Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[niko]

Why didn't they fight ?

Hi all, like Errata I find it totally strange too that in all the murder's there were no sign's of fighting back, (there must be a reason) if Martha Tabram was a Ripper victim she is the only one that seem's to of fought back.

Martha Tabram's inquest-

John S. Reeves of 37, George Yard Building's said "The deceased's clothes were disarranged as though she had had a struggle with someone".

Maybe the victim's did fight back, BUT there was no evident sign's on the body's that the police nor the Doctor's could acertain that they fought back, "was Jack really that quick", all the best, Agur.

niko

[Errata]

I didn't bring up their size as relates to height, thought it not an insignificant factor in strangulation. I brought it up in terms of weight, as it is harder to physically subdue someone on the larger side.

I had hoped for a height correlation as that would have been the easiest explanation. You can't strangle someone six inches taller than you. I mean, you can try, but you'd better be able to maintain you grip while swinging through the air once your victim starts to fight you off. Not impossible I'm sure, but ridiculously difficult. But the height differences were not so varied as to make much of a difference.

My real issue with strangulation is that I don't care who you are or what your circumstances are, air hunger is THE worst feeling in the world, and you fight like hell. How on earth did these women not fight? It is as contradictory to me as believing that these women voluntarily lay down to have their throats cut. And I don't care if they only had ten seconds to fight, their would have been a ten second war going on. Yet Mary Kelly was the only one who had anything that could possibly be construed as a defensive wound. 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. No cloth in their mouths. No one kicked, screamed, bit, fought to get free. Their clothing wasn't even torn. No one heard a peep. Except from possibly Annie Chapman who softly said "no" and then fell against a fence. It's impossible.

Whatever happened, it had to incapacitate instantly. Not quickly, but instantly. Like a Vulcan neck pinch. Like a powerful blow to the head. Like a bullet through the heart. Even chloroform takes a few seconds to work, and chloroform was not used. But there is no sign of anything on these women of anything that could subdue them instantly. Just a couple of signs of asphyxia on a couple of victims. And even though I think a blow to the head to be more likely than strangulation, even that doesn't really work. As far as we know there were signs of it, and contrary to the movies, not every head injury results in unconsciousness. Most of them end up with the victim shouting "OW!" really loudly. A blow to the temple always drops someone, but there would be a huge bruise, and there isn't. Not to mention it's a small target. So it bothers me actually quite a bit. Why didn't they fight?

Although I just thought of something... I'll let you know if it pans out.

[Rubyretro]

jury is out on Kelly. I don't think she looks like a bigger girl from what I can see in the photo though.

It says 5'7" under the Casebook 'Victims' section, and I imagine that her body was measured at the autopsy.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Ruby. Nichols was indeed plump. Chapman and Tabram were big. Stride was average, Eddowes thin, and jury is out on Kelly. I don't think she looks like a bigger girl from what I can see in the photo though.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

.

Both Nichols and Chapman were larger women, especially when compared to the other victims

.

Nichols was only 5'2, whereas Stride was 5'5" and Kelly 5'7.
Chapman was 5 foot -she looks bloated in her mortuary picture, but Nichols looks to have been rather tiny.

[Errata]

It would appear that where discernable (Nichols, Chapman, (possibly Eddowes?)), each victim had been subdued into unconsciousness in order to lay the victim out prior to the throat being cut.
Death pronounced by syncope (bloodloss) not by strangulation.
So the first cut to the throat was the killing blow, so to speak. Strangulation uncertain with Kelly and not observable with Stride.

As you correctly pointed out earlier a swift blow to the head could have rendered the victim equally unconscious, yet he chose to take the time & effort to strangle them.
This might suggest "Jack" was first & foremost a strangler, the use of the knife just a means towards an end. Strangling is neither quick, easy nor simple, and frought with potential difficulties. If he strangled them it is because he chose to not because he had to. There must be a reason for that.

Interestingly, potential copy-cat killings (McKenzie, Coles?) are always knife attacks, we do not see "choking" attacks, which might have been the case if "Jack" was truely still on the prowl after the Kelly murder.

Regards, Jon S.

I think the answer as to why he strangled might be mundane. I think Eddowes and Kelly were not, Nichols and Chapman were, and Stride had marks on her necks, which the others didn't have, but no signs of strangulation which may mean that the marks on her neck were from being "handled" by her neckerchief.

It could be a size thing, but I can't think why. Both Nichols and Chapman were larger women, especially when compared to the other victims. It may be a location thing. Nichols and Chapman were both killed essentially right under where someone was sleeping. Eddowes was in a fairly commercial area, Kelly was inside, Stride was by a noisy pub if I recall. It may have been a function of keeping the victims quiet when there was a serious risk of being overheard. It could also be an overkill thing. He choked his first victims, almost saws off their heads, but in later victims the cuts become more economical and the signs of strangulation disappear. He may have simply realized it doesn't take near as much to kill someone as he thought it did.

The funny thing is that while both Nichols and Chapman show signs of asphyxia, they don't particularly show the sign of strangulation. Neither had a tongue completely hanging out, so the hyoid wasn't broken. No ligature marks, no signs of struggle, nothing like that. What they do show is much closer to suffocation. Tongue slightly protruding, blue tinge, bulging eyes, except I have no idea how they could have suffocated. Even smothering fits more, except neither had a broken nose. So that I can't explain.

[Wickerman]

Well that's the question isn't it? I mean, technically once you strangle someone to death the throat cutting is redundant, but that's another thing for another day.

It would appear that where discernable (Nichols, Chapman, (possibly Eddowes?)), each victim had been subdued into unconsciousness in order to lay the victim out prior to the throat being cut.
Death pronounced by syncope (bloodloss) not by strangulation.
So the first cut to the throat was the killing blow, so to speak. Strangulation uncertain with Kelly and not observable with Stride.

As you correctly pointed out earlier a swift blow to the head could have rendered the victim equally unconscious, yet he chose to take the time & effort to strangle them.
This might suggest "Jack" was first & foremost a strangler, the use of the knife just a means towards an end. Strangling is neither quick, easy nor simple, and frought with potential difficulties. If he strangled them it is because he chose to not because he had to. There must be a reason for that.

Interestingly, potential copy-cat killings (McKenzie, Coles?) are always knife attacks, we do not see "choking" attacks, which might have been the case if "Jack" was truely still on the prowl after the Kelly murder.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Once the jugglar had been cut any further cutting of the neck is redundant, so why else do it?

Regards, Jon S.

Well that's the question isn't it? I mean, technically once you strangle someone to death the throat cutting is redundant, but that's another thing for another day. I know some people think he was trying to take the head, but that seems like poor planning. He would have to bring something to put the head in, and once you're planning on bringing a bag, why not a hatchet or a saw?

Personally I'm of the opinion that Jack, like most people, had a more literary influence. I mean, there are all of these lurid stories of the day of pirates and criminals and things that go bump in the night, and these graphic and fanciful tales of death. And one of the metaphor used so often is that someone's throat was cut "from ear to ear". And most people assume that is the "proper" way to cut a throat. It'll work, no doubt. But the fastest and easiest way to go is to cut the jugular and the carotid. I don't think Jack had any special anatomical knowledge. And if you ask people today how they think a person should cut a throat, they would say from ear to ear.

As to why it was such a hack job, that's pretty easy. And the illustration is fun and stress relieving. Go to the store and buy a chicken. Put a bunch of foil or whatever on the floor, and sit in front of the chicken with an appropriate sized knife. Cut the chicken's "throat" from "ear to ear" without lifting the chicken more than an inch about the ground (remembering to replicate where the deepest cuts were). Don't use a knife you love. It's a train wreck. You get no leverage, the point keeps jamming into the ground, and a good slicing motion requires a long pull across the length of the blade which is hard to get when your point keeps hitting the ground a half an inch from where you are trying to cut. And no matter how high you life the head, the neck really isn't going anywhere. Evidently there is a reason most people got their throats cut while upright. It's just way easier.

[Wickerman]

E: The thing about autopsies is that they still weren't that common. And they were still considered an outrage on the body of the dead person.

I think the autopsy was 'required' as part of British system since the early 1800's (1830?), but certainly not every death required an autopsy.

And not every doctor would do one.

It was not the choice of the doctor. If you mean not every doctor was capable, then yes that is true. But, the decision to conduct an autopsy lies with the Coroner not the doctor. Of course an experienced doctor will know when one is required but a certificate should still required from the Coroner.
I am thinking of the controversy of jurisdiction in the Kelly case. Dr. Phillips was the surgeon first called therefore it was his case. It appears Phillips communicated with McDonalds office as the body lay in McDonald's jurisdiction with respect to the Coroner's inquiry.
Phillips would require McDonalds authorization to conduct the autopsy.

On the side of full autopsies being performed, these women were nobodies, so no one who matters is going to object if the doctors wants a little practice and cracks them open.

The Coroner's legal reputation is at stake in every Inquiry, likewise he will expect professional conduct from his principal witness Dr. Phillips. And Phillips will give nothing less.

G: I don't think it was a ligature. Her throat was not cut completely around, and a ligature would even leave a mark over the knobs of the spinal column. If it had been a garotte the spine would have been damaged. And in the end there was no point in hiding a ligature mark. He couldn't possible have been traced by one, especially if he used the victim's kerchief.

I was not suggesting the garotte was used to cut through the throat, merely that the possibility exists that the garotte was used to swiftly silence the victim in cutting off both oxygen & blood flow at the same time.
The mark of a garotte would leave a 'crease' around the neck indicating the method used. The knife is then used through the crease to destroy the evidence of a garotte.
I am only echoing the suggestion of Dr brownfield.

Once the jugglar had been cut any further cutting of the neck is redundant, so why else do it?

Regards, Jon S.

[Scorpio]

I hate to state the bleedin obvious, but a carriage with two beefy horses moving across coblestones makes a considerable and quite distinct noise.

[Errata]

I think we need to accept that much of the detailed work of the autopsy was not brought up at the inquest, it was not necessary.
In most cases it is merely the surgeon's conslusion which the Coroner requires, not every detail by which he arrived at that conclusion.


Regards, Jon S.

Yikes! the dreaded multiquote. Let's see if I can handle this. No. I can't. Lets see if I can do this in some sort of logical manner.

A: I agree. Most of the autopsy report would come up in the inquest. But it would be in the report. Which Is why I wonder if it's a lost records thing.

B: Yes, throttle meaning manual asphyxiation.

C: Yeah I explained that poorly. When the body needs either oxygen or warmth, it restricts all blood vessels to the extremities to conserve the center mass. It's not that the blood gets sucked out, but that less flows in and out because of the constriction. Akin to a lane of traffic being closed. You travel the same distance with the same amount of traffic as normal, it just takes much longer to get home. It allows the core to absorb a majority of the oxygen/heat/whatever rather than giving hands feet and head and equal chance at it. And it happens very quickly, as evidenced by how quick your hands can turn blue in the winter.

D. Yes I know this. The question is was the blood not oxygenated because she was throttled, or was it because she had advanced lung disease? This is why I say if these same things were said about Catherine Eddowes, I would assume strangulation of some kind. But Annie Chapman is the one victim who has a legitimate other reason for this condition to be the case.

E: The thing about autopsies is that they still weren't that common. And they were still considered an outrage on the body of the dead person. Which is why it was such a fight to get a family to allow one, especially in wealthy families. And not every doctor would do one. It's not that the science wasn't sufficient for the prevalence of autopsies, the public attitude was not sufficient. On the side of full autopsies being performed, these women were nobodies, so no one who matters is going to object if the doctors wants a little practice and cracks them open. On the side against it, these women were nobodies, who probably got what they deserved and why waste the effort? There was a substitute for a full autopsy, in fact it was the original kind. And until about 20 years ago it was how any autopsy conducted on a Jew was carried out. It is a meticulous cataloging of wounds and marks, solely for the consumption of police. And for the first couple of victims, this may have seemed sufficient. And in fact, more may not have been called for, given the extent of the wounds. Certainly Mary Kelly did not require a full autopsy. It has little to do with the meticulousness of doctors. It has more to do with what was asked of them, and whether or not someone felt the need to examine beyond the obvious causes of death. And it's possible that at first, no one felt that need.

F: It might. But why make up Chapman to conceal the stitches, and not do the same for Eddowes? Or Stride's throat wound? Or take the time to close Nichols' eyes? Certainly no readily available Victorian makeup could even cover stitches like that. A good deal of greasepaint is possible, but that is a purely theatrical find. And beeswax is also possible, assuming a doctor knew how to turn that into concealer. But it seems odd to have a male doctor to apply makeup to a corpse going into to a closed casket, really more odd that a doctor would apply makeup at all. But no females were at his disposal. The nurses who stripped her and started to wash her were gone, and a workhouse inmate with fits seems an odd choice as well. It's not impossible, but the whole thing seems strange.

G: I don't think it was a ligature. Her throat was not cut completely around, and a ligature would even leave a mark over the knobs of the spinal column. If it had been a garotte the spine would have been damaged. And in the end there was no point in hiding a ligature mark. He couldn't possible have been traced by one, especially if he used the victim's kerchief.

H: Technically, just as every bullet wound begins with a burn. But if something happens with enough speed and force, it doesn't really matter how it begins. It reaches it's conclusion fairly swiftly. A swift slice across an artery with a sharp blade (And I've done this way too many times) often starts bleeding before the flesh even parts. So that it is the force of the blood pouring out that actually opens the slice in the flesh. It's kinda mesmerizing, in that "I'm gonna freak out in about two seconds" kinda way.

I'm not really attached to a strangling/no strangling theory either way. I certainly think it would have been way easier to hit them over the head, which makes me wonder if he wasn't doing it for ease, what was he doing it for and why change it up all the time. And while I only enjoy being contrary to a small extent, I really think that questioning every little thing, no matter how stupid leads to answers. I accept there is a good reason to think Annie Chapman was strangled. I just think there is also a good reason why she may not have been, but appears to have been. And I really don't think all of their brains were examined, simply because it may have seemed a waste of effort when the cause of death was so clear. And in the case of poor Mary Kelly, it may have just seemed so monstrous to open up the one part of her that remained intact. I wouldn't have done it.

[Wickerman]

I know that it is part of the autopsy procedure, and it may in fact be a lost records issue, but a passing reference to a major part of the procedure seems strange.

I think we need to accept that much of the detailed work of the autopsy was not brought up at the inquest, it was not necessary.
In most cases it is merely the surgeon's conslusion which the Coroner requires, not every detail by which he arrived at that conclusion.

In a throttling situation, the blood still moves between head and body,

Ok, yes, in using the word "throttle" I assume you are only referring to a restriction of the airways, windpipe/trachea, etc.

So I was unclear what you meant by saying..

and when the body starts preserving oxygenated blood for survival, the brain is not one of the organs it floods to. So there should have been almost no blood in her brain.

I must be misunderstanding something here because the human cardiovascular system is always full of blood. At no point can your arteries, veins or capilliaries be empty of blood, they would collapse due to a vacuum, and if a vacuum existed it would pull the blood back to fill the void. Therefore the very idea that 'emptyness' could exist is impossible medically speaking.

all of her blood vessels should have immediately restricted keeping the blood in the torso. And the black blood may have been due to her advanced lung disease. As might her other symptoms.

Black blood is blood pumped through the heart which has not been oxygenated due to the inability of the subject to breathe. The heart still beats even though the lungs cannot fill with air, hence the subsequent blood is darker than normal.
(I know you know this, but I get the impression you are trying to look elsewhere for a reason)

And here's why I think they didn't open the skull on every case. Firstly, crappy facilities. If there is no light and no trained assistants, you can't saw into the brain.

Oil lamps, candles, whatever the situation requires, the task at hand will be accomplished. The doctors are professionals, hence their complaints about the conditions in which they are required to conduct their profession.

And yes, there is reference to Annie Chapman's brain, but there is no evidence of it actually having been examined,

We don't need to see the "evidence", that the skull was replaced and sufficiently "made-up" to present a suitable presence for the camera speaks to the doctor's abilities.

why wasn't her throat one giant bruise from strangulation, which would had to have occurred before the throat cut? And she would bruise badly, her poor health assured it.

Hence the possibility that a cord was used as opposed to manual strangulation, which then explains why the spherical cut all around her neck (to hide the mark of the cord?).

As an aside, the most vigorous of arterial spray which comes from a pinhole wound never jets out farther than at most 16 inches.

Which makes your next suggestion redundant, a sliced artery "begins" with a pinhole cut so the blood will always spray from an artery provided blood pressure still exists in her system.

The blood on the fence near Chapman's head is most likely a transfer or a cast off.

No controversy here, that is how it is described..

"...and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood.."

What I have always wondered is, why the arterial spray(?) was on the wall of the house "behind" her head, not aligned with her neck and, on the fence.
Therefore I suspect those "splashes" of blood came from the killer "tossing'? her inerds over her shoulders..

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."

Therefore..

"On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point,.."

Not arterial spray..

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Actually Erratta, the opening of the head was part of the autopsy proceedure. We do have a passing reference to Annie Chapman's head being opened, it is included in the press reports of the death of Rose Mylett.

Regards, Jon S.

I know that it is part of the autopsy procedure, and it may in fact be a lost records issue, but a passing reference to a major part of the procedure seems strange. And I actually had known that but promptly forgotten it evidently.

And if the passing mention had been in reference to any victim other than Chapman, I would find it to be fairly convincing evidence. But Annie Chapman was suffocating to death before she ever met the Ripper. Some of these signs of throttling just don't count, probably the brain evidence. The black blood is deoxygenated blood in the brain. In an ischemia situation, the black blood would be in both the arteries and veins. In a throttling situation, the blood still moves between head and body, and when the body starts preserving oxygenated blood for survival, the brain is not one of the organs it floods to. So there should have been almost no blood in her brain. all of her blood vessels should have immediately restricted keeping the blood in the torso. And the black blood may have been due to her advanced lung disease. As might her other symptoms. Her tongue didn't actually protrude, but seemed swollen. So it doesn't appear her hyoid was broken.

The real question is, why were the tissues loaded with black blood, when there shouldn't be any blood there at all. It may be poorly worded, but it may mean that she had a brain bleed. Or a concussion. And both can result from throttling (the concussion happens when you just drop someone you have throttled into unconsciousness), but they occur more often not as a result of throttling. I wonder if her having a stroke would result in the extra stiffening on the left side? But they would have recognized a stroke in the brain, so you'd think they would have said.

And here's why I think they didn't open the skull on every case. Firstly, crappy facilities. If there is no light and no trained assistants, you can't saw into the brain. Well, you can, but then you have to take it with you somewhere where you can actually see it, preferably by daylight. Not all of the facilities were awful, but some clearly were. Secondly, and this is the weird part, of all of the post mortem photographs, the only one who looks like her skull may have been opened is Polly Nichols, which has what could be a line above the eyebrows. Unless they collected evidence, washed the body, autopsied it, washed it again, dressed it, took a picture of it, and only then cut open the skull. The procedure of the day was a straight cut right below the hairline. It was with a hand saw, often resulting in chipping or breaking of the skull, and as often as not the top part of the skull did not go back on the head. The scalp was simply stitched over the uncovered brain. Even when it was put back in, it wasn't attached. Just the scalp over the skull stitched back around. None of the women have these stitches, nor do they have the characteristic odd head shape that goes with having a loose top of the skull. Annie Chapman on first glance does have a suspiciously short forehead, which could mean the skull had been opened, until you look at a picture of her alive, and she really did have a short sloping forehead.

The only victim I can say for certain did not have her skull opened was Catherine Eddowes. Her washed and stitched body is displayed in a photograph, and her hair is still mostly up in pins, and long. They would have cut it all off to open the head, or at least unpinned her hair, lest they attempt to remove the top and it's still attached to the hair on the wrong side of the cut. And yes, there is reference to Annie Chapman's brain, but there is no evidence of it actually having been examined, unless they did after the photo was taken. Which doesn't make a lot of sense. Also I think she was autopsied in essentially a woodshed, with no experienced attendants, which is certainly not an ideal circumstance for delicate detailed examination of anything.

But I will admit, that if Catherine Eddowes had the same signs of asphyxia as Annie Chapman, then I would assume it to be from the attack. But Annie Chapman was already so compromised in her lungs, that I can't assume that. Also, the bruises on her face are from the stereotypical thumb and forefinger jaw grip to cut the throat, why wasn't her throat one giant bruise from strangulation, which would had to have occurred before the throat cut? And she would bruise badly, her poor health assured it.

As an aside, the most vigorous of arterial spray which comes from a pinhole wound never jets out farther than at most 16 inches. If the artery is laid open, it doesn't matter what your blood pressure is, it will never jet out more than an inch or so. The blood on the fence near Chapman's head is most likely a transfer or a cast off.

[lynn cates]

Satb

Hello Greg.

"I hate to join Lynn's chorus but I must admit the melody becomes sweeter by the day..."

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate the tenor of your remark. Does that make me a bass fellow? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

.... On the other hand, the only autopsy in which the head even appears to have been examined was Catherine Eddowes,

Actually Erratta, the opening of the head was part of the autopsy proceedure. We do have a passing reference to Annie Chapman's head being opened, it is included in the press reports of the death of Rose Mylett.


"The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation."
Star, 24 Dec. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.