Ripper Victim?

[protohistorian]

Ben,
So with that you possibly rule out that Killer of Nicholls or Chapman had any possible practice of murder?
Did Tabram cry out on a bungled attempt possibly from the Killer guy?.....Possibly drawing in another killer and say's ere lad this is how you do it!

Also a really poor east-end chap probably wouldn't know what the bloody heck an artery was, or it's function in the body.

Senario: A little urchin of a lad sat down on the floor as his father came in through the door, ' Here's father 'calls out mother, 'look at the paper father, a woman found dead in bridey's ditch with her throat-cut ' ' Well, dear me mother...Make sure we bolt-up well tonight we don't want anyone murdering us in our beds'....

Urchin & father cotton on that a bit of throat-cutting renders one dead.

Wow... You do know they were performing successfull surgery in 1888, right? It is a matter of what information your exposed to. By the 1880's I would think the system of blood flow had entered the domain of common knowledge, it was after all 200 plus years old. These people were poor, largely margenized, I even go so far as illiterate, but the way that sounds you have them one step shy of defective!

[Christine]

Wow... You do know they were performing successfull surgery in 1888, right? It is a matter of what information your exposed to. By the 1880's I would think the system of blood flow had entered the domain of common knowledge, it was after all 200 plus years old. These people were poor, largely margenized, I even go so far as illiterate, but the way that sounds you have them one step shy of defective!

I have to agree with protohistorian here. There's no substantive difference between cutting a woman's throat and cutting a pig's throat, and almost everybody would be familiar with the process.

Even though the theory of circulation of the blood was only about 200 years old, as you say, veins and arteries, and that blood could gush out of them, were well known before then. And crude surgeries have been around for thousands of years...mostly amputations, but also lancing boils, cleaning infected tissue, even excising cancer.

[Ben]

So with that you possibly rule out that Killer of Nicholls or Chapman had any possible practice of murder?

No, Shelley.

I think he was learning all the time, honing his grisly craft as he progressed, experimenting and expanding on his earlier efforts in the process. I believe there were earlier victims that predated Tabram, which he had to abort on account of the fact that his inexperience had resulted in the victim being allowed to cry out and so survive.

[Fisherman]

Shelley asks:
"How do you not know that some macho type soldier wasn't showing off his blade to someone other than Tabram?"

I donīt know much at all, Shelly, and in that respect I am much the same as everybody else out here; we donītknow, so we work with theoretical scenarios and try to find viable solutions to the deeds. And to my mind, two weapons point to two perpetrators. But two perpetrators, one victim and an inclusion of rage has a tendency to be a loud affair, which is why I opt for the scavenger theory - the soldier stabbed Tabram 37 times and left her for dead, and Jack only entered the stage AFTER the soldier had left.
It explains the silence, it explains why two blades were used, it explains why she had a cut to her abdomen, just as it explains why it was followed by a stab through the heart - for she was not dead as he cut her, as asserted by Killeen. And when he has to abort his cutting into her stomach, he is fforced to find a way to ensure that his next victim is not alive and able to cry out.

It is the best explanation I have been able to come up with, and I genuinely feel it covers many aspects that have hitherto not been covered. But that is a far cry from "knowing" anything...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I don't know why you attach more significance to the deep throat cut than you do to the facial mutilations. You've decided that the throat cut must be a component of a deep-seated long-dormant fantasy while the facial mutilations were simply conjured up on a whim.

Yes, I do, and that's because
a) the throat cut is very extreme in character
b - and more importantly) the throat cut is an existing element in all the murders from Nichols and onwards towards Kelly (only Stride had a less extensive wound)

The facial cuts are only displayed on Eddowes (and Kelly, for those who counts her in).

In contrast to the throat cuts, that are very deep and extensive already from the beginning with Nichols, the facial wounds sems to be an extension from his basic formula due to experimentation.
There are no signs of experimenation in connection with the throat cuts - none whatsoever. They are decisive and appears important from the very start. They are no result from change of MO or experimentation.

They speak of determination and psychological importance way beyond what necessary to kill anyone.
I can't understand how otherwise intelligent people even can consider the idea that the extreme, unnatural throat cuts simply would be a result of a need to change method after three weeks. Not alone that the Ripper in a three week period would suddenly come up with an urge to open up bodies and attach a post mortem signature (which, I might add, have nothing to do with methods to kill the victim).
It's all rubbish. And Shelley is right - this is all nothing but repeating endless circular arguments. Especially when people won't adapt common sense.

All the best

[Shelley]

Wow... You do know they were performing successfull surgery in 1888, right? It is a matter of what information your exposed to. By the 1880's I would think the system of blood flow had entered the domain of common knowledge, it was after all 200 plus years old. These people were poor, largely margenized, I even go so far as illiterate, but the way that sounds you have them one step shy of defective!

Yeap, i do Protohistorian. However a lot of ordinary people still would not know and not even bother, if cutting a throat or two sufficed that's all there is to it.
Also surgeons knew about plastic surgery but it didn't formerly establish a clinic until 1914 an worked at plastic surgery on soldiers from the first world war ( The Ancient Eygptians practice plastic surgery thousands of years ago....Still i can't see that our celtic ancestors would have known about it, even though there was trading going on between countries). And no i don't have them shy and defective, just many were uninterested, i mean was everyone in the east-end medically interested?

[JSchmidt]

Another possibility may be that the perpetrator carried two knifes for different functions (for example one as a working knife and the other as some kind of cutlery) and the one he used first was damaged by and during his attack (handle comes apart, blade breaks, bends or dulls) forcing him to switch.

Edit: people are posting rather fast atm. You don't need to know exactly that there are different types of blood vessels to cut a throat, you just need a rather murky knowledge that if you cut at certain spots blood will flow rather forcefully and death will occurr quite fast after that.

[Shelley]

I have to agree with protohistorian here. There's no substantive difference between cutting a woman's throat and cutting a pig's throat, and almost everybody would be familiar with the process.

Even though the theory of circulation of the blood was only about 200 years old, as you say, veins and arteries, and that blood could gush out of them, were well known before then. And crude surgeries have been around for thousands of years...mostly amputations, but also lancing boils, cleaning infected tissue, even excising cancer.

Christine,
The Ancient Chinese understood the circulation of the blood well over the 200 hundred years you mention. In fact they surmised that the heart pumped the blood around the body 29 times, later they found this incorrect, it has it's close cousin ' Tai Chi ' in which the Chinese have been practicing that for thousands of years.
Oh, yes i agree a pig who's throat is cut certainly dies, no doubt all the Jews knew that with the way they prefered thier meat ' Kohsher' and that goes back several hundred years.
Listen folks i'm not about to write an encyclopedia in one post..... But let me have my own versions and a little humour if i must!

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Aren't you guys diverging from the topic here?

All the best

[Shelley]

JSchmidt,

That's a very good view...better than what i've seen in a 1 stroke 2 man scene from other posts....I did think of one soldier with two weapons though.

[Fisherman]

Glenn writes:
"I can't understand how otherwise intelligent people..."

Thanks, Glenn - Iīm not used to compliments, so I blush a little! And I will add on the point that the Ripper cut deeply that it STILL does not move us away from the possibility that he was practically minded. We donīt know how much he knew about the vocal organs, do we? And so he may simply have felt that if he cut halfways it would perhaps not be enough, whereas a cut to the spinal column MUST take all the vocal organs with it in the process.
The abdomen was his main focus, the way I see things. He spent a second at the throat, and then moved on to a place where he would spend minutes. That tells a story in itself, Glenn, and itīs a story of getting things overwith at the throat as fast as possible since he had other, much more pressing, things on his mind.

The best,
your intelligencedefying friend
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Glenn,

I'm not sure why the facial mutilations are of more extreme character than the throat cut. Both are a components of signature, and it logically follows that he must have come up with the ideas for both at some point in time. My guess is that he alighted on both as a result of experimentation, the throat cuts simply being decided upon earlier than the facial gashes, and the organ-extractions coming into play some time between Nichols and Tabram.

Best regards,
Ben

[Shelley]

Michael, she fits well with wounds if one believes the killer was experimenting with his method after her. Martha is a straight stabbing, theres a fuss, and a susequent change in the killers methodology based on the killers prior experience (with Tabram). A thought anyhow

Protohistorian,
Sorry, i can't see that this is relevant, if killers experiment on corpses they usually use the same body over a period of time, other than that they experiment on animals or pieces of butchers meat.

So experimentation on a corpse involves a basement or cellar with said corpse or corpses........

[Shelley]

Ben,
With Nicholls, Chapman & Eddowes only Eddowes had her face mutilated, in reports Nicholls and Chapman didn't have any said odur of alcohol on thier mouths...Except Eddowes, she had been drinking beforehand and the smell of stale alcohol was on her mouth when found, the facial wounds on Eddowes face may be an adaption not a ' signature ' even the flaps under her eyes can be attributed to a face wrinkling in anger, the nose flare etc. This may have been a reminder of an alcoholic parent ( mother). I haven't seen an facial mutilations on Nicholls or that of Annie Chapman, only bruising on jaw and a thumb like bruise on cheek, the bruising on the jaw could be a slip from the killer's hand.

[Christine]

Christine,
The Ancient Chinese understood the circulation of the blood well over the 200 hundred years you mention. In fact they surmised that the heart pumped the blood around the body 29 times, later they found this incorrect, it has it's close cousin ' Tai Chi ' in which the Chinese have been practicing that for thousands of years.
Oh, yes i agree a pig who's throat is cut certainly dies, no doubt all the Jews knew that with the way they prefered thier meat ' Kohsher' and that goes back several hundred years.
Listen folks i'm not about to write an encyclopedia in one post..... But let me have my own versions and a little humour if i must!

You're correct about the Chinese, they had a limited if real understanding and their medical knowledge surpassed the European knowledge, but I guess I'm not really following your arguments.

I personally don't see any a priori reason why the Ripper couldn't have stabbed Tabram, decided that stabbing was too slow, and then moved on to throat cutting. It wouldn't be the norm, but it obviously isn't impossible. In my opinion, the main argument against Tabram being a ripper victim is that her last hours were pretty well known, and involved her being with a soldier, and that her friend Pearly Poll apparently was unwilling to say too much to the police. Unless that soldier somehow turns out to be the Ripper (which is unlikely for other reasons), I think Tabram was not a Ripper victim.