Ripper Victim?

[Sam Flynn]

What you are sayin basically, is that you would have wanted the cutter to stop halfways through the neck to make it credible that it was nothing but a practicality. But that is only a logical stance if we accept that the deeper cutting takes a lot more work or effort, and the simple truth of the matter is that it does not.

... oh, but it does, Fish. From basic physics, "Work = Force x Time". In other words, the resistive force presented by the tissues of the neck can only be overcome by a fixed amount of work expended in a given space of time. As the amount of resistive force increases with the depth of tissues and extent of the wound, a greater amount of work is assuredly necessary to inflict a "Nichols" type throat wound than a "Stride" type throat wound. Given that Stride's wound was enough to finish her off, it follows that the extent of Nichols/Eddowes/Kelly's throat wounds were completely unnecessary to render them dead.

Don't know how we got onto that - but it's the Laws of the Universe, I'm afraid, no room for opinion. Now, back to Tabram...

[Ben]

I think Fisherman's point was that a medically and anatomically ignorant ripper may well have reasoned that a throat cut that severs all the way down to the bone is guaranteed to do the job of killing and silencing the victim, rather like the comedy astronaut who, by pushing all of the buttons in the rocket control panel, finally hits the "start" button by process of elimination, or the clueless bomb dispoal man who diffuses the bomb by cutting all the wires. He's simply covering his outs.

If the killer's throat-targetting efforts had been met with resistance on previous, less successful attacks (as I believe they were), here was one way of completely eradicating the possibility of the victim crying out and surviving. The possibility that he may have thought "Hey, maybe if I keep going, I can cut 'er 'ead' off" in the process by no means renders Fisherman's proposal either desperate or nonsensical.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I think Fisherman's point was that a medically and anatomically ignorant ripper may well have reasoned that a throat cut that severs all the way down to the bone is guaranteed to do the job of killing and silencing the victim"

That, indeed, was exactly my point. And although I must recognize Sams point about the extra labour called for when cutting deeper (nice one, Sam - there´s what a good solid education will do for you!), it is a point I find no reason at all to abandon. And to be fair, Sam, I think you will have to admit that a very sharp knife and some good leverage would take care of the task of cutting to the bone with no much effort at all.

As for the question of why the head was not cut off, I think we all know that doing so requires some technical skills. There are many examples of killers who have tried to do so but failed, even though some of them used far more formidable instruments than a common knife.

At the end of the day, no matter if he cut necks because he felt an urge to do so, or if he did it for purely practical reasons, the outcome was the same - his victims ended up with their necks severed to the bone. The true significance of this question, though, is coupled to our chances of understanding the driving forces behind the Rippers actions, and the amount of rationality involved in his deeds. And one cannot help but to feel that it would be quite odd if his interest in the abdomen and it´s organs was equalled by a wish to see the human larynx laid free.
If he had run off with Eddowes´ tonsills and Chapmans vocal chords, then perhaps...

The best,
Fisherman

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I think Fisherman's point was that a medically and anatomically ignorant ripper may well have reasoned that a throat cut that severs all the way down to the bone is guaranteed to do the job of killing and silencing the victim, rather like the comedy astronaut who, by pushing all of the buttons in the rocket control panel, finally hits the "start" button by process of elimination, or the clueless bomb dispoal man who diffuses the bomb by cutting all the wires. He's simply covering his outs.

Ben,
I think we all know that's what he meant, and he is still wrong!

All the best

[Fisherman]

I use a more humble approach myself, Glenn. I may be right. You may be right. Both suggestions have their merits, and none of them can be ruled out on the evidence existing or using empirically gained knowledge.

Trying to emphatically tell me that I simply must be wrong without supplying conclusive evidence for such a stance will only add to my earlier suggestion that the only desperation involved here lies in your assertion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Tabram's throat wasn't cut. Major difference to Jack's 5. At the inquest Killeen specifically states 2 different weapons. Jack used one. Killeen says in his opinion the stab wound to the heart would have caused death. It's pointless to second guess him or say that he wasn't experienced. He was there, he conducted the autopsy. There is nowhere else and nothing else to look at that will overturn his opinions.

2 different weapons, IMO 2 different men. Most likely soldiers. Tabram was killed by stabbing, not Jack's signature throat slash and I think choke/strangle. Tabram was stabbed. Not Jack's rip and slash. I understand people thinking that she was a warm up if you will for the canon. If Killeen said one weapon I'd more than likely go for it. But he said 2 and I go with him. Tabram was not one of Jack's victims.

[harry]

Glen,
True to form,when you do not have a reasonable answer,you avoid the question.I asked 'What is frenzy'and you simply avoided the question,as you did the others,because you obviously do not know.You may have seen a thousand bodies,had a thousand lectures,you keep on repeating such,as though it means something,but you still do not know .(By the way ,my interpretation of frenzy is not my own,it was given by a person as knowledgeable as any you trained under).Ok I'll answer one of my own questions.How long did the attack on Tabram last?I would say not more than two minutes.For all thirty nine wounds,and the statement that his approach,attack,and departure occured without the least suspicion,except for the body itself,is true.Of course,accepting this,it makes it difficult for a soldier suspect,so I understand your reluctance to accept it.This killing,like the successive ripper murders,was committed by a person in full mental control,before,during and after the murders.

[Fisherman]

NTS writes:

"Tabram's throat wasn't cut. Major difference to Jack's 5."

Absolutely. But we are at a loss as to whether we should crave a cut neck recognize a strike as Jacks. If , like I propose, he killed Tabram, then that may well be where he picked up on the advantages of silencing his victims before setting about the eviscerations. For that is what Tabrams wounds may disclose; an interrupted cut to the abdomen, followed by a coup-de-grace stab through the heart.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

If Tabram's throat had been cut, if she'd been ripped, not stabbed, if Killeen said one weapon, then I'd agree with you. But none of this happened. She's IMHO not Jack's get. The only reason I can see that she's linked is because a few weeks after she died Jack started in the same territory. With a knife. I do understand anyone wondering where Jack warmed himself up. I don't think he started with Nicholls. It was just too good. He started somewhere but not necessarily with murder. No, I'm not into Fairy Fay and all that. These serial killers appear to work themselves up through 'lesser' crimes.

[Fisherman]

"if Killeen said one weapon, then I'd agree with you."

If Killeen had said one weapon, I wouldn´t have agreed with me...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

OK, then who would you have agreed with?

[Fisherman]

One of the main pointers to two knifewielders is the fact that Killeen specifically spoke of two blades. That is one of the cornerstones of my scenario, with a scavenging Jack.
If only one blade had been used, I would have been much inclined to disregard the possibility of Jack as the killer.

All the best.
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=51

Hi Guys

As always I sleep on things and something nags away in the back of my head. Something everyone seems to have missed and not commented on. So I went back to the podcast and considered Howard's claim about attacking a piece of polystyrene 38 times.

And it occurred to me that you’ve all missed something. A fundamental difference between the Tabram attack and the attacks on Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly.

Surely if Howard’s experiment was to be correct then the piece of polystyrene he used, unlike an experiment on the other victims, should have been rapped in a corset? As the blows were to the body.

Because Martha unlike Jacks other victims was surely stabbed through her clothes?

Unless anyone is suggesting that Martha’s killer undressed her stabbed her 38 times, redressed her pulled out a bayonet and finished her off..

The other victims were all strangled, lowered to the ground their throats cut, their dresses raised…allowing jack to get at the soft flesh under the garments that they were wearing…..HENCE SLASHING

Where as Martha was strangled lowered to the ground and Stabbed through her clothing. SLASHING would have been pretty useless through her clothing…she probably wore several layers which would have protected her against SLASHING.

So the attacker did the only thing possible…he STABBED through the clothing again and again. This was of course tiring as cutting material with even a Sharpe knife let alone through a corset is almost impossible. So eventually he tears a hole in the material sticking the blade into the sternum,,,which gets stuck, so he pushes it backwards and forwards trying to release it…..leaving a wound different to the others.

As for the difference in the cut to the abdomen, it was simply caused by cutting through lighter material covering Tabram on the lower half of the body.

NO mystery. One knife. Used through differing material/clothing to the other victims.

Jack clearly learned that trying to kill a prostitute through her dress material is exhausting and decided to raise their dresses and get at the soft flesh underneath in future attacks…problem solved.

Unless you no other wise?

Pirate

Ps Looks like we have a Duck wearing feathers

[Ben]

Tabram's throat wasn't cut. Major difference to Jack's 5.

Nah, a pretty minor difference in the greater context of most serial killers' criminal range, NTS. If he'd bombed her or poisoned her, we could call it a major difference.

These serial killers appear to work themselves up through 'lesser' crimes.

Exacly, which is why Tabram must be regarded as so compelling a candidate for the killer's earliest murder. Tabram's murder would be characteristic of a serial killer's relatively untutored, early technique - one that he improves upon through practice.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nothing to see]

One of the main pointers to two knifewielders is the fact that Killeen specifically spoke of two blades. That is one of the cornerstones of my scenario, with a scavenging Jack.
If only one blade had been used, I would have been much inclined to disregard the possibility of Jack as the killer.

All the best.
Fisherman

Jack as a scavenger? I get your points. But really? You think? Jack who got the pros to go with him, in dark corners sure, who did his work then left them in public would have begun by lurking around George Yard? On the off chance that a woman would be murdered? As his starter? How would he know to be there? Or was it his 'luck' that he happened to be passing through?

I do understand trying to give Jack a starting point. But I don't think it was Tabram. We agree 2 weapons. But, no throat cutting, no ripping. If she hadn't been murdered where she was with Jack starting a few weeks later, no-one would try to tie her in with the 5.

I understand what you're saying but Tabram wasn't one of Jack's.