Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Considering how the other canonicals fell where they were attacked and killed, why would he feel inclined to carry Nichols around before dropping her where she was found...? Why would her murder be any different in that respect?
    If he was a slaughterman and he killed her at his place of work, wouldn't he (they) want to move the body?

    But I repeat, I'm not putting that forward as a theory, just suggesting that doing so wouldn't necessarily have left an incriminating trail of blood.
    Last edited by MrBarnett; 10-17-2018, 12:48 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      If he was a slaughterman and he killed her at his place of work, wouldn't he (they) want to move the body?

      But I repeat, I'm not putting that forward as a theory, just suggesting that doing so wouldn't necessarily have left an incriminating trail of blood.
      I find it a lot more likely that she fell where she was attacked, just as the police concluded. It would mean that the killer did not occasionally kill at his own work and it would put her on par with the others. A lot simpler, therefore. Not that things are always simple, and your argument that a slaughterman killer would be wise to discard of the victim is logical enough. Although if I was that killer slaughterman I may have chosen to put her outside Essex wharf instead of at my own doorstep...

      I´m fully aware that you are not presenting it as a theory, Gary!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
        This man:

        Dr Llewellyn maintained a surgery at 152 Whitechapel Road. The A-Z describes his qualifications as: “Matric. U. of London, 1869. Hon. Certif. in Obst., 1873. MRCS, 1874. LRCP (Lond.), 1876. Medical Officer to E and EC Districts, and City Mission."[2]

        ... is the one you describe as being "out of his depth". The evidence available has to be subjected to "interpretation" before anyone can arrive at the conslusion that it is wrongful. But that´s the way things go in ripperology, Llewellyn and Killeen were "out of their depth" and Phillips was mistaken - if the medical evidence is not in line with your thinking, then dismiss it as wrong.

        Because this could not be a case of YOU being out of YOUR depth, could it? Making jokes about how Llewellyn has no view to offer since he is dead does not obscure the fact that he has the upper hand on you on account of having seen the wounds and damage. With many years of experience, he made his call based on a REAL examination.

        You don´t like it, and you have a "very clear view" about him.

        Well, so have I.
        The problem you have Christer and it is a problem, is that you are reluctent to acknowledge how medicine and science has advanced since 1888, and just how limited the knowledge and skill was.

        The wish to hold Llewellyn and other medics in such high regard as you do is very touching and I fear misplaced.

        The evidence, has indeed been intepreted, as you rightly say must be done. That you reject that interpretation, because it questions the Doctors, does not make it wrong.


        There was no joke aimed at Llewellyn, the comment was aimed squarely at you for presuming to speak for him.

        And of course actually he carried out 4 Examinations if you wish to be pricise:

        A perfuctory one at the scene. in which he missed the abdominal wounds.

        A more indepth examination of the abdomen wounds when called to the mortuary by Spratling.

        A full post mortem, begining at around 10am on the 1st. When he apparently paid little attention to the clothing of Mary Ann Nichols.

        And a further examination sometime later after questions from Baxter, for which he should have had the answers already, if the PM was full and complete.



        Steve

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
          but it just bothers me as illogical that he chose to commit murder practically outside someones house.
          A week later, the same killer would literally kill somebody outside MULTIPLE people's house! I don't think applying the logic of you, a presumed non-murderer, to the Ripper will get you anywhere.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
            A week later, the same killer would literally kill somebody outside MULTIPLE people's house! I don't think applying the logic of you, a presumed non-murderer, to the Ripper will get you anywhere.
            It is really a puzzle though the number of times JtR cornered himself. 29 Hanbury backyard. Eddowes in Mitre Sq. Mary Jane Kelly in Miller's Court. He knew he was going into a backyard, so he is aware of the constraints he is under. He stood into the Wentworth Buildings entrance way to dump the bloody apron. He was heard in Hanbury backyard with Chapman. There was a warehouse door open and a cleaner inside right next to where he murdered Eddowes. Stride's attack went wrong for him as he goes into a yard. MJK room had paper thin walls. A partition was up. JtR was hugely confident he could subdue a woman into not screaming. Almost like he was someone who spent time subduing people, which points at Military, Law Enforcement, and Robbers.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • #51
              We've had the military theory posted before, and I think it was shown that submission and chokeholds were not part of military training until after the Ripper killings.

              The conclusions I draw is that the Ripper was very risk-tolerant, and also that the Ripper was likely sane, in the traditional criminal law sense of the term. The Ripper clearly took great effort to evade detection, which told me he knew that what he was doing was considered wrong. Thus I don't think that he was, for example, a horse-slaughterer operating under the delusion that Nichols was a horse. (As has been proposed on this forum before)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
                We've had the military theory posted before, and I think it was shown that submission and chokeholds were not part of military training until after the Ripper killings.

                The conclusions I draw is that the Ripper was very risk-tolerant, and also that the Ripper was likely sane, in the traditional criminal law sense of the term. The Ripper clearly took great effort to evade detection, which told me he knew that what he was doing was considered wrong. Thus I don't think that he was, for example, a horse-slaughterer operating under the delusion that Nichols was a horse. (As has been proposed on this forum before)
                We actually know somewhat how he attacked. It was a frontal attack to push them down on their backs by attacking their upper front area of the head and shoulders (front facial bruising, front collar area bruising). Immediately upon contact with the ground he was on top of them and slicing their throats in that position (no blood down their front meaning prostrate). It very much isn't too far off what Schwartz described. A frontal blitz.

                I would be surprised that bayonet close quarter combat attacks in Victorian times were not also trained with tripping up your foe and then quickly stabbing them. What about the police? Did they have such training? All JtR had to do was put his foot behind theirs during a frontal assault and they will go over like a sack of potatoes.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Plenty of other killers have succeeded in quickly overcoming their victims with no police or military training.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Plenty of other killers have succeeded in quickly overcoming their victims with no police or military training.
                    We are talking about silently at night, in the middle of a major city, with bobbies on beat going around. He had to be guaranteed not a peep out of her would be made. That means experience. Which points to professionalism.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Never been a soldier but I'd be amazed if the army trained people to trip up the enemy before bayoneting him. While you were tripping him up - what was the enemy going to be doing?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Batman View Post
                        We are talking about silently at night, in the middle of a major city, with bobbies on beat going around. He had to be guaranteed not a peep out of her would be made.
                        Not every "peep" was going to attract attention and, even if a scream was heard, it could be overlooked, as we know from some of the witness statements. Furthermore, it's not axiomatic that all the victims would have cried out, either out of shock, because things happened so quickly or because the killer took active steps to stifle a cry.
                        That means experience. Which points to professionalism.
                        It doesn't take a policeman's or a soldier's training to throttle or clamp a firm hand on a victim's mouth. Nor, for that matter, to con her that they'd come to no harm if they cooperated - one of the oldest tricks in the book.

                        And, let's not forget, if the consensus of witness descriptions is to be believed, we're mostly dealing with a robust man in his 30s overpowering small, vulnerable women who weren't exactly in their prime in terms of age, nourishment or health. The only instance where this was not the case (Kelly) seems indeed to have produced a scream that was noted, albeit ignored, by those around her.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I may be misremembering, but I think MJK was the only one who had defensive wounds.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Robert View Post
                            Never been a soldier but I'd be amazed if the army trained people to trip up the enemy before bayoneting him. While you were tripping him up - what was the enemy going to be doing?
                            I think they are talking hand to hand combat. The WWII CQC was developed from WWI analysis of hand to hand when some soldiers didn't have anything more than a shovel and their helmet. So those that survived set the record on what they did and this went into WWII stuff. I believe it was Fairbairn who developed a lot of this stuff plus his own policing experiences.

                            Before all that, Victorian police must have learned some things beyond battering a person with a club like in the cartoons. Asia was well opened up by this stage and pseudo-material arts had already somewhat entered into the culture, but exploded in the late 1890s with bar-fighting mix martial arts. UFC before UFC.

                            Police/Military hand to hand combat would be the same stuff I would think and wouldn't many police officers have served in the military.
                            Last edited by Batman; 10-18-2018, 03:02 AM.
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              It doesn't take a policeman's or a soldier's training to throttle or clamp a firm hand on a victim's mouth.
                              Is JtR experienced or not with subduing people or was this the first time he attempted such things?

                              If experienced, how?
                              Bona fide canonical and then some.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Batman View Post
                                Is JtR experienced or not with subduing people or was this the first time he attempted such things?

                                If experienced, how?
                                Anyone could do it, for God's sake.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X