Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[FrankO]

If I recall correctly, Kelly had (defensive?) cuts to both forearms and one cut on her thumb. In Kelly's case only then we see wounds consistent with a frontal attack.

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

[Hunter]

In one instance a pressmen did try to interview the doctors in charge (Phillips) but he rightly declined to be interviewed. This was likely not the only occasion a pressman tried to gain the inside track.

Blackwell was interviewed after the Stride murder and was either mis-quoted or exaggerated the neck wound. Brown was interviewed about the Eddowes murder (it may have been the weekly Lloyd's that got the scoop on that) and by the Times concerning his findings on the kidney sent to Mr. Lusk. Brownfield was interviewed by the Star concerning the Mylett case and got his ass in a sling for it. The Star also tried to talk to Phillips about that case and got the door slammed in their face. They still went on to put words in his mouth anyway. Phillips' assistant, Percy Clark, was interviewed by a Central News Agency reporter about the Pinchin Street torso murder.

[Scott Nelson]

You know, we need to ask Simon Owen about all this.

[Wickerman]

Hi all,

I'm almost sure that JTR used a carriage. .....

So you think Jack had an accomplice?
- Who drove the carriage?
- There's also the sound of hooves, the snort of a horse, the smell of a horse, the crack of a whip.
No carriage tracks in Bucks Row, no carriage outside 29 Hanbury, no carriage seen in Berner St. or in Mitre Sq. and you couldn't get a carriage in Millers Court.
Being "almost sure" tends to suggest that evidence exists, but none does.
So where does that leave us...

Regards, Jon

[chris14]

Hi all,

I'm almost sure that JTR used a carriage. The sound of a 'painful moan' was more unusual than that of a carriage in those days. If we hear a painful moan one night, and sounds of cars, nobody would remember the sounds of the cars only of the moan.

Chris

[Wickerman]

The press report mentioning the "bruised hands" was vague to be sure, and frankly, I think it could refer to almost anything. Bruising would normally occur as a result of striking the assailant, either with closed fists or open-handed. But it could also reflect grasping injuries, scratching, or even falling heavily on a paved street.

Indeed and having a bruise on the back of the hand (Chapman, Eddowes) would also be consistent with her assailant standing behind her (applying a ligature?) and her attempting to lash out.

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.

If I recall correctly, Kelly had (defensive?) cuts to both forearms and one cut on her thumb. In Kelly's case only then we see wounds consistent with a frontal attack.

By the way, I completely agree on viewing all press reports with some suspicion, [...........] but I have no knowledge of how the press acquired their information at this time.

You will only find medical details in the newspapers after the conclusion of the inquests, the press were permitted to attend.
In one instance a pressmen did try to interview the doctors in charge (Phillips) but he rightly declined to be interviewed. This was likely not the only occasion a pressman tried to gain the inside track.

It is also suggested that the press reporter viewed the body at the Whitechapel mortuary in the article, although how this would happen I also have no clue.

They 'might' be present along with the jury. Prior to the commencement of an inquest the jury were required to view the body. We just have no statement to indicate whether this included the press or not.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Thanks for the welcome everyone; I am supposed to be writing other things right now--but some of you know how that goes.

why would the killer (or killers) do such a thing?

The case of Jack the Ripper appears to be right in line with the White Queen's belief in six impossible things before breakfast. Some things just don't work, a lot of other things just don't make sense.

[Rya]

Thanks for the welcome everyone; I am supposed to be writing other things right now--but some of you know how that goes.

With respect to nineteenth century autopsies, standard works are Woodward's Practical Pathology, which went through 1883 and 1892 editions, and Warthin's work by the same name, published in 1921. Both describe the same procedures in cranial examination. You should be able to find them on google books, and they make interesting reading for people who are interested in the contemporary methods of the period, where forensic pathology was more or less being born. This doesn't of course mean that the doctors in question did everything by the proverbial book, but they would have done what the law prescribed.

The press report mentioning the "bruised hands" was vague to be sure, and frankly, I think it could refer to almost anything. Bruising would normally occur as a result of striking the assailant, either with closed fists or open-handed. But it could also reflect grasping injuries, scratching, or even falling heavily on a paved street. What is more interesting to me is the omission of this point in Llewellyn's inquest testimony, since carefully examining the hands of murder victims is a routine procedure both then and now in post mortem investigations: we see this in the later inquests of Phillips and Brown, and in Bond's report on Kelly. 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.

By the way, I completely agree on viewing all press reports with some suspicion, although the one where the reference to Nichol's hands appears is oddly precise on a number of other details that would later be acknowledged at the inquest, such as the dead woman's height, missing teeth, or the Lambeth workhouse tag on a portion of her clothing. From this I would imagine it came from some official source, but I have no knowledge of how the press acquired their information at this time. It is also suggested that the press reporter viewed the body at the Whitechapel mortuary in the article, although how this would happen I also have no clue.

Assuming that Nichol's hands did in fact show signs of some protracted struggle, and that this is a detail missing from the official record, I wonder then how this fact might change our narrative of what actually transpired between her and her killer in the last minutes of her life. The police and press did seem to show some puzzlement over the comments of residents in the immediate vicinity that they heard nothing (but then, this is a constant motif in all the murders). If Nichols was already dead before any of the knife wounds were inflicted, it could provide some credibility to the notion that she was moved to the location where she was subsequently butchered and found. But--putting aside carriages, Steven Knight, and all that stuff--why would the killer (or killers) do such a thing?

[Errata]

Hello all,

This is probably not the best place to trespass as a new poster, but I've always been intrigued by these "cause of death" discussions. So I have a few comments and questions in this area (which of course have nothing whatsoever to do with carriages) that I'd like to share and hear everyone's response to.

...

Incidently, I should mention that by this point in medical history, autopsies of the brain usually, to my knowledge, involved creating an incision at the back of the head--forgive the expression--from ear to ear. The scalp is then reflected over the skull towards the forehead, after which the cranium and brain could be exposed and examined. Hair was usually minimally effected. The scalp could then be restored with no apparant signs of tampering, as in the case of open casket funerals, etc. Assuming this kind of procedure, there is no reason why the Eddowes post mortem photos could not have been taken after the cranium examination. The other death photos I have always thought were taken before the bodies were autopsied, to speed up circulation of the photographs in identifying the victims.

In the case of Nichols, we get a lot of conflicting information about the details of the murder. For example, Constable Thain described "masses of congealed blood" where the victim had been found, and commented on its large quantity--but this was later reported to be only about 6 inches in diameter. Dr. Llewellyn claims rather little blood appeared around the corpse. Also, while Llewellyn seems to say little about the condition of the dead woman's hands at the inquest, the central news report on the murder claims that the "hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle" (see Evans/Skinner). But then, Llewellyn also described genital mutilations in the preliminary notes given to Inspector Spratling, while not mentioning these injuries at the inquest either. He thought the body had been moved to the location where it was discovered at first, but then decided that the woman had been killed where she was found. He believed the killer left handed initially, but then changed his mind according to Swanson's later report.

One last question: somewhere I remember reading an account of the discovery of Nichol's body that described the legs as bent at the knees, while relatively spread open, in something imitating a coital position. This led on onlooker to think the woman had been a rape victim, until the body was examined. Any source for this report?

Howdy. Jump on in, there is plenty of room.

I cannot reply to everything here, mostly due to my shameful lack of multiquote abilities, but I have a few things.

I know the autopsy procedure of which you speak being practiced in the early 20th century. I did not run across it in my research, however I was pretty specific in looking for information on autopsies on bodies that were disemboweled, or had an open abdominal cavity. Just about everything I found was from dissections as opposed to an actual autopsy. But there is description of some guy who appeared to have been gored, and his brain (like those of the dissection cadavers) was taken the "Frankenstein" way, which was a straight cut across the hairline. So those were my sources, and if an actual autopsy used a different technique, I'm certainly all ears.

While Llewellyn certainly seems out of his depth, which is totally understandable, I cannot accept a newspaper account of bruised hands. First of all, that paints a pretty specific picture based on it's vague language. It is evidently specifically not broken fingernails, bruised or scraped knuckles, broken bones. It's bruised hands, which to me indicates the front and back of the palm. I cannot for the life of me imagine what kind of struggle would leave bruises there. Typically bruises there are a crush injury, if someone grabbed you hand and squeezed it very hard. But that isn't defensive. And even if an assailant grabbed the victim to control the hands, it wouldn't be the hands themselves, but the wrist or the forearm. So I have to question the source. Was the reporter in fact let into the mortuary? Or was he transcribing what was described to him? Would he or his source know the difference between new and older bruises? Would he know the difference between lividity and bruising? And I know that many say that this was probably a police source, but this mortuary was staffed by workhouse attendants.

Finally the position you speak of with bent spread knees was not Nichols, but in fact Annie Chapman. I have a theory there, but it's kinda gross and spelled out in a couple of other places on this board.

Welcome to the monkey house!

[lynn cates]

signs

Hello Rya. Welcome to the boards.

You are right about the signs of strangulation in Polly and Annie. One had a protruding tongue; the other, lacerated. The others, not. Hundreds of possible explanations.

I suppose we must make of it what we will.

Have fun with the case/s.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Good Opener...

Hi Rya,

Excellent first post and welcome to the Nut House.......er.....I mean Boards...

I know little of what you address so I'll let others comment..

I commend your fine writing and punctuation which is a rarity around here...



Greg

[Rya]

Hello all,

This is probably not the best place to trespass as a new poster, but I've always been intrigued by these "cause of death" discussions. So I have a few comments and questions in this area (which of course have nothing whatsoever to do with carriages) that I'd like to share and hear everyone's response to.

The idea that the killer asphyxiated at least the first two canonical victims is pretty popular with students of the case. But there are also simple problems with this theory. While forensic pathology was in its infancy at this time, late nineteenth century doctors would have been entirely familiar with determining the difference between ante and post mortem injuries. If the cause of death here was the catastropic wounds to the neck region, we would expect to see typical indications of that: ecchymosis of surrounding tissues, extravasation of blood into those tissues, retraction of tissue and blood vessels at the site of the wounds, large amounts (liters, actually) of arterial (oxygenated) blood apparent around the body along with heavy clotting in and around the open wounds, the chambers of the heart being relatively empty, and so on. Dr. Bond in fact used a few of these indicators to quickly determine the fatal wound in the Miller's Court case.

So these references were commonplace with police surgeons of the era, as would be the more general determination of asphyxia versus syncope as the cause of death. Yet nowhere in the inquest testimony am I aware of anyone raising the possibility that the neck injuries were inflected post mortem, even in cases where the doctors conducting the autopsies asserted with confidence that the other injuries on the bodies were inflicted after death (in which case I would assume they were employing the same criteria that I've just described). So what's going on here? There is certainly some evidence to suggest asphyxiation in Nichols and Chapman. And it is also true that in cases were injuries are inflicted immediately after death (what are sometimes called "peri mortem"), some ecchymosis and extravasation would still be present, and that muddles the issue. But this would be the case in virtually all the the mutilations in question (no more than minutes would be involved in all but the final murder).

I think the usual explanation is that the doctors made an assumption without looking closely at all the evidence. This in turn leads to common accusations made against the medical authorities throughout the murders by modern writers--that these doctors were lazy, complacent, or just plain incompetent. But I don't see the evidence for that. I wonder why, however, Phillips gives an elaborate description of partial asphyxiation to the press (in the Star) which he did not make in his inquest testimony (apart from a brief comment on the victim's breathing "being interfered with"). Perhaps Wickerman can shed more light on this?

Incidently, I should mention that by this point in medical history, autopsies of the brain usually, to my knowledge, involved creating an incision at the back of the head--forgive the expression--from ear to ear. The scalp is then reflected over the skull towards the forehead, after which the cranium and brain could be exposed and examined. Hair was usually minimally effected. The scalp could then be restored with no apparant signs of tampering, as in the case of open casket funerals, etc. Assuming this kind of procedure, there is no reason why the Eddowes post mortem photos could not have been taken after the cranium examination. The other death photos I have always thought were taken before the bodies were autopsied, to speed up circulation of the photographs in identifying the victims.

In the case of Nichols, we get a lot of conflicting information about the details of the murder. For example, Constable Thain described "masses of congealed blood" where the victim had been found, and commented on its large quantity--but this was later reported to be only about 6 inches in diameter. Dr. Llewellyn claims rather little blood appeared around the corpse. Also, while Llewellyn seems to say little about the condition of the dead woman's hands at the inquest, the central news report on the murder claims that the "hands are bruised, and bear evidence of having engaged in a severe struggle" (see Evans/Skinner). But then, Llewellyn also described genital mutilations in the preliminary notes given to Inspector Spratling, while not mentioning these injuries at the inquest either. He thought the body had been moved to the location where it was discovered at first, but then decided that the woman had been killed where she was found. He believed the killer left handed initially, but then changed his mind according to Swanson's later report.

One last question: somewhere I remember reading an account of the discovery of Nichol's body that described the legs as bent at the knees, while relatively spread open, in something imitating a coital position. This led on onlooker to think the woman had been a rape victim, until the body was examined. Any source for this report?

[Errata]

So you're left with the garotte, applied skillfully it is the swiftest method of inducing suffocation/asphyxia/unconsciousness and leaves the face placid, not distorted as the relatively slower method of manual strangulation would do.

Quote:
"If he cut the throat along the line of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation." - Dr. Brownfield.

Regards, Jon S.

Except a skillfully applied garotte slices through the neck like cheese, and is fully capable of taking the head clean off. And even ligature strangulation barring a neck-breaking hanging leaves the victim conscious for at least 30 seconds. The problem is that these two women show signs of asphyxia, the onset of which is about 15 seconds after you can't hold your breath anymore. And asphyxia always takes time. Not a lot, but some. A choke-hold where the mechanism is ischemia takes quite a bit less time, quickly enough that signs of asphyxiation don't show, except some purpling of the face which is common to both.

Ligature strangulation does not apply more force than manual strangulation. It just applies it more evenly. Grip strength in the average human is about four to eight times what is required to close off an airway. And as humans, our pull is relatively weak, especially any position that does not put the entire weight behind the pull. So hands around the throat are as effective as someone pulling crossed ends of a rope away from center. The real change between the two is if you use weight. Essentially achieving a hanging. You either have to use the victims weight against the rope, or yours. And unless you are freakishly tall, or have a gallows, its going to be your own weight. And that's achieved by essentially collapsing, putting all of the weight on the ligature.

Humans have a standard reaction when suddenly confronted with weight on our upper body. We step backwards to relieve the pressure, and if that doesn't work we keep backing up. Evidently in some brain stem hope that we are just hung up on something. We move towards the weight. It the case of sharp jerks, we fall backwards. The only thing to prevent that in a ligature strangulation is by blocking the retreat with your own body. By being in a position of stability and strength. Not dangling from the ends of the rope. So the weight advantage of pulling with your own body weight disappears when the victim starts backpedaling and falls over you. Swift silent ligature strangulation is almost impossible from behind without a significant height advantage where you can lift your victim with the ligature. Which is why it tends to never be swift and silent. You do much better from the front, using a persons defense mechanisms against them, but then you see it coming. And there are still no ligature marks, which depending on the height difference are guaranteed in one of two places not cut on the throat. If taller than the victim, on a line behind the ears up into the hairline. If shorter then on the nape of the necks and into each join of the neck to the shoulder.

The perfect explanation would be an inhalant. Not chloroform or ether, because the doctors would recognize those smells. Or a toxin that either compromises the respiratory system or with the bonding of oxygen to molecules, like cyanide. A guy just has to carry a bottle of it with him, and offer a lady a drink when they are alone. As soon as she uncorks it the fumes would incapacitate her. But nothing works like chloroform does in the movies, not even chloroform. There are any number of things that good strong whiff of will incapacitate a full grown human, but most of them cause blistering, or vomiting, or explode. I found something that causes dizziness, confusion and even hallucinations almost instantly, but I had a good laugh thinking about Jack repeatedly falling down while trying to put it in a bottle. Phosgene was a good choice for a full five minutes, as it was a Victorian industrial chemical used in the dyemaking process, but it causes vomiting.

Wasn't there some ghastly tale in one of the newspapers of Jack hypnotizing his victims?

[Wickerman]

Whatever happened, it had to incapacitate instantly. Not quickly, but instantly.

So you're left with the garotte, applied skillfully it is the swiftest method of inducing suffocation/asphyxia/unconsciousness and leaves the face placid, not distorted as the relatively slower method of manual strangulation would do.

Quote:
"If he cut the throat along the line of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation." - Dr. Brownfield.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

No one had abraded knuckles, broken and ripped fingernails, chunks of hair or cloth in their hands, blood from nails or the attacker on their fingers. No broken fingers, broken toes.

Chapman's fingernails were "turgid", which probably means her fingertips were swollen.