Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion)

** 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 **

Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion)

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Catherine Eddowes: Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion)

SUBTOPIC	MSGS	Last Updated
Archive through August 2, 1999	20	08/02/1999 02:59am
Archive through June 16, 2001	40	06/16/2001 10:08am
Archive through June 17, 2001	40	06/17/2001 06:46pm
Archive through June 21, 2001	40	06/21/2001 06:39pm
Archive through June 9, 2000	20	06/09/2000 01:56am
Archive through March 03, 2001	40	03/03/2001 08:35am
Archive through 26 April 2002	40	04/28/2002 11:27am
Archive through March 15, 1999	20	03/15/1999 06:05pm
Archive through March 17, 2000	20	03/17/2000 10:36am
Archive through March 24, 1999	20	03/23/1999 11:32pm
Archive through May 03, 2001	40	05/03/2001 01:37am
Archive through November 22, 2000	40	11/22/2000 07:26pm

Author: Monty Friday, 26 April 2002 - 08:12 am
Chris, Could she have been picked up or be picking up someone else in that half hour ? I get the feeling that most people assume that Eddowes was accosted by Jack at the same time as Lewande was passing, why ? She could have been meeting a friend as she allegedly stated...oh the possibilities ! And why could she not have been visiting every pub from Bishopsgate to Mitre sq ? She may have been barrasic but she may not have been buying. Just my views. Monty
Author: The Viper Friday, 26 April 2002 - 08:23 am
Well, Graziano, I'm pointing out the facts and drawing a conclusion from the pattern they point to. You can dissect the individual points any way you wish, but the pattern still remains. It is a fact that St. Botolph's church was a notorious pick-up point for prostitutes and a fact that Eddowes is known to have been in the vicinity before and after her arrest. It's a fact that she went in the direction of Aldgate at 1 a.m. when most places were closed (including all the licensed pubs). Kate needed money, she found enough to get roaring drunk and she didn't get it from her daughter. They're all facts too. And then we have the reference in the report. Of course you could draw alternative conclusions from the evidence; some book authors have and some readers of these message boards will too. However, the simplest conclusion is more often than not the right one. It doesn't help when you put words into people's mouths. At no time did I ask readers "...to believe Eddowes was sent by Kelly to go prostituting and bringing back money...". Where did I say that, or even imply it? Eddowes and Kelly parted to earn money for their lodgings. They appear to have lived hand-to-mouth for a quite some time, so they were probably aware of places where they could try to earn money. For a woman that might have meant assisting on a market stall, hawking, cleaning etc. For all we know Kate may have enquired about some of these options but had no success. We do know that nobody came forward saying they'd employed her or seen her working. Anyway, like it or not, it's a sad fact that when all else failed women of her class often turned to prostitution as a way to make the money they needed. From what sparse facts we have about 29th September it's the obvious conclusion to draw. Very often the husbands and boyfriends of these �casuals� were aware of their partner�s activities and just turned a blind eye, accepting it as a case of �needs must�, born of economic reality, but not necessarily liking it. We know little about John Kelly, but my suspicion is that he may very well have fallen into this category. Whether or not he knew about Kate�s activities he could not admit it to the police. People can continue to pick holes in my analysis and conclusions about this, but then they must answer some awkward questions arising from the alternatives� Starting with why Eddowes returned to the Aldgate area at such a late hour after her release from the Bishopsgate cells. Regards, V.
Author: Jim Leen Friday, 26 April 2002 - 11:49 am
Hello Everybody, Just a couple of quick points, well questions actually, about Eddowes' behaviour. In the first instance, to support the prostitution by neccessity ideal, it seems strange that Kate and John Kelly lodged in seperate doss houses. Kelly luxuriating in a 4d bed, Kate making do on tuppence a night. I would assume, sorry, that Kate was using the Workhouse as a base in order to, I don't know (being an innocent), wash up or something. Then, once enough income had been accrued, meet up with Kelly later. This is supported by the words she used upon her release, to wit, "...I shall get a damn fine hiding when I get home." This possibly implies that she had earned enough money but had spent it. Is this why she headed in the opposite way from her digs? Was it to meet Kelly? Or was it to pick up one more customer, earn a few pennies, and possibly avoid a "hiding" when she got home? And does Kelly's 4d lodgings suggest a double bed for the night? Thanking you. Jim Leen
Author: Jeff Hamm Friday, 26 April 2002 - 01:07 pm
Eddowes, Ok, I'm going to assume that Kate Eddowes DID NOT prostitute herself. But, she did get killed in Miller's Court. Ok, ... why is she there? Without requiring stories, why is she there? Prositution was one way of "covering the bills". I'm not saying she couldn't have been 'respectable', but what I'm asking for is "give me something to support the alternative" (eg. 'she did not prostitute herself'). Remember, at the time, prostitution wasn't the business it is now. It was just a way of life. - Jeff
Author: Jeff Hamm Friday, 26 April 2002 - 01:24 pm
One point that seems to get missed. Kate was in goal! She wasn't in a position to meet someone and didn't act like someone with an "important meeting" in the makings. All theories that reqire Kate to "be" at Miller's Court seem to forget that there is no evidence, apart from the fact she was there, that she was there by chance. - Jeff
Author: The Viper Friday, 26 April 2002 - 02:35 pm
Jim, Forgive me for saying so, but your sources here appear to be a little confused. Perhaps it's not surprising since some books include a few erroneous statements about the couple's movements in those last three days before the murder. For anyone confused about the places and lodging types, let's go through this slowly, and if anybody finds my understanding wrong no doubt they'll correct it. The couple arrived back in London from their hopping expedition to Kent on Thursday, 27th September. According to John Kelly they had no money, so they went to the casual ward at Shoe Lane. This was not an East End establishment, it was the City of London Workhouse's casual ward, located a short distance from Chancery Lane. (We might reasonably assume that the couple had crossed the River Thames using one of the City bridges). Each locality had a workhouse, and each workhouse had a casual ward associated with it. Casual wards were intended for use by destitute persons who were passing through a district and who were not residents. They were not the same as 'doss' or common lodging houses. To my knowledge you didn't pay to use a casual ward, but there were rules: segregation of men from women, restrictions on how often you could use them (to stop people turning up nightly and treating them as a hostel), and good old Victorian values about the poor earning their keep. Perceiving a growing problem with vagrancy, Parliament passed an Act in 1871 which empowered the workhouse boards to make casual ward boarders work in exchange for their night's lodging. The strictness of the regimes varied, and there was a 'bush telegraph' among casuals as to which workhouses had the most lax regimes, and were therefore the best places to stop at. Typically though, women were given a quantity of ochum to pick. Men's work varied, but breaking lumps of stone to a set size was a common one (the broken stone had to pass through a standard sized grill into an area below). So on the Thursday night the couple was at the same establishment, though separated from one another. On Friday they finally made it back to Flower & Dean Street, but were short of money again with only 6d. between them that evening (see Kelly�s inquest testimony as reported in The Times). Consequently, Kelly took the 4d. he needed for a single bed (not a double) at Cooney�s lodging house, and Kate took the remaining 2d. as spending money. She went off to the casual ward at the Mile End Workhouse for the night, where the superintendent subsequently claimed to know her well. If that's true it suggests that Kate had used the place several times before and considered the regime at Mile End to be a liberal one. It generally made more sense for her to use the workhouse wards because the sort of casual work that Kelly was likely to get, such as in the markets or the docks, required an early start � something which was impossible if he had physical chores to perform in the morning to 'pay' for his bed. When the couple met up on Saturday morning they were out of funds again. That's when they pawned a pair of Kelly's boots. With the money they bought a few provisions and then a decent breakfast. In the afternoon they split up once more in order to try to earn some more money for their lodgings. Kate mentioned to Kelly that she was going to see her daughter. Hoping that this clarifies the couple�s movements. Regards, V.
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 26 April 2002 - 03:45 pm
No Jeff, you've slipped up there!!
Author: Jeff Hamm Friday, 26 April 2002 - 06:25 pm
Yes, just saw that! Should read "that she was there "other than" by chance. Sort-a changes the whole meaning, really! Ooops. - Jeeff
Author: Guy Hatton Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 07:32 am
No, Jeff. Look again.
Author: Chris Jd Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 11:27 am
Jeff: A hint about what Warwick and Guy mean: Kate - Mitre; Kelly - Miller's ;-) Christian
Author: Jeff Hamm Sunday, 28 April 2002 - 10:44 pm
Oh dear! I missed that completely, even in the re-read. Ooops! Let's just ignor that post completely. - Jeff
Author: Jim Leen Monday, 29 April 2002 - 12:11 pm
Hello Viper, That certainly clarified the couples movements. Just goes to show that one should never rely on memory alone. I've browsed through a couple of books to refresh the old grey matter. The machinations of the Workhouse regime that you described were eminently helpful. It allows an insight into the humanity of the time and demonstrates just how atrocious living conditions were for a lot of people. With regard to the Superintendent at the Mile End Workhouse, did anything come of his claim that Kate told him she knew who the killer was? Or was that, possibly, a journalistic licence that has fed the Royalist/Masonic theory? Thanking you Jim Leen
Author: The Viper Monday, 29 April 2002 - 12:47 pm
Jim, It was indeed to the Superintendent of the Mile End Workhouse that Kate Eddowes is supposed to have said that she thought she knew the Ripper and that she could therefore claim the reward. You may be interested in this article, which is taken from the East London Observer. I don't know what steps, if any, were taken to follow up the Superintendent's claim. One correction to my last note. Each locality had a workhouse, and each workhouse had a casual ward associated with it. Well, it appears that they didn't all have casual wards after all. Some did, some not. For example, neither Bethnal Green nor Stepney Workhouses had casual wards. My apologies for that. Regards, V.
Author: Monty Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 08:23 am
Hi all, Could someone answer me this, how far does a beam from a "bullseye" reach ? I was just wondering if Harveys lamp would have reached from Church passage to the spot where Kate was found. Monty
Author: Stewart P Evans Tuesday, 30 April 2002 - 04:22 pm
I have four Victorian police bull's-eye lanterns, I'll have to get some paraffin and carry out an experiment.
Author: Jim Leen Wednesday, 01 May 2002 - 05:48 am
Hello Stewart, This may sound daft, but whilst attending to the illumination experiment could you also ascertain if the lamps make any noise? It does sound daft, doesn't it? But I remember having an old Coleman lantern and it made a quite dreadful hissing racket. So I wonder if any noise would carry further than the beam, for obvious reasons. Thanking you Jim Leen
Author: chris scott Sunday, 01 December 2002 - 04:58 pm
6 Fashion Street - Catharine Eddowes It has always intrigued me as to why Eddowes when arrested for drunkeness gave the particular address of 6 Fashion Street and the name Mary Ann Kelly I have found the premises in the 1881 census and there was was a Mar Ann indeed listed there at that time but not, needless to say, Kelly! The full listing the census for 6 Fashion Street is: Thomas Higgins Aged 32 Born: St George E Gen.Dealer Caroline Higgins: Wife Aged 32 Born: Islington Alfred Higgins: Son Aged 5 Born: Islington Harris Lagatshesski: aged 23 Born: Poland Confectioner Rebecca Lagatshesski: aged 22 Born:Poland Wife Isaach Lagatshesski: aged 2 Born: Whitechapel Son William Darlington: aged 31 Born: Spitalfields Labourer Ann Darlington: Wife aged 40 Born:St Lukes Thomas Moss: aged 32 Born: London Porter Mary Ann Moss: wife aged 35 Born: Norwich George Mills: aged 36 Born: London Porter Ellen Mills: wife aged 30 Born: London Hawker Ellen Mills: daughter aged 10 Born:London Kate Mills: daughter aged 1 Born: London
Author: Jon Van Skiver Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 03:20 pm
Hi everyone, I�ve been lurking around the CASEBOOK and the forum; this is my first post, trying to get as much info as I can before posting any questions (and looking foolish). I think I�m ready so here goes: What is the dark discoloration on the lower half of Kate�s face? At first I thought it could be blood, but since the pictures were taken in the mortuary she would have been washed, as related in the autopsy report. It�s not shadows as the same discoloration appears in the ¾ shot of her �standing up�. Could it have been the start of decomposition? There have been discussions of how Kate, who was broke in the morning, got money to get drunk later in the day, the implication being she turned to prostitution. Since, according to the report,� The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured�, wouldn�t evidence of any recent sexual activity been discovered during the examination and noted? Obviously she could have engaged in other types of sexual activity other than vaginal intercourse, but I haven�t been able to find out much information on the type of sexual �services� a prostitute in Victorian England would provide and therefore the likelihood of that being a viable option. I would guess it would be somewhat like today, the more money the more options would be available to the client. Finally, with all the advances in forensic science, I�m surprised no one has come up with a �picture� of what the victim�s looked like the last night of their life, before they were thrust into history. There are descriptions of their clothing, physical appearance and photographs of the victims, which could be used by the artist. Obviously, MJK would be an educated guess, but the others should be very accurate. Thanks for any info, Jon (No, not THAT Jon)
Author: Robert Maloney Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 03:44 pm
Hi Jon, I'll tell you what I think is on her face: A bow, arrows, a quiver and a swastika. Rob
Author: Jim DiPalma Wednesday, 18 December 2002 - 07:14 pm
Hi Jon, Welcome to the boards. You've posted some interesting questions. Regarding the dark discoloration on Eddowes' face, as a total SWAG on my part, I think that might be the phenomenon whereby the blood remaining in the body settles to the lowest point once the heart stops beating. I think the term is "livor mortis". I suggest an alternative interpretation of the phrase "The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured" might be 'uninjured by the knife'. Regarding reconstructing the victims' appearance from their mortuary photos, I think someone on these boards actually did that some years ago. You might try searching under Victims. Geez, first all the "Chris" variants, and now two "Jon"s. Mind if we call you Chris, just to keep it straight? :-) again, welcome, Chris D.
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 19 December 2002 - 12:04 am
Jon, As a wild guess for late at night, I htink the black coloration would have to be bruising from all the trauma it experienced and/or decomposition. I think any blood settling would be on the back of the head (and body), as she was discovered lying on her back. Also, if she were out to take a trick for some money and ran into Jack, it's likely she wouldn't had had prior sexual contact with anyone else. And, seeing as how none of the other victims showed evidence of recent sexual intercourse, Eddowes not showing any either would be consistent. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: David Radka Friday, 20 December 2002 - 12:38 pm
"What is the dark discoloration on the lower half of Kate�s face? At first I thought it could be blood, but since the pictures were taken in the mortuary she would have been washed, as related in the autopsy report. It�s not shadows as the same discoloration appears in the ¾ shot of her �standing up�. Could it have been the start of decomposition?" This is a very good question by Jon. I believe at least to some extent it is due to mutilation actions by the Ripper. If you examine the facial sketch of Frederick Foster entitled "Rough diagram of face showing principal cuts," it appears that the Ripper may have been scraping the blade his knife left and right, and up and down, in these areas. Sort of like the way an old-fashioned barber would prime up his razor by running it up and down a length of leather before beginning to shave his customer. There are four places on the face where it seems he would have begun or centered these strokes, marked by abrasions. One of them is labelled with an arrow "large abrasion superficial." Do people see what I mean? If not I will explain further. Now, the photograph of Eddowes in the shell, which I believe was taken prior to the time the mortuary photographs were taken, shows some of the purplish markings but not all of them. In this photo the purplishness is shown on the right side of the face and more or less along the line where the throat meets the face, but the rest of the face appears not to have purpled yet. The mortuary photos show the purplishness covering a wider area of the face. It should be noted, however, that the shell photo is much grainier than the mortuary photos; it might be so grainy as to be misleading in either direction. In other words, perhaps the purplishness was more widespread at the time the photo was taken, but it shows up as a light area in the photo because of distortion. 1. Can we establish the times when all these photos were taken, please? 2. Do y'all agree with me concerning the Ripper's actions resulting in this discoloration? 3. Does the timing of the livor mortis, if that in fact is what it is, correspond to the timing of the murder and each of the respective photographs? Discussion with our colleagues invited. David
Author: Dan Norder Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 02:51 am
Radka, Glad to see you agree with me about the bruising. It's nice to see you actually talking about Ripper evidence for a change. Keep it up. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: chris scott Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 11:01 am
I know this picture is already on the casebook at http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-mitre.html but I have found a better quality version of it which may be of use
Author: Neal Shelden Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 12:01 pm
I thought boarders might like to know that I have recently communicated with two separate Great Great Granddaughters of Catherine Eddowes. The initial responses from both women appear to indicate that there is neither a photograph of Catherine Eddowes or her daughter Annie Phillips in the family records but I have not yet given up hope. There are still three other possible lines of descent from one of Annie Phillips' daughters that could still reveal family photographs and I hope to have more information for everyone in 2003. All the best Neal.
Author: chris scott Saturday, 21 December 2002 - 05:33 pm
I have looked at the pics of Mitre Square on the casebook in the article specifically about it. I have scanned another pic taken of "Ripper's Corner" end of the square that I have not seen posted yet. I do not know the date when this was taken. Apologies if it is posted elsewhere but I did check and could not find it Regards Chris Scott
Author: Jack Traisson Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 02:02 am
Hi Chris, It's one of Leonard Matters' photographs with Church Passage on the right. According to Matters, the tablet on the wall reads: "Site of the Priory of the Holy Trinity. Founded 1108." Cheers
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Sunday, 22 December 2002 - 08:57 pm
Dear All, I had never really noticed , let alone considered the Facial discoloration in the Mortuary photographs of Catherine Eddows. A very interesting post Jon. In my copy of :Jack the Ripper-An encyclopaedia by John J. Eddleston , there are three pictures of Catherine Eddows,taken in the mortuary. The first shows Catherine prior to Post-Mortem examination. This is very interesting as there appears to be minimal discoloration visible about the face . However,the discoloration that is present follows the contour of the lower Jaw and does not appear in the vicinity of the Facial or neck incisions/Slashes. This is in the correct area should a degree of force have been applied to the Neck.It is possible to observe a thin line around the Neck suggestive of a ligature having been applied. Bruising may take several days to become apparent,for this reason Pathologists often Re-examine a body over a period of time.It is almost impossible to inflict a bruise on a corpse.There are areas of the Facial incisions/Slashes where no discoloration is present. Therefore,in summary 1. I agree that the most likely cause of the facial discoloration is Bruising. 2. I believe that the cause of the bruising was Stragulation with a Ligature (but not necessarily the cause of death). 3. If you believe the cause of Bruising was the trauma of the facial incisions , then you must also accept that these injuries were inflicted whilst the victim was alive ,(but not necessarily conscious). "Bruises are almost impossible to to inflict upon a Dead body , except by severe violence in areas of Post-Mortem hypostasis"-Simpson's Forensic Medicine(11th Edition),Edited by Bernard Knight. A most interesting thread. Trevor.
Author: Jon Van Skiver Monday, 23 December 2002 - 01:45 pm
Hi everyone, I would like to thank everyone who responded to my questions; they provided me with new areas to research and the following are the results. I�m going too keep my comments to Kate�s discoloration; I�ll come back to my other questions when we resolve this one. I thought that the photographic process of the day could distort the tonal value of the pictures and the �dark� discoloration might not have really been dark. An example is orthochromatic film that represents the color yellow on a B&W print as a very dark gray tone instead of a light gray tone. However, after researching old photographic techniques I�m pretty sure that the tones we see are represnitive of what was there. I then thought that perhaps that the discoloration could have been caused by the contents of her small intestines leaking out on her face as JTR placed the large section over her right shoulder, such as stomach acid �burning� her face. Since a section had been cut and placed by her left arm, it was possible that there could be some leakage. However, examining the photographs I can�t find any discoloration on her shoulders where her intestines had lain and therefore I don�t feel that was a factor in the discoloration. Several people responded that it could be liver mortis. I searched for information and found that it is the pooling of blood after death. My problem with the suggestion is Kate was found with the left side of her face on the ground, i.e. facing left. This would indicate to me that the blood should have pooled on her left side and therefore we should see the discoloration on the left side, not the right side. Since Kate was found facing left this gives credence to those who say it could be the result of her injuries and JTR running his knife across her face. My only problem with this is, can you bruise someone who is dead? Also, bruising does not appear right away, was there enough time for the bruising to manifest itself in this way? If someone with more medical knowledge could give us their views on this it may open up other possibilities. Several people e-mailed me about the decomposition that I mentioned stating the autopsy report doesn�t say anything about it. Even though the autopsy report is silent about it, it was noted in Liz Stride�s report and since they were killed at roughly the same time, and Kate�s wounds were much more grievous than Liz�s, I feel that it is a strong possibility that decomposition was starting to take place and was just omitted from the report. The discoloration is not mentioned either but it�s plainly there. Since the discoloration seems to �spread�, it would seem possible that decomposition is a factor in the discoloration. Of course, any comments are welcome Jon VS
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 23 December 2002 - 02:28 pm
Jon, I've always been of the opinion that Jack the Ripper stifled his victims into unconciousness with a hand across the nose and mouth, the other pinioning their arms to their sides,-- they were all small women, and all were ill in some way, probably taking away some of their strength. If that is the case, then the dark marks on Kates face could be bruising caused by the fingers or heel of a largish rough hand. Rick
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 23 December 2002 - 02:42 pm
I would also like to say that each time I look at the photos of Kate,---I get the impression that she has been beaten up! and when all is said and done, if the marks are there, a fist in the face is a good dis-able and quietner. Rick
Author: David O'Flaherty Monday, 23 December 2002 - 03:24 pm
Does it appear to anyone else that Foster has shaded the lower portion of Kate's face in his pre-autopsy sketch of 3:45 am? This sketch was made at the City Mortuary--I presume (which may get me into trouble because I don't know if conditions were better there than the 'shed' Nichols and Chapman were taken to) that her face would have been well-lit, so shading there would not be the result of shadows (as in the insides of her arms and thighs). Cheers, Dave
Author: David Radka Monday, 23 December 2002 - 10:34 pm
If you lay the mortuary photos of Eddowes and Stride side-by-side, you'll notice that discoloration appears on the lower face of both. In the case of Eddowes it appears to be dark, purplish or black, and in the case of Stride rather a bronzing. I'm trying to obtain forensic literature at this point to determine if there is a process that could be responsible for this.
Author: Jon Monday, 23 December 2002 - 11:43 pm
Hi Trevor This suggestion of a ligature being used by 'Jack' keeps hovering in the background, first discussed about 5 yrs back on the original 'Casebook' message boards I believe. I had wondered why Jack would cut the throat twice as quite often in throat slashings the perpetrator makes only one quick slash. Jack appears to have applied the knife to the left jugglar vein as a means to relieve pressure then repeats the cut more intensly and deeply almost, some would suggest, as if attempting to remove the head. If the purpose of the second cut was to follow the line of the ligature then this cut would likely need to run almost around the neck, as it actually did with Chapman. The line left by the ligature would almost certainly run around the neck (why would 'Jack' need to hide the fact a ligature was used?). We have assumed Jack was attempting to cut the head off, maybe not. Read up on the Poplar murder case and the opinions of Dr Brownfield. I just mention it as a point of interest as garroting had been a scourge in London not 20 yrs before. best regards, Jon
Author: Jon Van Skiver Thursday, 26 December 2002 - 03:02 pm
Hi David The time the pictures were taken will probably never be precisely determined, however some reasonable estimates of the times can be made from the available information. They were taken at the mortuary situated on Golden-Lane. As has been stated, the photo of Kate in the shell was taken before the autopsy. It�s reasonable to assume that the photographer would set up his equipment and take the first picture right before the autopsy began, which was 2:30 PM. Allowing for the time required to set-up, a reasonable time for this photo would be around 1:30 to 2 PM. According to reports the autopsy took approximately 2½ hours to complete, that would have made it around 5 PM when it was completed. Since rigor mortis's full effects take place between 8-24 hours after death, the photo�s of Kate �standing up� had to have been taken the same day, before the effects of rigor mortis started to reverse. Since the pictures look like they were taken with natural light, as evidenced by the �soft shadows�, and sunset was around 6:37 PM, I would think they were taken around 5:30-6 PM, again allowing time for the photographer to set-up the pictures. The final photo of her face was taken after these two as she is clearly wearing some type of garment. This picture looks darker than the others so I would guess around 6-6:30 PM. Hi Warwick, IMHO JTR was very focused in his attacks knowing exactly what he wanted and how to do it. I�m also sure he knew time was of the essence and would probably not want to waste time by punching someone in the face, since the benefit gained would be questionable if he made a mistake, i.e. missed punch or glancing blow. I have always wondered why no cries for help or sounds of a struggle were heard during these attacks, especially since he supposedly strangled the victims first. An attack using strangulation usually results in the victim putting up quite a struggle with arms and legs flailing about until they lose consciousness; certainly not a quiet way to kill someone. I�ve been puzzling over this question and came up with a possible answer: What if JTR used a short uppercut and punched the victims in the solar plexus first? As everyone knows who�s had �the wind� knocked out of them, the punch temporarily paralyzes the diaphragm, leaving the victim gasping for air and therefore unable to make any sounds. Also, the victim would double over, placing their neck in a position that would allow JTR to grab it quickly and easily, strangling the victim while they were still under the effects of the punch. It is at least one explanation of why there was no cries or sounds of a struggle, I'm sure there are many others. Any comments would be welcome. Regards, Jon
Author: David Radka Thursday, 26 December 2002 - 08:50 pm
Well, a blow to the solar plexus would solve some problems but create others for us. You have to hit someone just right to knock the wind out of them. If you miss, all you do is get them screaming and fighting you--something I think Jack didn't want, and as likely as not wouldn't risk. Plus, it is not silent. The victim gasps, and there is a sound made by the fist contacting the stomach. In the case of Eddowes, these sounds would have been echoed in the square and likely heard by the night watchman across the way. A blow to the solar plexus is a nice way to explain how the Ripper got Stride up the alley, however. She'd be unable to resist him simply picking her up and carrying her. This kind of punch usually doesn't leave much of a bruise, either, explaining why abdominal bruises are not mentioned in the autopsy reports. I can remember being punched in the solar plexus on the playground, and I'm sure it wasn't a soundless experience. There is really no way to prove the exact murder technique one way or the other. We weren't there, and we just don't know. Making suggestions concerning one procedure over another usually indicates a beginner Ripperologist. We can narrow down the technique within certain bounds, but we can't specify it exactly. That's Ripperology. David
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 26 December 2002 - 09:31 pm
It seems to me that strangulation would be a heck of a lot more reliable and would make less noise than hauling off and belting someone. Strangulation also has the benefit (for Jack anyway) that any stray sounds that do come out may end up being interpreted by others as the normal sounds of an unfortunate entertaining a customer. Dan ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation. See: http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/funding.html -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Howard Brown Thursday, 26 December 2002 - 09:55 pm
Dan.......plus if the woman was nailed in the gut,she quite possibly have vomited,which may have been discovered at the kill site...I've seen an ample amount of folks ( while playing hockey ) get nailed in the stomach,some not even full force and the guy would invariably hurl major chunks....If the woman had been half in the bag,that seems even more likely that she would have heaved loads.......
Author: Diana Friday, 27 December 2002 - 04:55 pm
If she had time to.

Add a Message