Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[Roy Corduroy]

A Christmas present for you Lynn, an ad from the 1853 Medical Directory of Scotland

Roy

[lynn cates]

records

Hello Greg. Thanks. Now I think you can see why I'm champing at the bits to find the Grove Hall records.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Compelling detail...

It might interest you to know that Jacob Isenschmid had a blacked eye and some bruises when he was detained on September 12. Annie was a scrappy girl, but clearly no match for a powerful man.

Good tid bit Lynn. Thanks for that. Even though I know why, I remain astounded this fellow wasn't interrogated or brought before the witness. Of course he may have become bruised in many different ways but coincidences can eventually build a case..............

I look forward to more of your JI research results..............


Greg

[lynn cates]

black eye

Hello Agur.

"I still don't understand why it seems that they never indulged in a fight or a struggle for their lives."

It might interest you to know that Jacob Isenschmid had a blacked eye and some bruises when he was detained on September 12. Annie was a scrappy girl, but clearly no match for a powerful man.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

As reported in judicial hangings the face of the convicted is often placid, the reason for this is that the execution was swift. In suicides where the victim strangles or chokes themselves and is in consequence a relatively slow death we do see the contorted face.
Death came to these women on swift wings, or specifically, they were rapidly rendered unconscious.

The placid faces of those who are hanged are because the method of death is entirely different. Their necks are broken. Quite purposefully. I would assume that had the necks of these women been broken, which would not have been impossible, that would have been mentioned in the autopsy.

A bruise on the back of the hand (Eddowes, Chapman), are consistent with them attempting to lash out at an attacker stood behind them.

Actually it isn't. A bruise on the back of the hand is actually pretty uncommon, precisely because we don't use our hands that way. It requires a flat handed blow, something that we don't do. Even in a back handed slap we don't use the back of our hands as the point of contact. We use the knuckles. There is no blow that can actually make contact with a person standing behind you that puts the brunt of impact on the back of the hands. And to be frank, most people rotate their hands so that they can use their fingers to claw or to grip when dealing with something behind them. The only way I an think of that would bruise the back of the hand would be if either the victim was flailing and was caught up short by a wall (and in Chapman's case it would be a powerful enough blow to rattle the fence) or if the killer stepped on or kneeled on the victims hands.

In the case of Chapman..
"On the lower jaw were three scratches, one and a half to two inches below the lower lobe of the ear, going in a contrary direction to the incision in the throat."

Vertical scratches (fingernails) indicative of the victim attempting to remove something very tight & very thin from around her neck.

Perhaps. And this is one of the instances where it depends on how you picture it in your head. When I read the above statement, I pictured long scratches that are divided by the neck wound. However, clawing at something obstructing the breathing would result in short scratches terminating at the same point, and gouging of the flesh. Which I think would have been elaborated upon were that the case. It's also only three scratches. Which is pretty typical of someone scratching an itch, but pretty abnormal when trying to rip free from something. I am left to assume that those scratches were from before the attack.

Tabram..
"She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony."

I don't consider Martha Tabram one of Jack the Ripper's victims, but her death is more consistent with what I would expect.

Nichols..
"The woman's hands were clenched, but did not contain anything."

I agree on this one, but I think "clenched" is misleading. I think "clenched" hands would have scoring on the palms from her fingernails. I think fisted is probably more likely, not as a defensive gesture but as a reaction to pain. It is a reaction.

Chapman..
"She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat."
"...fingernails were turgid" (swollen).

This makes absolutely no sense to me. First of all, how does Jack get her on her back while she is still conscious? And why? It's not easy to strangle someone who is on their back. You blow the advantage by allowing them to lay down. Secondly a person on their back does not just use their hands to try and free themselves. She has full use of her legs and body. She is not bucking about or attempting to roll over. She is not digging grooves in the dirt with her heels trying to escape. She is not banging the crap out of the fence, nor is she beating herself bloody on the stairs. That makes no sense. I also have no idea what "the hands were turned towards her throat" means. Firstly, she was posed. Secondly, one arm was across her chest, and the other was at her side. The arm across her chest would naturally have the palm upward, unless Jack was going to take the time to rotate the radius and ulna to point the hand downward. So that cannot be significant. As to the arm by her side, I don't even know how the hand turns toward the throat. Maybe if the elbow was bent so that the hand was at shoulder level, but even in that case you would probably have to break the wrist to get the hand to face away from the throat, so that isn't significant.

Turgid fingers are not a sign of struggle. Nor are turgid fingernails. They aren't even a sign of death necessarily. It simply means that either fluid is collecting in the fingers due to some ailment, or that the circulatory system is having a tough time moving blood in and out of the extremities for some reason. Death is a reason. Asphyxia particularly. Cutting off the blood flow to the fingers is another, if say, someone was kneeling on a hand or a wrist. Tuberculosis certainly does it, and Annie Chapman was dying from it.

On the one hand while there is not an abundance of evidence associated with each victim fighting for their lives, indications do exist. However, you appear to be trying to create a scenario which falsly suggests that no such evidence exists.
A thorough reading of all the testimonies associated with each victim is perhaps the best course of action.

Regards, Jon S.

I am not trying to create any scenario at all. These women did not react to their impending deaths the way one would expect. And I don't have a clue as to why. Of course some evidence exists. An abraded tongue here, a clenched fist there. That's not normal. So then why didn't they act the way we would expect? There's an answer out there, and a perfectly reasonable one, I just don't know what it is. I have no theories because I cannot understand it. I cannot think of any reason short of a bullet to the brain that I would not fight like hell, and tear up myself and my surrounding in the process.

A thorough reading of the testimonies is truly the best course of action. and has been achieved several times over. I cannot accept every theory and observation made at the time, because I am often not given the proper context, and the language is often unspecific enough or different enough from my own understanding to be almost useless without an accompanying picture, which of course doesn't exist. I am also fully aware that just because a coroner makes a note of an injury or condition doesn't make it relevant. They didn't even think it was relevant. It was his job. We don't consider old bruises or malnutrition as relevant, and turgid fingers, hand position, even scratches and new bruises may not be relevant. They often are, but it's not a given.

I have no theory. I know that you believe that ligature strangulation is the answer, despite their being no evidence of that. But I am forced to wonder if you in fact know how ligature strangulation actually works, how humans behave, how awful air hunger is, or how long 10 seconds can be. Personally I suggest you enlist the aid of a friend and test it out. restrain them by their shoulders and give them 10 seconds to do anything at all to get free. It might be enlightening.

All I know is that asphyxia through any means is not enough to kill silently and with little to no fight from the victim. There has to be something else.

[K-453]

There are martial arts tricks with which a person can be subdued or rendered unconscious quickly. For example, a quick, hard blow on the forehead with the flat palm switches off consciousness immediately. Maybe even without leaving bruises - but I am not sure about that.

If Jack was a sailor or dock labourer, he could have been acquainted with Asians, who taught him some martial arts 'for self-defence'.

Agreed that he was quick. Probably also strong. And very determined. It is possible he suddenly closed his victims' mouth with one hand, broke their balance, got them down on the floor and cut their throats within two or three seconds. Not much time for them to fight back.

[niko]

"horse shoes"

Hi everyone, just two thing's I would like to say. Firstly I remember one night whilst living in the East End, at the time of the riot's down Wapping in Rupert Murdoch's news paper plant. It was a cold dry night, there was a major power-cut that night, no street light's, no shop light's, nothing, only total darkness.
It was about ten or eleven at night, there was a high police precence in the local area. There was a group of horse mounted police, the sound of their hoof's on the cobbled street's was tremendous, you could hear the sound of thir hoof's from many street's away. I repeat the sound of their hoof's was tremendous.
I remember thinking to myself whilst walking the dark East End street's "this must have been what it was like in the olden day's" (Jack the Ripper day's).

What I want to say with this story is, that if Jack used a carriage and even if he parked the carriage some street's away from the scene of the crime someone could of heard the horses hoof's (when the hoof has a shoe on, it makes much more noise). Some times I myself think that a carriage or pony and cart like Louis Diemschutz the Burner club steward, I'm not saying him personally, but that sort of pony and cart, BUT I think this is really not plausible.

The other thing is I find it incredible that the evidence show's that none of the victm's fought for their lives, WHY ?

1) Were they unconscious ...........

2) Were they drugged .............

3) Were they so drunk ...............

4) Did they enter total shock on seeing Jack's knife ..................

5) or was it that Jack was a master slaughterman .................

Probably none of the above are correct, but I still don't understand why it seem's that they never indulged in a fight or a struggle for their lives.
All the best, Agur.

niko

[Wickerman]

There are no great struggles. These women did not fight, nor did they attempt escape......Their faces show no signs of horror, pain, fear, anything...

As reported in judicial hangings the face of the convicted is often placid, the reason for this is that the execution was swift. In suicides where the victim strangles or chokes themselves and is in consequence a relatively slow death we do see the contorted face.
Death came to these women on swift wings, or specifically, they were rapidly rendered unconscious.

There are signs I would expects of someone trying not to die, even if they did not lash out at their attacker.....They did not flail about.

A bruise on the back of the hand (Eddowes, Chapman), are consistent with them attempting to lash out at an attacker stood behind them.

They did not claw at their own throats, a typical response to a restricted airway.

In the case of Chapman..
"On the lower jaw were three scratches, one and a half to two inches below the lower lobe of the ear, going in a contrary direction to the incision in the throat."

Vertical scratches (fingernails) indicative of the victim attempting to remove something very tight & very thin from around her neck.

They did not clench their fists, a typical response to pain.

Tabram..
"She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony."

Nichols..
"The woman's hands were clenched, but did not contain anything."

Chapman..
"She appeared to have been on her back and fought with her hands to free herself. The hands were turned toward her throat."
"...fingernails were turgid" (swollen).

I would claw at my throat, clench my fists until my palms bled, grit my teeth until they chipped, bite off my own tongue. My entire body would fight for life.

On the one hand while there is not an abundance of evidence associated with each victim fighting for their lives, indications do exist. However, you appear to be trying to create a scenario which falsly suggests that no such evidence exists.
A thorough reading of all the testimonies associated with each victim is perhaps the best course of action.

Regards, Jon S.

[FrankO]

This reminds me of another thing that bothers me. It isn't just that these women did not fight back, it's also that there were no physical signs that they were aware of their own danger or death.

Besides the question of how he attacked exactly and why none of his victims seem to have been able to react, that just goes to show how quick, forceful and efficient his initial attack must have been.

I'm also having a hard time imagining what Mary Kelly could have done that would result in a cut thumb as a defensive wound.

She must have been a little too late to get her whole hand in the way of the knife, but just enough to catch the tip of the knife with her thumb. Perhaps her killer saw her hand coming and grabbed it, pulling it out of the way before it could actually ward off that first blow with the knife, causing the abrasions on the back of that hand.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

I agree that she was intentionally posed, Jon, quite possibly with an audience other than himself in mind, but I’m not so sure that her arms (or left calf) were accidentally mutilated as you suggest.

All the best,
Frank

[Errata]

This reminds me of another thing that bothers me. It isn't just that these women did not fight back, it's also that there were no physical signs that they were aware of their own danger or death.

There are no great struggles. These women did not fight, nor did they attempt escape. Mary Kelly did not even attempt to leave the bed.Their faces show no signs of horror, pain, fear, anything. There are signs I would expects of someone trying not to die, even if they did not lash out at their attacker. They did not claw at their own throats, a typical response to a restricted airway. They did not clench their fists, a typical response to pain. They did not flail about. It's like strangling a dummy, or an unconscious person. The only thing that may be some sign of reaction is Annie Chapman's abraded tongue, and that could have happened at any time.

I have mentioned that I thought a blow to the head would be the more effective way of subduing a victim, and I think that is still true. There is simply no evidence of it. But the question becomes "What could cause these women to simply stand there and die?". And that's a frustrating question, and a frightening one as a woman who is no stranger to violence. What could someone do to you that would render you unable or unwilling to even react to your own danger? I would fight. I would try to escape. There would be a swathe of wreckage around my body from my attempts. I would claw at my throat, clench my fists until my palms bled, grit my teeth until they chipped, bite off my own tongue. My entire body would fight for life.

And I have to try and think of what would prevent me from doing any of that. A powerful blow to the head stunning me? No evidence of it. Being tasered would probably stun me enough to not fight. Of course they had no tasers. Drugging me would do it, but the timing on that is so tricky that it seems impossible to actually pull off. And he didn't have the time. Hypnosis? Magic? They couldn't possibly have all fainted. The urge to survive is our most primal and our strongest imperative. In can be overridden, with a prolonged negative emotional state and a conscious decision that death is preferable to life. It results in suicide. But it cannot be overridden in 15 minutes. Or even a few hours. If someone puts their hands around your neck, or even cuts your throat, you react. So why didn't these women even react?

I'm also having a hard time imagining what Mary Kelly could have done that would result in a cut thumb as a defensive wound. If she grabbed at the knife, that would cut the palm and fingers. The same if she put her hand up to protect her throat. But I also can't think of how her thumb would be cut in the course of her mutilations. It's an odd wound. Possible poetic a one. "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes."

[Monty]

Hi Rya,

With respect to media interviews, Dr. Gabe also seems to have made the rounds talking to several press agencies after the Kelly murder. I suspect many of the anonymous descriptions of the Millers Court scene are based on his comments. But then, half the police surgeons in London seemed to have slummed over to Dorset street for that event, so its hard to say for sure. I doubt any murder victim in the history of British crime had so many pathologists examining her remains.

Now its interesting you should mention that because only a few days prior to Kellys murder, Wednesday 7th November 1888 to be precise, the recently formed Association of Police Surgeons held its inaugural Annual Meeting.

Present were Met Chief Surgeon McKellar (Chair) as well as Bond, Philips along with Brown for the City. Sir Charles Warren was also present as was Crawford.

The British Medical Journal (from which I gleamed this info) stated the topic of dicussion was, amongst other things, the use of public vehicles for infectious cases and the substitution of Ambulances.

Now Id wager, amongst those other things and most likely during off the meeting record as it were, that information was exchanged and opinion gained regarding the murders, up to but not including the Kelly murder.

In other words, it would surprise me if the majority of the Divisional Surgeons were not aware of most of the info flying around.

Heres the article in question, note the publication date.

Cheers
Monty

[Rya]

Thanks everyone for your replies. I'm sorry if I don't always respond promptly to other poster's comments and questions, but my time is a little limited right now.

With respect to the Nichols article I mentioned involving the bruised hands, it is dated the day of the murder, and thus would have been written prior to the inquest. There are also medical details in it, such as the jagged wound reaching nearly to the dead woman's breast, as well as an odd comment about "five wounds" (presumably referring to the abdominal injuries). The first of these details is consistent with Llewellyn's inquest testimony, as well as the later Swanson report taken from Spratling's notes. There is also a rather detailed discussion of the handling of the body in the mortuary which is consistent with the inquest testimony of Llewellyn. My guess is that either the good doctor or the Inspector passed these along to the reporter. (The article is reproduced in the Evans/Skinner Companion).

The only reason any of this is significant is in trying to verify the reliability of the report regarding the injuries to the hands. If her hands were truly heavily bruised, then she would be the only C5 Ripper victim with such marks, as what is interesting about the other women is the relative lack of such contusions or cuts (even Kelly only has a single wound and some abrasions on the back of her right hand). Normally we would expect to see more. Use of a ligature might explain this in the other out-of-doors cases, although Errata's good comments would still apply. Perhaps the killer was on a learning curve, and changed his methods after being ingloriously pummeled by Polly while killing her.

Even so, this does make you wonder how such a tussle, if it happened, could have occured in the middle of Buck's Row, meters from several local residents. Yet if she were carried to the spot, dead or alive, and her body was found and mutilated there--well, then you have a whole new set of implausible assumptions to deal with.

With respect to media interviews, Dr. Gabe also seems to have made the rounds talking to several press agencies after the Kelly murder. I suspect many of the anonymous descriptions of the Millers Court scene are based on his comments. But then, half the police surgeons in London seemed to have slummed over to Dorset street for that event, so its hard to say for sure. I doubt any murder victim in the history of British crime had so many pathologists examining her remains.

[Wickerman]

I think you rightly put that question mark in relation to the cuts to MJK’s arms, Jon. The way I see it, is that the defensive wounds were limited to just the superficial cut in her right thumb and the abrasions of the back of the same hand. These wounds were the only wounds that were mentioned by Dr Bond to show extravasation of blood in the skin, which, as I’ve understood, indicates that they were inflicted while MJK was alive. He described the arms as ‘mutilated by several jagged wounds’ and on the crime scene photo no blood seems to have flown from the wounds to her left arm.

All the best,
Frank

To be honest Frank, I wouldn't include those forearm cuts as defensive wounds either, maybe I was just incorrectly recalling forum opinions as to their cause.

Her left arm could not have been laid across the abdomen while the killer was carving her up. The arm was repositioned in that pose intentionally.
Those forearm cuts would be parallel with her hips if her arm was laid out straight. Therefore those suggest to me they were produced in consequence of him carving up her left thigh, just over cuts which happened to catch the forearm.
Which again suggests that the legs were also re-posed (akimbo) because the left arm could not lay straight beside the body as we see it now.
The killer appears to have intentionally posed her limbs, and no-doubt her head, after his mutilations, perhaps for shock value.

Regards, Jon S.

[FrankO]

In knife attacks, you would expect to find defense wounds on the hands, but only in Kelly does this occur--which is itself interesting in relation to the question of the killer's methodology.

Hi Rya,

If Kelly’s killer was the same as the one who did for at least Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, then I can imagine why there were defense wounds on Kelly’s hand while there weren’t any in the other cases.

The difference may lay in the fact that in the other cases his victims were standing up when he first attacked them, while in Kelly’s it seems that she was already lying down (at the 'far' end of the bed) the moment he launched his initial attack. I see 2 possibilities leading up to this. He either entered her room together with her and saw no other good enough opportunity then to wait for her to doze off before he struck, or he snuck into her room while she was asleep. Whatever the case, I think his movement on the bed woke her up and make her realise, if only for a breef moment, what was about to happen. The only thing she could do was to raise he right hand and perhaps utter a cry of murder.

All the best,
Frank