Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Quiet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    It may have been the obvious thing to anticipate but I would suggest not as easy to detect as you might think.
    It's interesting that the Evening Standard makes no mention of how it is known that use of chloroform rumored by "Some of the inhabitants of the district … is not sustained by any evidence". Did a doctor tell them that? From the same edition …

    The post-mortem examination of the woman found in Mitre-square was made yesterday afternoon at the City mortuary, Golden-lane. The proceedings lasted from 2.30 until six o'clock. Dr. Brown, of 17, Finsbury-circus, surgeon to the City Police force, conducted the operations, and was assisted by Dr. Sequeira of 34, Jewry-street, and Dr. G. B. Phillips, of 2, Spital-square. Dr. Sedgwick Saunders was also present. The doctors decline to say whether any portion of the body is missing, or to give any information until the inquest is held.

    Did the doctors decline to give them any information about the post-mortem examination only, or at all?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • #17
      Star 9 Nov 1888

      Coroner and Doctor Quarrel.

      Dr. Price, the house-surgeon of Guy's Hospital, had been summoned to give evidence at an inquest yesterday, but he did not put in an appearance until some time after the witnesses had been examined. The Coroner (Mr. Langham) asked him why he had kept them waiting? The doctor said he had been occupied at a chloroform case. - The Coroner: You ought not to have undertaken it. Your summons was for two o'clock. There are surely plenty of persons to assist in a case of chloroform. The Doctor (sharply): No, there are not. You generally hold your inquests at a time when we are most busy. - The Coroner: I am not going to consult you in the matter. I think that remark is a very great piece of impertinence. - On leaving the court-room Dr. Price slammed the door to violently, and the Coroner told his officer to convey his remarks to Dr. Steel, superintendent of the hospital.

      Comment


      • #18
        I guess you can put chloroform along with garrotes in the "maybe, but no evidence exists" category. Many years ago, there was a thread here suggesting that the Ripper had military training and learned military chokeholds, but after several pages it was concluded that the murders occurred years before such training was given to British military forces.

        However he did it, the killer was able to strike silently or mostly silently, one reason why I do not believe Israel Schwartz saw the Ripper (or anything, but that's a different thread). To me, this suggests that whoever killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly (and Stride if and only if Schwartz is a bogus witness, as I believe he is) knew that what he was doing was considered wrong by society and took steps to lower his risk of getting caught. Perhaps an obvious point, but it does rule out a few less sane suspects and theories.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
          I guess you can put chloroform along with garrotes in the "maybe, but no evidence exists" category.
          Yes, it's a shame the post-mortem details have not survived, specifically as to whether the hyiod bone had been broken, not that it was always necessary, but that would show strong support towards strangulation.
          However, clenched fists & bloodshot skin are also indicators, and were mentioned in some cases.
          So, yes there is evidence of strangulation, it just isn't conclusive.

          Many years ago, there was a thread here suggesting that the Ripper had military training and learned military chokeholds, but after several pages it was concluded that the murders occurred years before such training was given to British military forces.
          Thats the use of the forearm around the throat?, yes I seem to recall that thread. Garrotting though had a long history in London, more especially in the 1860's. It was the preference of muggers and if caught would often land the perpetrator in jail.

          However he did it, the killer was able to strike silently or mostly silently, one reason why I do not believe Israel Schwartz saw the Ripper (or anything, but that's a different thread). To me, this suggests that whoever killed Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly (and Stride if and only if Schwartz is a bogus witness, as I believe he is) knew that what he was doing was considered wrong by society and took steps to lower his risk of getting caught. Perhaps an obvious point, but it does rule out a few less sane suspects and theories.
          I'm surprised Schwartz garners so much attention.

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think most people here would agree that Nichols and Chapman were strangled. Whether Eddowes was strangled is up for debate, there's no evidence she was but the Ripper managed to take her down silently SOMEHOW. Signs of strangulation could have been missed or not noted during the autopsy, or as some suggested she may have fainted on her own after realizing who her client was.

            Comment

            Working...
            X