torso maps

[Sam Flynn]

The Ripper targeted the carotid (the left one specifically), the rest of the throat cut, whether it circled the neck completely or was across the throat ear to ear, was overkill and mutilation. In this instance the double attempt at cutting straight through the carotid, down to the vertebra is very Ripper like.

But it wasn't an attempt at cutting, as such, but two slightly elongated stabs. The Ripper killed with a slicing, not a stabbing, motion of the blade across the throat.

We must also consider the fact that we only have one cut that traversed, without penetrating, the abdominal wall - and even that started at the breast and didn't extend below the navel. The only cut below the navel was a small one over the firm area at the pubis; there was no cut at all through the fleshy surface of the lower abdominal cavity, an area targeted in every single one of the Ripper's disembowelled victims.

[Jon Guy]

Hello jon

A short bladed knife (un-ripperlike in itself) can still be sliced across the throat and, regardless of the length of the blade, commencing an abdominal wound above the abdomen is a waste of time.

True, Gareth. McKenzie`s killer does seem to have used an ordinary pen knife, the sort carried by most men. But would THE Ripper have carried his normal long bladed knife at all times, if he still had it, 6 months after killing Kelly.
The knife really isn`t an issue, I think.

The Ripper targeted the carotid (the left one specifically), the rest of the throat cut, whether it circled the neck completely or was across the throat ear to ear, was overkill and mutilation. In this instance the double attempt at cutting straight through the carotid, down to the vertebra is very Ripper like.

[FrankO]

Frank im not making a direct comparison. Its an analogy so again the detailed point by point you made is misguided.

Sorry, Abby, I misunderstood you.

Although I don’t think that my “detailed point by point” was in any way wrong or misleading (if that’s what you mean by “misguided”), I do think that I get what you wanted to say now: the urge can change from quite controllable to quite uncontrollable & back and the less controllable it gets, the less one cares about the risk involved. Is that what you’re saying?

It’s possible the urge of TM/the Ripper, if they are to be one and the same, suddenly increased. In my view, it has to mean that something important (or a combination of important things) happened in his life around the time between the Whitehall victim and Nichols that resulted in a much stronger urge or a much lower level of inhibition. Like I wrote before, until now I haven’t seen any explanations for it that convince me.

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Hello jon

A short bladed knife (un-ripperlike in itself) can still be sliced across the throat and, regardless of the length of the blade, commencing an abdominal wound above the abdomen is a waste of time.

[Jon Guy]

I'm pretty sure the Ripper would have plunged in at some point, Josh. It's also unlikely that a practised disemboweler would have wasted his time in commencing an abdominal wound over the thorax before proceeding to the navel. If there was time to inflict two stabs in the neck, scratches on the belly and a cut to the pubs, to say nothing of a superficial seven inch cut from breast to navel, there was ample time to effect either a proper cut to the throat or a decent slice through the lower abdomen.

Yet we see neither.

Hi Gareth

We do see someone sneak in between patrolling policemen (and it was tight), and kill someone on the pavement by cutting through the left carotid artery down to the bone. No noise, witnesses or clues. Very Ripper like.

The doctors noted that in the case of McKenzie, a short knife was used, and not the long bladed knife that was used earlier in the series.

Also, the policeman that found the body approached from Wentworth Street, and would have been visible to anyone hiding behind the cart where the body was lying. The killer could have made these cursory wounds quickly before retreating back on to the High Street.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm pretty sure the Ripper would have plunged in at some point, Josh. It's also unlikely that a practised disemboweler would have wasted his time in commencing an abdominal wound over the thorax before proceeding to the navel. If there was time to inflict two stabs in the neck, scratches on the belly and a cut to the pubs, to say nothing of a superficial seven inch cut from breast to navel, there was ample time to effect either a proper cut to the throat or a decent slice through the lower abdomen. Yet we see neither.

[Joshua Rogan]

So they were scratches from a knife? So what? The real Ripper would have got his knife RIGHT IN THERE and RIPPED her good and proper. At the very least, he'd have sliced her throat.

Do we know he'd have plunged right in imnediately, though? For some reason, the details posted by Jerry have me picturing the Ripper scratching out his intended cuts like a modern surgeon with a Sharpie pen.

[Sam Flynn]

They weren't scratches from a fingernail, Gareth.

So they were scratches from a knife? So what? The real Ripper would have got his knife RIGHT IN THERE and RIPPED her good and proper. At the very least, he'd have sliced her throat.

[Sam Flynn]

not with all the similarities we couldnt.

You're operating at "Level 1" - or even "Level Zero" - similarities. Sorry, but my mind doesn't work at that level of superficiality.

and if you say millwood or tabram I will agree because they were probably ripper victims too.

No, they weren't. For the same reasons as I've given already.

theres no way you can get around all the similarities

Superficial, Level 1 or Level Zero, similarities

especially the post mortem mutilation (which you skipped)

No, I didn't. What's the big deal with post-mortem mutilation anyway? Easier for ANYONE to achieve after the victim is dead. And McKenzie's mutilations - whether postmortem, premortem or perimortem - were utter CRAP compared to the Ripper victims.

and the death by cut throat (which you downplayed).

No, I didn't "downplay" it. She was stabbed twice ON THE LEFT SIDE of her neck and the wound was carried forward. That's NOT THE SAME as a SLICE across the entire throat.

take it one by one and you can make a case for anything not being related-but added up the coincidence argument plummets exponentially.

I've studied statistics. Have you?

and its not "prerequisite for wounding the lower body"! you could do it through the clothes.

If you're going to use quotes, please quote me precisely; I didn't say that. Anyhoo, I defy anyone to scratch - yes, SCRATCH - the lower abdomen through a layer of clothing.

it is a prerequisite for a desire to expose the abdomen, showing a fascination of that part of the womans anatomy

Psychobabble. I have a degree in psychology - do you?

but at least you admit that the lower part of the body was wounded like the rest of the ripper victims.

ONE SMALL cut on the mons veneris. Sorry, but that's not the Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Same location. Can't argue there.

As to the others, I'm unconvinced, especially not by the way in which the throat and abdomen were attacked: the throat was stabbed, not cut, the [upper] abdominal cut wasn't particularly deep, and there was no cut from navel downwards at all. Those reasons are enough to rule out the ripper as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not inclined to make excuses for him (e.g. he was rusty/having a bad day, whatever), because we could pin just about any murder on the Ripper if we start going down that road.

However, here's my take on your other points:

Prostitutes are easy targets, so victimology really doesn't impress me; Most murders are committed after dark, and most street-walkers work after dark, so "at night" doesn't score many points; Skirts-up is par for the course for a prostitute, and is something of a prerequsite for wounding the lower body - regardless of who's doing the wounding, so I don't find that particularly compelling either.

Hi Sam

A

s to the others, I'm unconvinced, especially not by the way in which the throat and abdomen were attacked: the throat was stabbed, not cut, the [upper] abdominal cut wasn't particularly deep, and there was no cut from navel downwards at all. Those reasons are enough to rule out the ripper as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not inclined to make excuses for him (e.g. he was rusty/having a bad day, whatever), because we could pin just about any murder on the Ripper if we start going down that road.

not with all the similarities we couldnt. name one. Go ahead and try-ill give you two years before during and after the cannonical ripper murders. and if you say millwood or tabram I will agree because they were probably ripper victims too.

and we could turn it around and unpin stride and nichols from the ripper list then too by this way of thinking.


theres no way you can get around all the similarities-especially the post mortem mutilation (which you skipped) and the death by cut throat (which you downplayed).

Prostitutes are easy targets, so victimology really doesn't impress me; Most murders are committed after dark, and most street-walkers work after dark, so "at night" doesn't score many points; Skirts-up is par for the course for a prostitute, and is something of a prerequsite for wounding the lower body - regardless of who's doing the wounding, so I don't find that particularly compelling either.

[/QUOTE]


take it one by one and you can make a case for anything not being related-but added up the coincidence argument plummets exponentially.


skirts raised up? not while lying on the ground Sam we all know that's not how they did back then but nice try trying to speed over that one! LOL.


and its not "prerequisite for wounding the lower body"! you could do it through the clothes.


it is a prerequisite for a desire to expose the abdomen, showing a fascination of that part of the womans anatomy, and for being able to cut it directly.


but at least you admit that the lower part of the body was wounded like the rest of the ripper victims.

[jerryd]

The thing is, Abby, he was all over the place - almost literally. Two stabs in the neck, without a truly cut throat; some scratches on the belly (made with what? fingernails?); a superficial cut from the bottom of the breast to the navel (which didn't pierce the abdominal wall); a single (small) cut on the mons veneris; but no cut at all - superficial or otherwise - to the lower abdomen. This was the work of an aimless, clueless amateur, not Jack the Ripper.

Gareth,

There was indeed marks of fingernails (basically a hand print) on her abdomen. In addition, though, there were 14 superficial score marks added to the "major" cut starting from below her breast downward.

From Jon Simons article in Ripperologist 138:[emphasis mine]

Seven inches below right nipple commenced a wound seven inches long, in a downwards direction inclining first inwards then outwards. Deepest at upper part.

Wound in abdomen but abdominal cavity not opened. Scoring the right side of abdomen are seven dermal marks tailing inwards to the major wound, and seven similar scorings between this wound and the pubis, one distinctly becoming deeper over the pubis.

They weren't scratches from a fingernail, Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Same location. Can't argue there.

As to the others, I'm unconvinced, especially not by the way in which the throat and abdomen were attacked: the throat was stabbed, not cut, the [upper] abdominal cut wasn't particularly deep, and there was no cut from navel downwards at all. Those reasons are enough to rule out the ripper as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not inclined to make excuses for him (e.g. he was rusty/having a bad day, whatever), because we could pin just about any murder on the Ripper if we start going down that road.

However, here's my take on your other points:

Prostitutes are easy targets, so victimology really doesn't impress me; Most murders are committed after dark, and most street-walkers work after dark, so "at night" doesn't score many points; Skirts-up is par for the course for a prostitute, and is something of a prerequsite for wounding the lower body - regardless of who's doing the wounding, so I don't find that particularly compelling either.

[Abby Normal]

The thing is, Abby, he was all over the place - almost literally. Two stabs in the neck, without a truly cut throat; some scratches on the belly (made with what? fingernails?); a superficial cut from the bottom of the breast to the navel (which didn't pierce the abdominal wall); a single (small) cut on the mons veneris; but no cut at all - superficial or otherwise - to the lower abdomen. This was the work of an aimless, clueless amateur, not Jack the Ripper.

hi Sam
I see what your saying but it could be a drunk, sick and or heart really not in it any more ripper-plus its really the last possible victim and he disappears.

The main pointers are there though-same location, victimology, at night, throat and abdomen targeted, post mortem and the clincher for me-skirt raised.

[Sam Flynn]

if he was, then probably right after or during the last thing he did obviously.

The thing is, Abby, he was all over the place - almost literally. Two stabs in the neck, without a truly cut throat; some scratches on the belly (made with what? fingernails?); a superficial cut from the bottom of the breast to the navel (which didn't pierce the abdominal wall); a single (small) cut on the mons veneris; but no cut at all - superficial or otherwise - to the lower abdomen. This was the work of an aimless, clueless amateur, not Jack the Ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Was he interrupted during the two stabs to the left side of her neck, the (not unduly deep) cut from the breast to the navel, the scratches on her belly, or the single small cut to her pubic area?

if he was, then probably right after or during the last thing he did obviously.