MovieChat Forums > From Hell (2001) Discussion > Jack did NOT kill his victims by hacking...

Jack did NOT kill his victims by hacking them up with a knife!

posted 12 years ago by spamcity
6 replies | jump to latest

I wish film makers would at least get this bit right, since the Whitechapel murderer's signature style of attacks are much more important to his character than top hats, capes and Gladstone bags.

Once he had got his victim into a dark, out of the way corner, the murder would launch a 'blitz' attack, probably while the victim's hands were occupied in lifting her skirt and petticoat.

Basically, he would jam his hands around her neck with severe force, crushing her windpipe so she could not scream, and strangling her to death (Or at least unconsciousness) very quickly.
Only then, would he get out his knife and cut her throat to ensure death (Usually cutting all the way back to the spinal column and almost beheading her).
And after THAT, the abdominal cuts and crude dissections would be carried out.

The usual film scenario of a struggling victim being stabbed up while screaming in terror is total fantasy.
Do you think he would have evaded capture at least 5 times if THAT was his method?

Can't you read? It says SPOILERS!

[–] jh66 12 years ago

Good points

[–] pope_duke 12 years ago

I seem to recall the depiction and even discussion in this film mentioning that he would cut their throats to prevent screams and disable his victims rather quickly. He also has the aid of an accomplice, and at least in once case, he does strangle a victim as initial method of attack.

Are your points meant to be in general or specifically toward this film?

[–] velvoofell 12 years ago

Or they had been poisoned or otherwise rendered unconscious beforehand. Or a myriad other theories.

[–] spamcity 12 years ago

No, no other 'theories'.
The police autopsy reports are part of the public record, including the contents of the victims' stomachs.
Most of the victims had large amounts of alcohol in their blood, such was the life they were leading, but there was no poison.

But yes, they were rendered unconscious beforehand by being strangled in the way I described.

Did you like the black line?

[–] mrkpnkrs 11 years ago

There ARE many theories involving the "Jack the Ripper" case. Even the police reports contain supposition and unconfirmed details. Why are you so sure that you're absolutely right about everything? How could you possibly think that you're 100% sure of how the victims were killed. Are you really that stupid?

If you read different books or articles on these murders you'll get different ideas, conclusions, etc. Even today no one (not even you) are totally sure about the Ripper murders.

And for your information, Mary Kelley is the only victim that had her throat cut down to the spine. The others had their carotid arteries and/or jugulars cut. This I've read in many different places.

[–] Fallen_Descamisado 10 years ago

Your grievances may apply to many other dramatizations of the murders (even the excellent 1988 miniseries didn't escape that cliche), but one of the few things this movie DID get right is that Jack subdued his victims quickly, without much noise. The only one shown to put up a struggle is Liz Stride, which by some accounts did happen.

...When they found her, she was still smiling.