Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[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

[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!

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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

[Scott Nelson]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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."