|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Why is forensic science unable to help answer the questions
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
Why is forensic science unable to help answer the questions
Author: V.F
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 03:27 am |        | What has really always bothered me in the case of the "Jack the ripper" letters concerning their authenticity from the real murderer or not...is the fact that on some of the postcard there were clearly blood and finger prints..I understand that at the time forensic science wasn't exactly developed but how come nowadays we cannot identify them with all of our DNA knowledge (for example to compare them to the known suspects at the time [from their corpse now obviously] including the journalist..can't remember his name)?
Also concerning the part of the kidney sent to George Lusk I do not understand how come with even a minimal medical knowledge the authorities in England at the time couldn't say whether or not it did come from the victim... being able to answer to any of these questions would have immediately taught us whether the "Dear Boss" writer was effectively the author of the crimes or not..well I am sure here about everybody have thought the same thing
I can only assume I am missing more important details that would justify the lack of answers and that kept this mystery alive even nowadays..or at least makes me still so confused about the case
If anybody could help me gather more information on these questions PLEASE let me know where
thank you very much |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 09:00 am | | Hi V.F.
I don't think you quite appreciate how poorly-developed forensics were in 1888. Not only was the science pretty poor, but also widely distrusted and therefore not much used. Whilst fingerprinting was an idea being kicked around at the time, more credence was being given to things like photographing the victims' eyes in the hope that the image of their killer remained imprinted on their retina somehow (it has been suggested that this was actually done on Mary Jane Kelly - although there aren't any official documents that prove that this happened.)
Certainly identifying whether or not a kidney belonged to a specific victim depended literally on physically matching the specimen against the body - like a gruesome organ jigsaw! Had the crimes happened only relatively earlier, the doctors wouldn't even have been able to tell if it was human! I think there is a thread on these very boards devoted to this issue under "General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions" somewhere if you want to know more...
Anyway, assuming that there was some kind of forensic evidence extant with which a case could be made against a specific suspect, exhuming the body is, I would imagine a very fraught purpose - even if the person has been dead for a hundred years. I doubt very much that the Police would be able to get permission to exhume a single body - let alone dig up all the suspects without a very good piece of evidence. The blood on the letters presumably (if the letters were genuine) came from the victim and not the Ripper anyway - and there certainly wouldn't be a chance of getting fingerprints from a 110 yr old corpse...
Cheers,
C |
Author: V.F
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 03:21 pm | | Thank you for answering
My optimism for forensics seems too over-valuated and I certainly should look for more knowledge of the practice of medicine in the 19th century which I'm obviously lacking and mixing for common sense. I would have thought in our times being able to trace a suspect by a single hair or trying to find out the DNA of a mummy and somewhat succeeding in getting some information from it could help in many other less aged cases. But the good point is that effectively probably no police authorities now would care nowadays to try to keep further investigations (including exhuming corpses..seems still very taboo..I should not think so in the name of criminal science though) going on an over 100 year old case.
I just think it is very unfortunate and wish to keep being somewhat idealist and hopeful.
greetings, |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 04:46 pm | | Hi,
If you don’t mind a little bit of forensic expertise here 
Technically fingerprints can be pulled off of a 111 yr. old corpse. What I mean is I have exhumed bodies, not as old as this, and have been able to pull the killers fingerprints off the body. The problem lies in that with what do we compare them to if we do pull say....prints off of Annie Chapman’s neck? This is of course taking into consideration that Annie’s body is not to decomposed. We would still need skin. But let’s say we did pull a latent fingerprint off of her neck. How many bodies would we first have to locate and then exhume with the hopes that the skin furrows are still on our suspects hands and fingers? Let’s entertain the notion that we exhume all the bodies of all of the major and a few minor suspects and the skin furrows are intact, but the prints do not match any of them. Now where do we go. Yes, we would have accomplished a tremendous lot by weeding out a century of mud slingling, but now we are even further in the dark as England and the U.S. did not have a decent fingerprinting system in place until after the turn of the century. A couple of years ago the FBI was experimenting with lasers. From what I understand, tremendous head way was made in the area of lifting fingerprints even though the suspect wore gloves. Forensic science is growing by leaps and bounds and I feel that if any forensic data is retrieved then it will come from techniques such as this. Lasers, computers, the breaking of the genetic code all of this will eventually bring us closer to who the Whitechapel killer really was. It will first take people such as all of us here to keep the issue alive and continue to press the subject. We would also have to examine ourselves and wonder if this is really what we want. People love a mystery and a conspiracy. To actually use some new science to find the killer.... be careful what you wish for. |
Author: Peter Wood
Monday, 22 October 2001 - 06:34 pm | | Carps
It isn't that difficult to get a body exhumed. It happened last year in a case in England where the case was about 30 years or more old and the guy had been executed for his crime. The DNA evidence found at the scene of the crime matched his. Case closed.
And as for fingerprints, I don't think we need them. It's not even the letters we should be looking at - but the envelopes. They had to be licked back then, right? And you wouldn't even need DNA from our 'Saucy Jacky', take the Maybrick case for instance. Take DNA from any of his surviving relatives and you would instantly know if James Maybrick was related to the guy who licked the envelope that the 25 September letter went into.
As far as I know we have the envelopes. We definitely have the technology. If boffins can get DNA from dinosaur eggs then they can get it from an envelope that is nowhere near as old.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 04:14 am | | Hi all - interesting points all round... and a welcome change from the diary for me!
Scott: I'm certainly in no position to question your forensic expertise (I have none) but isn't there a slight difference between pulling up a thirty year old corpse and one dating back 113 years? And doesn't the time taken for a body to decompose depend on the circumstances under which it was buried?
With good embalming and in the right environmental conditions, I'm sure that a corpse does last for years and years, but given the poverty in which the Ripper victims (if not necesarily all the suspects) lived and died, it seems unlikely that they would have received much in the way of expensive treatment. I know that in the open air a corpse can be reduced to a skeleton and fibrous matter such as hair in something like a month, so what is the decomposition time of your average untreated corpse in a box? Just questions, anyway - hope you can answer them! It would be very interesting to know...
Peter: you are right to a degree, in that saliva can be used in DNA analysis decades after a crime. See
here for some interesting reading on the subject.
However, the fact that all of the Ripper letters or envelopes have been in a public archive for many years now, and countless people have touched them, read them and generally been near them means that any such sample would be massively contaminated, and there is no way that a court would consider them to be permissable evidence. DNA samples retrieved by police officers come from evidence that has been bagged and carefully stored to minimise the chances of contamination.
See here for some guidelines on how DNA evidence must be treated, and think how it compares with the history and treatment of the Ripper letters.
But! It would however, be very interesting to see. It certainly might bring us closer to the identity of some of the letter writers - although, of course, whether that brings us closer to the identity of the ripper is a point of further contention in itself! If DNA were to be found that matched a leading suspect, it would certainly put a new slant on the whole case...
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 03:38 pm | | Peter -
Re: Your presumed reference to the Hanratty case. You are rather quick to leap on a newspaper report about the alleged DNA match. In fact, the case is not closed, but has been referred back to the Appeals Court by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and the hearing is pending.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 04:29 pm | | Hi Carps,
(Make sure I spelled that right) You bring up a very good point. There is a very big difference between a 30 year old corpse and a 100 + year old corpse. Technically the fingerprints would last. But the body would have to last also. And you are right saying that many factors go into the decomposition and the rate of decomposition. It would be very unlikely that the bodies of the victims, suspects, investigators et al would be pristine, let alone can we find them all.
Notice this time I said the investigators. If, as I have said, we were to say pull a finger print off of Ms. Chapman’s neck we would need to most assuredly print anybody and everybody who may have touched her to exclude or in some cases include them concerning the investigation. In short..... for everyone touting the authenticity of the diary ( which I think is a hoax)....just because Maybrick’s fingerprint does not match the print on Annie’s neck is not conclusive evidence that he did not kill her....it is just reasonable doubt.
I do not profess to be an expert on DNA. I do know, however; eight years ago I thought a series of rapes could be solved by obtaining the DNA from a single strand of hair. Lab techs informed me that was not possible. There is no DNA in the hair or there was no way to get the DNA from the hair. I forget the explanation. Anyway they advised me it was impossible UNLESS............ the hair was ripped out and the root (which should be on hair that has been ripped from the skull) was still attached, otherwise, all they could do was a tox screen, identify the hair as human and what part of the body it came from.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 05:38 pm | | Hi,
Me again....Here is a little bit of forensic data for you. Going by the coroners inquest. I have been going over and over them again with a fine tooth comb.
There are questions I have concerning all of them. Most importantly time of death. Our times have been fixed by witness accounts for the most part.
Martha Tabram
Dr. Killeen stated when he arrived at 5:30 am and made a quick assessment and declared her to be dead for some three hours. That moves time of death to 2:30am. I wish he would have elaborated more in the detail. If he did and anyone knows of this elaboration then please let me know. The reason for this is RIGOR MORTIS.
Rigor Mortis starts immediately at the time of death. It does not begin to show itself until two hours after death. It begins to show itself in the eyes and facial muscles, then spreading to the arms, legs and finally to the trunk. After 48 hours the body begins to change again. The muscles begin to relax. They begin to relax in the same way the stiffening of them set in. NOW THE INTERESTING PART.
PC Thomas Barrett noticed the body was supine and her hands at her sides. Her fingers were tightly clenched and her legs open in a manner to suggest that intercourse had taken place.
The tightly clinched fingers is what attracts my attention. There is a phenomenon known as CADAVERIC SPASMS. Cadaveric spasms is a sign of instant death. At the time of violent sudden death the hands and fingers of the victim clinch. Anything they were holding at the time becomes held in a vice like grip. The spasms eventually pass, sometimes after several hours and
then usual rigor will set in.
The point here being................. three hours is not enough time for the hands and fingers to become locked in rigor, also the fingers will not be clinched. In death the muscles relax thus the fingers would be open and slightly bent as if one is sleeping. The clinched fingers are a sign of the spasms. Maybe the good doctor was not aware of this, maybe the medical and forensic community was not aware of this... even today cadaveric spasms are confused with rigor. This whole time of death may be thrown off. When Reeves found the body and alerted Barrett, the body may have been dead for only an hour.
In the case of Polly Nichols.......................
At the coroner’s inquest, Dr. Llewellyn testified that a bruise was found on Nichols’ right lower jaw and the bruise could have been caused by a fist or pressure by the thumb. Her tongue was also lacerated on the right side. We have no way of knowing how old the laceration on the tongue was, except that it must have been recent as it drew the attention of the doctor. The bruise....I can’t help but wonder ...that musta been a big ass thumb to confuse it with a fist. It appears the bruise is from a blow, the lacerated tongue supports this as a blow to the jaw could certainly have caused Ms. Nichols to bite down on her tongue. That’s why boxers and American football players wear mouth pieces.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Iasa Duffy
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 06:24 pm | | During cold weather rigor mortis will appear sooner and last longer. Generally body temperature will cool at a rate of 1.5 degrees per hour. I don't happen to know what the temperature would be in August but I know it is not 100 degrees like here in Texas. Additionally the amount of the surface area of the body will affect the onset of rigor. Lean or small bodies (infants) will resolve rigor quickly. I don't recall reading any postmortem reports on this body so does anyone know if there is any mention of livor mortis (gravity causes blood to pool in the lower portions of the body causing a red to purple discoloration, in the Tabram case this would be on the back) at the time the body was discovered? Sorry this is so disjointed, I'm late for class.
Iasa |
Author: Peter Wood
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 06:57 pm | | Carps
Can't they distinguish between DNA from saliva and DNA from fingerprints? Yes, many people have handled the letters and envelopes, but would they necessarily have touched the gummy part of the envelope? It's a long shot, but it might just work. I mention it not to put the finger on a particular suspect, but to eliminate others, like the journalists etc, who are supposed to have written the letters. Fancy chipping in for some DNA tests?
Guy
Alleged DNA matches? That's a no-no. Firstly they took DNA samples from the knickers of the woman who was raped (use your imagination), then they compared that DNA to Hanratty's brother. It showed a clear connection. But no! Some of his family thought the DNA samples had been contaminated so they demanded his body be dug up even though he had been tried and convicted by a jury of his peers. So they dug him up. And this time the DNA evidence was conclusive. His family can launch as many PRIVATE appeals as they like, but as far as the home secretary is concerned it is most definitely case closed.
Carps, I'm off to click on your links now mate.
Cheers
Peter. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:08 am | | Peter -
I'm well aware of your dogmatic proclivities, so I'm not going to start an argument with you on this one :-)
Cheers
Guy |
Author: Paul Carpenter
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:10 am | | Hi Peter,
I don't believe that DNA can be obtained from fingerprints at all - but I do see what you are getting at. I hadn't really thought about the difference.
As far as I understand it though (and remember I know about as much as you do!) the problem lies because the DNA sample itself - whether it comes from saliva, blood or whatever - becomes contaminated even with a bit of careless handling. If there's a major source of contamination, someone sneezing near it it for example, it becomes nigh on impossible to determine which DNA comes from which source, which is why proper evidence is bagged and stored away from people who drool.
That's not to say it isn't worth a shot! What is the legal status of the documents regarding this sort of thing - can any old Tom, Dick or Harry arrange for tests to be made on a public document?
And I wonder how much DNA testing cost these days anyway? In my day, two and six was enough to get a corpse exhumed and a full DNA check done, and you'd still have enough left enough for twenty woodbines and a pint of mild etc...
Hi Scott,
I think one of the articles I linked to mentions the unsuitability of hair as a source of DNA (unless the roots are present.) Obviously this field is pretty fraught for the non-technician...
With regards to the decomposition of the victims/investigators/suspects, it would be very interesting to know something of Victorian embalming techniques. It seems unlikely that soft tissues would be preserved at this remove, but stranger things have happened - and people have been preserving bodies for thousands of years.
Any undertakers reading this?
Cheers,
Carps |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 09:05 am | | Hi Iasa,
You are right concerning the onset of rigor and the determining factors. Going on the coroner’s inquest Dr. Killeen describes Tabram as being a plump, middle age, well fed woman. There are no reports of lividity. The only two possible clues attributing to Killeen’s time of death are the witness statements and the clenched fingers of the victim.
At 3:30 Crow comes home and sees someone lying on the first floor landing. At 4:45 Reeves sees the body and notifies Barrett who in turn alerts Killeen. I have seen the death grip before, and from the description of Barrett it can be nothing but the cadaveric spasms. Which would throw off the time of death by approximately one hour.
Carps, I would love to help take part in the undertaking ( pun indeed intended) of the research you have suggested. I think it will be interesting and may reveal some clues to the condition of the bodies at present and at the time of the preparation and maybe even the autopsy.
I am also in need of someone in the London area who knows the in and outs of what is considered public information involving police reports. This someone would need to be able to thoroughly research, every word written about the case. This research would also have to include the uncovering of duty rosters and assignments and beat assignments to include the boundries of each officer’s beat. I am curious just what routes the officers traveled.
I have, after all, despite what I have stated in my profile, not ruled out the very slight and remotest possibility of one of London’s finest.
I remember once we were looking for a serial rapist, despite all the profiling the rapist was elusive. Vaginal swabs had given us the DNA profile of the assailant but we had no suspects. Finally we got a break. The rapist left trace evidence on the sheets (semen). We brought out a dog. Four detectives and eight uniform patrolman were present. The dog got the suspect’s scent from the sheet and tracked to the backyard, and back to the front and to one of the detectives. We all laughed it off and the detective jokingly stated “ Dogs and kids hate me.” He tried to leave but the detective in charge told him he was needed there. We brought out another dog and the same thing happened. At that point the detective stated he wanted his union representative present. He was then mirandized. In the state of Louisiana aggravated rape ( rape committed with a weapon) is a capital offense. Former New Orleans Homicide Detective Robert St. Germain is now on death row.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 09:23 am | | Iasa,
aren't you confusing and mixing up Algor Mortis and Rigor Mortis ?
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 09:47 am | | Scott E.,
concerning Martha Tabram.
In the transcription of the Dr Killeen's statement at the inquest in The Times this does not appear, but in the one of the East London Advertiser it does:
"...He (Dr Killeen) had since made a post mortem examination, and on opening the head found there was an effusion of blood between the scalp and the bone...". (ELA, 11.08.888)
I am calling to your experience, what could that mean, if anything ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 09:57 am | | I saw that also Graz. It means a blow to the back of the head. I am going to check on that bit of information to see if could possibily mean anything else. If my memory serves me right Jon Benet Ramsey had the same condition.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 10:01 am | | That's what I thought.
And that's a big sh**.
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 01:02 pm | | Scott E.,
do you see any evidence of possibility that she was, at least partially, strangled ?
Does not seem to be any mention of it in the Post Mortem (no marks, no abrasions, no bruises on the face or on the neck).
In the picture ? Swollen ? Only fat ?
Do the clenched hands necessarily mean that she was conscious when stabbed to death ?
Could the blow have rendered her unconscious to the point not to come back to consciousness as stabbed and the clenched hands being the result of the cadaveric spasm ( to be clearer, is a cadaveric spasm only possible if the victim is conscious) ?
Is something missing here ?
I am not at ease.
Remember that even if all the clothes were torn or disarranged it looked (Dr Killeen) as if there hadn't been any struggle.
She seemed to be laying in a pool of blood but no blood spurts, no noise (thus unconscious ?).
Unfortunately we do not know if there was blood on the chest.
All in all it looks as if she was already laying down when stabbed.
And the Dr states quite positively that she was alive when stabbed.
Reeves nevertheless mentioned beside the pool of blood some blood marks on the landing, but nobody mention bloody footmarks.
Interested in your opinion.
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:39 pm | | Cold weather DELAYS the onset of rigor mortis , while warmth speeds it up.
Cold weather ACCLERATES the onset of Algor Mortis , warmth delays it.
Simon |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:12 pm | | Carps
I wish I could talk from a position of power.............
I'm almost certain you can get DNA from fingerprints (i.e. sweat).
As for mixing fluids etc......If the police can determine how many men a woman had sex with from the different sperm inside her then I think it likely that they could separate a sneeze from a good old lick on a stamp or envelope.
Hey! Now there's an idea! He would have licked the stamp, right? And no-one has touched the back of that stamp in over 113 years.
I am hereby starting a collection for the purposes of DNA testing on JTR artefacts. Anyone going to contribute?
cheers
Peter. |
Author: Peter Wood
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:17 pm | | Yikes Carps!
You're a yorkshireman.......are we still going to be talking after Saturday? Maybe I should pile round your house with a crate. How do you feel about us nicking your manager next season?
And that offer of funding research on the dna testing is still there........
Peter. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:46 pm | | | You might get a contribution here and there,certainly none off Barnetites |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 05:24 pm | | Hi, Graz
The post mortem examination references are sketchy are absent of a lot of details. I am attributing this to the level of forensic science at the time. There are things I would love to know i.e. any signs of lividity, a detailed description of the blood spatter, measurements of the wounds etc. In only one case was the crime scene photographed, and it was a half hearted attempt at best. I will give them credit for at least trying.
What I can discern from the Tabram scene, I am taking these one at a time, is the time of death, in my opinion is off by an hour. I am of the belief that the killer was disturbed by the approach of Mr. Crow, and left the scene before he could follow through with his signature post mortem mutilations.
The body position of Martha Tabram closely resembles that of Polly Nichols. In both cases the legs were straight, arms by their sides and their dress pulled up to approximately mid to lower abdomen. Kate Eddowes was in a similar position. I say similar because there are a few subtle differences.
What we have to remember about the blow to the head of Martha is that the blow may have come from a number of sources, 2x4, a fist, brass knuckles, the butt or hilt of the knife or just from being thrown to the ground or falling and striking the ground. I would love to know where in her head was the blood found. Top, back, front, side etc.......... The report does not say. Since she found on her back I ..am very uneasily assuming the blood was at the back of the skull. This could open the door to the possibility that she hit from behind
Two knives used...I would like to see the wound measurement data for each of the wounds. If two knives were used, and nobody heard any screams, I would have to assume the first wound was the one through the chest and into the heart. I have trouble believing that a woman of her size would not be kicking and screaming while being stabbed a number of times and allow the killer to change hands, put up one weapon and pull another just to stab her in the heart. I see no signs of strangulation. The reports on Annie Chapman show her tongue was swollen, a sure sign of strangulation. We are told of no marks on Martha’s neck.
As for the spasms.....definitely while the victim was conscious, cadaveric spasms are rarely seen in an unconscious person. They have been know to occur to people suffering massive heart attacks in their sleep and some drowning victims have been seen with the spasms. HOWEVER.... usually if a drowning victim has been found with cadaveric spasms then they will usually show defensive wounds and/or autopsies usually show that drowing was not the cause of death. Based on the evidence available, Martha Tabram either received the blow to the head and then the fatal wound to her heart or she was knocked or thrown to the ground and received the fatal wound to the heart. The rest of the stab wounds are post-mortem over kill.
One key piece of evidence is missing here and in all the vic’s scenes. The blood spatter. This would be especially helpful in the Martha Tabram incident. When a knife goes in it becomes coated with the victims blood. When the killer pulls back ( removes the knife ) a trail of blood follows in the motion of the arm. As the killer’s arm is lowered for another strike a trail of blood is likewise thrown in the opposite direction. This will in effect give two, I say two for simplicity sake, very distinct motions. These patterns and blood trails will be visible and will happen regardless of the position of the body, whether the wounds were post mortem or anti mortem.
Yes, indeed as you have asked, there is something missing here. In fact, there is whole lot of something missing here. There are a lot of unanswered questions that abound with the crime scene investigations. Even though the police were not sure in their use of the camera at the Kelly scene, I do take my hat off to them for not just barging in and making a mess of the place before the detectives could arrive. One of the few smart things in the whole series of investigations that was done was the securing of the crime scene and waiting for the powers that be to arrive. Whether this was done purposely or not it was the best action taken in the entire investigation. The start of any homicide investigation has to start with the crime scene. Locking down the crime scene is the first priority. This insures that contamination is at a minimum and the trace evidence is undisturbed.
The investigations in this case were haphazard at best. One can argue that this was a new type of killer to the authorities and their inexperience led to the fiasco that quickly followed. To this I say it is like the Boulder Police and their haphazard investigation of the Ramsey homicide due to their inexperience or the Athens, Georgia Police with thier investigation of Tara Lynn Baker. In cases such as these, you have two choices. Roll up your sleeves, leave no stone unturned and make sure you dot all of your I’s and cross all of your T’s, or, you call in someone who has the experience to assist and consult with the investigation. London should have used all available techniques to help solve these murders to include new innovative techniques like fingerprinting, photography and detailed post mortem exams.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 05:34 pm | | Aouch, that's seems a wonderful struck.
Let me go through it, tomorrow I will come back.
Thanks a lot.
Graziano. |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 06:25 am | | Hello Scott E.,
I hope I will not be too messy but today I won't have a lot of time, so, there we go.
"...nobody heard any scream..."
"...I have trouble believing a woman of her size would not be kicking and screaming...",
"...I see no signs of strangulation...",
"...the blood spatter...",
exactly so.
And there lies the problem.
a) No scream from the victim and no noise of struggle. Notice that the victims (Tabram but also the others) were "street women", used to fight and that they generally wore heavy man's boot (sure for Chapman and Eddowes, likely for the others, they used to walk a lot).
The landing was a wooden one (Chapman was killed just near a wooden fence).Difficult to believe wood would have totally absorbed the noise made by the boots in any struggle.
The door of the nearest flat was only three feet away from the place where the body was found.
The flat was inhabited by a couple (I do not remember now the name) who stated that they did not hear the faintiest noise during the whole night (aside the cry of "murder" coming from the street and I suppose "normal" noises generally coming from there).
b)No blood spatter, at least not as if the victim was standing or even laying but conscious and fighting.
c)No blood stains on the staircase.
From the three points above (hope I do not forget any), it is clear that she was stabbed as she was laying and where she was discovered but she was at that time unconscious.
Could a blow on the head have rendered her unconscious.
Yes, undoubtedly, but then we have the problem with the cadaveric spasm (I agree that hands so clenched could not be the result of simple Rigor Mortis and in any case not enough time for that).
The cadaveric spasm, as far as I know and as you seem to have hinted, is associated with violent death and intense emotions.
So, she must have someway fought.
It is highly probable thus that she got the blow falling, or if someone gave her it was not enough to beat her totally swoon (hope that I am clear enough here).
This means struggle.
But no noise, no signs of struggle on the landing, no strangulation.
But, sorry to repeat it once again, it is on the landing that she was killed (she was killed by stabbing, no blood on the staircase and a pool of blood around the victim).
Possible conclusion: she was not attacked on the landing bue elsewhere and then brought there already unconscious and laid down quietly and thus prepared for the butchery.
Two problems:
1. how was she brought on the landing ?
2. how was she rendered unconscious ?
Possible answer to question 1.:
(Remember that time was essential, the killer is in the middle of a site inhabited and frequented by a lot of people - idem for Chapman - in fact a passage, where he can be disturbed at any moment, people possibly coming from upstairs - in which case he might hear them - or from outside - in this case he could get in serious problems, not seing them coming in the street)
We have two possibilities, the first is that she was brought to the landing from an appartement in the building, the second that she was brought there from the street.
Notice that Michael Gordon in his book "JtR, beyond the usual Whitechapel suspects" intelligently hints that Severino Klosowsky could have lived there at the time of the murder.
Now, notice that she was laying in an ordinate manner as if she had been deposited there quietly and slowly.
Seen the absence of noise, the constraint of time and the work to be done (savagely murder her) it seems not so likely that a lonely killer could have done so (and how, in any case, alone being able to move such a mass without making a lot of noise, remember that the people living there had no television or radio and probably all were sleeping, so a lot of silence there).
Isn't it more likely that she was brought there by two men ?
Then one cuts, the other keep watch at the entrance of the building ?
That's always the problem I have with the "Jack was one theory".
I always manage to explain better with two and in fact I never manage with one.
Take in consideration that PC Barret met a "soldier" right there (not far away from the building) at the time of death.
Still, we have a further problem: How was she rendered unconscious.
Not by the blow (we would not have had the hands clenched).
Not by strangulation (we do not have any sign of it), and in any case she died by syncope due to haemorrhage and not by asphyxia.
Not by ingestion of any anhesthetic (it would have been found I suppose with the "partially digested food" - the last could be interesting in determining the hour of death).
So, how ?
Sorry not to be more clear than that but really no more time.
Thanks for whatever precious thoughts.
Graziano.
P.S.: I am not sure the purpose was to mutilate in this case. We do not find even the scantiest trace of an attempt. And the killer could have had the time (since he had the time to stab 39 times). Maybe his purpose was only stabbing. He seems to have done it in an "orderly" way (I mean by that regularly spread all over the body - only 21 or 23 seem indeed to have been inflicted on the trunk, we do not have any specific indication on the others so I suppose they were on the arms, legs, maybe some on the "intimate" parts, but undoubtedly not all 16 or 18 on the latter, we would have had a de facto ripping). |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 06:35 am | | Scott E.,
what do you think about anhaesthetic inhalation ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 02:48 pm | | Dear Graziano,
Your scenario raises a number of questions: why would Jack(s) goe to the 'trouble' of CREATING A
PANTOMIME for YOUR benefit?
Why no mutilation... when such a window of opportunity is available?
Was Jack really subject to the Profiler's psycho-
crescendo?
Hmmm...
Rosey:-) |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 03:52 pm | | Dear Rosey,
I will begin with the third (and the second).
I never excluded the possibility, and in fact it does seem very likely, that one of the guys took a lot of pleasure in his job.
Thus that he could have been a serial sexual psychodon't-know-what killer.
I do not see any crescendo in the whole serie (intending, till evidence of the contrary, from Martha Tabram till Mary Kelly).
I do only see a good job, made with a diligent preparation, a lot of ability and an incredible intelligence.
The guys knew what to do and how to do it from the beginning.
Nothing is really botched.
The M.O. does not change, only some details.
The differences being due to time and events difficult to forecast - i.e. the arrival of a passer-by).
Nichols and Stride: the murderer was quite clearly enough disturbed, difficult to know how much he would have cut if not.
Chapman and Eddowes: some little differences due probably to time and location. I do not really know how someone can see a crescendo there.
The little signs on the face of Eddowes ?
Disfiguration ?
Hardly, she was still good for identification.
It could have been a message.
Kidney removed in the case of Eddowes ?
Well, Chapman had a piece of her bladder removed.
Kelly ? Yes, of course.
But there you assume she was the last.
What about Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles ?
In Tabram the savagery was extreme also.
Any mutilation ?
Exactly, but neither any attempt at it.
And yet, plenty of time, as you say.
So, mutilation was not the goal.
But let us aknowledge that if the goal, as I believe, was to terrorize, they did not manage to do it.
Astonishment, disgust in the newspapers, yes, but far from terror.
Not a single curious person of the general public was present at the inquest.
In fact, nobody cared.
So, if you are a terrorist what do you think.
"Next time, we must do more".
Thus, crescendo after all, maybe, but only in the step from Tabram to Nichols and a calculated one, not that of an insatisfied lunatic.
"Why would Jack(s) go to the trouble of creating a pantomime for your benefit ?".
Why in fact bring the body on this landing and not leaving it on the open street ?
Aside from the fact that they evidently felt more secure there, I must admit that for the moment I can't answer satisfactorily (at least for me) and seriously to that question.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 05:47 pm | | Pressed for time today. Today has not been a good one.
In short. As mentioned there are important details missing from the police reports and the medical reports, not just in Tabram but all of them. Maybe the officers thought nothing of blood spatter, maybe there in fact, quite literally there was not any blood at all. What about lividity and algor mortis? There is a lot missing, a lot that would today say volumes.
The spasm of Tabram’s hands that caused her fingers to clinch, the wide open eyes of Nichols. The times reported. This in itself speaks volumes.
Cadaveric spasms happen in a state of consciousness. These are sure signs of immediate, instant death. Cadaveric spasms appear to look like rigor mortis. Going on Barret’s testimony, Tabram’s body was found with her fingers clinched, cadaveric spasms. This was at approximately 4:45 am. Killeen performed a quick PM at 5:30 and stated Tabram was dead 3 hours. That puts the time of death, according to him, at 2:30 am. The spasms state otherwise. The time of death was actually between 3:20 and 3:25 am. Alfred Crow arrives home at 3:30 am and sees someone lying on the first floor landing. He thinks it is a vagrant as the frequent the place. He thinks nothing of the body, which was obviously Tabram. Her dress was found by Barrett up to her middle abdomen(center of the body). He apparently thought intimate relations had taken place. Nichols’ clothes were found the same way. Nichols was found in the same body position as Tabram. The killer of Nichols was apparently disturbed and did not have the chance to mutilate as he probably wanted to, the degree of Chapman and Eddowes. With all of this in mind.......I can not dismiss the very strong possibility that the killer turned up Tabram’s clothes in order to mutilate her and was disturbed by Alfred Crow returning home.
As for as the noise nobody heard, murder was frequent in Whitechapel. If murder was frequent then so were disturbances. Vagrants sleeping in the landings were frequent, at least at this part of George yard. Residents are acustomed to hearing someone scream murder, residents are acustomed to stepping over drunks and vagrants. Residents are acustomed to disturbances and probably prostitutes conducting business in dark out of the way places. The night of August 7 1888 would not be any different. In fact it might be worst, it was a holiday and people would be out carousing even more so.
Desire Street projects in New Orleans, possibly one of the most dangerous areas in the U.S. next to Cabrini Greens in Chicago and South Central Los Angeles. Black Gangster Disciples, Vice Lords, 5-9 Piru Bloods, Bottom Boyz Crips and Latin Kings all claim the Desire St. Projects as their turf. The residents think nothing of the cry of murder, gun shots, drug peddling, drunks and prostitutes in the middle of the night. Shots ring out, a body is found, and in the middle of an apartment complex nobody hears or sees anything.
Whitechapel 1888 or New Orleans 2001.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 06:25 pm | | Dear Scott,
There is a difference in the gun-culture of America c.2000AD and the sub-culture of Jago-land
c.1900.
Other then that (!) I agree...people blacks/non-blacks have an inerrant tendancy to both blindness and deafness in ghetto situations...and for bloody good reasons.However, I don't think the minutiae of cadavaric spasms and blood patterns is any more illuminating than Ed Carter's esoteric deconstructions of the Ghoulston St. graffitto...IMHO
Rosey O'Scully :-) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 08:16 am | | Dear Rosemary,
I have to disagree. The spasms tell us, more accurately, the time of death, and this tells us the time of the murder.
As I mentioned a few post, prior to this one, in this sub-topic, the blood spatter for a a knife is very distinct and would tell us the positions of the victim and the killer at the time of the killing. In fact, a very intesne study of the spatter would tell us each and every position of the body and killer. That would clear up a lot of debate as to the point at which the victim hit the ground during the attack.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 01:33 pm | | Dear Scott,
The good news or the bad news...?
1. They were killed where they fell.
2. They were killed elsewhere.
3. Some were killed where they fell and some were killed elsewhere.
Term this reasoning a syllogism, if you wish...and
if you except the available evidentiary nature of 1. you must exclude 2. and 3. This progression of reasoning is from the simple to the complex... take it or leave it! You can at least see the implications of 2. and 3. Me, personally, I go with you on 1.
[There are some on these boards who think I am a born-liar!!!]
Rosey :-)) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 02:25 pm | | Dear Rosemary,
I agree whole heartedly. Not with the born liar but with your reasoning. I am taking this case murder by murder. That fine tooth comb I have in my back pocket has already help to pick through the evidence that is available
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 02:37 pm | | A quick question for all to ponder.
What is the difference between a witness saying; “I heard nothing last night.”
And a witness saying; “ I heard nothing unusual last night.”
Now I have to go an attempt some real work.
BLECH!
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Peter Wood
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 07:44 pm | | They can be taken as one and the same thing Scott. But I see your point, and it's a good one.
Just remember though: People hear a lot of things, they just don't listen.
Regards
Peter. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 05:30 am | | Scott E, Peter Wood,
yes is a good point.
But the points have to be not only good but also complete (thus not only reflecting what could give an advantage to someone's opinion).
E.L.A. - Transcription of the inquest:
Elizabet Mahoney: "...During the night she heard no noise...",
Alfred George Crow: "...From the time of his entering the room to the time of leaving it in the morning (about 9 o'clock) he did not hear any sound whatever...",
then the statement of John Saunders Reeves with the judicious remark made above by Scott E.,
Dr Keeling: "...there were no signs of a struggle whatever...",
For the purpose of mere curiosity, I add this sentence reported in the East London Observer of the 11 August 1888:
"...It is difficult to understand how such a crime could have been committed without noise sufficient to attract the attention of residents in the dwelling...".
And then (also reported in the Weekly Herald/17.08.888):
"...The police authorities regard as little short of marvellous the fact that no dweller in this model block heard any disturbance...".
Difficult to understand and marvellous indeed, but only if we assume that the victim could have defended herself at the moment she was stabbed and that the attack happened there (on the landing) as did (undoubtedly) the subsequent butchery.
Interesting also this other excerpt from the same Weekly Herald:
"...a reporter (again) visited Mr Francis Hewitt, the superintendent of the dwellings, who, with his wife, occupies a sleeping apartment at nearly right angles with the place where the dead body lay. Mr Hewitt procured a foot-rule and measured the distance of his sleeping place from the stone step in question. It was exactly 12 feet.
"And we never heard a cry", remarked Mr Hewitt.
Mrs Hewitt remarked that early in the evening she did hear a single cry of "Murder!". It echoed through the building, but did not emanate from there...".
The same article add nevertheless that the couple stated that cries of murder were quite common in the district.
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: I stated in a post above that the landing was a wood one. It is very clear from the reports in the newspapers that this is false. The staircase and the landings were stone made. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 07:49 am | | Dear Graziano,
So, from your perspective, number 1.is 'doubtful'
which leaves you to reconcile 2. and 3. Ivor Edwards theory goes some way to reconcile 2. and 3. but I have yet to read his complete work re, a so-called 'reconnoitre stage'...i.e.,Jack covered the same ground TWICE.
Scenario 2. and 3. permit the "conspiratorialists"
to move freely herein.
Rosey:-) |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:16 am | | No, Rosey,
as far as I remember (not a lot) your syllogism is not one in the "perfect" form. But it should be "good" enough for my "conclusion":
3. They fell elsewhere.
Bye. Graziano (not sure of having respected the "Aristotelian" reasoning but sure anyway about the right result).
P.S.: Ivor Edwards walks too quickly and he misses the landscape. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:41 am | | At the Nichols inquest, Emma Green, who lived in the cottage next to the murder site, stated she heard no UNUSUAL SOUND during the night. When questioned by the jury she stated that rough people often passed through the street, but knew of no disorderly house.
My experience as a police offficer tells me some one should have redirected the question to her.
Technically speaking this is called a hedge, not saying she's lying, not saying she is hiding something, what it means is someone should have asked her to clarify the definition of unusual sounds.
Unusual means out of the ordinary. So if she heard nothing unusal then what would have been considered by her to be the usual sounds. If it is to be believed that the Whitechapel area was a high crime area and the cry of murder is not unusual then what is unusual.... not hearing any disturbances.....not hearing anyone scream......not hearing anyone trying to solicit a prostitute......etc.....
I once questioned a witness to a homicide, who when asked what did he see on the night in question. He replied " just people kickin' it on the street and stuff." When asked about the and stuff he replied " its just a saying, ya know what I mean."
My reply was: " Yeah I know what you mean. But my 15 year old daughter has a 11 o'clock curfew when she goes out at night with her friends. If she strolls in at 11:30 she has to account for her time. If she tells me ' we went to the movies, to Pizza Hut and then just rode around and stuff.' Then I can believe she went to the movies. I can believe she went to pizza hut. I can believe she just rode around. But the and stuff is what I would want to know about, as it sounds to be the more eventful part of the night, and was either the cause of her being 30 minutes late or played a big part in her being 30 minutes late."
The witness, after a little more prodding, eventually stated he overheard three guys talking about robbing the victim ( who was an elderly man) of his social security check once he cashed it. They had agreed that it would be faster if they killed him and took it rather than just f**k him up and take it.
Of course it is a little bit late to ask Ms. Green to clarify her statement. |
Author: graziano
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 09:50 am | | Rosey, Scott E., Peter Wood,
Eastern post (18.08.1888):
About the night of the Martha Tabram's murder:
"...Both Mr and Mrs Reeves have pointed out the spot where they allege these disturbances commenced, which they state to be the dead wall of Leterworth Buildings in George street (which is very near and can be see from George yard Buildings). The first row commenced about 11.30 p.m., followed by another at 12.20 a.m. when both Mr and Mrs Reeves assert they heard cries of "Police!", "Help!" and terrible screaming.
Shortly after one o'clock in the morning they were again disturbed with terrible sreams, apparently coming from the same neighbourhood. They went on the balcony of their dwelling, and found that there was not only one, but two separate rows going on...of a very noisy and quarrelsome character. The crowds round surged backwards and forwards a great deal. At last the police came and dispersed the crowd. This did not conclude the riotous proccedings of the night. About 2.00 a.m. they heard more screams, they were this time very percieng. Only a few roughs seemed to constitute this crowd, which seemed to be moving in the direction of George Yard...".
So, it was not so unusual to hear rows and screams in the district (quite a dream in fact for would-be-women-assaulters).
Coming from the street, of course.
From a landing in a dwelling it is another story.
But it is a lot more secure to stab 39 times an unconscious body on a dark landing than in the street.
Overall when the street is so much frequented.
Of course between one action and the other you must move the body.
Scott E., Peter Wood, as both private investigators, how could a dead body tell us that it has been moved ?
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 10:27 am | | Dear Graziano,
You are quite correct about the form of the syllogism...but the terms were suffient, otherwise
one could get too embroiled in Aristotelian logic.
Ivor works according to a different set of spatial
clues...comes from tally-keeping, counting 'em in and counting 'em out... on the tread-mill :-)
Rosey:-) |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 11:54 am | | I feel bad Graz. It seems as if I have been avoiding your questions. That is not the case. i just get to making a point and i start rambling. Feel free to tell me to shut up and answer the question, if I ramble here.
Going back a little you asked me about the possibility of the use of anesthesia on Tabram. It is possible on one hand. It would explain the quick silencing of her. But the spasms in her hands throws that off. A surgeon could probably tell you better the effects of anesthesia on a body, especially in the 19th century. I would surely hope the the doctor performing the particular autopsies would be able to tell if an anesthetic was used. Today it would show in a tox screen.
Two points to look at though really quick here. I don't know the back ground of the coroners in the inquest. Hopefull I can find something out about them, or if someone knows please feel free to add the information. When we look at the history of office of the coroner we see that it in fact originates in England. The office is the oldest known, still active, court officers. Originally the coroner was first obtained to raise the ransom for King Richard. His duties after that fell on the collecting of taxes. The link to the office and crime came when Elizabeth I assigned them the task of keeping track of felons. Which in those days was relatively as every crime was most certain to be a felony and carried a capital offense. In the 18th century we see the role becoming not as highly regarded as it once was as their role became the chief investigators of unusual death. It quickly became known throughout Britan as well as America, for a little extra under the table the coroner would adjust the death certificates in accordance with the amount received by the mourning family. The coroners were not required to hold any degree of medicine or even a medicine related field.
Many just threw the title of doctor onto their name after stepping into the office.
In most parts of the U.S. the coroner has been replaced by the office of the medical examiner. Medical examiners have to hold a degree in pathology. In Louisiana, things , as usual are different. We kinda pride ourselves on that, this after all is the state that when warned of an approaching hurricane holds street parties know as, what else...hurricane parties. Anyway, Louisiana is still governed by a set of laws that date back to it being a colony of France. The laws are known as the Napoleonic Code. The Napoleonic Code calls for the office of the coroner to be the chief law enforcement in thier repsective jurisdictions. The coroner ,an elected position, has the power to remove the sheriff of an individual parish (county) and even the state's governor from office. The coroner has the responsibility to oversee the investigation of any unusal death. The coroner in Louisiana, like his early counterparts, still do not have to have a
a degree in pathology or medicine. We are just lucky to have people smart enough, after the hurricane passes, to want a coroner with a medical degree and they elect as such. I personally know a coroner in the Baton Rouge area that is just a regular family doctor.
So, with all of this in mind, what were the actual qualifications of the coroners?
Back to the question at hand.........what was it? Oh, yeah......how do you tell if a body has been moved?
There are several methods used today. What was available to the coroners and doctors in 19th century England?
I don't know. Iwould assume they would know of livor mortis aka lividity. That is one method of telling. A close cousin to lividity is hypostasis. The amoutn of blood at a crime scene can tell but it has many factors that go into it. Blood spatter, I keep harping on that one. Bruising on the bodies. Trace evidence on the body that is not indiginous to the crime scene, positioning of the body in accordance to the wounds, the ability and means of the victim to get to the crime scene on their own (even if forced to do so - understandably this is a tricky one to asscess), witness statements.
In my experience, the three biggest ones are lividity, trace evidence and blood spatter, in that order.
Lividity (Algor Mortis) is the settling of blood in a body. You may have seen photos where a body has a purplish color to it. This is livor mortis. Immediately, at the time of death, the red blood cells begin to settle out of the serum and gather at the lowest part of the body. The reason for the settling is that the heart stops and the circulation thusly stops and gravity takes its toll on the blood left in the body. Lividity usually starts showing itself in about two hours. It becomes fixed in approximately 12 hours. Fixed means all the blood has finally settled in the lowest part of the body. When the detectives arrived at the scen of the Simpson they noted that lividity was present in both Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and the blood was already coagulated. So they were dead at least two hours by my guess. I don't have the information that tells the extent of the lividity.
When the body is lying on its back on a flat level surface the blood will begin settling in the back and its surrounding muscles. The top of the body will be an ashen color. Now comes hypostasis. Because the body is laying on its back as Ms. Tabram was found, the pressure, body weight, is pressed against the back muscles. Because of this pressure, the body will retain its normal skin color. This due to the blood in the back is already at its lowest point. The rest of the blood is following gravity and is making its way to the lowest point, the back. BUT......due to the pressure of the back against the flat level surface, the flow of the blood to that area is cut off, restricted. This normal coloring of the skinn in lividity is known as hypostasis. If the body begins showing multiple area of hypostasis in areas that do not correspond with the points of contact, then the body has been moved.
As i have stated before, the blood spatter can and will show the positions of the killer and the victim in relation to each other. The knife when plunged into a victim is covered with blood. When the killer removes the knife the blood on the knife is thrown off the knife and results in a distinct arching patter in the direction of the movement. The killers hand then reverses direction and starts his movement back to the victim for another plunge. Once again the blood is thrown off the knife and its distinctive arching pattern is now in the opposite direction of the first pattern. Two didtinct patterns, two stab wounds. 39 stab wounds? There should be blood elsewhere that signals the stop of the slaughter. Either on top of the victim, on the killer or on the ground next to them. Why is this? The killer stops his motion the blood is falling off of the knife in an approximate angle of 90 degrees to the ground.
How do we determine the exact angles of strike for each the blood drops? Mathematics. measure the width of the blood drop and divide it by the length of the drop. Take the arc sine of the answer. The equation is;
ARCSINE ( W/L). Once we have the angles for each strike we take string and attach it to the blood drop. Following the angle for the particular drop we then pull the string back and attach it to a point. The attaching of the strings is done with ordinary thumb tacks. After we have completed this procedure for each drop we have a visual of the attack. Where the strings meet at the end will be the point of the attack. There will be many different points of attack. These points illustrate the movement of the killer and the vitim. If the body of the victim at the end of the last attack is not where it should be then the body was moved. This is just a few examples, I could go on forever about this. I am in the process of creating my own website so illustrations and photographs of this technique, along with others, will be forthcoming.
If all else fails we go to the playgound. The playground is where the fun is at. We will take things such as blood soaked sponges and shoot and stab them repeatedly, hit them with golf clubs...etc...... all trying to recreate the scene. The traffic accident investigators have all the fun, they get to skid vehicles and run them into brick walls.
Peace,
Scott |
|
|
|
|
