Oh, murder!

[John G]

Weren't they folded over the chair?
Who said anything about 'neat'?

Well, "folded" over a chair implies a significant degree of care, as opposed to, say, thrown onto the floor or chucked over the chair!

[Pierre]

All the contemporary sketches in the press at the time show some knife-wielding predator. All the movies have some killer attacking the victim with a knife, blood splashing all over the place.

None of his victims were attacked with a knife. It's quite possible none of his victims ever saw a knife, with the exception of Kelly perhaps (defensive wounds?).

All I'm saying is, his first approach appears to have been strangulation.
A number of killers like to see the agony in their victims face as they croak and gasp their last breath - part of a turn-on.

Hi Wickerman,

So if we generalize from your hypothesis we say:

Victims who were standing > strangulation

Victims lying down > throat cutting

With the exception of Stride.

Pierre

[Harry D]

Strangulation using a cord is quiet, this is why it is used by special forces in combat. Apart from a faint gurgling noise, and possibly kicking out, there is nothing to call attention to the assault.
The mark of a cord would be obliterated when the throat was slashed, and Kelly's throat was slashed several times.

That's why I'm not prepared to rule out Rose Mylett as a potential Ripper victim.

Then, of course, there's Ellen Bury. Strangled from behind with a ligature and her abdomen mutilated. That said, Alice McKenzie was also dispatched in the same stealthy manner, although her mutilations were tamer.

[Roy Corduroy]

None of his victims were attacked with a knife.

All I'm saying is, his first approach appears to have been strangulation.

They could have all been attacked by knife, the initial throat wound causing an air embolism and death.

Roy

[Wickerman]

agree, but wicks whole point was that he was "first a strangler".

the ripper was foremost a post mortem knife mutilator.

All the contemporary sketches in the press at the time show some knife-wielding predator. All the movies have some killer attacking the victim with a knife, blood splashing all over the place.

None of his victims were attacked with a knife. It's quite possible none of his victims ever saw a knife, with the exception of Kelly perhaps (defensive wounds?).

All I'm saying is, his first approach appears to have been strangulation.
A number of killers like to see the agony in their victims face as they croak and gasp their last breath - part of a turn-on.

[Sam Flynn]

Weren't they folded over the chair?
Who said anything about 'neat'?

Indeed, from the one illustration we have - was it in Reynolds News? - her clothing (and shoes) seem to have been deposited in a rather casual manner. At least, not in the sense of having been neatly folded.

[Wickerman]

And I seriously doubt that she would have neatly folded her clothes if she was entertaining a client.

Weren't they folded over the chair?
Who said anything about 'neat'?

[Wickerman]

I think of you look at the C5 victims as a whole the absolute opposite is true. The evidence suggests that the killer quickly overpowered his victims, taking them completely by surprise before quickly slitting their throat, and thereby giving them no opportunity to resist or call out.

The killer was not quick enough to prevent Chapman calling out, or Kelly by all accounts.
A resident in Bucks Row heard voices in the street and a scuffle, and in Berner St. the singing from the club may have drowned out any noise.
Your only claim to a silent attack then is in Mitre Square, where the nightwatchman claims to have heard nothing from the square.

Hardly the prince of stealth

[Wickerman]

Strangulation would be noisy. There'd be struggling and scuffling. Somehow the Ripper incapacitated Eddowes in Mitre Square without the nearby watchman or anyone else hearing so much as a pin drop. Same goes for other victims. Unless he was inhumanly strong, I don't think the killer straight-up strangled his victims.

Strangulation using a cord is quiet, this is why it is used by special forces in combat. Apart from a faint gurgling noise, and possibly kicking out, there is nothing to call attention to the assault.
The mark of a cord would be obliterated when the throat was slashed, and Kelly's throat was slashed several times.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not convinced he was a thrill seeker, but even if he was it's a very general argument.

I'm not saying he was a "thrill seeker", as such, John. He was seeking to eviscerate, and I've no doubt that was his primary aim. But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have had secondary motivations, which in themselves could have been gratifying to him - if only because, at the end of them, he'd get to do what he liked doing most of all.

For instance, you could say that accessing Kelly's room why she was a sleep would have represented a thrill for the perpetrator.

I personally wouldn't say that, because I don't believe that he accessed the room while she was sleeping. In principle, however, I can't see why he could not have enjoyed a thrill of anticipation as he entered Kelly's room - whether he was alone or escorted.

[Abby Normal]

Agreed, but it's possible to have secondary motivations. I'm pretty sure that the likes of (e.g.) Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader got a thrill out of the build-up to their murders.

agree, but wicks whole point was that he was "first a strangler".

the ripper was foremost a post mortem knife mutilator.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby
Because I'm convinced that the signatures of George Topping Hutchinson are by the same man who signed George Hutchinson's witness statement of 12th November 1888. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that they were one and the same person. As we know that Joe Fleming was another person entirely, the theory that Fleming was Hutch is no longer viable.

got it-thanks

[John G]

Agreed, but it's possible to have secondary motivations. I'm pretty sure that the likes of (e.g.) Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader got a thrill out of the build-up to their murders.

I'm not convinced he was a thrill seeker-perhaps more of a lust killer-but even if he was it's a very general argument. For instance, you could say that accessing Kelly's room why she was a sleep would have represented a thrill for the perpetrator.

[Sam Flynn]

his primary motive was post mortem mutilation

Agreed, but it's possible to have secondary motivations. I'm pretty sure that the likes of (e.g.) Ted Bundy and Dennis Rader got a thrill out of the build-up to their murders.

[John G]

his primary motive was post mortem mutilation.
maybe he got some pleasure with the actual killing part-strangulation (maybe even punching to KO), throat cutting who knows? but I can think we can safely say he got the real pleasure out of cutting up and into his victims.

I would agree with this. Personally, I think the actual throat cutting was simply a means to an end.