|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through January 17, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Simon's Theory pt 2 : Jack did it in a Carriage:
Archive through January 17, 2001
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 01:53 pm |        | | This board is to be used in order to lay out my theory that the murders of Polly Nichols , Annie Chapman and Kate Eddowes were committed in a carriage of some sorts , as revealed to the world by Joseph Sickert. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 02:01 pm | | The majority of the following quotes are from " the Ultimate Jack the Ripper companion " by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner ,and are henceforth represented by the term (S/K...): I may also quote from " The Ripper and the Royals " by Melvin Fairclough , and this will be represented by the term ( MF...). Quotes from " The Complete History of Jack the Ripper " by Philip Sugden will be represented by the term ( PS...) and those from " The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper " by the term ( M... ).
The following is my hypothesis that the 3 above-mentioned murders were not committed on the spot , but in a carriage of some sorts.
Please criticise it gently and without any personal abuse , to save my poor nerves ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 03:01 pm | | Examination of Polly Nichols' corpse revealed the following :
"...blood oozing from a wound in her throat " ( Pc Neil , S/k p.33 )
"...she was disembowelled...there was a pool of blood where the neck of the deceased was lying " ( S/K p.34 )
" No blood was found on the breast , either of the body or the clothes... " ( Dr Llewellyn , S/K p.35 )
" On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 inches in diameter and had run towards the gutter. It appeared to him to be a large quantity of blood " ( PC Thain , S/K p. 41 )
" There was not a trace of blood anywhere except at the spot where her neck was lying { This shows the blood seen by PC Thain was by the deceased's head - Simon }...absence of any blood about her legs " ( S/K p.46 )
" Dr Llewellyn seemed to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first and caused instantaneous death ; but , if so , it seemed difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat , or how it came about there was so little bleeding from the several arteries that the clothing was not stained and the legs not soiled , and there was much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck " ( S/K p. 47-48 )
" He helped to put the body on the ambulance , and the back appeared to be covered with blood which , he thought , had run from the neck as far as the waist. He got blood onto his hands. There was also blood on the ground where the deceased's legs had been " ( S/K p. 41 ) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 03:28 pm | | Examination of Annie Chapman's corpse revealed the following :
"...she was besmeared with blood over the face and hands as if she had been struggling...her hands were raised and bent , with the palms towards the upper part of her body , as if she had fought for her throat. There were marks of blood about her legs but he { Inspector Chandler - Simon } did not notice any about her clothes " ( S/K p.75 )
" There were no drops of blood in the passage or outside...There were also a few spots of blood on the back wall at the head of the body and some 2ft or 3ft from the ground...The outside jacket , which was a long black one and reached to the knees , had bloodstains around the neck , both on the inside and out , and two or three spots on the left arm...The deceased had on a black skirt , on which was a little blood on the back...the stockings were bloodstained " ( S/K p.84 )
" There was no blood on the apron , which had the appearance of not having been recently unfolded... There was blood on the chest , as if it had run down from the throat " ( S/K p.87-88 ) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 03:42 pm | | Annie Chapman ( continued ) :
" Chandler also mentions two bodices and two petticoats. The bodices were only stained about the neck and the petticoats ' very little ' " ( PS page 88 )
" The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder but attatched. There was a large quantity of blood with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder...the throat was dissevered deeply. " ( PS page 87 )
" There were also patches and smears of well clotted blood on the wooden palings , about 14 inches from the ground. These too were close to the position of the head , immediately above the part where the blood had mainly flowed from the neck " ( PS p.88 ) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 04:10 pm | | Examination of Catherine Eddowes' corpse revealed the following :
" Her head , neck and shoulders were lying in a pool of blood on each side of her , nothing in front...the blood was in a liquid state not congealed " ( Inspector Collard , S/K p.202 )
" The official list of Eddowes' clothes and possessions is as follows :
Black Straw Bonnet ...no blood on front but the back was lying in a pool of blood which had run from the neck ,
Black Cloth Jacket ...no blood on front outside large quantity of Blood inside and outside back , outside back very dirty with lood and dirt ,
Chintz Skirt ...Edges slightly bloodstained , also Blood on bottom , back and front of skirt ,
Brown Lindsey Dress Bodice ...blood inside and outside back of neck and shoulders...
Grey Stuff Petticoat ...Edges bloodstained , bloodstains on front at bootom of Petticoat ,
Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt ...blood stained inside...
Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt ...blood stained inside and outside back and front...
White Calico Chemise ...very much bloodstained all over...
Man's White Vest ...very much Blood stained at back , Blood and other stains on front...
...6 Blood marks on right boot...
1 large White Handkerchief blood stained
...( all 3 Pockets ) Blood stained
12 Pieces of White Rag some slightly bloodstained " ( S/K p.203-204)
" There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck , round the shoulder and upper part of arm , and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder - the pavement sloping in that direction " ( S/K p.204 )
"...no blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs - no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middle of the body...there was no blood on the front of the clothes" ( S/K p.205 ) |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 06:23 pm | | | It makes one realize again how really awful it was. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 06:45 pm | | Examination of the corpse of Elizabeth Stride :
" Blood was still flowing from the throat. I could see she had...a red and white flower pinned on to her jacket...I noticed that blood was running down the gutter...there was no blood on the chin of the deceased and I did not get any blood on my hands. " ( Edward Spooner , S/K p.146 )
" The blood was running down in the gutter , into the drain...There was a quantity of clotted blood just under the body...some of the blood had been trodden about near to where the body was lying. " ( Dr Blackwell , S/K p.149)
" There was a stream of blood reaching down to the gutter. It was all clotted blood. There was very little blood near the neck as nearly all of it had run away in the direction away from the legs. " ( Edward Johnston , S/K p.156 )
" The blood had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance of the club...I should say there was an unusual flow of blood considering the stature and nourishment of the body. " ( Dr Philips , S/K p. 159 )
" CORONER - did you examine the clothing ?
Witness {Dr Blackwell - Simon } - Yes. There was no blood on any portion of it. " ( S/K p.150 ) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 06:58 pm | | Examination of the corpse of Mary Kelly :
"...arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying...the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood , indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack...the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted down the wall. " ( Dr Bond , S/K p. 360-361 )
"...the said Marie Jeanette Kelly was found dead from the mortal effects of Severance of the right carotid artery. " ( S/K p. 367 )
" PC Walter Dew...claimed to have slipped on what he described as the ' awfulness ' on the floor of Kelly's room. " ( MF p.167 )
" The bed clothing at the right hand corner was saturated with blood & on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about 2 feet square. " ( S/K p.346 ) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 07:21 pm | | Just a small addition about whether there was enough light to see by in Mitre Square :
" I know the locality. This is the darkest portion of the Square. There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light. " ( Dr George Sequeira , S/K p.208 )
" Constable Richard Pearse , 922 City Police said he lived at No.3 Mitre Square.{ This house was in the NW corner of the Square , directly opposite the site where Eddowes' body was found and approximately 70 feet away from it. This is the same distance as the distance between the opening into Church passage and the murder site - Simon }...From his window he could plainly see the spot where the murder was committed. " ( S/K p.231 )
See Sugden p.176 for a map of Mitre Square confirming this detail. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 07:37 pm | | Dr Phillips on the Chapman case :
" Dr Phillips's positive opinion that the woman had been dead quite two hours when he first saw the body at half-past 6 , throws serious doubt upon the accuracy of at least two important witnesses , and considerably adds to the prevailing confusion. ( from the Times , S/K p.89 )...he admitted the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood might affect his opinion and if the evidence of the other witnesses was correct , Dr Phillips had miscalculated the effect of those forces. " ( from the Times , S/K p.104) |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 07:41 pm | | | Right , enough quoting from the sources and down to theorising ! |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 07:58 pm | | The one thing that we can see by examining the above statements is that there is little similarity between the blood flow patterns of the first three and the latter two.
Looking at Stride and Kelly seperately we see that an enormous amount of blood flowed from their bodies , in Kelly's case spurting onto the sheets and down the wall as can be seen from looking at the awful crime-scene photograph. With Stride , although no blood splashes were found on the nearby wall there was such an amount of blood that it was walked in by the witnesses and flowed into the gutter. Stride had no blood on her clothes.
Now let us look at the other 3 cases as a group. Nichols - the blood runs under her back but not onto her breast. Chapman - the blood runs onto her breast but not her back. Eddowes - the blood runs behind her head and under her right shoulder.
With Nichols and Chapman we find little staining on the lower clothes , but Eddowes is completely different , her garments are bathed in blood. Thus why are the cases all different if the murders were all committed in a similar way ?
I want to now outline what I feel are the discrepancies in each case and the questions I would like to ask , in relation to each one :
Nichols : why only a small ( 6 inch diameter ) pool of clotted blood by the neck ? why no blood on the chemise or between the legs on the ground ?
Chapman : why no blood between the legs or on the abdomen despite the injuries , much of the blood on the left side and on the palings could have come from the intestines being thrown over that side so blood from the throat is inconclusive. Nevertheless there does not seem to be as much blood as from Stride or Kelly.
Eddowes : again , why no blood between the legs ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 08:40 pm | | (continued) Looking at the Eddowes case , we can see that even though the throat had been cut , when the body was ripped open an enormous volume of blood came out all over her garments. Now , although the wounding to Nichols and Chapman was not as severe as to Eddowes , we might still expect a large amount of blood to have issued forth as they were cut and stabbed ; this blood would have flowed onto the ground and onto their garments. But this did not happen.
Looking at Stride and Kelly , the blood seems to have flowed to the side of them when their throats were cut. But with Nicols the blood from her neck seems to have flowed down her back. With Chapman it flowed onto her breast somewhat , with Eddowes it seems to have flowed out behind her head and to have run down under her right shoulder. And how did blood get onto the back of Chapman's skirt and so much blood get underneath Eddowes ? How did Chapman's stockings get bloodstained but not her petticoats , how did blood get under Nichols' legs but not flow onto her legs ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 08:46 pm | | My explanation would be that the bodies of Nichols , Chapman and Eddowes were moved to the scene of the crime by being carried in some way , hence the different blood patterning to the Stride and Kelly murders.
I will now hypothesise further to support my theory in the Chapman and Eddowes cases ; for Nichols I would say that the absence of blood on the abdomen and between the legs and on her garments suggests that the body was not mutilated on the spot. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 09:05 pm | | ANNIE CHAPMAN CASE :
My hypothesis rests on the belief that Chapman was killed much earlier than the time suggested at the Inquest.
Dr Phillips's first judgement was that Chapman was killed some time around 4.30am in the morning , 2 hours before he examined the body at which point " the stiffness in the limbs was well marked ". However this causes a problem in that John Richardson was in the yard at 4.45am and did not see the body , and Mrs Long thought she identified Chapman at about 5.30am. Also , who were the people Albert Cadosh heard in the yard at 5.28am when he went to the privy , they would hardly have failed to notice a body had it been there. Thus Phillips puts the time of death to between 5.30am and 6am , his judgement made erroneous by the coldness of the morning.
This would be fine and the problem be sorted except for one thing : coldness DELAYS the onset of rigor mortis , it does not speed it up. This has been stated on the Boards before by those more eminent than I , thus if coldness did affect the body it would place time of death EARLIER than 4.30am rather than later. As far as I know , this is a medical fact.
Thus where was the body when Richardson entered the yard ? That he could have missed it is " completely unconvincing " ( A-Z page 372 ). He had no reason to lie , and especially not under oath. What about Cadosh's testament ?
The simplest answer is that Mrs Long's identification was wrong and the body was placed in the yard after Richardson had left it. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 09:06 pm | | | If you look at the morgue photo of Chapman you will see that the tongue is protruding. There is a strong possibility that Chapman was strangled before her throat was cut. I am not a medical person, but I believe that if she was already dead or nearly dead when her throat was cut there would be less blood loss. The possibility of strangulation also exists in the case of the other two and has been discussed in the past on these boards, although I don't believe it was in this context. Maybe if Dr. Ind is reading this he would comment on individual idiosyncrasy. For instance, would a person with high blood pressure bleed more? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 09:23 pm | | To the busy guy......
One minor point, you quote P.C. Pearse as saying 'from his window he could plainly see the spot where the murder was committed'.
We can appreciate from this that he was helping the inquest jury visualize where he lived. Anyone who lived in a house that overlooked a murder site will say, quite innocently, that they can 'see the spot quite clearly from their window', however, this is not taken to mean in darkness, though it might, but you cannot use this statement as evidence that the square was lighted enough for a person to see 70+ feet through the darkness, as I think you are implying.
The statement is not definitive enough.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 09:40 pm | | CATHERINE EDDOWES CASE :
You can probably guess where this one is going to come from !
It depends on whether PC Harvey could see into the darkest corner of the square or not at 1.40am.
Now , we have the testament of Dr Sequiera that there was light enough for a person to see what they were doing in that corner of the square , so it cannot have been pitch black ; if this was true then light would have penetrated the corner to make at least a vague shape visible there from a distance away.
This is supported by PC Pearse's statement that he could see the murder site from his window about 70 feet away. The Square , although dark , was lit by a gaslamp at the entrance to Church passage as well as one on the opposite side to the murder site. And PC Harvey also had his bullseye lantern.
My conjecture is that when PC Harvey arrived at the Church passage entrance to the Square , he would have seen something if a body had been there.
There is conjecture about how far the beam of the police lantern might reach and whether it might illuminate the dark corner : while it may have only illuminated things in detail up to about 20 feet , like a modern torch-beam it would have picked up on objects at a greater distance to a lesser extent. There is also Harvey's hearing : if someone had been hacking up a body he would be breathing heavily and this would have been picked up by PC Harvey standing only 10-20 metres away in the quiet of the night.
Dr Gordon Brown estimated the mutilations would take at least 5 minutes to perform , thus it would seem impossible for the body to be mutilated between the arrival of Harvey at about 1.40am and PC Watkins at about 1.44am , and for the killer to leave the Square without detection.
It would take only a minute for the perpetrator to place the body in the Square and leave quickly and silently without being noticed however.
We might also note that Eddowes' garments were ripped up by the killer's knife : tearing cloth does make a loud noise , but the nightwatchman nearby with his door ajar heard nothing. |
Author: Simon Owen
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 10:02 pm | | Jon , the implication is that PC Pearse was able to see the murder spot at the time he was alerted by a constable ; hence the past tense of the statement. I'll quote it again in full , see what you think :
" Constable Richard Pearse , 922 City Police , said he lived at No.3 Mitre Square ( note the statement that the house had a view of the murder site does not come here as one might expect ). He went to bed on the night of the 29th ult. about 20 minutes after 12 o'clock. He heard no noise or disturbance of any kind. He first heard of the murder at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock , when he was called by a police constable. From his window he could plainly see the spot where the murder was committed " ( S/K p. 231 )
Note the phrase is NOT " From his window he is able to plainly see... " as one might expect if he were helping the jury visualise the position of his window , but rather " he could plainly see " as if he were describing a past event. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 14 January 2001 - 10:06 pm | | As for Dr. Sequeira, he was likely responding to a question (not recorded) that the killer may have needed a lantern, or extra light of some sort, as he continues..."without the addition of any extra light".
No-one has argued that it was too dark for the killer to perform his task, obviously it was light enough for that, he only needed to see a couple of feet at the most, like at arm length.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 09:13 am | | Simon,
In my opinion (for what it's worth), Nichols, and Chapman were both stifled or strangled nearly to death before having their throats cut,-- so not quite so much blood, and what there was, more controlled. If Stride was killed by Kidney, a hot tempered man, he cut her throat immediatly, he didn't strangle or stifle her first, so more flowing blood. With Eddowes, the Ripper didn't have time for the prolonged act of stifling or strangulation. I'd guess, as Eddowes and the Ripper reached the unlit corner of the square, he had maneuvered his position slightly behind Kate. The attacks are described as "sudden". He would have clamped his left hand over her nose and mouth and pulled her down backwards onto the ground. Then, still covering her nose and mouth with his left hand, pushed the left side of her face against the ground, while both her hands were scrabbling to pull his hand away, his right hand and the knife would be under her elbows cutting her throat, so a lot more blood! With Kelly, I think it was intended from the start of the attack to kill by throat cutting immediately,the large amount of blood, and the defence wounds show she was conscious and fighting for her life when her throat was cut, so, more blood,-- and yet,-- he had time in Kelly's case to strangle or stifle her first.
Which to me, shows that strangling,(to the Ripper's mind) was the cleanest, most efficient way to silence his victims and make them easy to manage when killing in the back streets. Though I really can't believe he didn't get into quite a mess when killing Kate, and also he must have got his hands and clothes impregnated with blood, faeces, and a terrible stink.
Regards, Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 10:34 am | | Simon,
I would like you to know in this post that I'm not rubbishing your theory,just disagreeing with you. I also think there was light enough in that corner for the Ripper to do what he did.
But Simon you are assuming a bit here!. If Harvey had expected there to be a body in that corner, and the killer crouched over it,--breathing heavily,--then quite possibly he would have seen and heard,-- but he wasn't expecting that! his eyes and ears were not tuned in to those two things. The Ripper would have heard Harvey approach and stop--and see his torch, he would have kept perfectly still and controlled his heavy breathing-if he thought he was in danger of being observed. P.C.Pearse could see the murder site from his bedroom window,-- okay, but he obviously wasn't looking during the 5 to 7 mins it took to do the murder, neither did he hear anything,--because he wasn't expecting it, his hearing wasn't tuned in. The same with the night-watchman who was doing a bit of sweeping, he was concentrating on what he was doing, he never expected a Ripper killing to take place, that night, so close to him. They were getting on with their lives, they were not expecting it, so they didn't see it. And Simon, if you cut cloth with a knife, it hardly makes any sound,- if you rip it, it does make some sound, but not enough to draw the attention of someone who is busy, not taking that much notice, or just doing things.
Regards, Rick |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 10:47 am | | Diana,
Of course you're right, there were only 2 wombs taken, not 3. I distinctly remember telling someone that in the chatroom months ago and then I go and make the same mistake! What a moron.
The details were:
Nichols - throat cut, abdomen slashed, possible attempt to decapitate as spinal column was cut
Chapman - throat cut, disemboweled, womb taken, definite attempt to decapitate
Stride - throat cut (possibly interrupted)
Eddowes - throat cut, disemboweled, kidney and womb (incompletely removed as cervix remained) taken, face mutilated
Kelly - throat cut, complete evisceration, heart taken, face mutilated, definite attempt to decapitate
Simon,
It is reported that at the second hearing of Eddowes inquest Dr. Brown was recalled to crush a rumour that had started. As questioned by Mr. Crawford:
Q: The theory has been put forward that it is possible for the deceased to have been taken to Mitre Square after her murder. What is your opinion about that?
A: I think there is no doubt on the point. The blood at the left side of the deceased was clotted and must have flown from her at the time of the injury to her throat. I do not believe the deceased was moved in the slightest way after her throat was cut.
Q: You have no doubt that the murder was committed at that spot?
A: I feel quite sure it was.
The Crimes, Detection, & Death of Jack the Ripper by Martin Fido
Signs of strangulation are bruising, protruding tongue, and clenched fists. Kelly's fists were clenched. In all cases, the blood from the neck was found to be quite sufficient to have caused death. Furthermore, strangulation or any cessation of heartbeat will reduce spurting or splattering significantly.
Not too harsh am I?
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Jon
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 01:24 pm | | Simon
Getting back to the old issue of how far P.C. Harvey could see.....
As Harvey stood at the foot of Church Passage he was under a wall lamp and as anyone can tell you if you stand within a halow of light, be it ever so weak, the halow tends to limit your vision especially if you are trying to see into an unlighted corner 70+ feet away.
There was another street lamp over to his right across the square in the middle of the pathway running across the north-western line of buildings but equally the light from that would have reached no further into the corner than the Church Passage light, therefore this corner was the darkest in the square.
Also, we cannot know for certain when Harvey reached the end of the passage, the times we are working with are not exact so arguments which rely on the exact time or the visibility across the square are not strong arguments.
You can present it as your opinion, but thats about as strong as it gets.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 02:54 pm | | One of the great and bizarre mysteries about this case is how Jack ever managed to escape detection : all the killings were done within earshot of sleeping people , under windows where the faintest sound might have alerted someone , Kelly and Chapman may even have been killed during the hours of daylight. To commit such a crime once is something , but to commit it 5 times without leaving a clue or being caught in the act ?
Lets take the Eddowes case. Lets say it took Jack exactly 5 minutes to mutilate the corpse in Mitre Square - those 5 minutes would have been very long indeed. At any point , someone could have walked into that Square and stumbled upon him in the act , or the nightwatchman could have opened his door and...etc.
What preparations could the killer have taken to assure that someone would not walk in on him and catch him en flagrante ?
I know my theory isn't brilliant , but it does answer this question in some respects , and its better than Alastair Crowley's quip that the killer was ' invisible ' !
Anyone else got any ideas ? |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 02:58 pm | | Another point about the Chapman case is that Annie seems to have fought for her life before finally being overcome - re : the position of her palms and the blood on her face and hands. Surely this would have created some noise or left some evidence of a struggle in the yard ?
In fact it seems there was no evidence of a struggle in the yard at all. |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 06:28 pm | | Simon,
Am I jumping the gun when asking you for your explanation for HOW the killer moved Cath Eddowes from the true murder site to Mitre Square? You said, "It would take only a minute for the perpetrator to place the body in the Square and leave quickly and silently without being noticed however." But how did he transport her? Horse and cart? Backpacked around like dirty laundry?
And as for the Ripper being afraid of detection... Rick has already mentioned the fact that an approaching PC's footsteps could be heard. If the killer were backpacking a body around he could hardly have avoided detection. Nor could a relatively loud horse and cart failed to have been missed early in the morning hours when most of the ambient noise was at its lowest point. Even a wheelbarrow would be suspicious and would warrant a second glance.
As for Annie Chapman's lack of noise, there was a voice and a noise heard. From The Daily Telegraph, Thursday, Sept. 20, 1888, Albert Cadosch [sic] testimony was the following;
"On Saturday, Sept. 8, I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly."
I would further propose that the women were quite panic stricken when first put upon by the killer and unable to respond. They almost certainly were completely horrified and probably went into shock mere seconds after being attacked; once the throat was cut, they went limp immediately.
I would only caution that postulations based on the LACK of evidence can become quite bizarre if allowed to continue unchecked. I could tell someone, "No noise of any kind was heard the night my cat was found dead not 5 feet from a window where my sister was sleeping." Someone could speculate that a La Chupacabra killed him when it was simply a snake.
Please clarify or explain further.
Thanks.
Jack |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 08:45 pm | | My postulation would be that the body would be carried by one or two persons to the site , arranged in position and then the person(s) would leave : this is why if the victims were not killed where they were found , it is more likely they were killed in a movable vehicle rather than at a fixed site such as an abandoned building.
A movable vehicle would also have the advantage of being able to be lit and be waterproof thus allowing the perpetrators to work in comfort.
With my reference to the Eddowes murder , what I was trying to suggest is that the killer might be stumbled upon while in the act of murder or mutilation , or might be seen by someone from a window. If he had become aware of a policeman's footsteps he might have then tried to run and slipped in the awfulness of the crime scene , or ran into a passerby , himself being covered in gore.
Remember the apocryphal story of Stephen White seeing the killer , thats what may have happened for real.
Even if he managed to avoid detection , the killer then has to escape the crime scene with body parts concealed about his person somewhere , and with his arms and hands (at least) being covered in blood. And he has to make it to his base of operations too without being noticed.
Simon |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 08:55 pm | | Hello Mr. Owen,
I think your theory is fascinating, and has merit.
The testimony of Police Constable Pearse is pivotal in determining the degree of light in the square itself, and thus the visibility level to persons whose eye's have become accustom to the dark. This testimony in turn has a bearing on the timing problem, and so on, and so forth.
In your post, By Simon Owen on Sunday, January 14, 2001 - 10:02 pm, you quote from Police Constable Pearse's statement:
He heard no noise or disturbance of any kind. He
first heard of the murder at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock , when he was called by a police constable. From his window he could plainly see the spot where the murder was committed
( S/K p. 231 )
What this portion of his statement tells me is that when Police Constable Pearse first became aware of the murder, he went to the window facing the murder site, and was able to "plainly see the spot where the murder was committed "; the time was 2:20AM.
If you remove the period from the end of the sentence: when he was called by a police constable. , and replace it with a semi colon, then take the capital F and replace it with a lower case f you have: when he was called by a police constable; from his window he could plainly see the spot where the murder was committed. Now, let's put the sentence back into context:
He heard no noise or disturbance of any kind. He
first heard of the murder at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock , when he was called by a police constable; from his window he could plainly see the spot where the murder was
committed.
I believe this is the meaning that he (Pearse) intended: Pearse was awakened by another policeman, he was made aware of the murder and it's proximity to his home; he went to the window facing the murder site, and observed that the light level would have allowed him to clearly see what had taken place. The object of his lament is: He would have been able to respond to the event.
PC Pearse would have been looking at the murder scene from the darkness of his home, outward into an area with a greater light level, which is of benefit to the observer.
This would also indicate that if the murderer did plan his murder sites, he did so poorly.
Best Regards |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 09:42 pm | | Simon,
My apologies for not reading the heading which states: Jack did it in a carriage. Duh.
What's the difference between someone having the nerve to murder and mutilate in public OR doing the dastardly deeds in private and then dumping and positioning the dead body in public? A few minutes is all; the risk is the same if you don't know (and how could you) that citizen X is going to open the window some time during the night, or a number of times during the night, or, more likely, they won't open the window at all.
How do we know the murderer wouldn't have slit the throat of someone who happened to stumble upon him?
Stephen White's story could have been true, but I don't see the connection to your carriage theory.
That our Jack had guts (pardon the pun) was for certain.
The body parts he escaped with were relatively small and malleable (as compared to a limb say).
Most assuredly the killer's hands were covered with blood after Eddowes murder, so if White's theory is true it's not connected to Mitre Square.
Dark clothing would have masked any blood stains in the blackness of night. Even in some light.
Though it might not seem it, I am still sufficiently intrigued to hear more of your theory.
Please continue. Cheers.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 10:31 pm | | Going back to the Chapman case again , one thing that always puzzled me was how Chapman got blood on her breast , when Nichols , Stride and Eddowes did not have. I think this theory can explain this.
Imagine Chapman's body being carried by two men , one at the shoulders and one at the legs ( the corpse would be wrapped in a canvas to catch the blood and disguise the corpse ). Now the yard at 29 Hanbury Street was down a flight of 3 steps ; in order to carry the body down , the corpse would have to be tilted with one man ( carrying the shoulders ) at the top and the other at the bottom of the steps. This was the occasion for Annie's head to tilt forward and for blood to run onto her chest.
With Chapman , the corpse was carried by the top man having his arms under Annie's arms IMO. My explanation for Nichols is that she was carried by two men again , but held by the wrists by the top man ; this meant her head lolled backward while she was being carried and each bump sent the blood trickling down her back ( IMHO ).
Simon |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 15 January 2001 - 11:35 pm | | Hello Mr. Owen,
I'm sorry if I don't recognize the obvious, but why would the two men have to carry Ms. Chapman's body down three flights of stairs in order to reach the backyard.
Why couldn't they enter the yard from street level?
Best regards |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 03:02 am | | Hi, Joseph:
It is not three flights of stairs but as Simon says, "a flight of 3 steps" going from the passageway into the backyard.
Chris George |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 08:50 am | | Hello Mr. George,
That is exactly what Mr. Owen wrote, "a flight of three steps".
I don't know where I got three flights of stairs from, I hope I'm not going Davidoz.
Best Regards |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 09:35 am | | Simon,
The explanation you just gave about how the medical evidence relates to the physical actions really is an exceptional piece of work. I am serious and not patronizing you or being sarcastic. Those are very convincing and lucid descriptions. You have the makings of a fine forensic pathologist IMO.
I suggest if you write a dissertation that you begin with the evidence that led you to your beliefs first (meaning the last post) and not the other more general issues which are insupportable and, more or less, easily explained. It will make the latter more acceptable.
I scrolled back and discovered that your posts dated Jan. 14th at 1:53 pm and 2:01 pm both explain what this theory is about, but I honestly don't recall receiving these in my e-mails and so wasn't sure where you were heading.
I'm not convinced, as I never was by Knight's theories or the various films that depicted dead bodies dumped from a carriage (e.g. MURDER BY DECREE, JACK THE RIPPER with Caine as Abberline), but your deductions are quite absorbing and fascinating. Please continue.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
Jack |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 12:45 pm | | Simon, I literally don't have the time right now to critique your hypothosis, but here are a couple of things that I noticed while trying to catch up on his board.
"Examination of Annie Chapman's corpse revealed the following :
"...she was besmeared with blood over the face and hands as if she had been struggling...her hands were raised and bent , with the palms towards the upper part of her body , as if she had fought for her throat. There were marks of blood about her legs but he ( Inspector Chandler - Simon) did not notice any about her clothes " ( S/K p.75 )"
This is not from the evidence of Inspector Chandler as you imply but from James Kent a packing case maker who gave evidence at the inquest. Neither Chandler's nor Dr. Phillips's testimony support Kent, in fact, Chandlers testimony seems to refute Kent's as to the position of the victims hands.
Blood probably flowed onto Chapmans chest when the killer lifted her head up so that he could draw the knife right around the neck in his attempt at decapitation.
Differences in direction of blood flow could possibly be explained by slope or unevenness of pavement.
In the cases of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, expert witnesses were asked, in an attempt to explain the silence of the killings, whether the victims bodies had been killed elsewhere and then moved to the spots where they were found. In no case was there any evidence found which would substantiate your hypothothis. These were men in the field, at the time of the murders who had examined the scenes.
Wolf. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 01:21 pm | | Wolf , I think you are right : the observations are indeed by James Kent and refer to himself , not to Inspector Chandler ( although he does refer to him in the article ). Thank you for pointing it out.
LeatherApron/Jack : thank you for your kind comments !
Simon |
Author: Scott Nelson
Tuesday, 16 January 2001 - 07:34 pm | | | Simon, you might want to tackle one more issue: that of Eddowes' intestines. An intact portion was lifted out of her abdominal cavity and placed over her shoulder. A severed section lay on the pavement between her left arm and body. Did this happen after she was deposited where she lay? Or could the mutilations have occurred before? |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 04:22 am | | Hello Scotty,
(Missed you)
Good question.
Hello Simon,
Could this argument extend to include Annie Chapman's pocket, which was cut open and the contents strewn or placed near her body? Why do you think your killer(s) placed such importance on misleading the investigation in this way, when every additional second spent at the scene was to risk all? Robbery or ritual are the best reasons I can come up with for our man to linger with his victims after death.
Kill at scene: perform rites, see if there's anything worth pinching and go.
Kill elsewhere: Dump and go.
Just my opinion.
Love,
Caz |
|
|
|
|
