Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So Quiet

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

  • Damaso Marte
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Damaso Marte
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I think it was only to be expected by the authorities (medical & law) the killer would use something like chloroform, but chloroform lingers on the skin, and in some cases minor burns can be detected around the lips. The fact they found no trace is what caused the mystery and required the doctors to look a little deeper.

    Stride Inquest.
    Coroner Baxter - Was there any appearance of an opiate or any smell of chloroform?
    Dr. Phillips - There was no perceptible trace of any anaesthetic or narcotic.

    It was the first obvious thing to anticipate.
    It may have been the obvious thing to anticipate but I would suggest not as easy to detect as you might think.

    Its detection was actually notoriously difficult. Enough quantity and how it would be administered makes all the difference. It could occasionally cause burning on the lips, burning in the throat or burning of the lining of the stomach. Especially, if it was consumed as a liquid.

    If it was inhaled off a handkerchief there would be no signs of it. Dr Simpson who introduced Chloroform to the British medical profession in 1847, demonstrated this exact method on his colleagues on 10th November at the Edinburgh Medico-Chirurgical Society.

    https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/ar...f-controversy/

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    I think the lack of noise in the Nichols case, the Chapman case, perhaps the Eddowes case and even the Kelly case suggests some form of strangulation..if not garroting. The noises he made would be related to physical movements, not victim cries or calls.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    I think it was only to be expected by the authorities (medical & law) the killer would use something like chloroform, but chloroform lingers on the skin, and in some cases minor burns can be detected around the lips. The fact they found no trace is what caused the mystery and required the doctors to look a little deeper.

    Stride Inquest.
    Coroner Baxter - Was there any appearance of an opiate or any smell of chloroform?
    Dr. Phillips - There was no perceptible trace of any anaesthetic or narcotic.

    It was the first obvious thing to anticipate.
    Last edited by Wickerman; 05-26-2021, 03:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I just saw the mention of chloroform and it reminded me that I’d posted this for Fish on another thread. I saw it as I was looking through some old hard copy Ripperologist magazines. It was a letter from the late John Morrison who was the guy that first proposed James Kelly as s suspect.

    The emboldened bit is mine.

    “Might I suggest to all your Members that they should write to The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford and request all they have on The Whitechapel Murders in their Johnston File written at the time of the murders in 1888. The whole package costing around 5.00 (in 1998 of course) comprises 48 pages together with a few illustrations and much information that the average Ripperologist is unaware of, for example, at the time of Annie Chapman’s death it was suspected that she had been doped with chloroform etc.”
    In my fictional book I’m writing about my suspect, I felt used the most likely method to render the victims unable to scream would be chloroform on a soaked handkerchief and then over the mouth. Wouldn’t matter if it was from behind or not, the throat cutting took place whilst they were unconscious. A knee in the chest to keep the body still whilst they laid on the ground. In Stride’s case I believe she was found on her side. Why he turned her over like that post-mortem I do not know.


    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

    The sounds after death had to be suspicious for anyone to both notice and remember. What is going on before death to maintain silence, is another question.

    Evening Standard, Oct 1: Some of the inhabitants of the district have started the theory that, in the case of the murder in Mitre-square, the woman was first chloroformed. The supposition is not sustained by any evidence, and probably is promulgated merely as an explanation of the silence in which the deed was perpetrated.

    See this dissertation for more on the subject - DID JACK THE RIPPER USE CHLOROFORM?
    I just saw the mention of chloroform and it reminded me that I’d posted this for Fish on another thread. I saw it as I was looking through some old hard copy Ripperologist magazines. It was a letter from the late John Morrison who was the guy that first proposed James Kelly as s suspect.

    The emboldened bit is mine.

    “Might I suggest to all your Members that they should write to The Bodleian Library, Broad Street, Oxford and request all they have on The Whitechapel Murders in their Johnston File written at the time of the murders in 1888. The whole package costing around 5.00 (in 1998 of course) comprises 48 pages together with a few illustrations and much information that the average Ripperologist is unaware of, for example, at the time of Annie Chapman’s death it was suspected that she had been doped with chloroform etc.”

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by clark2710 View Post

    With Mary Kelly, the man spent some serious time with Kelly, having his way, in a flat that Kelly's neighbor upstairs said that she could hear Kelly walking around. Yet the Ripper could waltz in, do his thing, and leave; not a sound. How? There was a hole in Kelly's window for crying out loud.....not a sound. Can you seriously do all that without making noise? Am I naive on this?
    The sounds after death had to be suspicious for anyone to both notice and remember. What is going on before death to maintain silence, is another question.

    Evening Standard, Oct 1: Some of the inhabitants of the district have started the theory that, in the case of the murder in Mitre-square, the woman was first chloroformed. The supposition is not sustained by any evidence, and probably is promulgated merely as an explanation of the silence in which the deed was perpetrated.

    See this dissertation for more on the subject - DID JACK THE RIPPER USE CHLOROFORM?

    Leave a comment:


  • NotBlamedForNothing
    replied
    Originally posted by clark2710 View Post

    ....in the case with Eddowes, she was killed in Mitre Square, there was a night watchman there that basically challenged that if the butcher came to his square he'd show him what for. The Ripper came, did his business, and left. He wasn't seen, he wasn't heard, seeing a recently posted pic of mitre square of the time, you see all these windows...no one sees anything.
    East London Advertiser, Oct 6:

    ... the officer on duty was Police-constable Watkins. At half-past 1 o'clock Watkins handed a can of tea to the watchman at Messrs. Kearley and Tongue's, tea merchants, named George James Morris, a naval pensioner, telling him to make it hot in 10 minutes' time, when he would then be round again. Having made the circuit of the square, Watkins left, paraded his beat, and returned at a quarter to 2. On entering the square by Mitre-street, he observed, by the flickering light of the street lamp, something lying in the south-west corner ...

    The kettle had been on the boil. The Ripper got lucky.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    Originally posted by clark2710 View Post
    All day I came up with the same question. I've asked and commented, this will make 3 times, and I would very much like anyone from a newbie Ripperologist to a Senior one that knows so damn much you may as well have been a witness ....in the case with Eddowes, she was killed in Mitre Square, there was a night watchman there that basically challenged that if the butcher came to his square he'd show him what for. The Ripper came, did his business, and left. He wasn't seen, he wasn't heard, seeing a recently posted pic of mitre square of the time, you see all these windows...no one sees anything. With Mary Kelly, the man spent some serious time with Kelly, having his way, in a flat that Kelly's neighbor upstairs said that she could hear Kelly walking around. Yet the Ripper could waltz in, do his thing, and leave; not a sound. How? There was a hole in Kelly's window for crying out loud.....not a sound. Can you seriously do all that without making noise? Am I naive on this?
    No, I don't think you're naive and I consider it a very good question. It is difficult to believe in a built up area, by the windows where people are sleeping these appalling crimes can be committed without a sound. We might assume though that it *must* have been so, or we would have so many more witnesses.

    There is another and grimmer possibility.

    I'm reminded of 21st century crimes, notably in Cleveland covered in the podcast 'Serial', Season 3 (https://serialpodcast.org/). A number of children shot in the streets, not as the intended victims but caught in the crossfire of gang violence. Police and prosecutors exasperated that no-one comes forward, even when the victims are children. In one case, a man named RJ, a former gang member who tried to attend to one of the victims and save the child's life, named a shooter but by the time the case came to court, he retracted his testimony. The case fell apart.

    Why don't people speak up? - RJ when interviewed talks about a 'code' and not snitching but the main reason seems to be fear. You look after your own business and don't get involved. That's how you survive in the roughest neighbourhoods. But what does a 21st century crime and mindset have to do with 19th century Whitechapel? Possibly nothing, unless there is any evidence to suggest similar behaviours at the time.

    Consider the murder of Mary Ann Austin in 1901. Murdered in 35 Dorset Street, the same lodging house Annie Chapman had been staying in when she was murdered and same address as given on Polly Nichols death certificate. Austin had been taken to the hospital with appalling injuries, sustained whilst resident in the lodging house. When the investigating police arrived on the scene, they were shown cubicle 44 on the first floor of the house, as the location of the attack. Witnesses from the lodging house confirming this as the location. It later transpired the attack had occurred in cubicle 15.
    Maria Moore, a witness in the case, original gave a description of a short man with a dark complexion. Later, she changed her testimony to accuse Mary Ann Austin's estranged husband fitting a different description (and at 6 foot, unlikely to be mistaken for a short man).
    Despite Mary Ann Austin having been found in a cubicle of the lodging house after a brutal crime had been committed, no-one from the house summoned the police. The police became involved as a result of the hospital informing them of the crime. Mary Moore when asked why the police were not called, she said 'I didn't know I had to'.

    Why did the lodging house residents and staff act deceptively, even outright lying? - Fear and mistrust of the police seem to be plausible explanations.

    OK, but that's 1901. In 1888, is there any evidence of such behaviour. Well, maybe. A reporter described Joseph Levy, a witness who may have seen the killer with Kate Eddowes shortly before her death in the following way: ‘Mr Joseph Levy is absolutely obstinate and refuses to give the slightest information. He leaves one to infer that he knows something, but he is afraid to be called on the inquest. Hence he assumes a knowing air.’

    People may have heard but decided not to get involved and so did not reveal what they knew. This may well be impossible to prove, but I don't think it can be definitively dismissed.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    I think the fact a vigilance committe was created in the first instance was because of the lack of police on the street. Certainly when crimes were being committed locals felt a bobbie was nowhere to be seen. They were a group of people who had lost faith that the police were capable of doing their jobs. The nightwatchman Morris needed to be alerted by the police himself. Hardly a great shining example of vigilance on his behalf.

    As for noisless shoes / boots, I really don't feel that is how he remained so quiet - he didn't need to be that quiet. Once the women were subdued, what great noise would you expect to hear?

    Footsteps that could have been Jack's were those heard in Miller's Court in the early hours, and those which passed Fanny Mortimer's just before the discovery of Stride's body.
    Last edited by erobitha; 05-22-2021, 06:11 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • jerryd
    replied
    The Vigilance Committee members were issued noiseless boots as well.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X