Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[FrankO]

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

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

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

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

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

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

All the best,
Frank

[Wickerman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

[niko]

"horse shoes"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

niko

[K-453]

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

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

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

[Errata]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Jon S.

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

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

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

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

[lynn cates]

black eye

Hello Agur.

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

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

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Compelling detail...

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

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

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


Greg

[lynn cates]

records

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

Cheers.
LC

[Roy Corduroy]

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

Roy

[lynn cates]

ho ho ho

Hello Roy. Thanks. Merry Christmas to you as well.

Cheers.
LC

[niko]

Hello Agur.

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

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

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn and season greeting's, my name is Niko, Agur means goodbye in Basque language (he,he). Thank's for telling me about Jacob Isenschmid (the mad butcher) never heard of him before, or maybe I have only I just can't remember, suspicious character by all means. Read a little about him on casebook- Star 18 September 1888, although I haven't be able to read about his black eye anywhere. Is there a thread on Jacob Isenschmid ?

"one of the alarming practices of Isenschmid when he is mad is his continual sharpening of a long knife"

Regarding to the victim's fighting back, "I belive if they could of ! they would of !". I must addmit I knew a lot of girl's in the East End which knew how to "lift their fist's" and had no trouble indulging in a scuffle or fight. I belive Martha Tabram could of been a Ripper victim, and to what Iv'e read it seems as if she struggled whilst being murdered, all the best, Agur.

niko

[lynn cates]

thread

Hello Niko. So sorry. I thought Agur was your real name; Niko, your posting name.

Here is Chris Scott's thread on Isenschmid.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4590

The black eye is from another news source.

If Isenschmid is the man I seek, he DEFINITELY did not have a carriage.

Season's greetings to you as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

The placid faces of those who are hanged are because the method of death is entirely different. Their necks are broken. Quite purposefully.

The reason we see a contorted face is due to suffering, broken neck or not is immaterial.
The reason the military use a ligature is precisely due to its swift, efficient & silent effectiveness. You render your victim unconscious in seconds, breaking the neck is unneccesary. A placid expression in death is consistent with the victim not suffering for any length of time, that is all.

A bruise on the back of the hand is actually pretty uncommon, ....... The only way I an think of that would bruise the back of the hand would be if either the victim was flailing and was caught up short by a wall (and in Chapman's case it would be a powerful enough blow to rattle the fence) or if the killer stepped on or kneeled on the victims hands.

The bruise in question is small, like the size of a sixpence. This is consistent with an impact as might be the case when flailing at someone stood directly behind or over your shoulder. If her hand had come in contact with a large flat surface (as you suggest) then we are not likely to see a small circular impact bruise. Likewise, the sole of a shoe is a flat surface and does not leave a small circular bruise.

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

Why would you picture long scratches?
The little (4th) finger generally carries no force behind it so of course it is the main three fingers which scratch the skin. Why would you choose to disassociate scratches on the neck of someone who's face betrayed signs of suffocation?

I agree on this one, but I think "clenched" is misleading. I think "clenched" hands would have scoring on the palms from her fingernails.

These women had very rough lives, I'd be surprised if they even had long fingernails, these were not West-end socialites. They probably had 'mans hands', rough skin & short nails.

This makes absolutely no sense to me. First of all, how does Jack get her on her back while she is still conscious? And why? It's not easy to strangle someone who is on their back.

The witness James Kent stated:
“She had a handkerchief of some kind round her throat, which seemed sucked into her throat. I saw no running blood, but her face and hands were smeared with blood, as if she had struggled. I did not notice any other injuries.
The Coroner - What evidence was there of a struggle?
Witness - I mean as if she had been on her back, and used her hands to defend herself. Her hands were turned with the palms towards her face, as if she had fought for her throat. “

Blood on her hands might indicate she was bleeding before she died. If we assume she had been stabbed abdominally we should expect cries & screams, as none were evident then she must have bled from elswhere. The best alternative is the throat, yet as the indications are that her throat was cut while she was on the ground we are left with an apparent inconsistency.
There are physical indications of strangulation yet no obvious bruises of thumbs & fingers around the throat. So we have two problems, indications of strangulation yet no marks, and the suggestion of bleeding before death.

A skillfully applied ligature can solve both problems, the cord when pulled tight around the throat can cut into the skin causing bleeding. At this point the victim is alive but rendered unable to scream or breathe, only struggle. Scratches on her neck & bloodstained fingers are consistent with her attempting to loose the cord, in seconds she fall limp to the ground.
This scenario is consistent with what James Kent saw .

I have no theory. I know that you believe that ligature strangulation is the answer, despite their being no evidence of that. But I am forced to wonder if you in fact know how ligature strangulation actually works,....

I have suggested the use of a ligature would provide a solution to some of the questions.
I would never claim a ligature was used in every case as there is no reliable evidence to indicate exactly how many women fell victim to the same hand.

The ligature is and was a popular weapon. The military use it today as a weapon of stealth and one reason is that you need not be physically strong to use one. A 100 lb weakling can bring down a 300 lb 'gorilla' with a simple piece of cord. Once the ligature is looped around the neck and hands quickly crossed there is no reliable defence against its application, especially when the victim is a weak or 'tipsy' woman.

The ligature when pulled snug immediately silences the victim and cuts of the blood supply both to and from the brain. This is why petichea will not appear in the face or eyes, there is no blood pressure in the head to cause petichea.
The ligature also conpresses the esophagus cutting off the oxygen supply to the brain. There is no more efficient method of silently & quickly rendering someone unconscious.

Early in the 1860's there was a 'garrotting-mania' which swept London and spread through-out England. That is not to say this tool was never used prior to that date, it was, and it was still in use up to the 1900's. The 'garrotter' was principally a disabling weapon not a murdering weapon.

Garrotter's worked in groups, either two or three men together.
One was the garrotter, another was the 'lead' while a third was the thief. The 'Lead' would distract the victim, the garrotter would then make his move while the thief moved in to rifle the pockets of the victim. The three would then head off in different directions leaving the victim sprawled in the gutter, coughing on the edge of life, but not dead.

Anyone caught as a garrotter would be sentenced to 15-20 yrs and some were released early and known as 'ticket-of-leave' men. Prisoners were often let out early due to overcrowding and would be given a ticket-of-leave. Many of the crimes brought before the Old Bailey were entered as “mugging” because that was the charge, so the term “garrotter” does not help in locating such crimes.

Dr. Brownfield commented that the Whitechapel murderer may have used such a weapon.

Why would this killer choose to hide the fact he used a ligature?, because as I mentioned earlier garrotter's (as muggers) worked in gangs and anyone he may have had past associations with might have felt obliged in giving up his name to the authorities. This killer may have had a previous conviction and the authorities knew the names of all the 'ticket-of-leave' men.

If he did use a ligature, why help the authorities by leaving the evidence for all the world to see?, after he cut the jugglar, just run your knife through the scar on the neck left by the cord and the evidence is gone.
Leaving some to wonder, perhaps, why two cuts to the throat?

Isn't that one question we ask today?

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

The reason we see a contorted face is due to suffering, broken neck or not is immaterial.
The reason the military use a ligature is precisely due to its swift, efficient & silent effectiveness. You render your victim unconscious in seconds, breaking the neck is unneccesary. A placid expression in death is consistent with the victim not suffering for any length of time, that is all.

Actually a broken neck is quite material. When the nerves controlling facial sensation and muscle movement are broken, a person is quite incapable of any facial expression whatsoever. Victims of judicial hangings experience just as much fear and suffering as any other kind of death, they simply cannot react to it. And in fact it takes about a minute for the body to die after a neck break like that. Plenty of time to register a pained expression if they were still capable.

The bruise in question is small, like the size of a sixpence. This is consistent with an impact as might be the case when flailing at someone stood directly behind or over your shoulder. If her hand had come in contact with a large flat surface (as you suggest) then we are not likely to see a small circular impact bruise. Likewise, the sole of a shoe is a flat surface and does not leave a small circular bruise.

It's an oddity. The fact is, flailing behind you is not a position of strength. Because of the limitations of flexion, you just can't hit anything behind you all that hard, and not hard enough to bruise. I'm not even sure what she could have impacted with the back of her hand that would leave a small bruise. Trying to get at anything behind you is just awkward, and you are still more likely to make any impact on the knuckles or the fingers. If she had hit the fence on a corner, or if he had stepped on her hand or knelt on it and there was say, a pebble on the other side of her hand... and then one has to consider that if the bruise was made right before her death, how big WOULD it have gotten? It's an odd bruise, and one I'm not convinced occurred right before her death. Under ordinary circumstances, I would assume that someone had grabbed her hand really hard, pressing their thumb into the bones of the hand trying to cause pain.

Why would you picture long scratches?
The little (4th) finger generally carries no force behind it so of course it is the main three fingers which scratch the skin. Why would you choose to disassociate scratches on the neck of someone who's face betrayed signs of suffocation?

Well, not like super long scratches, but about an inch, inch and a half long. And I picture them that way because when someone says "scratches" I picture something about that long. Otherwise I expect some other descriptive being used. Or at least added. The marks on the throat that result from someone trying to remove a ligature are really gouges, not scratches. Someone dying of a lack of oxygen in the environment, like say a gas chamber, or who choke to death, they end up with actual scratches on the throat. So when I picture scratches, I picture actual scratches, which would have been divided by the throat cut, which means either no ligature, or the scratches got there earlier. And they are only on one side, which would not make a lot of sense for someone trying to pry off a strangling device. So if it says "scratches", I'm going to picture scratches and not gouges. It's a limitation of language.

These women had very rough lives, I'd be surprised if they even had long fingernails, these were not West-end socialites. They probably had 'mans hands', rough skin & short nails.

I would imagine so. But unless their fingernails were bitten of to the quick, they were still capable of making marks on the hand. If their nails were long enough to mark their throats, they were long enough to mark their hands.

A skillfully applied ligature can solve both problems, the cord when pulled tight around the throat can cut into the skin causing bleeding. At this point the victim is alive but rendered unable to scream or breathe, only struggle. Scratches on her neck & bloodstained fingers are consistent with her attempting to loose the cord, in seconds she fall limp to the ground.
This scenario is consistent with what James Kent saw .




If he did use a ligature, why help the authorities by leaving the evidence for all the world to see?, after he cut the jugglar, just run your knife through the scar on the neck left by the cord and the evidence is gone.
Leaving some to wonder, perhaps, why two cuts to the throat?

Isn't that one question we ask today?

Regards, Jon S.

You talk about garotting and strangulation in terms of seconds, and that is a bit misleading. It takes at least 10 seconds to render someone unconscious through ischemia (the prevention of blood flow in and out of the brain). It takes at least 30 seconds to render someone unconscious through asphyxia. But even then there are other factors. Any ligature or hold designed to bring about ischemia leaves the vocal cords relatively free. They can't scream, but they can make noise. A garotte is designed to put so much pressure against the trachea that it is no longer capable of inducing ischemia. Which means that it took quite a bit longer for these women to be rendered unconscious. And these women did not die of ischemia.

There is a somewhat happy medium in one specific kind of garotte, and that's a wire one. A wire that simultaneously cuts both jugulars, both carotids, and the trachea would render someone incapable in seconds. Except we know that wasn't used. A garotte thin enough to cut the flesh of the neck is also capable of cutting through the neck. These women were not decapitated, nor did they have wire marks around their vertebrae. Anything thin enough to slice into the neck would have torn up the fingers of anyone trying to pull it away. And that didn't happen.

And there was no blood on the front of her dress, or on the fronts of her underclothes. Not a drop. And there would have been if her throat had been at all bloody when she was upright. And she had to have been upright when strangled. So were are still left with 30 seconds during which they should have fought like hell for their lives, and evidently didn't. A garotte isn't the answer. It may have been used, but it doesn't explain the quiescence of the victims.