Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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]

ho ho ho

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

Cheers.
LC