J. H. Scott

[Jack Whicher]

Jon S
You say:
1. "All of the above considerations make it very precarious for us today to assume we can determine with any accuracy when Chapman actually died.
All we can reasonably assume for certain is, Dr Phillips was not really sure."
2. "The problem we have is quantifying what "evidently commencing" means." (The plain meaning is "obviously starting")
3. "So, as Phillips remarked on the "limbs" we might infer rigor had already begun in the smaller muscles" (The problem is that if you did, you would be manufacturing evidence because no one observed this.)

Lets examine the logic of your position:

At 6:30 the ME sees rigor-mortis starting in her limbs. Your counter-argument, that rigor was more extensive than Phillips noticed, actually supports "dumping." Here's how: Lets suppose that she was in complete rigor at 6:30 AM: this would mean she had been killed at 2:30 AM or earlier because the more developed the rigor, the longer she had been dead and the earlier she died. To rebut "dumping" one must show less rigor not more.


Back to facts: medical literature is clear that in the absence of factors which delay or accelerate onset, rigor mortis commences in 2 - 4 hours.

An experienced ME said rigor was starting at 6:30 which places time of death at 4:30 or earlier because there was a delaying factor: cold ambient temperature.

Conclusion at 4:55 AM Chapman was dead and her body wasn't in the courtyard.
She was dumped.

[Rosella]

Hi Jack and welcome.

Can I just ask a question please? Is there any evidence that this clergyman, who worked so hard among the poor of his parish, suffered from 'sexual-sadistic urges' and felt the need to gratify these with the poorest women of this area?

[RockySullivan]

The Torso Murders do not support the theory that the victims were killed elsewhere.

Therefore we can conclude that:
a. they were not Ripper killings because they do not fit his method of killing, or
b. Ripper killed his victims where he left the bodies. (then you have to explain Chapman)
I believe a is correct because it embraces Richardson's testimony.

So the torso victims were killed where they were found?

The killer carried chapman through the hallway into the backyard of hanbury st?

Which Testimony of Richardson's does it embrace? The one where he didn't go into the yard, the one where he did, the one where cobbled his boot with a butter knife or the one where he cobbled his boot at work, or the one where he kept his rabbit in his pocket?

[RockySullivan]

Jon S
You say:
1. "All of the above considerations make it very precarious for us today to assume we can determine with any accuracy when Chapman actually died.
All we can reasonably assume for certain is, Dr Phillips was not really sure."
2. "The problem we have is quantifying what "evidently commencing" means." (The plain meaning is "obviously starting")
3. "So, as Phillips remarked on the "limbs" we might infer rigor had already begun in the smaller muscles" (The problem is that if you did, you would be manufacturing evidence because no one observed this.)

Lets examine the logic of your position:

At 6:30 the ME sees rigor-mortis starting in her limbs. Your counter-argument, that rigor was more extensive than Phillips noticed, actually supports "dumping." Here's how: Lets suppose that she was in complete rigor at 6:30 AM: this would mean she had been killed at 2:30 AM or earlier because the more developed the rigor, the longer she had been dead and the earlier she died. To rebut "dumping" one must show less rigor not more.


Back to facts: medical literature is clear that in the absence of factors which delay or accelerate onset, rigor mortis commences in 2 - 4 hours.

An experienced ME said rigor was starting at 6:30 which places time of death at 4:30 or earlier because there was a delaying factor: cold ambient temperature.

Conclusion at 4:55 AM Chapman was dead and her body wasn't in the courtyard.
She was dumped.

I've got another solution for you. Chapman was killed in the basement of 29 banbury (that the police never searched) and wasn't brought out until later.

[DJA]

Brrrrr, John! You used the c-word. Don´t!

Crikey,do you reckon he enlisted the aid of a carman!

[Jack Whicher]

So the torso victims were killed where they were found?

The killer carried chapman through the hallway into the backyard of hanbury st?

Which Testimony of Richardson's does it embrace? The one where he didn't go into the yard, the one where he did, the one where cobbled his boot with a butter knife or the one where he cobbled his boot at work, or the one where he kept his rabbit in his pocket?

First: I didn't say the torso killings took place where the bodies were found, I said they didn't support the dumping theory because they weren't Ripper killings.

Second: Of course the killer carried her through the hallway into the back yard; being dead, she was quite unable to walk on her own.

Third: The testimony I reference is that Chapman was not in the courtyard.

Lastly: You should re-read Richardson's statements (see below) because your questions are quite inaccurate on these points:

1. There are only two statements by Richardson in the Ripper record not the five you reference: One is a statement repeated by a witness at the Chapman inquest and the other is Richardson’s inquisition testimony.

2. He NEVER said he went into the yard, he ALWAYS said he sat on the steps.

3. His knife was never described as a "butter knife"

4. He never said he "cobbled his boot at work" he said he borrowed a knife at work

5. He never said he kept a rabbit in his pocket, he said he kept the knife he used to prepare food for a rabbit in his pocket.

Otherwise, you're spot on.



Richardson Statement #1
[Witness] He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot?
[Witness] No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time?
[Witness] Yes.

Richardson Statement #2
I assist my mother in her business.
I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
At this stage witness was dispatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.
John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot.
He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

[Jack Whicher]

Crikey,do you reckon he enlisted the aid of a carman!

Doubtful.

Any other insights, or was that your best shot?

[harry]

Jack,
I'll ask again. Why didn't the killer place(dump) Chapman outside 29 Hanbury Street,if indeed she was brought from elsewhere.What is the significance of the back yard?Why go the extra distance.?Why move her from where she was killed?

[RockySullivan]

First: I didn't say the torso killings took place where the bodies were found, I said they didn't support the dumping theory because they weren't Ripper killings.

Second: Of course the killer carried her through the hallway into the back yard; being dead, she was quite unable to walk on her own.

Third: The testimony I reference is that Chapman was not in the courtyard.

Lastly: You should re-read Richardson's statements (see below) because your questions are quite inaccurate on these points:

1. There are only two statements by Richardson in the Ripper record not the five you reference: One is a statement repeated by a witness at the Chapman inquest and the other is Richardson’s inquisition testimony.

2. He NEVER said he went into the yard, he ALWAYS said he sat on the steps.

3. His knife was never described as a "butter knife"

4. He never said he "cobbled his boot at work" he said he borrowed a knife at work

5. He never said he kept a rabbit in his pocket, he said he kept the knife he used to prepare food for a rabbit in his pocket.

Otherwise, you're spot on.



Richardson Statement #1
[Witness] He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot?
[Witness] No.
[Coroner] Did he say that he was sure the woman was not there at that time?
[Witness] Yes.

Richardson Statement #2
I assist my mother in her business.
I went to 29, Hanbury-street, between 4,45 a.m. and 4.50 a.m. on Saturday last. I went to see if the cellar was all secure, as some while ago there was a robbery there of some tools. I have been accustomed to go on market mornings since the time when the cellar was broken in.
[Coroner] Was the front door open? - No, it was closed. I lifted the latch and went through the passage to the yard door.
[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long. I kept the knife upstairs at John-street. I had been feeding a rabbit with a carrot that I had cut up, and I put the knife in my pocket. I do not usually carry it there. After cutting the leather off my boot I tied my boot up, and went out of the house into the market. I did not close the back door. It closed itself. I shut the front door.
[Coroner] How long were you there? - About two minutes at most.
[Coroner] Was it light? - It was getting light, but I could see all over the place.
[Coroner] Did you notice whether there was any object outside? - I could not have failed to notice the deceased had she been lying there then. I saw the body two or three minutes before the doctor came. I was then in the adjoining yard. Thomas Pierman had told me about the murder in the market. When I was on the doorstep I saw that the padlock on the cellar door was in its proper place.
[Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.
At this stage witness was dispatched by the coroner to fetch his knife.
John Richardson (recalled) produced the knife - a much-worn dessert knife - with which he had cut his boot.
He added that as it was not sharp enough he had borrowed another one at the market.

Aren't there a number of accounts Richardson gave? I know i have read more than those too. Carrying a dead body through the streets and into a house, through the hallways down into the backyard? If Chapman was killed anywhere other than that spot, it was in the basement in my opinion.

[John G]

Hello Jack,

Unfortunately rigor mortis is a very imprecise means of determining the time of death; and that remains the case today despite advances in forensic pathology. This is because there are numerous variables that impact on the progression of rigor mortis, such as ambient temperature; fat distribution (fat acts as insulation causing rigor to progress more slowly); physical exertion prior to death ( this can result in instant onset, known as cadaveric spasm, i.e. because the cells are depleted of oxygen and ATP- this is why a victim of a violent attack may still be clutching an article);or illness (in those suffering from a debilitating disease, for example, rigor will progress quickly, and Annie had been ill.)

As has been noted before, a great deal of caution is required when placing reliance on the conclusions of Victorian GPs.

[Jack Whicher]

I agree, there is not the remotest evidence that any of the C5 victims, or Tabram, were abducted or that the killer used dusmp sites. In fact, if that happened then we are surely dealing with a major conspiracy.

How odd.

A working knowledge of criminology usually includes familiarity with the case histories of serial killers who, acting alone, abducted their victims and dumped their bodies.
For example:
1. The green River Killer dumped the bodies of at least 48 women without an accomplice.
2. William Devin Howell, acting alone, killed 7 women and dumped their bodies behind a strip-mall.
3. Ronald Dominique killed 23 men and dumped their bodies near New Orleans

I could go on, but it clearly isn't necessary to have an accomplice or form a conspiracy to kill 5 women and dump their bodies.

[DJA]

How odd.

A working knowledge of criminology usually includes familiarity with the case.

A bit of time and effort required there.

Epic FAIL!

[Jack Whicher]

A bit of time and effort required there.

Epic FAIL!

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, page 2, lines 26-28.

[DJA]

Prolly many ex clients glad that you took up English Literature.

[Jack Whicher]

Long-time member, first-time poster.

Grateful if you could clarify what mode of transportation your proposed suspect used to convey the bodies to their place of discovery.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

He put them in a container the size of a medium suitcase or large gym bag and carried them.

Here are YouTube videos of full size people in suitcases and bags

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMy9OsSc4HA&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHvDYA6--YA&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816&index=26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHba19ZA6EY&index=32&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA08zB1KtKI&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816&index=50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHQzTvuwEyY&index=65&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWTKbKo2NCo&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816&index=73

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPC2Z9DuV3U&index=122&list=PL97522CBDD34D9816

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egewSXtu8YI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQN9nrzILeY