Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Throat Cuts as opposed to stabbing.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by caz View Post

    Yes, and that public included 'Jack'. He could read everything that was claimed about him and for him, and he'd have known how much or how little the papers had got right. If his publicity mattered to him [and we can't possibly know either way] it could also have influenced him. He'd have been one step ahead of the game each time, so if they fixated on womb harvesting after Chapman, or the strictly female parts angle, he could have proved them wrong or confused the issue by removing the kidney from Eddowes, then the heart from Kelly.
    Or he could have just taken pleasure in letting them continue thinking that he had removed them

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      Why do your rebuttals have to be so unpleasantly worded, Michael? Garbage in, garbage out??

      Read Robert's posts for a balanced look at these murders.

      If you pare it down to 'just the facts', you are every bit as unlikely to get at the truth as those of us who factor in and allow for a plethora of unknowns, each with the potential to connect one murder to another, without them being carbon copies. Life doesn't work like that. Human beings don't behave like that. No two crimes will ever look identical. If a boy regularly steals from a sweet shop, is he likely to choose the same sweets each time? Or might he be really adventurous and mix it up, giving gobstoppers a go after two weeks of scoffing chocolate bars?

      Any number of considerations, regarding the killer, the victim, the location and the circumstances, could have accounted for what you see as 'anomalies' between Nichols/Chapman and Stride; Nichols/Chapman and Eddowes; and Nicols/Chapman and Kelly. If you had examined each attack which was eventually attributed beyond reasonable doubt to Peter Sutcliffe, using the same criteria, you would have seen anomalies everywhere, among the victims themselves - considerable age and status differences, some soliciting, others definitely not - as well as the type and extent of their injuries, with some surviving their terrible ordeal. Would you have argued for several different assailants, with as many motives, and been so condescending towards those who saw as many similarities as differences, if not more?


      Perfectly put Caz!

      Murderers change & evolve for both internal and external reasons. Steve Wright the Ipswich killer dumped 2 bodies in the river. Then laid the others out to be found in the woods. Sutcliffe displayed some victims and tried to conceal others. And also came back to admire his own handiwork a time or two and moved the body. The completely consistent series is only to be found in thrillers.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        Yes, and that public included 'Jack'. He could read everything that was claimed about him and for him, and he'd have known how much or how little the papers had got right. If his publicity mattered to him [and we can't possibly know either way] it could also have influenced him. He'd have been one step ahead of the game each time, so if they fixated on womb harvesting after Chapman, or the strictly female parts angle, he could have proved them wrong or confused the issue by removing the kidney from Eddowes, then the heart from Kelly.
        If interruption was a factor with Nichols and Stride,cutting out the uterus was the second most consistent part of Jack's MO.
        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Why do your rebuttals have to be so unpleasantly worded, Michael? Garbage in, garbage out??

          Read Robert's posts for a balanced look at these murders...
          I appreciate your vote of confidence, CAZ; however, in all fairness, i have a handful of no-no points and a session in the time-out corner to credit for my balanced approach lol


          Your candy shop parable and Peter S. reference are spot on; I'm certain that there are several detective departments 'out there' who are unable to see the forest through the trees because of anomalies ie. unable to attribute a series of crimes [based on victimization, MO, or signature] back to a lone ranger. I wouldn't want to fit my size 12 wholly into my mouth [because I'm no expert of serial killers]; isn't it usually or typically or standardly or regularly or historically the case that when the news press grabs onto the story of a serial killer during his killing spree, hm... that it usually or typically or &c. "points back-slash-ends up being" the work of one man [or person]?

          To go a step further, simply because the details of the murders appeared in the press doesn't make a homicidal lunatic into Jack the Ripper. I could have slasher tendencies; that doesn't mean that I'm going to be able to stage a crime scene to look like a Ripper [Whitechapel or Yorkshire, your choice] murder simply because I picked up some snippets of crime scene details from my weekly edition of Lloyd's.

          ​​​​​​gasp, welp, that's enough for my rant...

          It is difficult to thread Stride's murder into the canonical narrative without the explanation of an obstacle-slash-interruption; not overwhelmingly difficult considering the happenstance of another unfortunate woman being nearly decapitated an hour later. Difficult in terms of tying the crime scene and narrative to the other crimes attributed to Yak the Ripper (as I've seen him referred-to in the Spanish press). There are shades of other murders , but those shades are as gloomy as the passage into Dutfield's Yard at, oh say, 12:45 to 1 in the morning. There's the possible byline of Liz Stride strolling with her killer, which shades the Martha Tabram narrative. There's the aspect of her bonnet being found nearby and offset from her head, which shades the Polly Nicholls' crime scene. And there's the position of her body as it was found along the passage wall; do murdered women naturally end up in that position of death, or was she rolled onto her side so that the killer could shield himself from blood splatter as she bled out? If it's the latter, that factor might shade the M.O. used on MJ Kelly... when the killer bled out Mary Jane along the far side of the bed and away from himself.

          One last consideration. I've been thinking through your list of obstacles paired with MICHAEL's use of the term "sheepish". Part of the plethora could have been self injury. There's the aspect of Liz Stride's bloodied hand that is baffling... as well as the spot of blood under her right arm. "Maybe" Jack the Ripper has ahold of her neckerchief with one hand while he's cutting with the other hand, in utter darkness, and he cuts himself by accident. He rolls her on her side, places her hand over her body thereby marking it with his own blood, and decides he needs to tend to himself first. It's far fetched, I'm sure, a bit of a howler; I just wanted to expand upon the idea that not all reasons for his Irish goodbye had to be based on cowardice, skittishness, sheepishness, &c. You're absolutely correct, CAZ, Plethora shared the passageway alongside Gloom underneath that sunwall.
          there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

          Comment


          • Another nice post, Robert, with which I am naturally in agreement.

            A question I have asked on too many occasions to count is just how many mutilation murders by a lone knifeman anyone would expect to go 100% to plan in the teeming Whitechapel of 1888, before he screwed up in some way, or something untoward or unforeseen happened, or the victim got cold feet or tried to rob him - or indeed any one of that plethora of human imponderables that flesh is heir to, which can leave even the best planner's glass half empty.

            The irony here is that if Michael's suspect for Nichols and Chapman was indeed their killer, then something did happen to stop this man continuing in the same vein [pun not intended but gleefully exploited], and yet he can't entertain the potential for anything else to have got in the way of this same flawed individual's desire to do another 'Chapman' job, had he been on the streets at the end of September.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            Last edited by caz; 11-26-2020, 04:46 PM.
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post

              Yes, and that public included 'Jack'. He could read everything that was claimed about him and for him, and he'd have known how much or how little the papers had got right. If his publicity mattered to him [and we can't possibly know either way] it could also have influenced him. He'd have been one step ahead of the game each time, so if they fixated on womb harvesting after Chapman, or the strictly female parts angle, he could have proved them wrong or confused the issue by removing the kidney from Eddowes, then the heart from Kelly.
              The implication would be that he wanted any organ is it? Well, in Annies case that is categorically incorrect.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                Another nice post, Robert, with which I am naturally in agreement.

                A question I have asked on too many occasions to count is just how many mutilation murders by a lone knifeman anyone would expect to go 100% to plan in the teeming Whitechapel of 1888, before he screwed up in some way, or something untoward or unforeseen happened, or the victim got cold feet or tried to rob him - or indeed any one of that plethora of human imponderables that flesh is heir to, which can leave even the best planner's glass half empty.

                The irony here is that if Michael's suspect for Nichols and Chapman was indeed their killer, then something did happen to stop this man continuing in the same vein [pun not intended but gleefully exploited], and yet he can't entertain the potential for anything else to have got in the way of this same flawed individual's desire to do another 'Chapman' job, had he been on the streets at the end of September.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                Unlike you I dont imagine interruptions, and try to explain away major differences in the physical crime scenes and the circumstantial evidence with any modern serial killer data that favours your position. I use the evidence myself, and its enough to make some conclusions.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                  I appreciate your vote of confidence, CAZ; however, in all fairness, i have a handful of no-no points and a session in the time-out corner to credit for my balanced approach lol


                  Your candy shop parable and Peter S. reference are spot on; I'm certain that there are several detective departments 'out there' who are unable to see the forest through the trees because of anomalies ie. unable to attribute a series of crimes [based on victimization, MO, or signature] back to a lone ranger. I wouldn't want to fit my size 12 wholly into my mouth [because I'm no expert of serial killers]; isn't it usually or typically or standardly or regularly or historically the case that when the news press grabs onto the story of a serial killer during his killing spree, hm... that it usually or typically or &c. "points back-slash-ends up being" the work of one man [or person]?

                  To go a step further, simply because the details of the murders appeared in the press doesn't make a homicidal lunatic into Jack the Ripper. I could have slasher tendencies; that doesn't mean that I'm going to be able to stage a crime scene to look like a Ripper [Whitechapel or Yorkshire, your choice] murder simply because I picked up some snippets of crime scene details from my weekly edition of Lloyd's.

                  ​​​​​​gasp, welp, that's enough for my rant...

                  It is difficult to thread Stride's murder into the canonical narrative without the explanation of an obstacle-slash-interruption; not overwhelmingly difficult considering the happenstance of another unfortunate woman being nearly decapitated an hour later. Difficult in terms of tying the crime scene and narrative to the other crimes attributed to Yak the Ripper (as I've seen him referred-to in the Spanish press). There are shades of other murders , but those shades are as gloomy as the passage into Dutfield's Yard at, oh say, 12:45 to 1 in the morning. There's the possible byline of Liz Stride strolling with her killer, which shades the Martha Tabram narrative. There's the aspect of her bonnet being found nearby and offset from her head, which shades the Polly Nicholls' crime scene. And there's the position of her body as it was found along the passage wall; do murdered women naturally end up in that position of death, or was she rolled onto her side so that the killer could shield himself from blood splatter as she bled out? If it's the latter, that factor might shade the M.O. used on MJ Kelly... when the killer bled out Mary Jane along the far side of the bed and away from himself.

                  One last consideration. I've been thinking through your list of obstacles paired with MICHAEL's use of the term "sheepish". Part of the plethora could have been self injury. There's the aspect of Liz Stride's bloodied hand that is baffling... as well as the spot of blood under her right arm. "Maybe" Jack the Ripper has ahold of her neckerchief with one hand while he's cutting with the other hand, in utter darkness, and he cuts himself by accident. He rolls her on her side, places her hand over her body thereby marking it with his own blood, and decides he needs to tend to himself first. It's far fetched, I'm sure, a bit of a howler; I just wanted to expand upon the idea that not all reasons for his Irish goodbye had to be based on cowardice, skittishness, sheepishness, &c. You're absolutely correct, CAZ, Plethora shared the passageway alongside Gloom underneath that sunwall.
                  On the above Robert, its more like impossible to do so. And there is no evidence which supports that concept.

                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                    I use the evidence myself, and its enough to make some conclusions.
                    It's not enough to make any reliable conclusions, because the surviving evidence only gives a snapshot and a limited part of the whole picture. If you only have a pair of pony ears to work with, how can you make any conclusions about the scene in and around Dutfield's Yard in the minutes before the pony's arrival, and categorically rule out the presence of Chapman's killer?
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      It's not enough to make any reliable conclusions, because the surviving evidence only gives a snapshot and a limited part of the whole picture. If you only have a pair of pony ears to work with, how can you make any conclusions about the scene in and around Dutfield's Yard in the minutes before the pony's arrival, and categorically rule out the presence of Chapman's killer?
                      I would think the bleeding obvious would address the likihood of the man that killed Annie to get her uterus being in that passageway to the yard.

                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • What??

                        Comment


                        • What Scotty said.

                          If someone has a womb fixation, it ain't the killer of Nichols and Chapman.
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Prosector View Post
                            I agree with Trevor that the Eddowes's facial wounds were probably accidental and incurred during the killing or the dissection that followed although I wouldn't totally exclude them being deliberate. I do think that the carotid artery severances were done after the victims were incapacitated and on the ground otherwise the Ripper, if he was standing in front of the victim, would have risked being soaked in blood. They were certainly done from left to right but that could have been done just as easily whether left or right handed providing that the knife was rotated accordingly. Most surgeons learn to be pretty much ambidextrous when operating although we don't usually use seven inch amputation knives to do so.
                            How about the way described below in severing the carotid artery.Or as you are saying he did enough damage to the victim in the first attack,enough for the victim not to create noises and wiggle away. and lowered her down and severed the carotid artery ?

                            Dr. William Eckert ( forensic pathologist) demonstrated,with the killer behind the victim, and said "the element of surprise and rapid
                            action","put his hand on her face,took a knife and rip it across".

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHy1Ljl3BIs @ 11:23
                            Last edited by Varqm; 12-02-2020, 09:53 PM.
                            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                            M. Pacana

                            Comment


                            • In all the attacks on the Canonical five the trachea was severed in the first sweep even if both carotids were not. It lies immediately below the skin on the front of the neck so is very accessible. Severence of the trachea (just below the larynx) totally and instantly takes away the ability to make any sort of vocalisation and thus renders the victim silent except for the noise of any struggle. That was part of the M.O. of JTR and additional evidence of his anatomical knowledge. Another reason for thinking that Martha Tabram was not a JTR victim.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Prosector View Post
                                In all the attacks on the Canonical five the trachea was severed in the first sweep even if both carotids were not. It lies immediately below the skin on the front of the neck so is very accessible. Severence of the trachea (just below the larynx) totally and instantly takes away the ability to make any sort of vocalisation and thus renders the victim silent except for the noise of any struggle. That was part of the M.O. of JTR and additional evidence of his anatomical knowledge. Another reason for thinking that Martha Tabram was not a JTR victim.
                                That made it clear,thanks.From Tabram to Nichols he could have learned the above,changing or improving his way of rendering his victim silent and incapacitated.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X