Archive through 04 September 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 04 September 2001

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth ' Long Liz ' Stride: Archive through 04 September 2001

Author: graziano Friday, 31 August 2001 - 03:09 pm
Hello Wendy, 16 years........oh baby. The big bad Grazzi. P.S.: My grandma is Dorothy Stride.....the sister of Judith ?
Author: E Carter Friday, 31 August 2001 - 03:22 pm
Jon, I can only go into so much detail, however if you cast your mind back to an earlier discussion: chloroform against strangulation, we discussed the physiological process of both in some detail. If any of the women had been strangled many signs would have informed us of this, amongst them bruising on the neck which occurs due to venous pressure and the delicate hyoid bone would have certainly been crushed. If bruising occurs due to venous pressure and the only contusions found were were around the facial area we must begin to suspect something was held over the face. Chloroform commonly causes convulsion and tongue biting, you will remember the lacerations on both Annie Chapman's and Polly Nichols tongues....I see fits almost every day and the lacerations noted on Polly and Annie's tongues were almost certainly due to some sort of fit! The 'fresh' pressure marks under and over Strides clavicles must also have occurred whilst she was alive, so why did she not scream her head off, unless unconscious? Would she have allowed the killer to murder her in silence whilst holding on to a packet of sweets? No! The killers used the same chloroform stored at the printing rooms of Der Arbiter Fraint'(used to fix photo's to newspaper) They were concerned dogs might well lead the police to the same chloroform stored in the print rooms so the sweet smell of chloroform had to be be accounted for in some way. Less the police linked one to another and decided that someone from Der Arbieter Fraint was involved in the murder. To be cont. ED
Author: Robeer Friday, 31 August 2001 - 09:41 pm
Wendy, Your Great Aunt was a quiet woman, very neat, and a good worker who was respected and well liked by the people she met on a day to day basis. Later in life she could be quite rambunctious when drinking. From her picture it appears she might have been very attractive as a young woman. To find more about her personality go to the Main Page of the Casebook and on the left is a list of Topics. Select the topic Victims, second from the top. Be forewarned the pictures are postmortem mortuary photos. Put your arrow on her picture and press the button on your mouse. This will bring up the biographical history of your great aunt. It tells about her personality. Her life story is melancholy but that was the case with all the victims. Liz Stride was a nice person who was trying to survive as best she could in the poverty of this East London neighborhood. Robeer
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Friday, 31 August 2001 - 09:43 pm
Dear Ed, The last person I cut down had his swollen tongue protruding and his teeth had bitten into it. Rosey :-)
Author: graziano Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 05:17 am
Hey Wendy, What about paying a month of sustaintement to Robeer in the tough neighborhoods of Antwerp, Amsterdam or Hambourg. So he/she will be able to meet a lot of "your great great...(how many times you want) aunts" and to speak "en connaissance de cause". Probably though he/she won't come back saying the same thing. Do not worry, you give me the impression you will be more interested in the other version. Bye......Baby. Piggy Grazzi. P.S.: Why have I the feeling to have added another friend to my list with Robeer ?
Author: E Carter Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 06:27 am
Rosemary, Good point! Because they would certainly have have also had a hangmans fracture to the cervical spinal; did you check this also? This is my last post on the boards so I will finsh with more evidence to support the use of chloroform. The central nervous system situated in the brain controls another system that prepares us all to fight or run away from a dangerous situation; fight or flight. If any of these women had been attacked with in ten mins prior to death the system would have kicked in automatically. The adrenal glands situated near the kidneys would have secreted adrenaline. This powerful hormone causes the veins in the peripheral areas to close down in order to ensure that the heart and lungs: cardio/ pulmonary respiration has enough oxygenated blood-flow to either fight or run away. The heart now has the problem of pushing blood through these smaller veins in the hands and feet, therefore its stroke volume; force increases. You will then feel the heart muscle beating against the chest wall. Severing a major artery during this period would have thrown blood about 4 feet, so why did the blood only trickle from Strides Carotid artery. We have 3 possible answers, that she was given some sort of diuretic prior to death but we can rule this out, as it would be unpredictable and require intravenous infusion. Morphine: this has the effect of peripheral vaso-dilation(opens the small veins) therefore reducing the stroke volume requirements of the heart. But it can be detected easily and does not account for the facial marks nor the sudden cries from Chapman and Kelly. Chloroform is a powerful hypotensive drug dropping the blood pressure by working directly on the Myocardium (the heart muscle). This account for the the facial marks, the fitting it accounts for the weakness of blood flow from a from a major artery, at a time these women were distressed. It accounts for the cachous in Strides hand and the fire in Kelly's room. I haven't the time to go into more detail best wishes ED.
Author: graziano Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 06:35 am
Hey Ed, what do you mean by: "This is my last post on the boards" ? Jokes not allowed here.
Author: graziano Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 03:48 pm
Hello Jon, since Wendy seems to have already disappeared (she lasted even less than Paula and Corinne) no doubt scared by Robeer's post which could have dismissed the beginning of something unconventional but how hard on these boards, I have maybe sometime to speak about bloodhounds, chloroform and what Ed told us ( am I beginning to speak like Malcolm here ? ) this kind of bloodhounds were trained to pick up whatever scent and to follow the trace of it. It was not necessarily a specific scent. They were brought to the site of the theft or murder, let smell and then go as they felt. Of course every time they were able to pick up more than one trace (different scents on a site). What they were trained to was to follow the one of the scents they picked up that had a follow up around and away of the site. Hoping (it was not always the case) that this following would have led to a whatever indication, a street walked by the thief or the murderer, a house entered, a wall touched.....something that could have meant a whatever clue for the police. The fact that the dogs were/are able to follow to the trace the criminal is for american (, sorry Tom, take it as a general word) fiction-movies. What Ed told us is that the murderers used the cachous to conceal the smell of chloroform. But he told us also that the murderers (or at least one of them) were right there, at the end of the yard, or in any case from there they came because there they worked. Not only they wanted to conceal first of all the fact that they did use chloroform but surely they did not want to take the risk that the dogs could have followed up the smell till the printing office. Chloroform is very volatile, thus the smell does not last very long were it applicated with the cloth on a face for a minute or two. But working all day in a printing office were chloroform is used to fix pictures I am less sure that you do not wear enough scent of it on your clothes and shoes not to leave the faintest trace for this kind of dogs. If we assume that the killer came in fact from the printing office his shoes could have left a trace from this office to the victim's body. A trace easy (the distance being minimal and so the laps of time if the dogs had been brought immediately) followed by the bloodhounds. A trace that could have been broken by some powerful sweet cachous scattered on the ground. Even if the dogs had picked up the scent on Liz body, it would have stopped short and they would not have been able to follow till the office. Of course cachous on the ground could have been suspicious without knowing were they could have come from. Thus the packet in the left hand. With one stone two windows, you break any possible trace and it seems like a struggle. Now, the controversy regarding the cachous on the gutter. Wolf seems to rely on a sentence pronounced by Doctor Blackwell coming from the transcription of the inquest in the Daily Telegraph to prove that Ed is wrong about that. Once again, I have no "a priori" in favour of Ed, but each time he says something that seems incoherent and incredible I check wondering why he says that. Till now I always got to the conclusion that he was right. This time is no exception. Some cachous were in the gutter even without Dr Blackwell spilling them. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Saturday, 01 September 2001 - 03:59 pm
Hello Robeer, could you say to Wendy that you were not serious ? Maybe she comes back. Thank you.....my friend.
Author: graziano Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 05:39 am
Hello Jon, concerning your first point. Yes, Schwartz saw a man pulling Liz on the street and not pushing her in the dark alley. First remark: doesn't it sound strange for someone who wants (at this precise moment ) to carry a murderous attack ? Wouldn't it have been more logical the other way round ? Second remark: What happens next ? Schwartz flies (let us forget the "Lipski" shout, it does not matter now), he sees Mr Pipeman moving. He thinks maybe Mr Pipeman is following me. Problem: when he turns back Mr Pipeman is not behind him. Possible conclusion: Mr Pipeman was not following him. So why did he move on ? Third remark: What about Stride after she screams ? Why she does not goes on screaming ? Would you, if attacked, just stay there and wait ? Second remark+Third remark: Mr Pipeman moves on just after the screams, but he does not follow Schwartz. Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 05:41 am
Wendy ?
Author: Jon Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 10:48 am
Thanks Graz. But answering questions with questions does not instill any confidence in the theory, in fact it weakens it considerably. When her attacker tried to pull her into the street that is indicative of the man gesturing "come with me" or, if Michael Kidney was the man, "come on home", then casting her down on to the sidewalk might suggest "stay out then, what do I care". You see, many different scenario's can be read into actions viewed as a snapshot in time. And most likely such interpretations will be wrong. Ed needs to give some detailed explanations. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 11:41 am
(Previously posted on another thread - Sept. 01) 1 - "No noise was heard in the alley because Liz was chloroformed elsewhere." It's my understanding that Schwartz saw Liz & her assailant talking together at the gateway, and her assailant tried to pull her into the street, notice NOT push her into the alley. Then he spun her around and threw her down on the footway (still in the street, not in the alley). At this point she was obviously not chloroformed, but Ed is suggesting she was taken somewhere else, then chloroformed, then carried back into the alley? Is this what Ed is suggesting? 2 - "The noise heard by Fanny was two men carrying Liz past her house door." Surely this suggestion that two men are synchronizing their footsteps, (as they proceed unnoticed past Fanny's house?) presupposes that the two men are under surveillance, (by who?) and are purposely trying to sound as one. Mrs. Mortimer heard footsteps 10 minutes prior to Schwartz seeing Liz assaulted.....so who or what were they carrying?, certainly not Liz. OK people, try to carry a heavy object (150lbs?) in pairs, as described by Ed, I defy anyone to coordinate their footsteps to sound as one man. This takes lots of practice and I think it is outrageous that Ed thinks people are so gullable as to believe this kind of 'b' movie type charade. I think Ed has been watching too much Buster Keaton. 3 - "When she suddenly opened the front door the two men rushed into the alley; had they carried on walking, Fanny should certainly have seen them before they reached the corner." Ed, please, this automatically sinks your 'coordinated corpse carriers' theory, how could they rush (shuffle?) into an alley with coordinated footsteps?? To be continued...... Ed, if you wish to explain your statements or counter the above observations, please do so.
Author: graziano Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 04:59 pm
Hello Jon, there are in life two kinds of questions. The ones who demand for an answer. The others that contain it. There are on these boards two kinds of posters. The one who look for answers and find them. The others that will die wondering. I am in the former category. I came here two months ago. One year ago I even quite did not know what Jack was about. Now I know who they were, why they did it, their MO, why and when they stopped and I even saw the face of one of them. Yes, the same face that Hutchinson saw in front of Miller,s court. The face of the guy who, as someone stated, f***ed plainly and simply with a knife Annie Chapman, Mary Kelly and Frances Coles. Is it not fantastic, after 113 years ? And all that thanks to Ed Carter. Ed Carter, the discoverer of the mistery of Jack the Ripper. Remember his name, Jon. Will you be able to get the same satisfaction that I got on these boards one day, Jon ? No. Why ? Because there is a huge difference between me and you, Jon. I am ignorant and not cultivated. Free of all status of authority. I do not have to ask Ed to explain his statements, I only listen to him and I try to understand him. Why asking him if in any case you are not going to believe him. He can't say more than what he already did. He said everything that was necessary. Do not make any illusion of yourself. You are a very nice guy and I may say a lot clever. But you will one day end up as the other "authorities". Stating on a TV channel, after having spent a life on the search that the killer has always been known and that he had three or four different names, one for the Mets, the other for the City PC's and another one for the Asylums (normal, he was a media star). Or stating on these boards that you are a very credible authority on the case because you know that there weren't any cachous on the gutter and telling the other posters that they are nonentities. Or asking the other brothers boarders what do they think about your epistemological center and the way you convey all your creative emotional understanding to it to find the only logical and universal suspect. Or answering in a very academic way to the 12 years old great great great great.....well you know. Sounds a bit pathetic all that, but as Caz said, all work makes Jack a dull boy. Better to stay ignorant and to catch the Word when it comes. To whom has the Paradise been promised in any case, Jon? Hope you are not going to get angry after this message, because I really appreciate you very much and it is with a pain in my heart that I know that you will be tormented for the rest of your life with your doubts on the case. But it is your choice. Bye. Your ignorant friend Graz. P.S.: Ignorant maybe, but it did not took to me 29 years to see that there were cachous in the gutter before the removal of the packet from the hand.
Author: Jon Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 05:46 pm
Graz. Your poste made me smile Can you explain why you mention cachous so often?, is it something I said? Cachous were in a bag in Stride's hand and also loose in the gutter. What is it you are driving at? I still want to see Ed answer my previous points, and more. Thanks, Jon P.S. I think Ed could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge
Author: Jon Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 07:57 pm
4 - When Fanny opened her door this forced the man holding Liz's upper torso to grip under and over her clavicles with his fingers and the heels of his hands causing the pressure marks. I'm having trouble picturing this, the man carrying her upper torso would have his hands under her armpits. If he had his inner arm (inner elbow) under her armpits and his forearm across her breast then her body may be too high for the second man to carry her by her legs. I do not see how you can theorize as to the cause of the bruises on her upper chest when we have only a vague reference (under the collar-bone, in front of the chest) as to their location. But, what puzzles me is why you say this was caused by Fanny opening her door. 5 - Elizabeths right hand remained on her chest because when the man lifting the upper torso gripped her under the arms and over the shoulder the action forced both her arms onto her chest, on quickly putting her down the left arm fell off. This indicates the man held her with his hands under her armpits, as I noted previously, this may allow her arms to fall forward on, or towards, her chest. (Good grief, you've got me talking about two men now ) Anyway, Liz was laid on her left side, so where else would you expect her right arm to fall? 6 - Before leaving they placed cachous in her hand because chloroform is 40 times sweeter that cane sugar, it also being used to fix photo's to newspaper. Therefore they were concerned that the smell, if unaccounted for might be recognized as chloroform used in the print rooms of Der Arbieter Fraint. If they were concerned about the smell of chloroform around her mouth they would have attempted to mask that area (mouth), putting a bag of cachous in her hand is of no consequence when the aroma of chloroform is on her face. And if the police/doctors had smelled chloroform they would have recognized it as such, cachous or no cachous. And did you forget that Diemschutz told us "it was rather windy"....there would be no dormant aroma of anything. Chloroform may be sweeter than sugarcane but it does not smell sweet, chloroform smells more like anticeptic, like an anisthetic, because thats what it is. When you walk near a man making candyfloss, thats a sweet smell. Chloroform smells nothing like that. Or at least it didn't when I was a kid. 7 - Her knees were both slumped to the left because this was the direction the killers were moving in when quickly laying her down. The direction of her knees is imaterial. Whether to the left or right or spread apart would not change the case at all. Though, it might have helped your theory if her legs were left spread apart, but they were not, which does not help your theory. 8 - Her toes were pointing down because when lifted under the knee it pulls the toes down into planter extension. I don't see this being proof of anything, certainly not proof of her being carried. 9 - Putting Liz down was the reason that mud was found only directly beneath her. The ground was muddy, normally mud was found in the alley's and cobbled streets, the fact she was thrown down and found on her left side means she would not have mud anywhere else BUT her left side. Where's the mystery in that? OK, it was 9 not 10, but Ed, can you please give some reasoning behind your points. Thanks, Jon
Author: The Viper Monday, 03 September 2001 - 03:52 am
Jon, One point you might have picked up on as no. 10. concerns this:- "Therefore they were concerned that the smell, if unaccounted for might be recognized as chloroform used in the print rooms of Der Arbieter Fraint." Did the Arbeter Fraint contain photographs? The copies I have seen of it did not. When did newspapers start to publish photographic illustrations (rather than drawings) anyway? None of the contemporary papers we have used for the Casebook's press work contained photographs. Has anybody come across one as early as 1888? Regards, V.
Author: graziano Monday, 03 September 2001 - 04:59 am
Hello Jon, cachous were not for you. Another poster have been looking for them in the gutter for the last 29 years. But as William West I think he is a bit shortsighted. The point that you and Viper miss here is that Ed knows. The rest is only vegetables. Brooklin Bridge ? Tell me where it is exactly, because if the Nasdaq continues to go south I'll need a shelter against the rain at least for the kids (the wife I do not care, I'll send her to Rick). Bye. Graziano.
Author: Christopher T George Monday, 03 September 2001 - 10:09 am
Hi, Viper: You are correct that newspapers in 1888 did not carry photographs. The most that they did was publish sketches as line cuts which we see in a number of the newspapers, e.g., the Illustrated Police News. Is Ed then contending that chloroform was needed to develop photos to print in Der Arbieter Fraint? A dodgy contention at best since they would not have published photographs and may not have used chloroform in the general work of publishing the newspaper text. There may have been other smells emenating from the press room of Der Arbieter Fraint but not necessarily chloroform. Hi, Graziano: I think it is quite probable that Ed, like Sir Robert Anderson, "only thinks he knows." Best regards Chris George
Author: Jon Monday, 03 September 2001 - 10:49 am
Any theory put together entirely by one individual is far more likely to be loaded with flaws. As we are witnessing with Ed's "House of Cards". However, a theory put together by several individuals, with views and perspectives from various backgrounds or a theory being subject to educated criticism is bound to have a stronger basis. Good point Viper, another sound question which requires Ed's presence. Ominous by his absence. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Monday, 03 September 2001 - 11:09 am
PROPERTIES OF CHLOROFORM Chloroform is a colorless, volatile liquid that is nonflammable. It is slightly soluble in water and is miscible with oils, ethanol, ether, and other organic solvents. Chloroform has a pleasant, nonirritating odor. It is unstable when exposed to air, light, and/or heat, which cause it to break down to phosgene, hydrochloric acid, and chlorine. It is usually stabilized by the addition of 0.6%-1% ethanol. When heated to decomposition, chloroform emits toxic fumes of hydrochloric acid and other chlorinated compounds. http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdocs/8_RoC/RAC/Chloroform.html
Author: Joseph Monday, 03 September 2001 - 12:59 pm
Tanti Saluti Graziano, In your post of: Sunday, 02 September 2001 - 04:59 pm, you mentioned "I even saw the face of one of them. Yes, the same face that Hutchinson saw in front of Miller,s court." Can this photograph be found here at The Casebook? Ciao
Author: graziano Monday, 03 September 2001 - 02:00 pm
Hello Joseph, not yet unfortunately. It's the photo of an "Angel's face". I got it from a friend and here poster that has a very original theory and the only one in which I strongly believe (in fact I haven't any doubt about it). He asked for it from the US where the guy went after the facts, if I got it right. I hope one day the brothers boarders will be able to see it because is worthwhile. The guy looks at you straight in the eyes ( what eyes ! ) and seems telling you......."Will you ?". Believe me, you can't say no. Bye. Graziano.
Author: The Viper Monday, 03 September 2001 - 02:22 pm
Graziano, I don't suppose this 'Angel Face' would be Thomas B. Eyges, would it? Failing that, how about Jacob Rombro? Regards, V.
Author: graziano Monday, 03 September 2001 - 02:30 pm
Hello Chris, is funny that you mention Anderson and Ed together because as I stated in previous posts somewhere else (but I do not recollect where) on the boards, I am sure that Anderson knew. He was too close when he said that he was a "polish Jew" not to know. And the East End of London too small. And I think nobody really understood him (excuse my lack of modesty) when he said, more or less, that the London Police was prevented from capturing Jack because it had not the same powers than their Paris colleagues. As I said I think that McCarthy could have been at the origin of this "polish Jew" theory. Thus the murder in Miller's court. A lot of guts feeling there, but as I also already said, the world changes, not the human being. I could have a project there. But I have to go to London for that. If Ed will not have already revealed it all to the world. Bye. Graziano. P.S.: How is it possible that at the Inquest, the Coroner did not even ask to McCarthy and Bowyer where they were at the suggested time of the murder ?
Author: graziano Monday, 03 September 2001 - 02:51 pm
Hey Viper, only above the belt. Under not allowed. Rocky Graziano. P.S.: As Packer stated the first time (more or less), I do not know anything about anyone. No, I didn't see anybody and didn't hear any noise, never.
Author: E Carter Monday, 03 September 2001 - 04:17 pm
Very good photographics had been added to newspaper since 1867, however chloroform had several uses in the print trade! ED
Author: E Carter Monday, 03 September 2001 - 05:01 pm
The research methods here are a great concern! Earlier when I tried to discuss the murder scene, a poster ignored my observations as if they were totally irrelevant, yet until the site of the murder has been properly examined it is totally pointlesss to move on and examine anything else! Later when explaining that if someone had been strangled the hyoid bone would have almost certainly been fractured, and as strangulation occurs whilst the victim is alive one would expect bruising on the neck, because contusions are caused by venous pressure as the heart beats; therefore the victim was alive. One poster who shall remain nameless: (TOM WESCOTT) Wrote, in a return post that 'the hyoid bone'; if such a thing exists'! Now, how could anyone who claims to have seriously examined the killers methods ignore learning anything about anatomical/physiological structures within the neck? When all circumstances concerning the modus are taken into account? I could go on, and on, but! ED I may well by wrong by about 15% on any subject!
Author: Jon Monday, 03 September 2001 - 06:10 pm
2. Effects on Humans: The toxicity of chloroform is well understood because of its long history of use as an anesthetic. Inhalation of 10,000 ppm of chloroform vapor produces clinical anesthesia. Inhalation of higher doses causes cardiovascular depression, with death resulting from ventricular fibrillation. Delayed death is associated with liver necrosis [ACGIH 1991]. Chronic inhalation of chloroform may cause psychiatric and neurological symptoms, including depression, hallucinations, and moodiness [NLM 1995]. In studies with human volunteers, exposure to 4,100 ppm causes serious disorientation, and 1,000 ppm caused dizziness, nausea, and after effects of fatigue and headache. Exposures of 20 to 70 ppm for undefined lengths of time caused less extreme, but still evident, effects on the central nervous system [Hathaway et al. 1991]. Liver enlargement was demonstrated in 17 of 68 workers exposed to chloroform at concentrations of 10 to 200 ppm for 1 to 4 years. Among other factors that increase the toxic effects of chloroform is ethanol [Hathaway et al. 1991]. As a result, alcoholics react more severely to exposure [Genium 1992]. Exposure to high concentrations of chloroform vapor causes redness and twitching of the eyes. Liquid chloroform splashed into the eye causes immediate burning, pain, and possible injury to the cornea. The eye returns to normal in 1 to 3 days [Grant 1986]. Application of chloroform to the skin causes burning, pain, redness, and vesiculation. Based on experimental animal studies, IARC has concluded that chloroform should be regarded as a cancer risk to humans. One study of people exposed to chloroform in their drinking water showed a correlation between chloroform concentration and rectal and bladder cancer [Hathaway et al. 1991]. * Signs and symptoms of exposure 1. Acute exposure: Inhalation of chloroform causes signs and symptoms of central nervous system depression. In the initial stages, there is a feeling of warmth of the face and body, then irritation of the mucous membranes, eyes, and skin, followed by excitation, loss of reflexes, sensation, and consciousness. The pupils dilate and have a reduced reaction to light. Prolonged inhalation causes paralysis, cardiac and respiratory failure, and death [Sax and Lewis 1989; Genium 1992]. Other symptoms may include digestive upset, mental dullness, and dizziness [Sittig 1991]. Chloroform vapors may irritate the eyes and skin. Chloroform liquid causes burning of the eye and transient corneal injury. Skin exposure results in burning and redness [NLM 1995]. Exposure of pregnant women to chloroform may result in fetal death or malformation based on animals studies [Clayton and Clayton 1982]. http://www.osha-slc.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/chloroform/recognition.html
Author: Jon Monday, 03 September 2001 - 06:17 pm
Chloroform in printing press In the year 1859 another process for photo-lithographic purposes was patented in Vienna, in Austria, in which asphaltum is again brought into the field. The developer is oil of turpentine and water. The latent image is produced in a film consisting of a solution of asphaltum in chloroform, by means of a collodion negative exposed for a number of hours. As soon as the soluble asphaltum has been removed, the remaining insoluble parts which form the shades of the image are coated with a layer of ink by the printer; the image is then gummed in, and slightly etched; after which it is ready for the press. http://albumen.stanford.edu/library/monographs/sunbeam/chap01.html
Author: Joseph Monday, 03 September 2001 - 08:02 pm
Hello Mr. Smyth, Thank you for taking the time to research the effects of chloroform on humans. Your post, (Monday, 03 September 2001 - 06:10 pm), contains a lot of interesting information regarding the effects of chloroform when metabolized by live test subjects. I especially appreciate the description of the trauma resulting from chloroform coming in direct contact with the skin. Do the web pages you've cited, carry any information that describes the tests that were used by contemporary medical examiners et al , for determining whether or not chloroform was used on a human prior to death? If toxicity tests were used in 1888, is there any testimony here in the Casebook archives, or at others sources, which indicates that these or other tests for chemical exposure, were part of the autopsies performed on the canonical five? If the pages you've researched don't have this info; could you suggest a good starting point? Best regards
Author: Jon Monday, 03 September 2001 - 08:25 pm
Thankyou Joseph. I hoped there would be something that would indicate the condition of the skin around the mouth, lips & nose area, as I think it is important that we are aware of the potential skin condition should someone be exposed to chloroform applied to the respitory tracts. We can see from the previous poste that it should have been evident to doctors had the victims been subdued in such a way. I will try look further tomorrow for your other question. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Monday, 03 September 2001 - 10:44 pm
Joseph. I'm sure you remember Frederick Gordon Brown, who, at the inquest of the murder of Catherine Eddowes informed us that he removed the contents of the stomach for analysis. It was William Sedgwick Saunders who stated he examined the contents of the stomach for poisons & narcotics, "there was not the faintest trace of these or any other poison." We are not sure of the contemporary methods used for this type of examination, but it appears that whatever the methods were, they were employed. Regards, Jon
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 12:08 am
Regarding photography in newspapers: Francois Gillot developed an improved method for etching on metal plates in 1859, and in 1872 his son invented zincography, which combined photography with etching, so that the resulting picture could be sized up or down as required. The "Times" in 1877 boldly introduced the zincographic weather map. This technique, however, was limited to a uniform black on white. In 1880, the "Daily Graphic" announced a method of producing intermediate tones directly from a photographic plate "without the intervention of drawing." Other photographers, such as Frederic Ives of Cornell University, perfected this system of half-tones, representing lighter and darker areas by dots of differing sizes, and by the end of the century, photography had become a new subdivision of the journalistic profession. But it was most certainly not common procedure in 1888, being ridiculously expensive and complicated an undertaking for such a piece of ephemera as a daily newspaper. CMD
Author: Jesse Flowers Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 12:13 am
Hello all- While I feel that Mr. Carter's observations about chloroform are somewhat compelling, I feel that the hyoid bone argument, while cogent in its inception, is best disposed of. The hyoid bone is, I think, a small, U-shaped piece of cartilage under the tongue. While it is true that in a case of strangulation this bone would be crushed, the savage mutilation of the throat which took place in every case (including Stride's) would effectively obscure it, as well as any number of bruises which might result from manual or even ligature strangulation (I refer you to Dr. Brownfield's opinions in the Rose Mylett case). Just to add my 2c to this very interesting discussion AAA88
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:21 am
Hi All, '...we are told that no chloroform or any other subtle agent has been employed to stupefy the victims preparatory to their murder. No one ventures to say, however, in what manner they were silenced.' The News of The World - Special Sunday Edition. London: Sunday, October 7, 1888 Love, Caz
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:31 am
Hassidic Jews practiced alchemy; the forerunner to chemistry. You will note that line 2 of the graffti 'men' 'hat' denote iron and silver to the alchemist meaning exchange from a lower to a higher state. (By the way the grafitti was first composed on a typewriter). Several of those who worked at Der Arbieter Fraint were brought up in the tradition of Hassidic Jewss who indeed all understood the basics of alchemy. I could easily administer chloroform without burning the skin or the eyes. The hyoid bone, should have been examined at the autopsy even by the most ignorant of Victorian Doctors if it had been crushed it would have been noted! Stride should have had bruising on the right side of her neck because only the left side was severed. ED
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 05:44 am
Caz, the statement you have quoted is based on what Phillips said at testimony. Baxter, the coroner said to Phillips, 'could chloroform or narcotics have been employed', Phillips replied 'I perceived neither'. Baxter and Phillips disliked each other a great deal. Now the only way to check if chloroform had been used would have be to smell the area around the face. Firstly, imagine you are Phillips arriving at the scene of the crime, the victim has a massive severance to the throat. At what point do you decide to check if chloroform had been used? Phillips did not say, that he had looked for the signs of chloroform and discovered none! He said that it was not perceived, but in reality he wouldn't admit that he did not check for it, because then Baxter would have humiliated the man! Caz, you well may not believe this but had I been at the scene, on taking previous evidence into account the first think that I would have done would have been to sniff the area around Strides face! ED
Author: graziano Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:00 am
Hello Jon, excuse my ignorance, but to look for any trace of inhalated chloroform, would the stomach have been the most appropriate organ ? What about the lungs ? Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Tuesday, 04 September 2001 - 06:26 am
Hello Jon, if this may help, Stride's lungs were "unusually pale" (G.B. Phillips at the inquest - The Times). Bye. Graziano. P.S.: I really do not know if it helps. Maybe Ed knows.