Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 09:22 am |        |
Fencing With Polly Nichols:
(Quoted from the Casebook) Polly's body is found across from Essex Wharf (warehouse) and Brown and Eagle Wool Warehouse and Schneiders Cap Factory in a gateway entrance to an old stableyard between a board school (to the west) and terrace houses (cottages) belonging to better class tradesmen. (underlining mine) |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 09:32 am | |
Fencing With Annie Chapman:
(Quoted from the Casebook -- underlining mine)
The back yard is separated from the adjoining yards by a five foot high wooden fence . . . |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 09:38 am | |
Fencing With Liz Stride:
(Quoted from the Casebook -- underlining mine)
Four houses north of Fairclough, to the left of the International Worker's Educational Club, is a pair of wooden gates which provide access to the yard. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 09:44 am | |
Fencing With Catherine Eddowes:
(Quoted from a post by Leather Apron who was in turn quoting the East London Advertiser -- underlining mine)
On entering the square by Mitre-street, he observed, by the flickering light of the street lamp, something lying in the south-west corner, close to a hoarding, seven or eight feet high, running at the back of Messrs. Taylor and Co.'s, picture-frame makers, 8 and 9, Mitre-street. |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 09:47 am | |
| Whats with all these gates and fences? Unless Whitechapel was so chockfull of gates and fences that any murder perpetrated would have been of necessity near one? |
Author: David M. Radka
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 02:08 pm | |
A very interesting hypothesis, Ms Comer. It is true that he murdered nearby to fences or gateways every time except Kelly, and in bottlenecks every time except Nichols. What did it mean to him, or what does it mean of him, to have apparently made these choices? Bottlenecks, fences, and doorways--what do they have in common?
David |
Author: Joseph
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 03:19 pm | |
Bottlenecks, fences, and doorways--what do
they have in common? Hmmmmmm, lets see, bottlenecks, fences, and doorways; bottlenecks, fences, and doorways; aha! I've got it.
Jack was a carpenter, and he played a slide guitar. What did I win? :-) |
Author: stephen borsbey
Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 05:07 pm | |
my uncle lost control of his car last month. he demolished a brickwall, 2 gateposts
a hedgerow,a pillarbox , two lampstandards and in court he asked for 5 other FENCES to be taken into consideration.....what do i win?? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 04:34 am | |
A signed picture of a Ripperologist of your choice. (The runners-up get two pictures.  )
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 07:10 am | |
| Stephen -- Did your uncle's mishap take place in Whitechapel? |
Author: Alan Hunt
Friday, 22 December 2000 - 09:36 pm | |
| a connection between jtr and fences?--that means it could be maybrick,seeing as he was from liverpool--home of the grand national at aintree.Oh no-i've proved he did it-now dig up beechers brook and look for bodies |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 23 December 2000 - 05:57 am | |
I think you just fell at the first fence, Alan, so you win three pictures!
Love,
Caz |
Author: peter martin
Tuesday, 09 January 2001 - 08:20 pm | |
Hi all, does anyone know the name of the pub the second man Israel Schwartz witnessed appeared from in Berner st.
Thanks Pete |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 04:50 pm | |
Pete -
The pub Schwartz' "pipeman" came from was called "The Nelson."
Christopher-Michael (with thanks to Viper) |
Author: peter martin
Wednesday, 10 January 2001 - 08:16 pm | |
Thanks very much.
I was working along the line this could be Tumblety following Schwartz home and sending him the letter the police received with threats to mutilate a witness. But now I'm not sure. Witness accounts don't seem to match him up. The night of the double murder would (I think) leave JTR about 30-40 minutes to get from Berner st to Mitre sq and kill his second victim. Assuming this is the same killer (and I thinks it's the case) why wouldn't the second victim be aware of the man's mental and physical state ie: He's just killed someone he must be blood splattered in a bit of a state having done this and on the verge of doing it again. Wouldn't alarm bells be ringing in her head. But the witnesses who passed her indicated the conversation she was having wasn't anything out of the ordinary. Isn't this odd ? Then there's the possibility that he then wrote the graffito and dropped a bloody knife in the Whitechapel rd. Now if this was his knife then the apron piece by the graffito wasn't used to clean it, it was still blood stained. Maybe it was used as a marker to emphersise the graffito. OK then the knife if it was his and it sounds like a kitchen knife. Wouldn't a medical man use a medical instrument? As for the graffito (I'm sure this has cropped up time and time again but please excuse me I'm new to this) I've not seen the word 'Juwes' used anywhere but related to the Masons. So why would this be on the wall of a tenament block, who would know to write Jew any other way ?
Anyway just a thought( so many question so little time)
Sweet dreams
Pete |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 25 February 2001 - 05:27 pm | |
| I just noticed that in all five murders the body was lying parallel to rather than at right angles to a wall or fence. The evidence is a little hard to interpret but it seems that in the first four cases the corpse's left side was nearest the wall or fence. Significance? |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 08:36 am | |
I suggest (taking into account the bruise marks on Polly Nichols' and Annie Chapman's necks, and the blood spurt on the fence several inches above Chapman) that the Ripper stood in front of his victims who were leaning or preparing to lean with their backs to the fence for the face-to-face knee-trembler. He then grabbed their throats and started throttling them and pushing them to the ground at the same time. Being right-handed, he put the strongest pressure with his right arm, thus forcing their heads to his left and leaving their bodies parallel with the fence. When he had them lying on the ground face up and partly asphyxiated (which would in itself diminish the spuring of blood from the arteries), he cut their throats in the natural way, starting on the side away from him (their left) and pulling the knife toward him.
I reached these conclusions seventeen years ago when I started detailed study of the case, and have seen no reason to change them since, as I feel that the alternative postulated by Don Rumbelow, (that the victims offered their punters posterior presentation, and were grabbed around the necks by the left arm and had their throats cut from left to right with the Ripper's right hand while they were still standing) would most likely have caused them to topple forward and lie more or less perpendicular to the wall, and the blood would have been more likely to splash foward from Polly Nichols' neck than to drain backward into the back of her garments.
Nevertheless, since I have recently been accused of having an obstinately closed mind when I remain convinced by my own conclusions despite other people's proposing alternative theories, I'd better spell out that the only FACTS we have are the position of the bodies, and the disposition of the blood and wounds. Everything else - notable the Ripper's handedness which I state casually above as though it were a fact - is my personal deduction, and the Ripper can only be said to be right-handed (on this evidence) if my argument in general is correct.
Vexatious obstinacy in scholarly matters is usually a matter of failing to distinguish between indisputable fact and debatable deduction and opinion. Where a commentator is wrong about facts he/she needs to be set right. Where there is a difference of opinion, there is no point in attempting to win the other over to your point of view once you are sure that your argument has been perceived and understood. The two opinions simply have to stand in competition until the test of time decides which seems preferable to the good sense of humanity, or a new fact emerges which proves decisive. The additional fact adduced by Don is his outside knowledge that the street prostitutes of the 1880s often preferred posterior presentation, either with the intention of receiving anal penetration for contraceptive purposes, or to deceive their punters by trapping their members between their legs without any penetration at all. This doesn't seem to me to outweigh my deductions from the crime scene facts, and I am simply content to let the alternative conjectures stand for posterity to decide between them.
At this point in time, the objective and detached commentators Bill Eckert, John Douglas and Mark Olshaker all prefer Don's interpretation of the facts. Since Bill came on one of my walks, and heard and saw me demonstrate my theory of the MO -(as Feldy tells us I did to his and other customers' astonishment in a cafe when we first met - an incident I don't remember myself, but which is quite within my range of eccentricity!) - I am satisfied that they know my argument. So I have never tried to dissuade them or even asked them why they prefer Don's. Differences of opinion don't have to be disputed beyond the point where the arguments are clearly understood on both sides, and unless manifestly defective reasoning or additional relevant facts can be demonstrated, there is rarely a great deal of point in pressing one opinion against another or accusing a disputant of folly in declinng to be persuaded. The Maybrick boards would be a lot quieter (though perhaps less fun) if 'these simple little rules, and few' were born in mind.
Martin Fido |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 09:48 am | |
How Jack initiated his attack is as much a contentious issue as anything else.
Just recently I went through a step-by-step description (on another board) of how, in my opinion, this was done.
While admitting that a face to face position is the most simple, it is also the most dangerous for the attacker. Due to no mention in any medical testimony of thumb marks anywhere on the front of the throat I assume either the laserations obscured such marks or maybe he did not use his hands at all. This is what initially made me think of a sleeper hold from the rear, this would leave no pressure marks on the front of the throat and in wrapping his (left?) arm firmly around her neck he would clasp his (right?) free hand firmly over her mouth, leaving thumb & fingertip bruises, which were in evidence in the medical testimony.
Jack would have opened himself up to kicking, punching & scratching if he stood face-to-face with his victim, but then if he attacked her from the rear she would be basically helpless and then it occured to me that if the victims were able to fight at all surely this might be apparent by bruises on the back of the victims hands. The victim would lash out with her hands but to little avail so possibly we would find inexplicable bruises on the back of their hands, which in the cases of both Eddowes & Chapman we do.
These women were not dainty damsels, they wore mens boots and were solid built, rather masculin in some cases. They also were able to give as good as they got in street brawls. I think it is reasonable to accept Jack may very well have chosen the path of least resistance and attacked them from behind.
As far as the laying out of the bodies (Diana) yes, this is one of the features that make Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes similar and suggest the same hand was at work.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 11:23 am | |
Jon - From Bagster Phillips' inquest testimony on Chapman as reported in The Times (Evans & Skinner p.86): 'there were two distinct bruises, each of the size of the top of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest' - which I take it might mean above or on the collarbone, directly below the neck.
Agreed, of course, the same report includes the defensive wounds on the backs of the hands you mention.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 11:35 am | |
Dear All,
Anyone have any ideas regarding the body positions and the cardinal points?
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 02:08 pm | |
Martin
The bruises you describe were also evident on Stride, were they not?
As Phillips locates them "on the forepart of the top of the chest"..this indicates to me to be below the collarbone, anything above the collarbone would be on the neck area and not described as "top of the chest".
These bruises, to my mind, are indications of Jack standing at the head of the victim, after just laying her out on her back, then crouching and leaning forward and his knees rest temporarily on her upper chest causing small pressure marks. Was he reaching forward for something?
I suggest a pair of bruises on the upper chest in no way help the frontal strangulation proposal.
Alternately, if Jack grabbed his victim (face-to-face) with both fists grasping her front coat-collar, gangster fashion, and pulled her towards him or pushed her up against a wall and held her there, this might slightly bruise her collarbones. But I dont see him doing that.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 03:16 pm | |
Sorry, I meant to add Phillip's remarks about Stride....
"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar-bone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discolouration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."
Regards, Jon
P.S. the above statement was made on October 4th at the Stride inquest, therefore the "two occasions" might be Eddowes & Chapman. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 03:29 pm | |
From Dr Phillips' testimony, inquest into the death of Annie Chapman, the Times, Friday 14 September, 1888.
...and there were two distinct bruises, each of the size of the top of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest....The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and the sides of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days.
From Dr Blackwell's testimony, inquest into the death of Elizabeth Stride, The Daily Telegraph, Saturday 6 October, 1888.
Dr. Blackwell [recalled]: The Foreman: Did you notice any marks or bruises about the shoulders? - They were what we call pressure marks. At first they were very obscure, but subsequently they became very evident. They were not what are ordinarily called bruises; neither is there any abrasion. Each shoulder was about equally marked.
A Juror: How recently might the marks have been caused? - That is rather difficult to say.
From Coroner Baxter's summing up, inquest into the death of Elizabeth Stride, the Times, Wednesday 24 October, 1888.
It was true that there were marks over both shoulders, produced by pressure of two hands, but the position of the body suggested either that she was willingly placed or placed herself where she was found....
...Possibly the pressure marks may have had a less tragical origin, as Dr. Blackwell says it was difficult to say how recently they were produced....
Wolf. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 03:33 pm | |
Jon,
regarding how the Ripper victims were attacked, I'm of the opinion they were attacked from behind. Even if Jack was walking with them, abreast of them, as someone they knew, he could quite easily have dropped behind them without them being aware. I'm sure it's something we'll never know but, it would have been interesting to know the weight of each victim, because I think he could have put one arm round them pinioning their arms to their sides, and lifting their feet clear of the ground at the same time, the other hand across their mouth and nose, preventing breathing and crying out, silently stifling them into unconsciousness. If these women wore mens studded boots he wasn't going to have them rattling on cobbles in the sound of a struggle.
But Jon I think you could be mistaken in thinking they were solidly built, they were deprived of proper food, both quality and quantity. I don't think he needed to concern himself too much with their fighting back, any burst of energy they had would be gone in a couple of seconds. Polly was small, and drunk, not much effort needed there.
Kate,-- same situation, though possibly he didn't have enough time to completely stifle Kate into unconsciousness before he lowered her body quietly onto the pavement. Annie was different, I think,-- neither thin or drunk,-- but she was weak, she was very unwell and had been for some time. I think she could have been a pushover. IF he used the same method of attack on her, could it be possible that the sound that Cadosch heard, of something falling against the fence, be one of her kicking feet catching the fence? One thing puzzles me regarding the description of Mary, on the one hand you have her described as an attractive 25yr old girl, 5ft-7in tall, waistlength blond/red/auburn hair, quite nicelooking,-- on the other hand, you have Colin Wilson describing her as, a massive woman, who looked as though she could knock out a horse with one uppercut. What do you think?
Regards, Rick. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 03:47 pm | |
Hi, Jon,
The bruising on Liz Stride suggests to me a man grabbing her with his hands hooked over the clavicle areas between the shoulders and the neck - (one of our resident medically trained posters will pop up and slam me for crude anatomical higgerance: my Gray's Anatomy is in storage in England, alas) - and probably then pushing her backwards (as, e.g., it may be that Schwartz saw his man forcing her into Dutfield's Yard, although I think his word was or was translated as 'dragged'). Whether Stride was actually a Ripper victim is also something I find a nicely balanced moot point or grey area, offsetting the positive convictions of most of the police against Dew's doubts and the very curious medical evidence suggesting a change of knives between Stride and Eddowes.
But in any case, your reconstruction is taking into acount the bruises noted by Phillips, and that's all I was trying to ensure. I'm not proselytizing for my reconstruction, or any other of my opinions! (That's why I didn't make any comments at all on your previous discussion of the MO. I took it for granted that you'd read my book and the A-Z and knew what I thought, and still quite legitimately took a different view. But the goddess of the moon, hunting, virginity and witchcraft, asked whether a specific point could lead to any deductions, and indeed it is one of the points leading to mine.
All the best, and may neither of us be Acteonized for by moving into this debate,
Martin |
Author: Jon
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 04:49 pm | |
Hi Rick
In calling them "solid built - masculin" I was meaning they were not 'exemplerary specimine's of the feminine species' :-)
(spellchecker?)
Eddowes was the frailest of them all but Tabram(?), Chapman, Nichols(?) & even Kelly (large frame?) were stocky built, short (except Kelly) and somewhat broad. I think when sober were well able to pack a punch if the situation arose.
I recall posting several extracts from Walter Dew's observation's on Kelly's appearance, from his memoirs, on another board.
Martin
Bouncing ideas & observations off each other is good for everybody concerned, I appreciate your input.
I have obstinatly argued against the candidacy of Stride as a ripper victim, but in every case no-one (happily) has brought up these darn bruises, which may or may not be indicative of anything, but they are still worthy of consideration. I still dont see her as Jack's work....but the similarity of those bruises.........
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 09:57 pm | |
| Mary could have been very solidly built and the men of her day could have referred to her as attractive. Victorian standards of beauty were different than ours. My Grandmother born in 1872 lived with us when I was a child. She repeatedly embarrassed me because when I would bring a school chum home they would be greeted with, "My, what a nice-looking fat girl you are". It was meant as a compliment. Curves were the order of the day. Even Marylin Monroe (who came much later) would be heavy by today's standards. |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 10:11 pm | |
Many interpretations have been offered for the bruising on Stride's shoulders. The most generally-accepted one is that the murderer clamped down hard on her from behind when the couple were preparing for rear-entry sex in the alley, forcing her downward and to his left, whereupon he pulled his knife and slit her throat. I can't say I like this idea, because there seems no way to square it with Schwartz' account of Stride being in mortal danger in front of the club just a minute before.
Schwartz certainly doesn't allude to any physical activity between the two that could have produced those bruises. He says the man reached out, grabbed the woman, and threw her down in the street. He does not speak of the man being behind the woman, or clamping down on her shoulders.
It seems likliest to me that after Schwartz and the Pipe Man headed for the hills, the murderer turned to Stride, got her up somehow, and THEN clamped down on her shoulders from behind while still in the street. Then he "frog-marched" her back into the alley, whereupon he forced her down and to his left, then cut her throat. Frog-marching would involve forcibly pushing her forward with a vise-like grip, while keeping his elbows locked, and forcibly making her trod forward by walking within her steps, i.e. with his toes at each of her heels.
Does this make sense to anyone here? It does seem the more consistent with the evidence.
But what of the cachous?
David |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 07:39 am | |
Diana - When Colin wrote that lovely line about Mary Jane's looking 'as if she could have felled a carthorse with an uppercut'I think he had only the Illustrated Police News drawing of her to go on. Don Rumbelow's discovery of her terrible crime scene photograph rather subtly changed our perception of her, and the emergence of Liz Stride's. Polly Nichols' and Annie Chapman's mortuary photographs in 1987 allowed comparison with their IPN portrait which proved that the IPN artists were inclined to take the least flattering view of the victims. Walter Dew's presumably objective account of MJK suggests something rather more delicate than the odd combination of alleged nicknames 'Black Mary' and 'Ginger', etc, might suggest.
Martin |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 28 June 2001 - 02:00 am | |
| I think I have arrived at an explanation for the gate motif. It just popped into my head. Lots of people think that Louis Deimschutz interrupted Jack, that Jack actually hid behind the gate until Deimschutz made his way into the building and then took off. Maybe Jack always selected a gated area for just this purpose. A gate that is wide open and folded back against the fence or wall makes a good hiding place. Of course in Eddowes case we are only told that she was found near a hoarding (fence). I admit that I am making somewhat of a leap to assume that the fence had a gate. |
Author: stephen borsbey
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 04:35 am | |
| diana ...it makes you wonder if jack had been caught would he have asked for 4 other fences to be taken into consideration?? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 01 July 2001 - 09:30 am | |
Diana
Nichols was found laid outside a gate with an access door built-in.
Stride was found adjacent to a gate with an access door also.
Eddowes was laid outside a gate which led to the rear of two empty houses, and I believe side access to a third.
You see a significance?
Jon
P.S. would that also include Kelly, found next to a partition with a door built-in? (covered)  |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 27 January 2002 - 09:18 pm | |
| This is how I think he got away. Up until Kelly he always did it by a gate. If he heard somebody coming he could pop through the gate or door to the other side (Nichols, Eddowes) or alternatively hide behind the open gate or door (Chapman, Stride). Then when the first witness arrived on the scene, they were so horrified by the spectacle of the body they had no thought of opening or looking behind the door or gate. They just wanted to raise the alarm. In the case of Nichols he probably took off across the yard on the other side of the gate and got away that way. In the case of Chapman he was probably gone by the time the lodger discovered the body but if not he could have been hiding behind the open back yard door. His legs would have shown from the knee down if anyone had looked but it was still semidark and the man who found the body was so transfixed by what he saw he never took in anything else. He just took off running to get help and then Jack either left via the passage or scaled the back yard fence. In the case of Stride others have already suggested that when Louis Diemschutz horse entered the yard Jack was behind the gate and while Diemschutz was in the club Jack got away. In the case of Eddowes, when Jack heard the constable coming he entered the gate in the hoarding and hid there until he could get away. |
Author: Monty
Monday, 28 January 2002 - 10:04 am | |
Diana,
Wasn't the gate you mentioned for Eddowes locked?
Looking at the scene sketches it seem a fairly high fence with spikes along the top.
Noisy and painful and bloody hard work !
Besides leaving the body briefly to fetch Morris, PC Watkins never left the body until help arrived.
Jack would have been there all night.
Monty
 |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 29 January 2002 - 09:14 pm | |
| What document says it was locked? Isn't it possible that he was talking to Morris long enough for Jack to slip away? (I got the Ultimate Sourcebook and the A to Z for Christmas -- I'll have to check that locked business!) |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 07:50 am | |
Diana,
From what I have just checked (I only have the A-Z here, at work right now) there is nothing to state the yard was locked.
Sorry. But Im sure I have read it somewhere recent which points to Sugdens works for me.
Didnt Watkins just 'poke' his head around the door? Jack could have slipped away if this is so but I'd have thought Watkins would have heard.
Then again ??
Monty
|
Author: david rhea
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 10:05 am | |
| Ivor Edwards says that all the victims were killed in corners and covered places.He did not want to give them any avenue of escape. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:05 pm | |
| The stable doors in Bucks Row where Nichols was found were locked at the time of the murder.As David stated all five victims were found by a corner. Check out positions of bodies and what side faced the wall etc, etc.Head or feet in the corner which indicates situation. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:16 pm | |
| Hi Martin,Glad you have popped up I have a question for you. Did you state on a Radio programme that the ripper crimes were solved and that the killer was a chap called Cohen ? The reason I ask is that I saw a message on the casebook to this effect and wondered if it was incorrect in content.If it was correct then surely you meant D'Onston!!!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 30 January 2002 - 05:24 pm | |
| If one looks at all the available evidence in this case including the position of the victims, the nature of the suroundings, then the killer's M.O can be ascertained. He would try and get his victims in a corner and attack them from behind.His victims were all smaller than he was. He never gave them a chance he had all the finer details worked out to a 'T'. |
