|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Could Chloroform silenced the victims?
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
Could Chloroform silenced the victims?
Author: Elizabeth Anne Ritter
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:06 pm |        | With all the the talk about only two of the women crying out (Kelly and Chapman.) and not a sound was heard from the others could the Ripper used a mild dose of chloroform to keep the victim from making a sound?
With all the women being drunk at the time a mild dose of the drug just placed barely over their faces could cause them to panic breathe heavily and in their drunken state pass out quickly as the Ripper made his move with his knife.
That sounds like a good question what do you think? |
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 12:59 pm | | | I do believe it is probable that Jack the Ripper could have used chloroform, but did he really have to? If it is suggested that he strangled his victims before the knife was used, pressure on their vocal cords would suppress any screams that would be exerted. I don't really think there would be any need for chloroform, but I wouldn't rule it out. |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 05:18 pm | | Rebecca,
Probable is a word I use very lightly in this case. 
As far as I know, there was no evidence of chloroform being used - then again, I am unsure if there were any tests for choloroform available at the time. Something I'll need to look up.
What is simpler, and born out by the available forensic evidence, is that he strangled them and the held their heads as he slit their throats - based on the bruising and lack of screams.
If he brought choloroform along, that'd be just one more thing he'd have to carry, besides the knife, and the organs he'd be taking away.
So, I think it is possible he could've used it, but not probable.
B |
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 11:25 am | | You make a good point that it would be one more thing he would have to carry.
That was one concern of mine when writing my previous post. Also, he was working on a very tight time schedule, so chloroform would also waste time. Thank you for responding, I have just started studying this and am eager to learn more.
Take Care |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 12:40 am | | Rebecca,
Keep studying! As I have been frequently told by all of the people on the boards, the more you learn about this case, the less you know.
B |
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 08:18 am | | | I just find it confusing that there are so many different theories. When I first came to this forum, I took about 3 hours to just read everything so that I wouldnt be confused when posting. However, I am still studying it and learning more. Thanks for your patience while answering my questions! |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:39 am | | Rebecca, I think some of the older hands here will remember the suggestion of chloroform being used was taken up 2 yrs ago.
Read below, posts from Ashling, Alex & Caz.
-------------------------------------------
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 04:08 am
Dear JON, CHRIS, et al. I brought up chloroform burning in chat with Stewart once ... can't recall if I posted on the boards or not.
I doubt the conditions of administration by a doctor would match those employed by an attacker. The doctor might hold the mask or cloth near the patient's mouth without letting it directly touch the skin. An attacker would press the cloth against the victim's mouth to prevent them from squirming away--therefore the victim's mouth would be burned.
The quote below is from a police academy manual, Homicide Investigation: Practical Information for Coroners, Police Officers and other Investigators by Lemoyne Snyder:
"Chloroform is a heavy, colorless liquid with a characteristic odor and sweet taste. It is noninflammable. It is very irritating when applied to the mucous membranes or to the skin. As an anesthetic, its very rapid in its action; a few drops on a mask will produce unconsciousness. The margin of safety is small; it is a dangerous drug to use, and its use should be limited to those who have had extensive training and experience in this field. Due to its quick action, it has at times been employed to commit a murder. This is usually done by pouring a considerable quantity on a cloth and holding it over the victim's face. Under such conditions, the gas is so concentrated that the breath is shut off and death from asphyxiation takes place rapidly.
From the Times Oct. 5, 1888 = Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown testifying at Eddowes' inquest:
"By a juryman. - He did not think any drug was administered to the woman, judging from the breath; but he had not yet examined the contents of the stomach."
If I find anything in the inquest testimonies that specifically mentions choloroform, I'll post it later.
Hope this helps.
Ashling
...................................
Author: alex chisholm
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:02 am
On the subject of possible drugging, etc., I thought the following might be of interest.
Times 2 Oct. 1888:
"TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir – Paying my daily visit to my church this afternoon I was surprised to find the caretaker in a semi-stupefied state.
Asking her what was the matter, she told me that a man had just entered the church, and finding her all alone inquired whether I was in the vestry. On receiving a reply in the negative he said, “I see you are alone,” and immediately took out a pocket-handkerchief and dashed it in her face. The strong smell of whatever liquid it had been steeped in dazed and stupefied her, and she for a moment or two lost her consciousness. The noise of some of the workmen on the roof seemed to have alarmed this scoundrel, and he bolted out of the church.
This incident, Sir, perhaps might afford a clue. At any rate, it will warn solitary women who are in charge of churches.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
J. M. S. BROOKE
Vestry of St. Mary Woolnoth and St. Mary Woolchurch Haw, Lombard-street, E.C."
Daily Telegraph 4 Oct. 1888:
"TO THE EDITOR OF "THE DAILY TELEGRAPH."
SIR - A remarkable incident in connection with the above is that in no one instance has it been found that the victim made any noise or cry while being done to death. My assistant suggests a theory in reference to this very remarkable fact, which strikes me as having something in it, and as such ought to be made public.
The theory is that the murderer goes about with a vial of rum or brandy in his pocket drugged with an opiate - such as a solution of morphia, which is almost if not quite tasteless - that he offers a swig of it to his victims (which they would all be likely to greedily accept) when he meets them; that in about ten to twenty minutes the poison begins to do its work on constitutions well soaked with alcohol, and that then they are easily dispatched without fear of making any noise or call for assistance.
Having been out of town lately for my holidays, I have not closely followed the evidence at the inquests but there are two questions which would require clearing up, if there is anything in this theory - First, Have the stomachs of most of them been ripped open to do away with the evidence of poisoning in this manner; and, second, has any analysis of the contents of the stomachs been made? - Yours respectfully,
R. MACDONALD,
Coroner for North-East Middlesex.
65, West Ferry-road, Millwall, E. Oct. 3."
Coverage of Dr. Phillips’ evidence to Stride Inquest, carried in the Daily Telegraph 6 Oct. 1888, included the following:
"Was there any appearance of an opiate or any smell of chloroform? - There was no perceptible trace of any anaesthetic or narcotic. The absence of noise is a difficult question under the circumstances of this case to account for, but it must not be taken for granted that there was not any noise. If there was an absence of noise I cannot account for it."
Best Wishes
alex
......................................
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 07:56 am
Hi All,
The News of The World 7 Oct. 1888:
Women were conducted to the slaughter, they were seen in conversation with their slaughterers who were slightly recognised, but were never recognised again; and we are told that no chloroform or any other subtle agent has been employed to stupefy the victims preparatory to their murder. No one ventures to say, however, in what manner they were silenced.
Is there a doctor in the house, who can comment on whether 'any other subtle agent' - a solution of morphia perhaps - would be detectable at post mortem in 1888, presuming they would have been on the lookout for such substances?
Interesting discussion BTW.
Thanks guys.
Love,
Caz
......................
Best Regards, Jon |
Author: Rebecca L. Spadaccini
Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 05:52 pm | | That is very interesting and it clears up my confusion on the choloroform issue! Thanks much!
Take Care |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 09:08 am | | | Hallo - I'm new to the message boards, and found this topic especially interesting. I have just completed a book on the history of chloroform, which deals in part with its use in crime. It is more difficult than the popular press believes to render an unwilling subject unconscious with chloroform. If a saturated pad is held closely to the face the victim will naturally hold their breath and try to escape, so they would have to be physically restrained until eventually they had no alternative but to inhale. If they then took deep breaths, there would be a danger of death from overdose becasue of the high concentration. There are hundreds of instances of people dying in exactly this way after breath-holding when given chloroform for surgery. But in the case of a criminal assault, with the pad pressed close to the face, there would be blistering and reddening of the skin, and bruising on the face. Death by chloroform leaves internal evidence of cardiac failure and asphyxia, identified by the condition of the heart and the lungs. In Victorian times, it was common for people to claim that they were rendered immediately unconscious before being robbed but the medical press ridiculed this idea, and a close examination of the circumstances usually suggested some other explanation. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 16 January 2003 - 10:50 am | | Hi Linda,
Thank you for your post and welcome to the message boards!
For many of the reasons you suggested, most believe the killer did not resort to any chemical in order to incapacitate his victims.
The popular view today is that the victims may have been intoxicated and therefore easily strangled, or partly strangled into unconsciousness, then the murderer went to the knife.
Again, thanks for your post and welcome to the boards.
Rich |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 05:43 pm | | Thanks Rich
Yes, I agree with what you say. I think all the evidence points to that conclusion.
Linda |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Friday, 17 January 2003 - 06:44 pm | | Hi Linda,
Some interesting facts about Chloroform,When can I buy your book ? !
One other point about aspyxiation ,there are usually defence injuries around the mouth/Neck .
In an earlier post I put forward the point that I beleived Catherine Eddowes was Strangled - I still do , (Prior to to being disembowled).
However there is no evidence of defence injuries which negates this hypothosis to a certain extent.I agree with Rich that intoxication certainly played a part,and may explain this lack of injuries.
Are you familiar with the case of R. v Adelaide Barnett ,1886 ? This case raised some interesting points on the use of Chloroform in Murder , specificlly its administration to a sleeping person.
Well worth reading.
I look forward to your comments and analysis.
Kind regards,
Trevor |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 03:35 pm | | Hi Trevor
My book on chloroform will be out in August. I am very familiar with the Bartlett case! I spent three years researching it and wrote a huge book on the subject - yet to find a publisher - but there will be a chapter on the case in my chloroform book.
Linda |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Wednesday, 22 January 2003 - 04:30 pm | | Hi Linda,
I look forward to reading it.
It would be great if you could find a publisher for the book on Adelaide Bartlett.
Kind regards
Trevor. |
Author: Linda Stratmann
Friday, 24 January 2003 - 04:15 pm | | Thanks, Trevor - I live in hope - that was a 140,000 word book, which I had to condense into a 9000 word chapter! But there is other true crime in the book as well, which I had great fun researching.
Linda |
|
|
|
|
