Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[Wickerman]

.... 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.

I had another look for examples, here is a quote where the reporter suggests he accompanied the jury to the mortuary to view Kelly's body.

"...Dr Macdonald's momentary wrath subsided, and he proposed that the jury should proceed to view the body and the scene of the murder. So the jury put on their hats, tightened their lips, and marched out, accompanied by a few pressmen.

...... There, in a coarse wooden shell lay the body the Ripper's latest victim. Only her face was visible: the hideous and disembowelled trunk was concealed by the dirty grey cloth, which had probably served to cover many a corpse. The face resembled one of those horrible was anatomical specimens which may be seen in surgical shops. The eyes were the only vestiges of humanity, the rest was so scored and slashed that it was impossible to say where the flesh began and the cuts ended. And yet it was no means a horrible sight. I have seen bodies in the Paris Morgue which looked far more repulsive.
Pall Mall Gazette, 12 Nov. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

I think there are probably any number of ways legitimate or otherwise that a reporter could get a view of a body. If nothing else, clearly security wasn't always what it could be. But can a reporter be trusted to interpret forensic evidence accurately? Or even report it accurately, since many reporters certainly exhibited a flair for the dramatic.

For example: When a hand that is covered in blood gets wiped off but not washed, the blood that has settled in the creases of the knuckles and fingers looks like abrasions. It looks like you've been punching a wall. And this is known to the point that when applying stage makeup to look like bruised knuckles etc. you pour stage blood on your hand and then wipe it off. Easier and as effective as applying bruise makeup to the hand. Especially at all the crap haunted houses I've worked at.

So if a reporter sees a hand that has been wiped of blood, will he recognize that or will he mistake it for bruised and abraded hands? If the hand in question is less than a foot away, then it becomes clear that it isn't an abrasion. Which is why the stage makeup trick doesn't work for film. But three feet away? A reporter could watch the morgue attendants wipe off the blood and still not realize that the hands are not injured. It's just not in their frame of reference. To most people, if it looks like a bruise it's a bruise. It's only to coroners that it doesn't become a bruise until completely clean and brightly lit.

And I hate to condemn the entire profession as lying liars, especially when most of them are good reporters. But even if they are correct in their description of what they saw, that still doesn't mean that they saw what they think they saw. If they say they saw a bruise, it could be a bruise. Or a smudge. Or a thumb print from the coroner who is handling the body while taking notes with a fountain pen, or a three day old bruise It doesn't matter if he is truthful or not, observant or not, I can't take a reporter's word on it. Even if it's true. I can't trust his judgement. He may be a legitimate observer, but he is not an informed one.

Of course, there are any number of doctor's whose judgement I don't trust either, my back surgeon heading the list. But while a doctor may screw up on the age of a bruise, he isn't going to screw up on the existence of one. A doctor may lie, he may be wrong, he may be incredibly lazy. But 99% of the time I could only argue with his conclusions, not his findings. If a doctor says there was a bruise, I may disagree about how it came to be there, but I can't challenge that it was in fact a bruise. Well, I suppose I can, but I'd need a damned good reason as to why.

[FrankO]

If he did use a ligature, why help the authorities by leaving the evidence for all the world to see?

How would that help the police, Jon? I would think that, however he killed his victims, there was a very good chance that he would never be caught as long as he managed to get away without being noticed. And, to stick to the thread's title, I don't think that was in a carriage.

All the best,
Frank

[RedBundy13]

carriage?

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

Hi Chris, I was just wondering how it is that you think he used a carriage? Thats actaully a new idea (kind of), now you just need some evidence to back up the claim. I know that JtR rode one in the movie From Hell, but I havent heard too many other people with the same thought. That it is that JtR had used a carriage while commiting the crimes. To me, I couldnt think of a worse way to make a quick exit, but maybe thats just it, no one would expect the Ripper to use a carriage and thats exactly why he did it. But what I would like to know, is do you know of any actuall evidence of the Ripper using a carriage in any of his crimes? I know I wouldnt have, I would have prefered to jump over fences and cut through doorways and small alleys ect. But you have a different thought so stick with it and try and find some material to back it up.

[Wickerman]

How would that help the police, Jon? I would think that, however he killed his victims, there was a very good chance that he would never be caught as long as he managed to get away without being noticed.

A number of criminals initially sentenced to 15-20 years for robbery using a ligature were let out early as 'ticket-of-leave' men.
The police obviously had the names of these 'ticket-of-leave' men and no doubt were on the lookout for crimes involving a ligature.

I don't think that was in a carriage.

Why not?
Go ahead Frank, lets see how much 'carriage-talk' we can accomplish.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

..... I know that JtR rode one in the movie From Hell, but I havent heard too many other people with the same thought.

No, and I don't think you will find any serious students of the case echoing the same thought either.

A wheeled vehicle was considered in the Nichols case, the police looked for evidence of wheels on the road but found none.
In that instance though it was because there had been a suggestion that Nichols may have been murdered elsewhere and her body brought by cart to Bucks Row.

Regards, Jon S.

[FrankO]

A number of criminals initially sentenced to 15-20 years for robbery using a ligature were let out early as 'ticket-of-leave' men.
The police obviously had the names of these 'ticket-of-leave' men and no doubt were on the lookout for crimes involving a ligature.

Perhaps that would have given them some direction, but wouldn't be a guarantee that they would find the Ripper. After all, the Ripper could not have used a ligature before in his entire criminal life and, more importantly, they still had to proove the man's guilt and that would be very difficult indeed, if not impossible, back in those days when no fingerprinting or forensics were around.

Why not?
Go ahead Frank, lets see how much 'carriage-talk' we can accomplish.

For one, no evidence of any carriage was found in or around any of the murder sites or Goulston Street.

Secondly, none of the witnesses spoken to by police or press even mentioned hearing or seeing a carriage near one of the murder sites or Goulston Street. And I would say a horse and cart moving across cobblestones make a considerable and distinct noise, that would be heard from rather far.

Thirdly, I would think that it would have been easier to move around on foot through all those small courts, backstreets and alley ways than it would be in a carriage of sorts.

All the best,
Frank

[Errata]

For one, no evidence of any carriage was found in or around any of the murder sites or Goulston Street.

Secondly, none of the witnesses spoken to by police or press even mentioned hearing or seeing a carriage near one of the murder sites or Goulston Street. And I would say a horse and cart moving across cobblestones make a considerable and distinct noise, that would be heard from rather far.

Thirdly, I would think that it would have been easier to move around on foot through all those small courts, backstreets and alley ways than it would be in a carriage of sorts.

All the best,
Frank

Horses freak out at the smell of blood. If Jack successfully hailed a cab, it would mean that he had washed up and changed clothes. And if he had a place to change and wash up, then he could escape the crimes scenes without the aid of a cab.

[chris14]

Thanks for the comments, guys. Obviously I don't have evidences for my opinion, but I don't think it's my idea alone. I first met this theory in the Jack The Ripper movie, Michael Caine version that was made for the centenary, in 1988. And it was absolute logical as they deducted it. It's hard to imagine that somebody could have killed (supposedly killing is not a silent business, there wasn't too much blood on the scene - and we all know how mutilated the bodies were - presumably the victims weren't killed on the scene where they were discovered. And this kind of murder needed time... Imagine London today... okay, in those times it wasn't as crowded as it is now, but yet...), escaped from the scenes without being noticed in soak-blood clothes, or hid away so soon. And of course, on the night of the double event it is more than obvious he needed a coach.

Yeah, it was dark, the streets and roads were in a bad condition perhaps, and obviously he knew the area very well. But darkness also meant that it would have been hard for him to "work".

Could any of you cut up a body (okay, let's be less morbid...) of a pig for example in pitch dark with a relatively good punctuality, even if you've got anatomical knowledge? And even if so, could you do it without having your pig voiceless, with a fear of failure, with a fear of being noticed or seen, possibly working in a hurry, but this kind of mutilation would take time, then hide away in blood-stained clothes when half of London is after you... The police would search for you in the tiniest alleyways as well.

Coaches and carriages were natural, it's no wonder that the witnesses didn't talk about hearing noises of coaches.

Chris

[Wickerman]

Perhaps that would have given them some direction, but wouldn't be a guarantee that they would find the Ripper.

Absolutely Frank.
Once the police find the ligature was used they would hunt down all known users. Time is on their side, eventually they will locate him unless he left the city or country. Witnesses saw someone near the murder scene, eventually Schwartz, PC Smith, Lawende, Lewis, Kennedy, Hutchinson, will identify him in a line-up whether it is weeks later or months later.
This killer did not want the police to find anything at the crime scene with which they could tie him to the murder. Especially if he was a 'ticket-of-leave' man.

For one, no evidence of any carriage was found in or around any of the murder sites or Goulston Street.

Secondly, none of the witnesses spoken to by police or press even mentioned hearing or seeing a carriage near one of the murder sites or Goulston Street. And I would say a horse and cart moving across cobblestones make a considerable and distinct noise, that would be heard from rather far.

Thirdly, I would think that it would have been easier to move around on foot through all those small courts, backstreets and alley ways than it would be in a carriage of sorts.

And there we have it, the three points that effectively kill the thread, which should have been the second post.

I agree entirely. Incidently, when I asked "why not?", it was in response to your apparent suggestion that he could not have used the ligature in a carriage, (...I don't think that was in a carriage...) but of course he could.
But lets not go off on an aimless tangent debating the pro's & con's of using a ligature in a carriage.

To be fair though, the first post did ask a slightly different question.
The question was, after walking away from the murder scene, did the killer hail a cab on the main road.
That is a possibility. Maybe not a popular one but nevertheless possible.
The police checked the crime scene for signs of a carriage, not the main road.

Thanks for the comments, guys. Obviously I don't have evidences for my opinion, but I don't think it's my idea alone. I first met this theory in the Jack The Ripper movie, Michael Caine version that was made for the centenary, in 1988. And it was absolute logical as they deducted it....

See the difference is Chris, you appear to suggest the murder was conducted in the carriage and the body dumped from the carriage as it passed along a dark street.
That is not the question the first post was asking.

Regards, Jon S.