Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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