Could he have taken her blood?

[Rosella]

I am very sorry about that, Gut, and will remember to do better in future.

[GUT]

Didn't PC Thain, one of the unfortunate policemen who had to place Polly in the handcart er ambulance, speak of her back being absolutely saturated with blood, though? He believed the blood had flowed down from neck to waist, so much so that his hands were mired in the stuff. She wore an ulster, an item of clothing that was usually made of wool and that would have absorbed much of it.

Now you want to bring the contemporary reports into it? Don't you know that nowadays you just make stuff up and ignore evidence.

[Rosella]

Didn't PC Thain, one of the unfortunate policemen who had to place Polly in the handcart er ambulance, speak of her back being absolutely saturated with blood, though? He believed the blood had flowed down from neck to waist, so much so that his hands were mired in the stuff. She wore an ulster, an item of clothing that was usually made of wool and that would have absorbed much of it.

[RockySullivan]

I'm thinking less of drinking it than taking it away (in my theory as the trophy from this particular kill, but you needn't necessarily agree with me for the blood to have been carried away). I don't believe that the end-goal here was ingestion, but the same purpose that the killer had in mind for the other bits of viscera he took - in my view putting it all together and building a composite female.

Now, it's true that cutting her throat whilst she's laying down will staunch much of the bleeding and prevent arterial spray, but there was much less blood at the scene than we might expect even taking this into account.



Yes, it was speculated about in press reports at the time as a reason for the conspicuous absence of blood from the scene, but was dropped when none of Paul, Cross, or any of the constables on patrol reported hearing horses.

interesting don't need horses if she was killed on that street indoors

[Defective Detective]

There is actually an incredibly easy way for a killer to drink the blood of a victim killed in the manner Nichols was. Essentially the killer merely had to jam the knife in the throat once, and then fasten his mouth over the wound and start swallowing. Once he was done he could expand the throat wound and make the abdominal wounds, and since she would be pretty well exsanguinated at that point, there would be little extra blood.

And "vampires" usually do just that when they drink blood. Not the modern lifestyle types who have no desire to kill their victims, that's different. But vampire killers don't make neat little cuts. They jam a knife in the neck the way kids jam a straw into a juice box.

I don't think that's what happened. But it could have.

I'm thinking less of drinking it than taking it away (in my theory as the trophy from this particular kill, but you needn't necessarily agree with me for the blood to have been carried away). I don't believe that the end-goal here was ingestion, but the same purpose that the killer had in mind for the other bits of viscera he took - in my view putting it all together and building a composite female.

Now, it's true that cutting her throat whilst she's laying down will staunch much of the bleeding and prevent arterial spray, but there was much less blood at the scene than we might expect even taking this into account.

Was it thought at first that Nichols might have been moved to the spot after death?

Yes, it was speculated about in press reports at the time as a reason for the conspicuous absence of blood from the scene, but was dropped when none of Paul, Cross, or any of the constables on patrol reported hearing horses.

[RockySullivan]

Was it thought at first that Nichols might have been moved to the spot after death? I'm not sure how far one could move her if that was the case. Was it the Nichols murder where there was talk of blood stains being washed away or am I remembering wrong something I read on another thread

[Errata]

There is actually an incredibly easy way for a killer to drink the blood of a victim killed in the manner Nichols was. Essentially the killer merely had to jam the knife in the throat once, and then fasten his mouth over the wound and start swallowing. Once he was done he could expand the throat wound and make the abdominal wounds, and since she would be pretty well exsanguinated at that point, there would be little extra blood.

And "vampires" usually do just that when they drink blood. Not the modern lifestyle types who have no desire to kill their victims, that's different. But vampire killers don't make neat little cuts. They jam a knife in the neck the way kids jam a straw into a juice box.

I don't think that's what happened. But it could have.

[Pcdunn]

Jack the Ripper revealed to be a medical vampire!
I like it.

[Sam Flynn]

Blood is a tissue, like other organs.

True, DD, but it was only recently classified as a (connective) tissue; perhaps as late as the latter half of the 20th Century. The category "connective tissue" seems only to have been invented rather late in the 19th Century - but not, at that time, a category that included blood. In the 1880s it is defined thus:

"This stringy packing material... is called connective because it connects parts together. In the leg we have skin, fat, muscle, tendons, blood-vessels, nerves and bones, all packed together with connective [tissue] and covered with skin". M Foster, "Physiology", 1883

A little earlier, the more generic term "tissue" is classified in this manner:

"Every such constituent of the body, as epidermis, cartilage, or muscle, is called a 'tissue'...". Huxley, "Physiology", 1869

It appears that "tissues" were classified as solid sheets of cells or fibres back then, as opposed to fluids like blood. In fact, the earliest reference I can find to blood being classified a tissue (connective or otherwise) is as late as the 1960s.

But I'm nit-picking! Whether he classed her blood as a "tissue" or not, it doesn't detract from your interesting idea of a Frankensteinian (or Geinian) Jack collecting spare parts, liquid or otherwise, as he went along. Even if that does mean that Kidney #2 would have to be sourced from a separate victim

[Defective Detective]

What an interesting thought, DD. Be careful with the Nichols evidence, though - very little of the official records have survived.

It's something I had in a dream.

I'm going to tie this altogether now instead of beating around the bush. I'd like to begin by inviting you to think about a particular type of serial murderer - Jeffrey Dahmer is the most famous example of this subtype, but Ed Gein might also qualify, along with Bob Berdella and others. All of these were psychosexual killers enthused with the idea of making an eternal partner who would not ever leave them.

It seems worlds removed from the hit-and-run Ripper, does it not?

Well, maybe not.

Blood is a tissue, like other organs. He wanted body parts - a separate part from each victim. And I increasingly agree with Gian Quasar's view on the Eddowes murder - that he really only wanted her kidney in that instance, and deliberately hid evidence of his skill by working sloppily, and took her uterus only to play into Phillips' American uterine thief theory.

One tissue from each victim is what he wanted: blood, uterus, kidney, heart. Tabram was a trial run to test out his skill; Stride wasn't a Ripper victim.

And do you recall that one of the Torso victims was placed onto Percy Shelley's property? I wonder, if we went back through the Torso killings, we'd find two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head which were not accounted for.

I think it's conceivable that the Ripper wanted to make his own woman, like a homunculus from the ruins of other women. I think that he may have either been the Torso Murderer, on days when he had access to a cart, or may have worked in conjunction with, and probably subordinate to, whoever was directly responsible for those: one to build the external structure, the other to supply the internal organs. The aim was always to cobble together a woman from multiple women - that way one needn't worry about an independent personality or distinct will. And he or they might have believed in necromancy.

[Sam Flynn]

What an interesting thought, DD. Be careful with the Nichols evidence, though - very little of the official records have survived.

[Defective Detective]

One of the many little mysteries surrounding the Ripper crimes is the peculiarly small amount of blood found around Polly Nichols' body - "a wine glass and a half", according to Dr. Llewellyn, or roughly ten ounces. One would expect far more blood from such a grievous throat wound, and indeed there was much more present in the subsequent murders.

The prevailing theory is that the excess blood seeped into Polly's clothing, but this doesn't satisfy me. There's no mention in any credible report of her clothing being soaked through with blood. And further, her abdominal wounds were as unusually bloodless as the throat injury. The absence of a great deal of it around those cuts would seem to argue against the idea that her clothing had absorbed the blood.

The idea that she was killed elsewhere and transported to the site, as per From Hell, is unsupported by any evidence. As an alternative, would it be possible that her murderer had some way to catch the blood? He was skilled enough to avoid arterial spray at the scene, but the blood would have gone somewhere nevertheless. What about a pail, or an especially large canteen?

We know that the killer collected other tissues from both this and other victims. Might he not have wanted blood on this particular night?