Archive through June 27, 2001

** 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 June 27, 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Simon's Theory pt 2 : Jack did it in a Carriage: Archive through June 27, 2001

Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 08:42 am
Scotty-too-Hotty ? Caz , this is Jack the Ripper we are talking about ! '...see if there's anything worth pinching and go ' indeed ! Jack had his pick of stuff from Eddowes' pockets to lay at her feet or steal , but he didn't. My guess with Chapman is that the objects in question fell out of her pocket while the body was being carried and , rather than attempt to reinsert them into the corpse's garments , the Ripper left them nearby. Maybe the fact that they were arranged neatly hints at an obsessive-compulsive nature on the part of the killer. Chapman's rings - I have no idea. For someone so short of money , maybe she pawned them. Thats my guess , I don't think there is any occult or Masonic significance about it at all. As to the organs , I suspect the mutilation occured before the corpse was placed and no attempt was made to stuff the entrails back in the corpse. The extra piece of entrail placed by Kate's left side may have been parcelled up with her cadaver ready to be moved and placed next to her when the body was placed in position. This maybe the reason for the cutoff piece of apron - one of the people who placed the corpse was too squeamish to touch it with his bare hand ( or didn't want to get blood on him ) so cut a bit of apron off to use as a glove , he then placed the entrail and then unthinkingly shoved the apron in his pocket or whatever.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 08:48 am
As yet we haven't proved that there was any ritual element about the mutilation of the corpses , merely that there seems to be evidence that the women were killed or placed in particular locations which were mapped out on a map beforehand. The point about Mitre Square is a good one : it hardly seems sensible to kill and cut someone up in a location which can be seen clearly from a policeman's window.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 09:11 am
The question about how a coach might have gone unnoticed on the streets of Whitechapel is a good one , and certainly a tricky thorn in the side of this theory ! However , there is a solution in that the idea of a carriage being used may not have been linked to the Ripper murders at all. I'm happy to be corrected , but I think the first mention of a carriage being used comes with " The Final Solution ". There was speculation that Nichol's body was dumped from a vehicle but this was quickly discounted by the coroners court , and afterwards it was generally assumed that the women were killed on the spot. Maybe nobody at the time linked the two ideas : the carriage and the Ripper. Most speculation seemed to concentrate on the type of person who might have done the crimes , not how he made his getaway or travelled around the streets looking for a victim. Several of the sites are near where coming and going of wagons might be expected : Nichols was found in an area of slaughterhouses , Chapman near a brewery , Eddowes near a warehouse and Kelly near Spitalfield market. Maybe the killers hoped that the sound of the carriage would just blend into the ambient noise of the area , the background noise. Stride is a different case , I believe the actions of the man seen by Schwartz are indicative of a person trying to make someone go somewhere by force. Stride's attacker tried to pull her into the road. And as I have stated before , when Stride replied " Not tonight , some other night " she may well have been replying to a question that comprised something like " I know a place we can go for the night , do you want to come with me ? My carriage is just round the corner... ". Is it a coincidence that the only two victims who had a bed they could return to for the night were Stride and Kelly ? The other three may well have jumped at a warm place to curl up and sleep , only a coachride away...
Author: Jon Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 12:28 pm
Hello Simon. Why would anybody go to the trouble of enticing the victim into a carriage to murder them (strangle?, throat slashed?) only to carry the body to the murder site and spend more risky time out in the open mutilating the body?.....does not make sense. (what was the point of the carriage?) Alternatively... Why would anyone murder and mutilate inside a carriage, then try carry the corpse all shreaded up, with bits of inerd slithering and slopping all over the place, squelching under foot, not to mention all the blood trailing behind him?.....this does not make sense either. Sorry Simon but your hypothesis could do with a liberal slashing with Ockhams razor. Regards, Jon
Author: Stewart P Evans Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 03:11 pm
The theory of the killer using a carriage was not first proposed in The Final Solution, the earliest specific mention of it was in 1906, (page 640 of our Sourcebook), as follows:- "...advancing strange theories as to the murders. Many believe several of them to this day, specially one to the effect that the murders were committed by some mad medical specialist, and the bodies conveyed in his own conveyance to the East End. An absurd piece of nonsense!" - ex-Detective Inspector Henry Cox of the City of London Police. This, of course, shows that the theory predated this mention and went back, probably, to 1888.
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 05:55 pm
Thanks for the information Stewart ! Jon , its my suggestion that the murders and the mutilations took place inside a carriage or an especially adapted wagon. The advantage of this would be that the person who carried out the dissection would not be under pressure of being caught or being stumbled upon while performing his nefarious business. Also the carriage would be dry , relatively warm and could be lit , facilitating easier removal of the organs. Messy ? Well , yes maybe but no more messy than if the deed had been performed on the spot. If the windpipe has been strangled , it need not lead to a large spurt of blood if the carteroid artery has been cut. The organs when removed would have been bloody yes , but the whole body would be wrapped in a canvas or tarpauline before being removed to the site where it would be found. The improvements over performing the act on the spot would be greater security , comfort and less risk of being caught in the act. Since my favoured suspect for the mutilations is Dr William Gull , since he was an old and somewhat infirm man the carriage would be of great benefit to him in getting around as he would not be able to run from the law if the need arose.
Author: Jon Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 06:58 pm
Simon I can safely assume you have never tried to carry a shreaded corpse with all the abdomen slithering about all over the place, and managing to not spill one drop of blood or one piece of innerd. Remember the piece of ear that fell from Eddowes when they moved her? When you cut into an abdomen the intestines burst out as if under pressure, they are not laid there secured in place. They almost errupt out of the wound, the whole stomach is held in place tightly until you slash it. I might need a second opinion on this but I would not be concerned in saying you could not carry a body with a abdomen slashed open without losing something. I can't picture your killer(s) doing that at all, they wouldn't carry her more than a couple of feet without having to stop to pick something up, and as soon as they put her down, even more will gush out. Nah,..I'll give it a 2 on the possibility scale. (murder in situ gets a 10) Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 17 January 2001 - 09:39 pm
Hi, Simon: I agree entirely with Jon that the task of carrying an eviscerated corpse along the passage of 29 Hanbury Street would have been a forbidding one. There surely would have been traces of blood in the street, in the passage, and down the backsteps into the yard, but there was none of that, not to mention the problem of trying to keep the mutilated corpse all together--intestines over shoulder and all? You might need three men to do it, let alone two. So the odds are, it did not happen the way you are theorizing. I do find it interesting that Ivor's map theory is being discussed contemporaneously with your "Jack did it in a carriage" theory. The only reason I could think that there would be a need to "place" the corpses would be to conform with some pattern on a map. On the other hand, strongly countering your contention and Ivor's is that witnesses attest that the women were usually seen in the vicinity prior to their bodies being found. So, in other words, not much "placement" went on. Beyond being placed in the exact spots where they were found, they were already in the area. So, again, if so, you would not need a carriage to convey them. You might need it for cover, as you are thinking, to carry out the killing and mutilation, but as I say, the logistics of that probably rule it out, not to mention that there would be considerable noise. We are trying to find out how the killings were apparently carried out in silence, and a horse and cart (or carriage) does not lend for silence. Quite the opposite. Best regards Chris George
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 01:42 pm
Jon , you presume correctly !
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 08:14 pm
We must rule the possibility out , that the corpse was carried as found at the site. I make another suggestion then , that the insides of the victims were shoved back into place when being transported , and then pulled out again when the corpse was placed - for ritual purposes or for maximum horrific effect. Obviously a corpse could not be carried through the streets in full view so it had to be disguised in some way , my preferred explanation being it was wrapped in a tarpauline or sheeting. This would have made sure no blood or innards dropped out. Its possible that the corpse could have been carried in a chest or barrel instead , but that wouldn't explain the odd blood patterning on the victim's bodies. As for the piece of ear , it dropped from the clothing when the body was being stripped at the mortuary. How did it get into the clothing in the first place , surely if it had been detatched while the mutilation of the face was going on , it would have been found lying in the clotted blood next to the head.
Author: Jon Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 08:31 pm
Simon. ......ever heard of the term, 'floggin a dead 'orse'?
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 19 January 2001 - 04:03 pm
Davidoz!! hello again, I noticed you tried to get in touch about three times after saying "no comment", I notice things like that y'see. Well anyway, Dr.Thomas Bond remarked on examining Mary's body, that the killer could have been suffering from an affliction called "Satyriasis" I think he had good reason, the killer started at the top and "panned" his way down to the genital area-- and turned that into mincemeat. No normal, or even abnormal sex would satisfy him!. It seems he caught up with his syrinx and gave her a good going over. Then it was,(as the song goes) "away, away, they seem to say, and "CATCH ME WHEN YOU CAN". That little nymph wouldn't prance anymore from satyr to satyr. But he "panicked" as he left the room, he forgot his "pipe--s" were still on the "lintel" over the fireplace,-- underneath a picture on the wall. If that picture wasn't called The Fisherman's Widow, but was called The Fisherman's Return, then it would be even more significant,-- wouldn't it?. I wonder who that randy,--(and after Mitre Square) smelly billygoat was. Regards Rick. P.S. Tone up the reason D, I don't want to see you banned.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 19 January 2001 - 06:10 pm
The horse ain't dead yet Jon ! I don't see any problem in modifying my theory if its contradicted , after all I hope I am correctly describing what actually happened. You may say that the medical evidence , that each victim was killed at the scene , is enough to completely disprove this theory. Maybe , but I believe that this explanation is too simplistic , given the odd blood patterning and other strange circumstances surrounding the killings. Also the evidence of the doctors is not always accurate ie Dr Llewelyns belief that her stomach wounds caused Nichols' death , or Dr Bond's estimation of TOD for Kelly. Thus is it not at least worth investigating ? Christopher , the carriage was never at the murder site but parked nearby - the body was then carried to the murder site. Thus there was never any noise at the murder site itself from a carriage or horses. How many modern serial killers cut up and kill their victims in the street ? Surely its too risky an operation ? Remember the streets of Whitechapel were not empty at night , people wandered round after dark be they policemen , whores , the homeless , other criminals , deliverymen or people on their way to and from work. Simon
Author: Rotter Friday, 19 January 2001 - 09:20 pm
My main objection here is that it simply doesn't make sense to propose that it is too risky to kill and butcher a woman on the street if one's solution is even more conspicuous,i.e. picking up a prostitute in a carriage, performing your operations and then carrying the cadaver around the corner and dumping it-isn't that something that would attract attention? Also, Chapman and Eddowes were seen just before the crimes very close to the murder scenes-did they get picked up and returned to the same place in the few minutes available? Was there really enough left of Mary Kelly to carry easily, and how did they get past the locked door without knowing about the latch (unless we are proposing some unholy alliance of Gull and Barnett)? Although the area was busy enough for all the victims to have been seen before the crime, none were reported near a carriage and there are no reports of women being approached by someone in a carriage. I don't see any way past the many objections.
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 12:15 am
Simon Do you recall that Inspector Spratling checked the road around the body of Nichols for wheel marks? This has struck me as a strange remark considering he did this hours after the fact and those were cobbled streets, I have asked myself what could he have expected to find on a cobbled street that was presumably well travelled by carts, carriages & all manner of two and four wheeled vehicles all through the day. What marks would a cart leave? If they leave any marks at all then the cobbles would be constantly marked, and I dont recall anyone mentioning rain that morning. However, the fact he looked and the fact that the suggestion was raised that she might have been killed elsewhere then dumped, and all this was considered by both the police & the Doctor. Coupled with not the slightest bit of evidence at the scene that this may have been a possiblilty I fail to see why you pursue the idea. It is quite one thing to make the proposal if some witness saw a carriage, or wheelmarks were found nearby, or the medical evidence suggested the crime was committed elsewhere.....but you have none of this, quite the contrary, there is a complete lack of anything to suggest a carriage was involved at all. You make a case using the evidence, not creating your own. Sorry Simon, this carriage thing is a non-starter. Regards, Jon
Author: Simon Owen Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 03:10 pm
Firstly , I don't think Mary Kelly was killed in a carriage : the blood spray on the wall of her room and the cut sheet state otherwise. I did have an idea that the body was placed there as a warning to Kelly , but I have dismissed that. If you accept that Mrs Long's identification of Chapman is correct though , then you end up with all sorts of problems about why the corpse was comprehensively stiffening only 45 minutes after being killed. And if you accept Chapman was killed 2 hours before being examined , you then have to state that Richardson and Cadosh were lying , and Mrs Long was mistaken ! Unless the body was put there at a later time. Its very easy to say Dr Phillips was wrong about TOD but this is a man who had examined hundreds of corpses in his 23 year career as a police surgeon , and IMO he only admitted he might have been wrong as the Coroner Baxter took the side of the witnesses. Violent death might have speeded rigor up but the cold morning would slow it down again. Furthermore where in the case of Chapman or Nichols is all the blood that we see in the other three cases. Chapman has been eviscerated yet there is very little blood around compared even to the Stride case , as I have pointed out above. If there was only one man involved then the carriage theory would seem ludicrous I admit , but its my suggestion that there was a gang of men involved here who made sure that the body was dumped and placed inconspicuously. From the involvement of the man with the pipe in the Stride case , its my suggestion that the Ripper did not work alone. As far as I'm aware , most of the modern serial killers like Bundy etc either killed their victims in remote places or in buildings. And they had cars , they didn't walk places. They didn't kill and cut up their victims in the street. Simon
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 04:16 pm
I can see this coach thing in a Monty Python sketch...... How many men are we talking about?....1 driver and three inside?...or two inside?...they entice a woman into the coach and strangle her, then what?....obviously the coach would be moving or they will attract attention, therefore there must only have been two men at the most inside or the others would have to run behind. These carriages were approx. 4-5ft wide thereabouts, so where did they lay her out? .....certainly not on the floor there's barely enough legroom for the two men so they must have laid her out across the seat opposite, her head hanging out the window, or if not then her legs would be hanging out the other side......quite the attraction while the thing is clippety-clopping around the streets. These carriages were not that big Simon, whatever they might have had in mind they would have had to do to her while she was sitting upright. The scenario makes me smile.....sorry. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:34 pm
Ok, lets look at the possibilities here..... The Hansom cab. Clearly inadequate, open to the elements at the front, two seater, too small.
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:38 pm
Not handsome enough
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:41 pm
The Growler. Four wheels, totally enclosed, but still only two seater, cramped, also inadequate.
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:47 pm
Grrrrrr.... What's next--the Brougham? Pronounced as in "The new broom sweeps clean"?
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:47 pm
The Carriage. Heavy built, mainly used for moving people with luggage, seats on top, 4 wheels, 4 horses, but still only two seats wide. Rather conspicuous for the backstreets of Whitechapel.
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:49 pm
I suppose we would not be having this conversation except that this is the way they said it worked in the Michael Caine film. If it works in Hollywood, why not in 1888? Special effects, brother.
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:50 pm
Rear view of all these two seater carriages, note....rather narrow built.
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:54 pm
Too BIG..... difficult getting round backstreets
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:54 pm
Ah yes but it's a narrow theory, Jon.
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 05:58 pm
Too small ..not built for speedy getaways....
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 06:04 pm
Perfect.. Though I cannot see Dr. William Gull M.D. F.R.C.P. etc...etc...climbing in the back of this in his galloshes & dungarees.
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 06:07 pm
....and so endeth a slow day in Ontario (yawn)
Author: Rotter Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 06:15 pm
Wonderful photos of carriages, Jon. To go back a bit, what kind of wheel marks would be left by a carriage? I have lived and/or worked in Manhattan neighborhoods where the 19th century cobblestones are still in use and it seems to me that they must be pretty tough to take that kind of abuse. Of course modern tires create a different kind of wear than the horseshoes and metal rimmed wheels used in the 1880's. Was checking for wheel marks just a routine that was followed in street crimes whether it was useful or not, like looking for fingerprints today? Also, going back to Simon, can a "gang of men" really carry a body down a city street inconspicuously? Modern serial killers do move and dump their bodies but usually in obscure places, not in the middle of town. Car or not, Ted Bundy would have been caught much more quickly if he was dumping bodies in Time Square rather than some field.
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 06:36 pm
Brougham (Broom?) Ahh,.....another 'List of Adrian Messenger' connoisseur?
Author: Jon Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 06:43 pm
Rotter. It crossed my mind that possibly the usual steel rimmed wheel may have had a rudimentary rubber 'tire?' around by then? I dont know, just a thought, otherwise we have a steel rim rattling across granite? cobbles. You could not easily mark these even with steel rimmed wheels....so why bother looking?..routine?...yes, probably. Regards, Jon
Author: Rotter Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 07:07 pm
Jon, a quick look at the web tells me that the rubber pneumatic tire was invented (not marketed)in 1888. I would imagine that a solid rubber tire wouldn't last very long trapped between a steel or wooden rim and a cobblestone, so that probably isn't practical. I have found various turn-of-the-century (that would be two turns ago now) references to the sound of horses hooves and steel-rimmed wheels on brick or cobblestone streets so I suppose that was how they travelled.
Author: Ashling Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 07:44 pm
Jon: Thanks for the lovely pics! Chris-George: I still can't operate my scanner, but ride the link below to see a brougham carriage just for ye. ;-) http://hometown.aol.com/hubskaggs/Carriage.html Ashling
Author: Ashling Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 07:58 pm
Chris-George: Let's not forget the barouche, which Marie Jeanette may have ridden in Paris (if she really went) ... Even with the top folded up, it would be a mite lacking in privacy. http://www.charlestonchapel.com/barouche_carriage.htm Alas, pics of chaise carriages have eluded me. Ashling
Author: Christopher T George Saturday, 20 January 2001 - 09:38 pm
Hi, Ash and Jon: Thank you both for this instructive tour of Victorian wheeled vehicles! And, Rotter, in the musical, "Yours Truly, Jack the Ripper," mention is made that the pneumatic tyre was invented in 1888 and that it would help to protect the Royal paliasse. Though, as you say, invention in the year was one thing, whether it was actually used is another--most likely general street traffic carts and carriages still used the steel-rimmed wheel. Very noisy, the clatter of horses hooves and the steel rims of the wheels on the stone setts aka cobblestones, most inconvenient for carrying round corpses of city street women. Best regards Chris George
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 01:36 pm
Thanks for the lovely carriage pics Jon ! I'd go with the brougham/carriage or the wagon meself , the others being a bit cramped. I think the handcart might have been a little small for Dr Gull's purposes ! Rotter , I take your point but - going back to our serial killer - he'd be even MORE obvious cutting up the body in Times Square after killing his victim ! You can't have it both ways ! Also , did nobody fancy a crack at the Chapman peculiarities I mentioned above , okay maybe I can't prove there was a carriage involved but I might be able to prove the shape of the hole for the peg to go into was carriage shaped...
Author: Rotter Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 06:07 pm
Actually, Simon, you'd be amazed at what you can get away with in Times Square! But seriously folks...I believe that a lone killer going into a quiet place with the complicity of his victim is less likely to be seen than a carriage and gang of men carrying a body.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 22 January 2001 - 02:48 pm
I'll think a bit more about this theory and then come back to it ; if anyone wants to post any comments ' for or against ' here though , please feel free ! Simon
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 27 June 2001 - 05:17 pm
SPURTING BLOOD ! I tried to preserve some of the red stuff in a ginger beer bottle , but it went all gooey , so you'll have to make do with bad-taste red text instead ! Seriously though , I came across this in ' From Hell ' on pages 88-89, Mr Hinton is referring to the medical report on Catherine Eddowes : " Victim probably dead before her throat was cut. Note the reference to no spurting of blood. Complete absence of any sound...No witnesses to the actual assault. No sign of a weapon. " This reminded me of a point Rosey made a while back , and it seems a very good one : what was the point of cutting the throat of the victim if she was already dead ? Now , lets look at Nichols , Chapman and Eddowes : apart from a few spots of blood in the second case , where is the spurting of blood from these victims ? In the cases of Stride and Kelly the blood seems to have gone everywhere. Its one thing to believe that the victims were half-throttled or chloroformed to subdue them , its another to believe the victims were strangled to death. If the person was living , cutting the throat would produce a spray of blood , if the victims were dead it wouldn't. But if the victims were already dead , why cut their throats - it doesn't make sense. If I remember rightly , the cause of death for Eddowes WAS having her throat cut - so what happened to the spurting blood ?