Time of Death Analyzation

[lynn cates]

blunt

Hello Messmates. Have a go at the A-Z, p. 437.

"(iii) Injuries caused by a short, broad, possibly blunt knife . . ."

Begg, Fido, and Skinner said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hello Tom

The knife in question was not used to kill any of the C5.

True, but a chandlers knife is a long bladed knife, similar to the one used on the C4, and Phillips objection was to this sort of knife been the type used, due to it`s length.

He believes such a large knife would be unlikely because he's assuming Stride was on the ground, on her left side, when the wound was inflicted. This, however, may not have been the case.

Again, true, but we must bear in mind Phillips comments on the size of the knife used, in his opinion, and he was the experienced Police surgeon.

we have no way of knowing the size of the knife because Stride was not stabbed.

The position of a body in a crime scene can shed some light on the type of weapon used. Perhaps it was Phillips` experience that led him to speculate so.

But what we're discussing here is the sharpness of the knife. All we know is that a sharp knife was used, which is certainly consistent with the other 4 C5 victims.

I absolutely agree Tom. A very sharp knife was used, to cut the windpipe and kill her in one sweep. But if it were a sharp, small knife, as Phillips suggests, it was not the same one that killed the C4.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:

"But it wasn`t a tentative, shallow cut. All the major arteries on the left side had been severed. Blimey, I`ve ended up making a case for our Jack."

God forbid, Jon! And, of course, I was speaking of a COMPARATIVELY shallow and tentative cut. Moreover, as I said, IF the cut was inflicted as Stride lay on her left side, then the killer almost certainly must have fixed her head as he cut, probably by gripping her by the hair. Otherwise, he would have had a very awkward task, trying to reach in under her with the blade.
And if he had fixed the head, then I say that was not Jack cutting, because with the head fixed, he could have applied a massive pressure to the balde and cut very deep, ŕ la you-know-who.
But he did not!

There are also other factors involved. If he forced Stride to the ground, how could he do so without her crying out? How could she hold on to her cachous?

Nope, the more I think about it, the better Blackwells suggestion seems - for if he cut her in the same sweeping action that took her down, then it may have come too fast for her to react, to cry out, to drop her cachous. It all makes sense that way, I would say.

The best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hello Messmates. Have a go at the A-Z, p. 437.

"(iii) Injuries caused by a short, broad, possibly blunt knife . . ."

Begg, Fido, and Skinner said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Hey there Lynn,

It wasn`t blunt. Don`t believe them my friend, medical stuff is not there forte.

I haven`t seen that before. Is that what they said? Can`t be. They can`t have read what the Doctor`s wrote.

Don`t believe it. Read what the Doctors wrote. A deep gash and major vessels severed.

[lynn cates]

exchange

Hello Jon. It is right there on p. 437. The "short" and "broad" are given, the "blunt" is listed as possible.

Of course, one can always argue, as I've said before, that "Jack" popped round home and got a better knife before proceeding to Mitre square.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn C writes:

"The "short" and "broad" are given, the "blunt" is listed as possible."

I have to agree with Tom and Jon here, Lynn; there is no way one could establish length and broadness of that blade, although - as Jon points out - the position of the body would have made it awkward to use a long blade if she was cut lying down.
Nor was the knife blunt - at the inquest, for example, Blackwell states that the scarf was frayed "as if by a sharp knife". Textile is very hard to cut with a blunt knife, as you may know.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

quote

Hello Fish. I was merely quoting.

It makes one wonder why Begg et al and Marriott both give the same finding?

The best.
LC

[robhouse]

This thread is basically a bunch of people declaring "what would Jack the Ripper do?" Bordering on the dreaded "profiling", this tactic is basically looking at precedents of Jack's behavior (or supposed behavior) in a very limited number of instances... then extrapolating what Jack the Ripper would do in all other cases, regardless of any extenuating factors, differences in situation, environment, etc. For example... it has been suggested that Jack would have ALWAYS made a knife cut as deep as that in the other murders; Jack would not have attacked a victim at such an early hour; Jack would not have killed in Dutfield's Yard because of the presence of people in the IWEC, etc. This is all completely unfounded nonsense.

The fact is, no one can say what the Ripper would do. In addition, the evidence (and much modern opinion) suggests the Ripper was a risk taker, and in all likelhood, a "disorganized" killer, who did not plan his murders very much in advance. If true, then we should be likely to find all sorts behavior that deviated from any pattern. And anyone who has ever read about other serial killer cases will be aware that SKs often deviate from their "expected" behavior. This often confounds the police who fail to attach murders to the same perpetrator, and more likely than not, the police tend to exclude actual SK victims based on the same faulty logic.

I do not claim to have all the answers, but quite simply there is nothing to suggest that Liz was not a likely JTR victim. An objective analysis of her murder suggests the contrary, despite all this armchair theorizing. And most people who say "Jack would have done this or that" seem to be arguing from a rational, "Well, this is how I would act in such a situation" perspective. The Ripper was pretty well out of control. He certainly deviated from "rational" behavior. A little attempt to get into the mind of a psychopathic killer is in order here.

RH

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

Hello Messmates. Have a go at the A-Z, p. 437.

"(iii) Injuries caused by a short, broad, possibly blunt knife . . ."

Begg, Fido, and Skinner said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Fish. I was merely quoting.

It makes one wonder why Begg et al and Marriott both give the same finding?

The best.
LC

With respect Lynn you were were not merely quoting, the above says it all. As Fisherman says, blunt knives do not slice through fabric of the type Liz Stride was using as a scarf.

Good post Rob, also the problem of trying to get into the mind of the serial killer is not made any easier by their reluctance to share their true feelings with those who attempt to analyse their behavior. Bundy blamed pornography as the root cause of his crimes, it has been suggested that this was a convienient excuse to deflect the investigators away from the real motives as to why he killed. Sutcliffe cited divine influence as to why he killed, this was to achieve a "mad not bad" conviction of course. From what I've read it seems to me that more often than not serial killers who have been caught and analysed are reluctant to share their true feelings. They also seem to like the cat and mouse game, giving the police a run for their money even after having been caught. Being in control even after capture seems to be a common thread with a lot of them ?

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

variety

Hello Observer. Hmm. I believe it was a quote. That is why I used the quotation marks. It came straight out of my A-Z. Both the A-Z as well as Trevor Marriott's book make the same observation.

I doubt if they are suggesting that it's very dull. My take is that they mean it was not razor sharp as was the knife used in the other 4 killings. At any rate, these published ripperologists agree that Liz's killing was with a different knife. I have absolutely no reason to doubt them.

And, as I've said before, "Jack" may well have killed Liz and then popped round home to trade up before seeking out Kate. He may also have had a variety of knives in a Gladstone bag, much as a golfer has various clubs in his or her bag.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

This thread is basically a bunch of people declaring "what would Jack the Ripper do?" Bordering on the dreaded "profiling", For example... it has been suggested that Jack would have ALWAYS made a knife cut as deep as that in the other murders; This is all completely unfounded nonsense.

Many people miss the point that the depth of the throat cut was determined more by the size of the knife used, rather than a killer determined to scratch the back of the vertebrae.

Therefore, when the throat wound is less severe, and the police surgeon suggests a small knife was used, it does point to a different murder weapon, and dare I say, possibly a different killer.

T
A little attempt to get into the mind of a psychopathic killer is in order here.

Some more dreaded profiling, you mean? Oh no, Oh dear.

[Observer]

Hi Lynn

Regarding the blunt knife, I was referring to your quote namely

" Begg, Fido, and Skinner said it, I believe it, and that settles it."

This seems to me that you are not merely quoting them, but endorsing them in the belief that the knife was blunt.

Correct me if I am wrong

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Observer. Now I see what you're about. Yes, I wholeheartedly endorse the remark. By "merely" I referred to the fact that I had no empirical experience in examining the knife. Hence, I was merely quoting what the authors had said. I regret the confusion.

I think that, perhaps, by "blunt" they may refer to a rounded tip rather than a pointed tip; however, I may be misreading them. I do not think they are implying dullness in any great degree, although I may have initially done so. After all, as you and Fisherman and Jon (I think) have pointed out, it must obviously be sharp enough to cut flesh and cloth--even if it is not as sharp as the other instrument/s.

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

Robhouse writes:

"The fact is, no one can say what the Ripper would do. In addition, the evidence (and much modern opinion) suggests the Ripper was a risk taker, and in all likelhood, a "disorganized" killer, who did not plan his murders very much in advance. If true, then we should be likely to find all sorts behavior that deviated from any pattern."

Hi Rob!

As I have stated before, my own guess is that our killer belonged more to the disorganized than to the organized end of the scale. And when you point out that such killers often act irrationally, you are quite right. So far, so good!

There are problems with your reasoning, though. To begin with, there are many things involved in the Ripper killings pointing to a degree of organization too. He leaves no clues and he has a gift of evading detection. He stops his explorations just in time, instead of indulging in Mitre Square and Bucks Row.

The next problem, of course, lies in the evidence itself. For no matter how sound your reasoning about disorganization is, when we take away Stride we are left with a very consistent killer! Of course, four slayings do not make up a statistically very useful background, but if we work from these four killings we have deeply cut necks in 100 per cent of the cases, just as we have the abdomens ripped open in a 100 per cent of them. We also have a 100 per cent of the slayings carried out in places that were quiet and surrounded by sleeping people, just as we have a 100 per cent of them carried out at hours when it would be reasonable to expect people to be sleeping.

Now, we can of course all accept that these coincindences were nothing that our killer was aware of - in his case any time, any place and any method of killing would be equally credible to occur, just as it was a 50/50 chance that he would take an interest in the inside of his victims. It is an approach that would tally well with a diagnosis of disorganization.

We can also choose to say that it seemed that cutting the necks deeply and opening up his victims seemed to carry some sort of significance for him, just as it can be argued that the abandoned killing grounds he chose and the late hours at night may bear witness of a degree of conscious caution on the killers behalf.

It is anybody´s choice.

Whichever way we go about things, I am of the meaning that one must at some stage try and assess each and every killing on it´s own. And when we do so with for example Eddowes, we arrive at the conclusion that she had her neck very deeply cut, all the way down to the spine. And if we ask ourselves if this is a common thing to do among killers, we come up with an answer in the negative.

Moving on, when we see that the killer has ripped her abdomen open and flung her entrails around her neck, we get the same answer to the former question - this is something quite, quite rare.

Same thing applies when we notice the missing uterus and kidney - it is a rare thing to do to cut out organs from murder victims.

We may also conclude that it seems that the killer has chosen a quiet, deserted location, suggesting that he strived for seclusion and silence, enabling him to cut Eddowes the way he did.

Adding things up, we quickly realize that we are dealing with a killer that is as appalling as he is unique.

But Stride? Why would we reason that she was the victim of a killer with these qualities?

Was a knife a rare killing instrument in these days? No, on the contrary.

Was cutting the neck unheard of? No, it was not.

Were prostitutes women who lived safe lifes, sheltered from violence? No, they were as vulnerable then as they are now.

Was there any sign that the killer had chosen a time and location that would enable him to do what the Ripper did? There was not - instead he choose a relatively lively street, and - apparently - THE MOST lively spot on it. And he chose a time when people could be expected to enter the yard from either direction at any time.

The Stride killing differs in so many respects that we cannot possibly just regard it as the whims of a disorganized mind. That is not to say that it could not have been just that - but it is to point out that while Strides death does not display one single thing that allows us to state that it was a rare deed in any respect, we all know that the other four canonicals very emphatically bear witness of that uniqueness. Saying that this all-important difference in all probability simply owed to the killer being disorganized is to deliver a blow in thin air.

Jack the ripper was most certainly a nutcase - but he was not an unmethodical nutcase.

The best,
Fisherman

[perrymason]

The fact is, no one can say what the Ripper would do. In addition, the evidence (and much modern opinion) suggests the Ripper was a risk taker, and in all likelhood, a "disorganized" killer, who did not plan his murders very much in advance. If true, then we should be likely to find all sorts behavior that deviated from any pattern. And anyone who has ever read about other serial killer cases will be aware that SKs often deviate from their "expected" behavior. This often confounds the police who fail to attach murders to the same perpetrator, and more likely than not, the police tend to exclude actual SK victims based on the same faulty logic.

I do not claim to have all the answers, but quite simply there is nothing to suggest that Liz was not a likely JTR victim. An objective analysis of her murder suggests the contrary, despite all this armchair theorizing. And most people who say "Jack would have done this or that" seem to be arguing from a rational, "Well, this is how I would act in such a situation" perspective. The Ripper was pretty well out of control. He certainly deviated from "rational" behavior. A little attempt to get into the mind of a psychopathic killer is in order here.

RH

Seems to me Rob that you contradict yourself above...you suggest no-one can predict what the Ripper would do yet you offer your perspective that he was a known serial killer and that he was out of control.

Not all the Canonicals displayed wounds that made no sense Rob, in fact some had wounds that were thought to be logical elements for a murder that was intended to finish with specific organ theft.

I think you strike upon the flip side of your argument.....since when is a premise that the Ripper killed these specific 5 women grounded in the actual evidence......and by whose authority are we fed the notion that any killer of any of the women within the "Canon" was "out of control"? A killer can be very sober and thoughtful when he kills, or doesnt "modern serial murderer data" support that?

Its obvious that just 1 of the 5 murders suggests "out of control" behavior, not all 5. And its equally obvious that 1 woman was simply murdered.

Best regards