got it right this time - English medical terms have always been sort of a drag to me.

All the best

[DVV]

Hi Glenn,
thanks for the precisions. Of course, I was talking about exhaust fumes as a surrealist example ...but the subject really does not deserve to be treated as such, since we can see it as the main mystery in the murderer's MO.
I know you dislike speculation very much (that's what makes your posts always beneficial), and I'm eager to get your opinion on this subject.

Somehow, I think the doctors at the time used the term "suffocation" because there was no evidence of proper and clear strangulation. I feel as they used it as some kind of last resort...despite their medical knowledge.
Just look at this sentence (from The Lancet, 29 oct), in which the words "strangled", "suffocated" and "asphyxia" appear together:

"There could be little doubt that he first strangled or suffocated his victim, for not only were no cries heard, but the face, lips and hands were livid as in asphixia..."

Can modern forensic be less vague, or are we doomed to speculate?

Amitiés,
David

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi David,

Yes, we are doomed to speculate.

As did The Lancet, no doubt, and there simply is not enough evidence that all of the victims were subjected to suffocation, although it is highly probable.
As for the medical assesments, I think suffocation is only mentioned by the doctors in Chapman's case (unless I remember incorrectly), and it as based on protruding, swollen tongue and swollen face.
There are of course possible signs on Eddowes as well (clenched fingers), but no such conclusion is ever made.

Personally, I think there is not enough information in order to come to any general conclusion about the suffocation issue. In my opinion, there are some indications on some of the victims, that suffocation was used, but I think it's an error to state as a fact that the Ripper used suffocation as a certain part of his MO.

All the best