|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 October 27, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Mary Jane Kelly:
The fire in Kelly's room.:
Archive through October 27, 1999
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 23 June 1999 - 07:07 am |        | Hi y'all.
DAVE: As a quick aside ... the location of Mary’s organs & body parts was incorrectly reported by the press. Can’t quote the exact details at the moment, but I believe a doctor’s report that turned up in 1988 corrected the oft-repeated misinformation. As Sugden & others now relate, one of Mary’s breasts was placed under her head, the other one by her right foot. Perhaps the stuff on the table is fatty tissue or some such.
But I find the main gist of both your ideas interesting and thought provoking.
EDANA: For every drug taken in the world there’s a hundred “war stories,” no two exactly alike. (I ask everyone’s patience for a moment.) Once upon a time, while deeply intoxicated, I unwittingly parked beside a mud mole. Stepping out of my car, I sank ankle deep into seeming quicksand. My efforts to wrench free toppled me over sideways. I finally crawled free and staggered up a long flight of steps to my apartment. Inside, I stepped into my bathtub fully clothed, rinsed the mud off, and draped my white jeans over the shower rod to drip-dry. I put on a nightgown and THEN PASSED OUT for several hours.
The next day a trip to the grocery store was delayed for hours while I searched for my money. I finally found it, slightly damp - inside the pocket of my white jeans. Incidentally, I retired from that lifestyle a few years ago.
Anyway, how drugs effect you, me or anyone else is irrelevant ... How did Mary act? Sugden tells us that Detective Constable Walter Dew wrote years later ---
“Often I had seen her parading along ... She was usually in the company of two or three of her kind, fairly neatly dressed and invariably wearing a clean white apron, but no hat."
Several people testified at Mary’s inquest regarding her drinking :
1. Joe Barnett: “When she was with me I found her of sober habits, but she has been drunk several times in my presence.”
2. John McCarthy: “I frequently saw the deceased the worse for drink. When sober she was an exceptionally quiet woman, but when in drink she had more to say. She was able to walk about, and was not helpless.”
3. Mary Ann Cox: “I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.”
4. Julia Vanturney:"Deceased often got drunk."
There’s no rider given on her appearance, no one said -- well ... when she was drunk, she dressed sloppy.
Ingrained daily habits will usually be repeated by rote. I can be deep in thought while driving --- yet still arrive safely at work ... directed by my sub-conscious, I can perform this daily ritual on “remote control.”
So, this is the picture the above gives me:
a) Mary drank heavily and fairly often.
b) People in Mary’s lifestyle & environment usually owned very few clothes.
b) Mary’s behavior tells me she took good care of her clothes.
- 1- Maybe her Mom passed on swell housekeeper genes, or Mary was anal-retentive.
- 2 - Perhaps Mary rightly supposed her looks helped attract Sugar Daddies. IF we take only half her stories as true ... Mary usual avoided Streetwalking -- she preferred Serial Monogamy.
I contend it’s reasonable to suppose Mary undressed & neatly folded her clothes despite being mildly intoxicated or roaring drunk. That is probable. Assuming for the moment Joe Barnett did NOT kill Mary --- What happened next?
#1 Mary fell asleep or passed out, waiting on Mr. X to arrive ... Intentionally leaving the door unlocked??
#2 The door locked automatically. Mary passed out ... And didn’t hear JtR reach through the window to unlock the door? ... An action he could have watched her perform earlier, while he stalked though his usual territory.
#3 Mary stretched out “just for a moment,” and passed out before she had time to lock the door ... Perhaps she half-awoke as Jack leaned against or climbed onto the mattress --- Hence strengthening the case for “defensive wounds” on her arms?
Is there any evidence to support taking these or other non-Barnett possibilities into the realm of probability? I'd appreciate hearing further input.
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 23 June 1999 - 07:10 am | | The above post is partly addressed to David Radka - not Dave Y ... Sorry.
Janice |
Author: Leanne
Wednesday, 23 June 1999 - 09:27 pm | | G'day Janice,
Joseph Barnett was a bit of a lier:
At Kelly's inquest, he stated that he seperated from her because 'she took in an immoral woman. My work had nothing to do with it'.
Earlier, he had told Abberline that it was 'because she had resorted to prostitution, because he couldn't earn sufficient money to give her'.
Later he reported to the 'Central News Agency' that Kelly took in 2 prostitutes.
His statement that she was never drunk when she was with him, could have been another 'white lie'.
I wonder if the aliby that released him as a suspect, was a lie too.
LEANNE! |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 25 June 1999 - 03:44 am | | Hi y'all.
LEANNE: Why did you say that George Hutchinson testified at Mary Kelly's inquest? Were you lying, or was it just an honest mistake? Did you overlook my correction in an earlier post about that --- or do you think I'll "jump on you" if you admit making an error?
I could remind you:
Stride told an enormous whopper - that her husband John Thomas Stride & 2 kids drowned in 1878 when the steamer Princess Alice sank ... In reality, Mr. Stride died in 1884, and there's no documents showing Liz had any kids. By your recent posting standards, I'd be justified in promoting Liz from liar to serial killer - perhaps Liz killed herself AND Mary. So what if Liz died 5 or 6 weeks before Mary? -- No sense in letting a FACT get in my way, huh? :^)
I have a rebuttal to your latest statements about Joe Barnett's possibly inconsistent statements, but it wouldn't be very productive for us or others -- unless we can clear the air between us first. Can we talk?
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 27 June 1999 - 05:35 am | | G'day Janice,
I am sorry for making that honest mistake. It has taken me this long to answer you, because I have been very busy with other things, plus I have been trying to find the book I read that said there were two different descriptions of Kelly's possible murderer.
Two came from female 'witnesses' and one came from a male 'witness' and it was decided that the females were drunk, while the male must have been sober, plus he described him as "foreign looking", (which was the word they all wanted to hear).
It was a late night post and I was about to go to bed, so looking for a male name to give this male 'witness', I settled for the name 'Hutchinson' (which appeared in the next paragraph).
I haven't found which book told me this, so I think it must have been one I borrowed from the library. SORRY EVERYONE.
LEANNE! |
Author: Wolf
Sunday, 17 October 1999 - 08:53 pm | | This is a continuation of Bob Hinton's observations on time of death for the Kelly murder, I wasn't sure where this belonged so I chose this page because of the discussion of ambient temperature.
Bob, this was something that I wrote about several months ago and I find your disagreement with Dr. Hocking's findings to be a bit hard to fathom. According to Tully, Dr. Hocking, who had worked with Spilsbury, had been a pathologist for over 50 years while you are, I believe, a magistrate. I am sure that you are well versed in forensic matters but can you claim expertise over a pathologist of Dr. Hocking's experience?
When you said: "If that is what Dr Hocking said, rigor mortis starts about 2 to 4 hours after death ( and I don't believe he did) then at best he is misleading at worst in error." I was a bit startled. As Jim Di Palma has already pointed out, Gradwohl's Legal Medicine states: "The delay in the appearance of rigor mortis after death can vary considerably. Ordinarily it is about 2-4 hours. It is complete in another 3-4 hours and is generally fully established about 9 hours after death."
Taylor's Medical jurisprudence states: "Rigor mortis generally commences within 2-4 hours after death.
The Scientific Investigation of Crime says: "Rigor mortis, caused by the precipitation of protein, occurs 2-4 hours after death."
The Medicolegal Investigation of Death, second ed. States: "Rigor mortis usually begins 2-4 hours after death and is completed approximately 12 hours later."
As you pointed out Bob, as a chemical reaction, rigor can be affected by many circumstances but the circumstances that you then pointed out have little bearing on the events surrounding Mary Kelly's death.
1. "What physical activity the victim was engaged in immediately before death." Yes, extreme physical activity (like playing sports) can speed up the onset of rigidity, as can high fever or convulsions. In Mary Kelly's case, none of these apply nor can they if you want to trust Dr. Bond's estimate for time of death.
2. "The ambient temperature. This is extremely important for several reasons, mainly because it throws the whole timing of death out the window. I have personally witnessed rigor commencing about an hour after death, when the person died in a nice warm bed in a nice warm room." and
"However lower the temperature and rigor can be delayed by as much as 36 hours - possibly even more." I agree with you on this but point out that it takes something like refrigeration or very rapid cooling of the body in order to delay rigor by 8 to 12 hours. The ambient temperature of the room can only be guessed at. It rained most of the night with a low of 3° Celsius, 38° Fahrenheit, and two windows were broken but there were reports of rags stuffed in the broken panes along with the curtains and coat that covered the window and there had been a fire in the grate that night, the ashes were still warm when the police finally entered the room.
So what does this all mean? depends on who you want to believe. I have to support the modern forensic theory that Kelly was killed sometime between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and this is supported by Maurice Lewis, Caroline Maxwell, and the unidentified woman reported of in the Times.
Wolf. |
Author: Mxyzptlk
Sunday, 17 October 1999 - 11:54 pm | | The earliest manifestations of rigor mortis will be found in the muscles of the eyelids and those of the lower jaw. Rigidity of the eyelids usually precedes that of the jaw muscles, which are affected in about three to four hours after death. It next appears progressively in the muscles of the neck, the face, the thorax, the upper extremities, the trunk of the body, and the muscles of the lower extremities. Rigor mortis brings about slight shortening of the muscle fibres. The muscles in which rigor mortis first appears are those from which it usually first disappears. Rigor also affects the involuntary muscles...
The period of invasion can only be stated in broad terms, since there are so many modifying factors. As a rule, general stiffening will be established after ten to twelve hours, although in some cases the period may be shorter. Under certain circumstances, however, it may appear unusually early, or its appearance may be retarded very considerably. When rigor mortis is established, the jaw, neck, and extremities become fixed in position, and movements at the joints are possible only within a very limited degree unless the rigidity of muscle is overcome by effort...
The stronger muscularly the person is at time of death, the later is the time of onset, and the longer the duration...-
Medical Jurisprudence.
"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock..."
"It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours..." -
Dr. Thomas Bond.
As Bond said "Rigor mortis had set in" even though it was increasing (in firmness). This means that it had set in, not that it was beginning. The murder probably occurred between 2.00 a.m and 4.00 a.m. (Bond's examination was at 2 p.m.) which agrees with the cries of "Murder" heard in the night. All other modern theorising is a nonsense. Rigor mortis didn't behave any differently in 1888 than it does today and they had plenty of experience in watching its onset and calculating it. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 18 October 1999 - 01:00 am | | Hi all.
WOLF: My research on rigor mortis lands me about half-way between your beliefs and Bob H's.
Here's a few quotes from a police academy textbook - Homicide Investigation: Practical Information for Coroners, Police Officers, and Other Investigators --
"Persons dying under conditions of intense emotional excitement may develop rigor mortis very rapidly. This is likewise true when death occurs suddenly while one is engaged in strenuous physical activity."
Fighting for your life qualifies as intense emotional excitement AND strenuous activity. Mary may or may not have been asleep when JtR entered her room, but I take the defensive wounds on her arms as evidence that she was fully awake and fighting right before she died.
"Authorities disagree as to the effect of temperature on its [rigor mortis] development. However, it is my experience that if the body is chilled after death, rigor mortis will be more rapid in its onset and will be slower in leaving the body than when it remains warm."
Wolf, I agree that the rags in the window panes & the fire in the fireplace would keep the room from being totally cold ... but the fact that most of Mary's insides had been removed must have contributed to chilling her body somewhat.
I do realize the medical knowledge of the day in 1888 was mistaken - and we now know rigor mortis CAN set in more quickly than docs believed then. There's some other quotes on body temperatures that I need to unearth on my desk, but with all these variables, I doubt it possible to establish anything but broad possibilities for Mary's time of death.
I've already stated my two pence worth on other boards regarding the intensity of the fire, and the believability of the late morning witnesses. Over to you, Bob. ;-)
Take care,
Janice |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 18 October 1999 - 03:38 am | | Dear Wolf,
Thank you for your very interesting and valuable posting. However I fear you misunderstand me. I claim no forensic knowledge in depth at all and certainly do not consider my scanty knowledge on this subject to be anywhere near Dr Hockings. That is why I made a point of saying that I don't believe he stated that 'rigor mortis sets in 2 to 4 hours after death'. What I believe he said was something like 'it is possible for rigor mortis to set in 2 to 4 hours etc'
Otherwise he is making a statement along the lines of 'all motor vehicles travel at speeds between 30 and 40 mph.' This is nonsense most vehicles can travel at such a speed, but they can also travel at a lot of other speeds as well.
From my own experience I have noticed rigor commencing at 1 hour, and I understand from well qualified sources that it can be delayed by as much as 36 hours, the difference in time being down to various factors such as physical activity (such as lovemaking) and temperature.
Now we do not know what the temperature of the room was or what MJK did before being killed, however it is a reasonable assumption to state that the temperature would be on the lower rather than higher side thus delaying rather than hastening rigor.
Jim Di Palma (Hi Jim I would never use your christian name without being invited - Good God man I'm British don't ye know!) stated that drawing such conclusions is 'bad science' and I totally agree with him. However what we are doing here is not practising science but investigation, and with investigation you have to work with what you have, not what you would like.
I reiterate my personal belief that the blazing fire is a myth, based on the impossibility of such a fire being maintained without a constant suply of fuel. If you set light to a pool of petrol you get a blazing fire, but as soon as the petrol is burned it goes out and cools rapidly.
If you set light to an old overcoat it can smoulder for many hours and still retain its heat the following day. All AGA owners put your hand up!
Which have Abberlines statement that the fire was still warm the following day, which tends to suggest that it was smouldering clothing, and since he did find remnants of clothing in the fireplace I think that is a fair conclusion to draw.
Unfortunately I have not been able to track down Janices thoughts on the subject, if she would like to email me I would be very interested.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 19 October 1999 - 06:20 pm | | BOB H: Will do, but give me a couple of days. A possibly helpful hint - When seeking my posts which are older than a couple of months: Type Ashling, instead of Janice into Stephen's search engine here. ;-)
Take care,
Janice |
Author: wolf
Wednesday, 20 October 1999 - 09:23 pm | | To Mxyzptlk, if that's your real name, (Batman has way cooler villains,) I'm assuming that your quote comes from Taylor's medical jurisprudence although if you read my post, you'll see that I have quoted Taylor's: "Rigor mortis generally commences within 2-4 hours after death." as well as three other works on forensic pathology. Let's just use you're quotations.
"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock..."
"It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours..." Dr. Bond.
What we have here is Dr. Bond telling Anderson that it takes from 6 to 12 hours before rigor mortis starts it's course, but wait, didn't you're quote state: "Rigidity of the eyelids usually precedes that of the jaw muscles, which are affected in about three to four hours after death. It next appears progressively in the muscles of the neck, the face, the thorax, the upper extremities, the trunk of the body, and the muscles of the lower extremities."? Hmm, there seems to be some discrepancy here between Dr. Bond and modern forensic pathology, even though "Rigor mortis didn't behave any differently in 1888 than it does today and they had plenty of experience in watching its onset and calculating it." Like it or not, Bond was wrong about the time it takes for the onset of rigidity.
You also stated: "As Bond said "Rigor mortis had set in" even though it was increasing (in firmness). This means that it had set in, not that it was beginning." Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't your quote from Taylor's (if it is from Taylor's), show that Rigidity starts in the eyelids then moves to the jaw, ( it starts in the face and neck because of the shorter muscle fibers there), and then: "appears progressively in the muscles of the neck, the face, the thorax, the upper extremities, the trunk of the body, and the muscles of the lower extremities."? So what we have here is a progression of rigidity through the body starting with the face and then working it's way down through the larger muscles. Therefore when Dr. Bond states: "Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination." he was not saying " it was increasing (in firmness)," but that it was increasing through the body. In other words, Kelly had been dead for somewhere between 2 to 12 hours but because rigidity was still progressing at 2:00 p.m. we can consider that it was somewhere in the mid to lower range. Taking into account Maurice Lewis, Caroline Maxwell, and the unidentified woman reported of in the Times, a time of 9:00 to 10:00a.m. is likely.
Ashling, good to hear from you. You have written: "Persons dying under conditions of intense emotional excitement may develop rigor mortis very rapidly. This is likewise true when death occurs suddenly while one is engaged in strenuous physical activity." and then added: "Fighting for your life qualifies as intense emotional excitement AND strenuous activity. Mary may or may not have been asleep when JtR entered her room, but I take the defensive wounds on her arms as evidence that she was fully awake and fighting right before she died." I am afraid that we can't be sure that Mary Kelly died under conditions of intense emotional excitement other than a possible split second understanding of what her fate was to be. I have read other posters who have suggested that the wounds to Kelly's forearms were of a defensive nature but I see no real evidence of that. Defensive wounds do appear on the forearms and hands but then again we have a terribly mutilated body so were these defensive or just part of the general mutilations. I point to the fact that Dr. Bond's report states that: "Both arms and forearms had extensive and jagged wounds."so it appears that the arms were part of the mutilations so why not the forearms as well? I would also like to point to the fact that the only cut to the hands (and you would expect gashes to the hands) was a ".... small superficial incision about 1 in. long" to the right thumb, hardly a defensive wound, more like the delicate cuts to Katherine Eddowes eyelids.
You also posted: "it is my experience that if the body is chilled after death, rigor mortis will be more rapid in its onset...." and then added: "the fact that most of Mary's insides had been removed must have contributed to chilling her body somewhat." I agree with you, Ashling but in my prior post I pointed out that it would take very rapid cooling or refrigeration in order to slow down the onset of rigor for any great length of time. My feeling is that the blood loss and evisceration pushed the onset to the 4 to 5 hour mark after death.
Bob, when I stated that you were probably well versed in forensic matters I was using the literal use of the word, pertaining to courts of law, and not trying to suggest that you were trying to put yourself up as an expert in pathology. I understand your example of the speed of cars but also point to the fact that Dr. Hocking estimated time of death by factoring in variables such as room temperature, a normally nourished human body, digestion of Kelly's last meal and most importantly, Dr. Bonds own notes and observations.
I agree with you on the "roaring fire" being a bit dodgy but understand that Abberline probably thought this because of Dr. Bond's time of death. If Kelly had been murdered at 2:00 a.m. and the ashes were still warm 12 hours later, it was an understandable conclusion but, if Kelly was murdered sometime later that morning, say at 9:30 a.m. then the warmth of the ashes is also explained (also why the piece of candle was not used, it was light out.) As for the amount of clothes burnt in the grate, The Times mentions a piece of velvet, perhaps from a woman's jacket, and the rim and wirework of a woman's felt hat while The Daily Telegraph tells of Inspector Abberline's inquest testimony as mentioning the remains of a skirt and the brim of a hat. If we assume that this was the clothing that Maria Harvey had left with Mary, and considering the fact that only Mary Kelly's neatly folded clothes were found on a chair in the room, what, then, was burnt in the grate?
According to Maria Harvey's inquest testimony and written statement to the police, she had left: "2 men's shirts, 1 boy's shirt, an overcoat, a black crape bonnet and 1 little white petticoat." Of these, only the men's black overcoat was left in the room, covering the window. Abberline's inquest testimony on the contents of the grate was: "I have since gone through the ashes in the grate and found nothing of consequence except that articles of woman's clothing had been burnt...." So, unless Mary Kelly had owned more than the clothes on her back, clothes which she hadn't pawned, the only clothes burnt in the grate were Maria Harvey's shirts, petticoat and her crape, not felt, bonnet, all of which would have burned rather quickly, rather than smouldered. It all comes down to the supposed "velvet" which, if it existed, must have belonged to Kelly. The velvet , I imagine, would smoulder but for how long? Would the grate still be warm 12 hours later? Was there any velvet to begin with and how much?
You may have to do your experiment over again Bob and this time try it in a small 12ft by 10ft room where I would think even smouldering clothes would be enough to heat the room.
Wolf. |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 20 October 1999 - 09:27 pm | | It has taken me three days to actually get the above message to post. Computers, arn't they supposed to make our lives easier???
Wolf. |
Author: Alan
Wednesday, 20 October 1999 - 10:49 pm | | Dr. Bond was a hugely experienced doctor and police surgeon. He had a vast experience of pathology and dissection. His knowledge of the effects of rigor mortis must have been extensive. He also had a huge advantage over Mr. Wolf (if that's his/her real name) and Mr Hinton - he actually examined the body in situ.
Dr. Bond's pronouncement on the time of death was very clear : -
"Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder."
Dr. Bond probably was out a little in his calculation and admitted so. Therefore the circa 4.00 a.m. cry of murder would be consistent with Dr. Bond's calculations.
As all sides admit that rigor mortis is such an inaccurate method of calculating the time of death all other available evidence has to be looked at and the other evidence indicates a time of around 3.30 am to 4.00 am.
Dr. Bond stated that "rigidity sets in" from 6 to 12 hours, and by this I am sure he meant rigidity of the body as a whole not just of the face and neck. In the case of Kelly with her extreme facial mutilation and the neck muscles fully severed down to the vertebrae it must have been even more difficult to assess rigor mortis in that area.
The only witness indicating a later time of death was Mrs. Maxwell, and the coroner warned her that her evidence was a total variance with all other witnesses. The two other alleged witnesses were obviously only press quotes and not used as witnesses by the police which would seem to indicate that their 'evidence' was discounted.
Of course all this leaves a fertile ground for the modern theorists and as we see they have a field day tossing about their 'expertise.' Sorry, but I prefer to stick with what little clear evidence there is from the time. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 12:08 am | | Dear Alan,
My position is and always has been the same as yours, in other words to accept that Dr Bond was as probably as accurate as its possible to be.
To this end I have written several articles to explain my position, discussing Lewis and Maxwell in Ripperologist under the title 'The Magical Witnesses'.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: brad
Thursday, 21 October 1999 - 04:23 pm | | | The modern diet, high in preservatives, increases the onset of rigor mortis in comparison to that of a Victorian era person. |
Author: Medic
Friday, 22 October 1999 - 01:24 am | | Rigor Mortis
 |
Author: Medic
Friday, 22 October 1999 - 03:30 am | | Rigor Mortis
Due to a chemical reaction in the muscles, most bodies become stiff for a time after death and later relax once more. But the occurrence or disappearance of rigor can give only a very approximate indication of when death took place. All chemical reactions are affected by temperature: in very hot conditions, rigor can occur very quickly, and as quickly disappear, while in near-freezing conditions it may not occur at all.
The following table gives an approximate time of death in average conditions for an 'average' body:
Rigor - Warm or cold - Approx. time since death
no - warm - 3 hours or less.
yes - warm - 3-8 hours.
yes - cold - 3-36 hours.
no - cold - 36 hours plus.
The stiffening of the muscles is first detectable in the face and fingers after about an hour, and generally extends to the whole body in four to six hours. The rigidity can increase up to 12 hours after death; then the body will remain in this state until the muscle tissues begin to decompose, which occurs anything from 24 to 50 hours after death. Rigor tends to appear more rapidly in people who die shortly after physical exertion, while babies and old, feeble people may show almost none.
In extremely hot conditions rigor can disappear and decomposition set in within an hour. It is also known for rigor to occur in just one part of the body - generally a hand - if death took place when the person was physically or emotionally distressed: for example, snatching at grass or weeds during a fall, holding a tool when electrocuted, or with a finger still crooked around the trigger of the gun with which they have committed suicide. |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 01:51 pm | | Alan, (If that's your real name,) It never ceases to amaze me when people attack my post without seeming to have read them. You always know that when you respond they will sail through your post on their hasty way to the keyboard.
I agree that Dr. Bond was an experienced surgeon and a Fellow of the Royal College and it was this expertise that prompted Dr. Anderson to ask for his assistance but he was called in to give an opinion on the surgical skill of the Ripper, not to be an expert on time of death. You might claim that his knowledge of the effects of rigor mortis was probably greater than the average Victorian surgeon but I'm afraid that's not saying much.
Forensic pathology is a modern science, and you are apparently one of those people that believe that modern, 20th century forensic pathology has not advanced much in the last 111 years. Somehow, the opinions of a poorly educated doctor, ( by today's standards,) from 1888 are not to be questioned. Never mind that his estimate for the time of death is laughable, (as is his estimate for the digestion time for fish and chips). Never mind that temperature of the body was "taken" by merely feeling one of the limbs, it is all indicative of the poor quality and understanding of forensic pathology in the 19th Century. Do you really believe that Dr. Bond had the skill and expertise to out weigh the opinions of an expert like Dr. Hocking, a pathologist who had conducted over 40,000 autopsies merely because "he actually examined the body in situ."? You probably do.
It is interesting how Dr. Bond's guesstimate of time of death, "one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder." now becomes 4:00 a.m. solely based on the testimony of Sarah Lewis and Elizabeth Prater. What Dr. Bond wrote was that, "It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours." So, at 2:00 p.m. Bond was pretty certain that Kelly had been dead for 12 hours but, as you wrote, "Dr. Bond probably was out a little in his calculation and admitted so. Therefore the circa 4.00 a.m. cry of murder would be consistent with Dr. Bond's calculations."How helpful of you to change the good doctors opinion in order to fit the "clear evidence." When Dr. Bond said that "one or two o'clock in the morning..."was the time of death, that was his admittance that he might be a little off, not that he might be off by 3 to 4 hours. But of course, Lewis and Prater are much more reliable witnesses than Lewis and Maxwell.
Elizabeth Prater claimed at the inquest that around, "3:30 to 4, I noticed the lodging house light was out so it was after 4 probably, I heard a cry of Oh! Murder! The voice was in a faint voice. The noise seemed to come from close by." Considering she lived right on top of Kelly, this is an understatement if it came from Kelly's room. Prater had also testified that she could hear Kelly move around if she was at home but apparently she couldn't tell if Kelly was screaming for her life just below her. "It is nothing uncommon to hear cries of murder, she told the coroner,so I took no notice. I did not hear it a second time..."Prater obviously did not judge this cry to be of any importance and at the time, certainly didn't think it had come from her friends room.
That is what Elizabeth Prater said to the inquest but that's not quite what she said to Abberline when he interviewed her. Her written statement states, "About 3:30 or 4 a.m....I heard screams of murder about 2 or 3 times in a female voice. I did not take much notice of the cries as I frequently hear such cries from the back of the lodging house where the windows look into Miller's Court." Now she hears more than one cry and connects it directly to the lodging house. It is interesting to note that she later would change her story on the witness stand and not only claim to have heard only one cry but to have added, "I did not hear it a second time." All in all, whatever she did or did not hear she made no connection at the time between the scream(s) and Mary Kelly.
Sarah Lewis is a bit more consistent. On the stand she testified, "A little before 4, I heard a female voice shout loudly out, Murder. The sound seemed to come from the direction of the deceased room. There was only one scream. I took no notice of it." In her written statement she had said, "Shortly before 4 o'clock I heard a scream like that of a young woman and seemed to be not far away. She screamed out, Murder, I only heard it once." Lewis hears only one scream, (perhaps that's why Prater changed her story,) but told Abberline nothing about the direction from which it came. At the inquest, this becomes, "The sound seemed to come from the direction of the deceased room."
Caroline Maxwell was interviewed by the police and rather than discount her story, they checked it. She was proved correct in time and date and never changed her story even under police grilling and coroners questioning. She was called as an inquest witness because it was felt that she had something to add to the events of that night, no matter if her tale was at variance to the other testimony. Those who feel that she must have got the days mixed up, can't explain the findings of the police investigation so they generally ignore it. Were Maurice Lewis and the unnamed woman discounted by the police or were they just not interviewed before the inquest was over? George Hutchinson was not an inquest witness only because of the unseemly haste with which Dr. Macdonald conducted his court.
Now we get to your ‘expertise' on what Dr. Bond said versus what you think he meant. You wrote, "Dr. Bond stated that "rigidity sets in" from 6 to 12 hours, and by this I am sure he meant rigidity of the body as a whole not just of the face and neck." "Sets in" means to start or become established not to become complete. What you fail to grasp is what Dr. Bond tells us about the condition of rigor in Mary Kelly's body, remember he had observed the body in situ. He wrote,"Rigor mortis had set in, notice the use of the phrase again, but increased during the progress of the examination." So, as you apparently failed to understand my last post, I will try and explain it to you.
Rigor mortis is a gradual onset of stiffness in the body. It is caused by a build up of lactic acid in the muscle fibers which acidifies the protoplasm and makes the fibers gel into a rigid state. It generally starts in the face and neck because of the shorter muscle fibers, and then works it's way down throughout the longer muscle fibers of the body. It generally starts about 2 to 4 hours after death, (depending on the multitude of circumstances that can cause variances,) and is complete in about 12 hours. Now, if you are saying that Dr. Bond meant that it takes from 6 to 12 hours for rigor mortis to become complete, and we have Dr. Bond's statement, "It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours." then Mary Kelly should have been stiffer than the proverbial board, but that is not what Dr. Bond observed. He said, "Rigor mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination." So rigor had already started but it was still working it's way through the body at 2:00 p.m. so it wasn't complete.
From Dr. Bond's report to Dr. Anderson, and the reports from the police and witnesses, we can piece together these facts, that Bond thought that rigor mortis takes from 6 to 12 hours to start or become established, (this is a false belief).. That Mary Kelly's body showed that rigor had started but was not completed, (this is an observation). Mary Kelly was supposedly seen with a man at 2:00 a.m. (around the time that she was supposed to have been killed). Elizabeth Prater heard 2 or 3 cries of murder which she assumed came from the near by lodging house, sometime after 4:00 a.m.. Sarah Lewis heard 1 cry of murder a little before 4:00 a.m. coming from not far away. Maurice Lewis saw Mary Kelly, alive, at 8:00 a.m.. Caroline Maxwell saw and spoke to Kelly at 8:30 a.m.. The unnamed woman said she saw Kelly alive, between 8:00 a.m. and 8:45 a.m.. Caroline Maxwell again saw Kelly, this time outside The Britannia talking to a man at around 9:00 a.m.. Maurice Lewis sees Kelly drinking in The Britannia at around 10:00 a.m.. The body of Mary Kelly is discovered at 10:45 a.m.. Dr. Bond examined the body at 2:00 p.m.. From this, you can pick and choose what you want in order to make a case but I believe that the modern medical evidence points to a time of death that is consistent with the testimony of Lewis and Maxwell's.
Yes, as you can see, "all this leaves a fertile ground for the modern theorists and as we see they have a field day tossing about their 'expertise." That's all part of the fun, something that you don't seem to understand. We're not going to unmask the Ripper here in the casebook, but we can debate and discuss our personal beliefs and theories and yes, I am an armchair detective, but one who has studied this case a lot longer than you and one who does it for the intellectual stimulation.
Wolf. |
Author: John
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 02:54 pm | | | Fun, intellectual??? Get a life. |
Author: Alan
Wednesday, 27 October 1999 - 04:03 pm | | Wolf, (if that's your real name), it never ceases to amaze me how you continue to invest rigor mortis with any sort of accuracy as to time of death. You always know that when you respond Wolf will crawl through your post on his longwinded way to the keyboard.
Forensic pathology is not a modern science, it has a very long history stretching back long before the Whitechapel murders. In fact it was the most advanced sicentific aid available to the police at the time. They had a very good understanding of rigor mortis, but lacked the modern knowledge of the chemical reactions involved. Unlike Dr. Hocking, Bond was there, and I know of modern pathologists who happen to think that Bond's reasoning, given the inaccuracy of the method involved, was pretty fair.
If you consult 'Medic's' table above you will see that a body in which rigor is present and which is cold, may have died anything from 3-36 hours previously, but as Bond stated that it was increasing the time would be more likely to be in the lower half of this scale. Even a warm body which displays rigor may have been dead up to 8 hours. 4.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. is only 10 hours so, given the unreliability of the method there is no way that anyone could say that Dr. Bond's estimate of 12 hours was "laughable." In fact I find your wildly errant reasoning laughable.
Now take the following facts -
1. In the early hours of Friday 9th November 1888 a cry of "Murder" is heard by two different people in Miller's Court, one of whom stated that it came from the direction of Mary Kelly's room, anyway from nearby.
2. At 10.45 a.m. the same morning the body of Mary Kelly is discovered, murdered in her room.
3. The Dr. making an examination of the body at the scene states that she most likely died about 2.00 a.m.
You are asking us to believe that the cry of murder heard by the two witnesses was nothing to do with the body found in the morning, it was sheer coincidence. Sorry I don't believe it. Even if the cry of murder was not uncommon, I bet there weren't too many around 4.00 a.m.!
You still seem to be interpreting 'set in' as meaning 'just started.' It doesn't, it means it had set in and was established throughout the body, note Medic's post above "The rigidity can increase up to 12 hours after death." I simply cannot agree with you.
In asking us to believe that Mrs. Maxwell saw Kelly as late as 8.30 or 9.00 a.m., and she had only ever spoken to her twice, you are asking us to believe that no-one else in that busy street and Court who actually knew Kelly well saw her! The other two 'witnesses' would have been called by the police if they had actually seen her, but their 'evidence' remains only unsubstantiated press reports. It is not testimony until it is given officially as evidence and it never was. I think that everyone would agree that Lewis's claim to have seen her drinking in the Britannia at 10.00 a.m. (only 45 minutes before the body was found) is preposterous. Are you say that after drinking in the Britannia at 10.00 a.m. she went home, undressed, neatly folded her clothing, went to bed, was joined by her murderer, was killed, mutilated to a great degree, then was found dead at 10.45 a.m.!!! Do me a favor.
Your whole argument seems to revolve around a witness who appeared at the inquest and was warned that her evidence was at variance with everyone else's and another who did not give testimony but was merely an unconfirmed press report, and totally preposterous as to timing anyway. I would say your case is pretty weak myself.
By the way, how do you know that you have studied the case longer than I have?
I will, however, agree that you are an armchair detective, not to say couch potato by the sound of it.
Mrs Maxwell, as has been often stated, probably saw someone she thought to be Mary Kelly. I would agree that she would have been right about the day. |
|
|
|
|
