Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Double throat cuts
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View PostI've been trying to find this quote, do you have the source, Steve?
And do you have an alternative idea of what could be being described?
If the cut does go all the way around the back of the neck, it would be hard to achieve without lifting the head off the ground - perhaps necessitating removal of any bonnet?
Sorry for delay am on a bus in London and not always easy to type.
You can find it in the inquest report on Chapman it's day 3 I think.
That the issue if it goes all the way round is it not.
To me it's not a practice cut and exposes the killer to far more chance of blood stains.
However it's only my feeling, and those are worth nothing in research as I tell others.
Still looking for the other source suggesting it was not all the way round, until then I will happily accept the views you, Jon and Observer are putting forward. They are backed by the sources.
I just remain with my nagging doubts.
Cheers
Steve
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostJon with all due respect they are the words taken down by a reporter, so there may be words missing or others changed from what he really said..
However the majority is probably accurate, maybe all.
I don't think the cut as it reads is realistic. May well be wrong. End of the day in the scheme of things it is a minor matter.
There were two cuts to the spine indication two seperate cuts. We all agree on that I hope.
Dr Phillips has already explained that the wound reached around her neck passing by the starting point. One cut.
I`m happy with the facts of Chapman`s throat wound, but I can see you`re not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostIn Chapman's case the the two cuts are in effect one continuous cut which overlapped each other. Wickerman submitted a drawing sometime back to demonstrate this. Doctor Philips observed that an attempt had been made to separate the vertebrae in the neck, raising the possibility that an attempt had been made to decapitate Chapman. I am of the opinion that the killer attempted the same procedure in the Nichols murder.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jon Guy View PostA search through the different press reports show the same reporting of Phillips words.
With the greatest of respect, Steve, the wounds on the victims is really all the Ripper has left us, and a very important part of the series.
Why two separate cuts ?
Dr Phillips has already explained that the wound reached around her neck passing by the starting point. One cut.
I`m happy with the facts of Chapman`s throat wound, but I can see you`re not.
Jon it's two cuts to the spin, suggesting two seperate strikes. I am more than content that it may have been via the same surface wound.
Not Happy? More of a nagging doubt.
However as I said in my last post to Joshua I will accept what the sources say. If I had the source we both sort of remember, I may be able to give a real argument. If your recollection of it is correct then probably I couldn't.
Steve
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elamarna View PostOne continuous cut?
Is that completely round the neck twice almost or two cuts in the same outer cut so to speak.if the former I have very serve doubts about the practicality of that. But am open to persuasion.
I personally don't see any indication of attempted Decapitation in the Nichols case and am not convinced in the Chapman case. But that's what I love about this subject, how we can all have different ideas from the same basic sources. And so long as we agree to disagree on certain parts it's great.
Cheers
Steve
It's a pity Doctor Llewellyn, didn't observe whether any attempt had been made to separate the vertebrae as Philips did in the case of Chapman, although he did say that the cuts extended down to the vertebrae.
If the killer did indeed try to remove the heads of Polly Nichols, and Annie Chapman, then I'd say this was his first attempts of removing the head of any animal. So not a butcher in my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Observer View PostYes, one continuous cut. I have little doubt that Doctor Phillips was of the opinion that an attempt of decapitation had taken place. The extensive cutting of poor Polly Nichols neck would suggest that an attempt had also made to remove her head. The simpler case of a single cut to end her life is not in evidence.
It's a pity Doctor Llewellyn, didn't observe whether any attempt had been made to separate the vertebrae as Philips did in the case of Chapman, although he did say that the cuts extended down to the vertebrae.
If the killer did indeed try to remove the heads of Polly Nichols, and Annie Chapman, then I'd say this was his first attempts of removing the head of any animal. So not a butcher in my opinion.
In that case, would you say that this seriously undermines the argument that JtR was also the Torso perpetrator?
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostHi Observer,
In that case, would you say that this seriously undermines the argument that JtR was also the Torso perpetrator?
If the Ripper DID try to take the heads off and failed to do so on account on not knowing how to do it, then yes, that undermines the argument that they were one and the same. Very much so.
Then again, if the Ripper did NOT try to take the heads off, then it does not undermine the argument that the two killers were one and the same. Not in the least.
Either or, therefore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I did like Paul's suggestion that the first cut hit cartilage so he moved down slightly to avoid it on the second go. That would work for Nichol's injuries, I think.
Same, same, but different...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostHope springs eternally, John!
If the Ripper DID try to take the heads off and failed to do so on account on not knowing how to do it, then yes, that undermines the argument that they were one and the same. Very much so.
Then again, if the Ripper did NOT try to take the heads off, then it does not undermine the argument that the two killers were one and the same. Not in the least.
Either or, therefore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostI thought you might not notice this post, Christer, which I decided to sneak in under the radar! Okay, fair point, however, if JtR was the Torso killer than why didn't he try and decapitate his victims?
Equally, he arguably did not have access to different implements, the way the torso killer did.
There´s also practicalities to consider - if he did take the head off, what was he to do with it? He could not very likely bring it along with himself. He would have to leave it at the sight. And that means that if he DID do it nevertheless, then we are left with the only incitement of a wish to take heads off.
We do not know why the torso man took the heads off, whether for practical purposes or something different. If it was a practical matter, then as the Ripper, he could not do it in the street killings.
One point that is of great interest to me is that I think that the killings show signs of a ritual that involved a very large set of possible measures. I think removing the head MAY have been such a measure, with a ritualistic intent, but if I was to offer my own take on things, I actually think that the head was originally used for other, ritualistic, ends than decapitating, and that the subsequent removal of the head was more of a practical matter, part of the disposal process, as it were.
In other words, he FIRST used the head for ritualistic, private purposes, and when this was over and done with, he cut it off and threw it away, quite possibly into the river, together with the rest of the parts. He may or he may not have been aware that a head would not float, and it may well be that he was content to know that the head would sink, thereby making an identification process harder.
Then again, there are other signs that he cared very little about hiding the identities of hos victims, so this must be open to discussion.
Personally, I tend to think that the torso killer initially (1873) simply threw away the parts of the bodies as used garbage, after having employed them for ritualistic purposes. And when he found how the parts were discovered, he started to exploit it all, turning to depostiting parts in various places along the river and at various times, and also placing them on dry land, sometimes in quite spectacular locations.
In 1873, it seems the parts of that victim all went into the river at the same place and time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostI think we may be looking at more than one explanation. Of course, the Ripper had very little time on his hands, and that may have played a role.
Equally, he arguably did not have access to different implements, the way the torso killer did.
There´s also practicalities to consider - if he did take the head off, what was he to do with it? He could not very likely bring it along with himself. He would have to leave it at the sight. And that means that if he DID do it nevertheless, then we are left with the only incitement of a wish to take heads off.
We do not know why the torso man took the heads off, whether for practical purposes or something different. If it was a practical matter, then as the Ripper, he could not do it in the street killings.
One point that is of great interest to me is that I think that the killings show signs of a ritual that involved a very large set of possible measures. I think removing the head MAY have been such a measure, with a ritualistic intent, but if I was to offer my own take on things, I actually think that the head was originally used for other, ritualistic, ends than decapitating, and that the subsequent removal of the head was more of a practical matter, part of the disposal process, as it were.
In other words, he FIRST used the head for ritualistic, private purposes, and when this was over and done with, he cut it off and threw it away, quite possibly into the river, together with the rest of the parts. He may or he may not have been aware that a head would not float, and it may well be that he was content to know that the head would sink, thereby making an identification process harder.
Then again, there are other signs that he cared very little about hiding the identities of hos victims, so this must be open to discussion.
Personally, I tend to think that the torso killer initially (1873) simply threw away the parts of the bodies as used garbage, after having employed them for ritualistic purposes. And when he found how the parts were discovered, he started to exploit it all, turning to depostiting parts in various places along the river and at various times, and also placing them on dry land, sometimes in quite spectacular locations.
In 1873, it seems the parts of that victim all went into the river at the same place and time.
As you know, I believe Torso decapitated his victims for practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification. However, if it was for ritualistic purposes, why not decapitate Kelly, where timing issues wouldn't have been a real problem? After all, considering the extensive damage to the body, he seems to have spent a significant time with the victim who, in any event, was murdered indoors.
And if it's to be argued that the killer's signature was evolving, how does this explain the subsequent decapitation murders of Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin Street?
Comment
-
Originally posted by John G View PostOkay. Regarding timing. Why target victims in a public area, where timing was always going to be an issue, if the decapitation issue was important to the killer, whether it be for ritualistic or practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification? And would decapitation really have taken that much more time for JtR, considering that he allocated enough time to eviscerate and remove body organs? Moreover, four of the C5 victims received extensive neck cuts so, for an experienced decapitator, would decapitation have taken that much longer? If he didn't have the right implements, why not? And would taking the head away from the crime scene have really been that problematic? After all, he removed body organs. Why not simply equip himself with a reasonable sized bag? And If the argument is that all of the C5 victims were opportunistic, hence the lack of preparation, then that creates the problem that, by a massive coincidence, all of the opportunistic murders of this serial killer happened to take place within the same tiny geographical area, about one square mile, whereas the planned murders took place all over London. And why would a killer who, hitherto, must have planned his crimes, suddenly transform into a opportunist killer? Why then return to the previous MO?
As you know, I believe Torso decapitated his victims for practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification. However, if it was for ritualistic purposes, why not decapitate Kelly, where timing issues wouldn't have been a real problem? After all, considering the extensive damage to the body, he seems to have spent a significant time with the victim who, in any event, was murdered indoors.
And if it's to be argued that the killer's signature was evolving, how does this explain the subsequent decapitation murders of Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin Street?
fascinating discussion. I'm not even going to try and answer in detail why the killer did what he did in any kind of detail-because we simply don't know what the hell goes on inside the mind of a serial killer.
My take on it is that torso man removed heads because they had a ritualistic reason and also practical reason (ease in removal of body from his place-perhaps hiding ID). just a coincidence that it overlapped.
if torso man and the ripper were one and the same-then I would venture that the ripper murders were when he couldn't bring them to his private place and had to kill on the streets. which would preclude head removal and taking away for several obvious reasons."Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Comment
-
John G: Okay. Regarding timing. Why target victims in a public area, where timing was always going to be an issue, if the decapitation issue was important to the killer, whether it be for ritualistic or practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification?
Well, to begin with, if I am on the money here, I would describe the ritualistic behaviour the killer employed as a large toolbox. I think there were a number of things that he could do that all answered to the demands of the ritual. If I should try and explain what I mean, I would suggest that you imagine somebody to whom the ritual lay in disassembling a car. In such a case, it would work for the ritual performer to take away a rear view mirror. And it would work to take away a door. And it would work to tear away the exhaust pipe. These things would all do the trick.
Similarly, I think that the killer could choose from a variety of things when performing the ritual on his victims. And that means that he would not need to go for the head, he could go for the abdomen instead, etcetera. And much as he would be restrained by time - and also by implements - there would always be time to strike some ritualistic item off the list.
I really cannot be any clearer on this without spilling the beans totaly, and I prefer not to do that as of now.
And would decapitation really have taken that much more time for JtR, considering that he allocated enough time to eviscerate and remove body organs?
No, it would only have taken marginally more time; there would be some obstacles like much less light and so on, but on the whole, I am convinced that if the Ripper and the torso man were one and the same, he could easily have taken the heads off in the Ripper cases too. With a knife, too.
But as I hinted at before, I don´t necessarily consider the removal of the head as part of the ritual - and to be frank, I think it was not. But note how he DID "work" on the heads in both the Eddowes case and the Kelly case.
Moreover, four of the C5 victims received extensive neck cuts so, for an experienced decapitator, would decapitation have taken that much longer? If he didn't have the right implements, why not?
A sturdy knife would do, John, no doubt about it. The rest is answered above.
And would taking the head away from the crime scene have really been that problematic? After all, he removed body organs. Why not simply equip himself with a reasonable sized bag?
A kidney or a uterus would fit snugly into a pocket and be easily hidden. A head? No. Plus it is heavy and bulky and will not only be a heinous risk but it will also slow you down.
And If the argument is that all of the C5 victims were opportunistic, hence the lack of preparation, then that creates the problem that, by a massive coincidence, all of the opportunistic murders of this serial killer happened to take place within the same tiny geographical area, about one square mile, whereas the planned murders took place all over London.
No, John, you are confusing murder places with dumping places. All of the torso murders were quite likely committed in the same locality! And then the parts would NOT be dumped on the doorstep of that locality, since that would get the killer caught, right?
The Ripper victims left no geographical clue in that very detailed sense.
And why would a killer who, hitherto, must have planned his crimes, suddenly transform into a opportunist killer? Why then return to the previous MO?
Because BOTH sets provided him with the opportunity to perform the ritual. And because it is a well known fact that serialists who manage to stay uncaught often become very brazen and fearless, believing they actually cannot be stopped. The street killings, however, only gave him time to a very restricted ritual performance, and so he held on to the other type too, where he could indulge in perfecting the ritual with no time restraints.
This, at least, is my suggestion.
As you know, I believe Torso decapitated his victims for practical purposes, i.e. to prevent identification. However, if it was for ritualistic purposes, why not decapitate Kelly, where timing issues wouldn't have been a real problem?
Because decapitating was not part of the ritual to him. The cutting away of all the facial features was, however, that at least is my suggestion. Take a look at the 1873 victim, where the whole face was removed in the shape of a mask. He was not after a decapitation in that case, he was after carving the face away. After that, he arrrived at the dumping phase, and it was only then the head went off.
After all, considering the extensive damage to the body, he seems to have spent a significant time with the victim who, in any event, was murdered indoors.
Yes, and in the Kelly case, we see much more of the ritual than we do in the other Ripper cases for that exact reason.
And if it's to be argued that the killer's signature was evolving, how does this explain the subsequent decapitation murders of Elizabeth Jackson and Pinchin Street?
I would not say that the signature - if that equals the ritualistic element - evolved. It was fixed from the beginning, and the ony thing that could evolve was the speed and skill of the killer. To me, the killer chose different parts from that toolbox every time he killed, and that would produce different results. Kelly is the most complete example of the ritual - as far as we can tell.
However, we do not know what happened to the heads in the Jackson and Pinchin Street cases. They could have represented the pinnacles of his trade for all we know.
I hope I have not confused you now, John. But more than that, I hope that I have managed to demonstrate that these cases may not be as simple as they appear to be, a "maniac revelling in blood" and a practically directed dismemberment killer.
That was not the case at all, if I am correct.Last edited by Fisherman; 07-13-2017, 12:09 PM.
Comment
-
Comment