Escape Routes From Dutfield's Yard: Pall Mall Gazette

[Monty]

Tom,

Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes all had their throats cut, all had abdominal mutilations and all lay in similar positions.

To state a question mark hangs over Eddowes if fine, however she has far more connections to the other victims than Stride, who you accept as a victim.

Whilst Stride cannot be catagorically dismissed her lack of mutilations, coupled with the fact her neck wound was committed by a far blunter weapon (to name but two reasons) than the others brings question her being a victim of Jack the Ripper.

The probabilty was that the victims chose the sites, not the killer.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

coupled with the fact her neck wound was committed by a far blunter weapon

Hi Monty. I have to assume you're having fun with me. As long as you've studied the case, you can't be this ignorant.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

No, you know better than that.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Monty's blunt knife

I have no idea what you mean, but for the sake of those following this thread, let me point out for the gazillionth time that the knife used to kill Stride was in no way blunt, and that is a medical fact. The knife found a street away the next day by Thomas Coram and discussed at the inquest was, in fact, blunt, but has nothing to do with the Stride murder. This is one of the many myths that surround the Stride case. There is one - AND ONLY ONE - legitimate reason for presuming Stride was not a Ripper victim, and that is the lack of mutilation. The other reasons often given are woven together from modern invention, misinterpretation of the evidence, or wild imagination.

I strongly recommend reading my essay 'Exonerating Michael Kidney' in Casebook Examiner #1. Apparently no one else has read it, so someone has to be the first.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

The physicians agreed that a blunt end knife would be problematic and that the knife used was sharp and employed skillfully - as opposed to just stabbing her in the neck; the usual trademark of a domestic.

As for the width of the entrance to Dutfield's Yard, yes, I meant to say gateway. The passage on the north side (No. 40) actually appeared to taper a little toward the back and could have been narrower at the point where the back of No. 42 cornered and the tenements started. The width of the passage itself would depend on how the gates were supported. Each gate was described as 4' 6" which would still leave 2 inches somewhere.

P.S.- Some of us did read your article, Tom, and thought it was well reasoned.

[Monty]

Tom,

Now you really should know better.

Im not referring to the Coram/Drage incident at all.

Im referring to Dr Phillips, who by the time of Strides murder had 23 years worth of Police Surgeonin' compared to.... what experience have you on Police Surgery again Tom?

Whilst you implore the Dear reader to read your no doubt excellent article, I ask them to cross reference any note given by the medical experts.

For they will note that the murders were commited by a man holding a sharp knife with a point, apart from Stride whos throat did not show signs of being cut by a pointed knife....according to Phillips.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Just to add a couple of points to Neils.

Stride was found on her left side and not on her back, if she had her throat cut while she was lying on her back, then why roll her over on to her side afterwards?

And there is a 10 to 15 minute gap before Strides body was found that her movements are unaccounted for. Which is more than enough time for her to be mutilated.

And Tom, I did read your 'Exonerating Michael Kidney' article, and I have still no idea where you got Hanbury Street was a stones throw from Berner Street from.

Rob

[Hamrammr]

Your assuming you know the mind of the killer.


I am, but I think it is a fair assumption to make.



About six or seven feet away from the entrance and and probably with his back to it as well.
I'm basing my opinions on the murder locations themselves and not the positions of where the victim and murderer is as there are too many ifs and buts to think about.

Millers Court, one way in and out and that's a doorway.
Dutfields Yard, one way in and one way out, 9 ft 2in gateway.
Hanbury Street, the main entrance plus the possibility of other escape points over neighbouring fences (East and West) into alleyways leading back to Hanbury Street. Also the back door of 29 Hanbury Steet would have given him some cover from the main street.
Mitre Square three exits
Bucks Row, two exits possibly a third.

Rob

It is a fair point about Miller's Court being the most dangerous location because there's only one way in and out. Could we therefore speculate that the killer knew Mary and was known to the locals so that if someone knocked on the door after hearing something, the killer could talk his way out of any trouble. Certainly Joe Barnett would be ok, and maybe some of Mary's clients.

[Rubyretro]

I'm certainly with the people that think Hanbury road was the most dangerous location. Also with those that think it was the victim that chose the location, not Jack (although he might have questioned them as to the privacy of the spot).

If Mary was asleep when the killer pounced (indeed entered the room whilst she was in a drink-heavy semi-comotose state), then there was no risk of any noise (as opposed to the other murders). With a coat over the window, any unlikely client knocking on the door in the early hours and being replied to with a male 'grunt', would have gone on his way (Mary being a prostitute it can't have been unusual for her to have male company).

I agree that the most dangerous part was his leaving and reaching back through the window to re-lock the door.

[Hamrammr]

I think the idea that the killer would feel safe to carry out his work in Miller's Court without fear of interruption is a bit off. It comes down to individual personality. He may have felt content to do this, but may also have felt caged in and skittish wondering if he was going to be discovered at any moment.

Closing the door behind him seems very odd to me. It's not like it would have affected how much time he had to get away. Perhaps the door had a habit of swinging open when not secure?

[claire]

Oh, come on, haven't we been down this track a hundred times before? The Miller's Court door was on a spring lock, as pointed out by Sam Flynn in the past, and did not require anyone reaching in through any window to lock it. And why would he not shut the door? It's an instinctive act, isn't it? And, if you think about it, the chances of someone stopping by at that hour was remote--when her neighbour had had enough of her singing, she was discouraged from complaining by her hubby; no one moved a muscle at the 'oh murder' cry; what would it have taken for someone to reach around the old overcoat and peer into a darkened room in the antisocial hours? Or, less likely, try and open the door?

It's not that there was no risk of this happening, but clearly the killer decided that it was one sufficiently remote for him to be prepared to take it. Far less risky than Hanbury St.

[Tom_Wescott]

Im referring to Dr Phillips, who by the time of Strides murder had 23 years worth of Police Surgeonin' compared to.... what experience have you on Police Surgery again Tom?

Whilst you implore the Dear reader to read your no doubt excellent article, I ask them to cross reference any note given by the medical experts.

For they will note that the murders were commited by a man holding a sharp knife with a point, apart from Stride whos throat did not show signs of being cut by a pointed knife....according to Phillips.

I likewise implore you and all others to cross reference anything I publish with the best sources available. In doing so, you'll find the doctors stating that the knife used on Stride was sharp. Due to the fact that the point of the knife never came into contact with her body, it would be impossible for them to say that the knife used on her had a blunt or sharp tip, although they conceded that the murderer would have hindered himself by using a blunt-tipped knife, so the likelihood would be that the knife-tip was as sharp as the blade.

Stride was found on her left side and not on her back, if she had her throat cut while she was lying on her back, then why roll her over on to her side afterwards?

Stride was not on her back when her throat was cut. None of the victims were. With the exception of Kelly, who was on her right side, the other victims were turned to their left side, as evidenced by the blood flow. This assured the Ripper he'd get as little blood on himself as possible.

And Tom, I did read your 'Exonerating Michael Kidney' article, and I have still no idea where you got Hanbury Street was a stones throw from Berner Street from.

Or at least you read Caz's post. LOL. And you've never seen me throw a stone. It sucks living in a glass house.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

How wonderfully contradicting Thomas,

The knife must have been sharp because it just musta been even though we couldnt tell if it was or it was not sharp.

I agree, I suggest primary evidence is reviewed and not influenced by preconception nor assessment by others.

And your suggestion of rolling a dead body away in order to cut the throat is physically awkward and pointless. Why would he do that? There is no evidence of arterial spray.

And in the case of Eddowes, flow would have been towards the killer due to the camber of the paving anyway.

Monty


PS I owe you an apology Tom. Having just seen the Eddowes sketch, clooted blood was on Eddowes left whilst fluid blood upon her right. Indicatind the blood did indeed flow that way first of all.

I like to think Im fair and thought it only correct I pointed that out.

[Tom_Wescott]

How wonderfully contradicting Thomas,

The knife must have been sharp because it just musta been even though we couldnt tell if it was or it was not sharp.

I agree, I suggest primary evidence is reviewed and not influenced by preconception nor assessment by others.

If anything is contradictory, it's coming from Drs Phillips and Blackwell, as there's no preconception or 'assessment' by me, I'm just repeating what they said. My words, again, were Due to the fact that the point of the knife never came into contact with her body, it would be impossible for them to say that the knife used on her had a blunt or sharp tip, although they conceded that the murderer would have hindered himself by using a blunt-tipped knife, so the likelihood would be that the knife-tip was as sharp as the blade. Now, while perhaps I should have said "so there's no reason to assume the tip was any less sharp than the blade", the argument still stands and it comes straight from the doctors.

And your suggestion of rolling a dead body away in order to cut the throat is physically awkward and pointless. Why would he do that? There is no evidence of arterial spray.

Are we studying the same series of murders? The fence next to Chapman and the wall next to Kelly were painted in arterial spray. The wounds afflicted on Eddowes, Nichols and Stride were cut when on their side, so the blood flow went towards the ground. In the case of Nichols, who was on an inclined driveway into a stable yard, the blood hit the ground and flowed down under her body and into a gutter. In the case of Stride her neck was atop a large stone upon which much blood was collected; the rest of the blood flowed from the stone into the make-shift gutter and towards the steps into the kitchen of the club. In the case of Eddowes, who was on level ground, the blood hit the pavement and flowed outward.

PS I owe you an apology Tom. Having just seen the Eddowes sketch, clooted blood was on Eddowes left whilst fluid blood upon her right. Indicatind the blood did indeed flow that way first of all.

I like to think Im fair and thought it only correct I pointed that out.

Thank you for that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[GregBaron]

Cutting angles........

Hey Tom,

I'm just trying to get the visual here (as awful as it is) so I
assume JtR strangled the women to unconsciousness and then laid them
on the ground. It would seem he would have to push them onto their
sides as natural gravity would tend toward flat on the back. So he
pushes them onto their sides and begins to cut...it would also seem he
would have to pull their hair backward to expose the neck unobtrusively and
begin the cut from the ground back toward himself. This seems pretty
awkward and I'm not sure he could exert enough pressure to effect near
decapitation as he did in several instances. Or would a super fast slice
with a very sharp knife evince the necessary depth? I kind of imagined
him almost sawing with a fair degree of force from above where he could
use his weight while cutting...........is my imagery off base?



Greg