Team Jack

[lynn cates]

food for thought

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, that version offers food for thought.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

"Mrs Mortimer should have heard something leading up to 1 o'clock."

I get the impression that she was not an attentive soul. She did not catch Eygle or Lave.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

The issue I have with her is the two different stories from the press, which may, or may not be her fault.

The Daily News has her coming to the door likely just after both Eygle & Lave had passed.

"It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there for ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard, and she feels sure that had any one done so she could not have overlooked the fact."

That account fits better with what we read from other witnesses (Eygle & Lave) in the street. This suggests Mortimer was at the door for about 10 minutes between 12:40-45 until 12:50-55, and then we read:

"...Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard the pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband."

She then hears Diemschitz on his cart, at about 1:00 am?

The only contention is with the story handed to us by Schwartz. But, was the 'heavy tramp' really a policeman?

The more often quoted Press Association? release does not easily fit with anything we read elsewhere.

[lynn cates]

Goldstein

Hello Dave. Thanks.

To be fair, she DID catch Goldstein.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

I get the impression that she was not an attentive soul. She did not catch Eygle or Lave.

I'm inclined to agree Lynn...mind you, it depends what time she was actually (as opposed to perceptibly) looking...All timings in the LVP, (unless within easy reach of either Big Ben or a railway company electric telegraph), just have to be suspect...or at least subject to a filter of some kind...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Phillips and Mortimer

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Phillips was quite naturally only commenting on what the physical evidence suggests to him with this one particular murder."

And rightly so.

"Mrs Mortimer should have heard something leading up to 1 o'clock."

I get the impression that she was not an attentive soul. She did not catch Eygle or Lave.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

There's two reasons attacked women don't fight. They think they might survive if they don't fight, or they physically can't.

I never thought about that in terms of the Ripper murders, but it is true that once upon a time, women were told not to fight back when you were confronted with a rapist, because you would be "just" raped, whereas if you fought back, you would be beaten, possibly killed, and probably raped anyway.

This was back when the rapists were in charge of rape-prevention seminars.

Seriously, that was the advice given to women, from the time I was old enough to hear such advice (I'm pretty sure I even read it in Ann Landers column), until I was about 15, when women's self-defense classes started to pop up all over. It probably had more to do with the surge of women into the work force-- there was greater awareness of sexual harassment, and just a lot of things changed. But someone finally did a study and discovered that statistically, women who fought back frequently did not get raped. Occasionally they got bruised, but they didn't get killed, and they didn't get hurt so badly they ended up in the hospital.

Later interviews with men convicted of rape confirmed this. It mainly applied to stranger-rapes, and other kinds of attack, or blitz rapes, but not a lot was known about rape then, there weren't really categories of rape, and some people still thought it was libidos gone amok.

Research in the 21st century showed that there are basically four types, or psychologies of rapist, and two types are looking for the easiest target, which means that if your are struggling and screaming, let alone kicking and punching, he'll go on to someone else. There's one type or rapist, the rarest kind, who has often already made up his mind that he's going to kill his victim before he even goes out. There's not much you can do unless you fight and actually win (there was a story in the paper once about a guy with previous sexual assault charges, who thought he was picking a petite, fragile woman, but she was a professional dancer, wearing Doc Martins, and she kicked him and broke his kneecap, so it does happen), and it takes luck, and maybe some mistiming on his part-- the nearest business was closed, but someone was working late.

Anyway, I don't know if advice along these lines was given to women in the Victorian era, but among women who lived on the street, it may have been common wisdom. After all, some men who would not rape another women see a moral difference in raping a prostitute, because it's more along the lines of petty theft-- if she's selling it for three pence, then a rapist is essentially stealing three pence from her. In fact, even as recent as 2011, it's hard to charge a man with raping a prostitute, but some DAs, in order not to let them go completely free, have settled for "theft of services." I'm not impressed, but it is better than nothing.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"it is a shame the doctors had not entertained strangulation at the time."

Phillips did.

Ah, yes of course he did with Chapman.
I was meaning broadly speaking across the murders because we read the repeated astonishment from the doctors at being unable to account for the silence of the victims.
Strangulation would have accounted for it had they entertained the possibility with each victim.
Phillips was quite naturally only commenting on what the physical evidence suggests to him with this one particular murder.

"We might also consider the scarf worn by Stride in these thoughts?"

Given no overt signs, I think rather that it merely pulled her off balance.

But here we are again faced with the absence of noise, and even if the singing from the club drowned out any screams Mrs Mortimer should have heard something leading up to 1 o'clock.

[Cogidubnus]

At the Chapman Inquest mention is certainly made (by Robert Mann) of a handkerchief being produced, which had blood on it, as though it had been worn around the neck...and Timothy Donovan testified that Chapman was in the habit of wearing it around her throat...also a piece of black woollen scarf, tied in the front with one knot....

As Jon implies, an Interesting possible parallel with Liz Stride...

All the best

Dave

PS Sorry Lynn, I hadn't seen your post...we crossed...think between us we got there

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"it is a shame the doctors had not entertained strangulation at the time."

Phillips did.

"From a layman's point of view the broad scarf (as opposed to a narrow cord), might leave less distinct signs of application but would be equally effective if pulled tight enough, wouldn't you think?"

I think so

"We might also consider the scarf worn by Stride in these thoughts?"

Given no overt signs, I think rather that it merely pulled her off balance.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"Vertical scratches are not easily explained as coming from the killer, so regardless how we choose to envisage the how's & why's of Annie Chapman's struggle to grasp the cord (assuming one was used), the source of the scratches are more than likely from Annie's own fingernails."

Quite.

And, rather than a cord, could her scarf have been employed here?

Cheers.
LC

We might think so, it is a shame the doctors had not entertained strangulation at the time. The way the scarf was tied may have presented it as a likely cause, or equally, ruled it out.
We can only speculate.

From a layman's point of view the broad scarf (as opposed to a narrow cord), might leave less distinct signs of application but would be equally effective if pulled tight enough, wouldn't you think?

(We might also consider the scarf worn by Stride in these thoughts?)

[lynn cates]

scarf

Hello Jon.

"Vertical scratches are not easily explained as coming from the killer, so regardless how we choose to envisage the how's & why's of Annie Chapman's struggle to grasp the cord (assuming one was used), the source of the scratches are more than likely from Annie's own fingernails."

Quite.

And, rather than a cord, could her scarf have been employed here?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

It's not like a balloon. A person standing upright with a bruise on their forehead does not have the bruise slowly slide down their face (and the idea of that gave me the cold grues). It's really on an almost cellular level. The skin is attached to the tissue. Fluids released stay local. Similarly gasses.

I was pointing out the difference between a bruise on a dead body and one on a live person.
Blood & fluid is still circulating while they live, but Eddowes was dead and on her back.

As for Eddowes having her throat cut while upright, there's not much of a chance that happened. It's a theory based solely on the small amount of time available, and not based on any evidence. None of them showed any signs of having their throats cut while upright.

Right, but Chapman's fingernails were swollen and she had scratches on her neck, apparently running vertical when compared to the horizontal cut. The reason we see no scratches around her larynx could easily be that the cord had already bitten into her flesh and the only location where the cord was accessible was where it was exiting her skin towards the killers fingers.

Vertical scratches are not easily explained as coming from the killer, so regardless how we choose to envisage the how's & why's of Annie Chapman's struggle to grasp the cord (assuming one was used), the source of the scratches are more than likely from Annie's own fingernails.

[Errata]

When there are no holes (wounds?) in the skin to permit these gases to escape then yes, but this was not the case with the body of Eddowes.

It's not like a balloon. A person standing upright with a bruise on their forehead does not have the bruise slowly slide down their face (and the idea of that gave me the cold grues). It's really on an almost cellular level. The skin is attached to the tissue. Fluids released stay local. Similarly gasses.

As for Eddowes having her throat cut while upright, there's not much of a chance that happened. It's a theory based solely on the small amount of time available, and not based on any evidence. None of them showed any signs of having their throats cut while upright.

[Wickerman]

She may have had her throat cut while upright. And she would be the only one to have had that done.

I have yet to hear of anyone promoting this idea, given the evidence to the contrary.

But more important than the blood would be the fluid in the tissue. When tissue is mashed, a lot of fluid is released.

How do you mean 'mashed'?, are you suggesting she was beaten about the face?

Thus juicers. But if the tissue is still encased in skin, the fluid drains to the space between the tissue and the skin, and it swells and distorts. Which is why when boxers have an eye swell shut, they have someone cut the swollen part. A little blood and a lot of fluid looks like a lot of blood. But it is mostly fluid.

But Boxers are still on their feet. If this was the cause it would be the back of her head which was swollen, and her face would be gaunt. The fluid will gravitate to the lowest point.

And to be frank, there is a window of time in which corpses really don't look so good. When they are swollen and sort of.. doughy. It's an early part of the putrefaction process (and a later one as well if you give it long enough) and if memory serves thats after about 10 hours maybe? but it only lasts a couple of hours.

When there are no holes (wounds?) in the skin to permit these gases to escape then yes, but this was not the case with the body of Eddowes.

[lynn cates]

"Behold the upright."

Hello Errata.

"She may have had her throat cut while upright."

But no arterial spray?

Cheers.
LC