Author: Diana
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 11:45 am |        |
| I went back and looked. It was Scott Medine who had attended 100+ autopsies. Help, Scott! Are we only talking about hands here or are we talking about clothes too and if so to what extent? (Could range from cuffs only to all over everything.) And are there other fluids besides blood that would be harder to get out? If I were Sherlock Holmes I would have written a monograph on this but alas I'm not! |
Author: Michael Conlon
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 02:37 pm | |
Picking up a coat by the collar (or sleeve, or whatever) using three or four bloody fingers, and then slipping it on, would leave barely discenable marks. But this line of argumentation is moot if Scott M.'s supposition about copious blood staining in inaccurate. I would state, however, that it has been the general speculation that a pardon was offered to an 'accomplice' of JTR after the Kelly murder, because someone would have noticed and/or assisted in the cleanup of bloodied clothing.
In the 'for what its worth' category, shortly after the very bloody murder of Carrie Brown, a man who was later tentatively identified as La Bruckman entered a shabby hotel a few blocks from the murder site, seeking to wash up in the lobby lavatory. His hands, shirt sleeves and some of his shirtfront were covered in fresh blood, frightening the clerk sufficiently to demand that the man leave.
Regards,
Mike |
Author: cue
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 06:18 pm | |
Hi
Dark clothing would hide any blood stains in the hours before daylight.Then just just leave the scene of the crime with his hands in his pockets.I don't think he would stand out in a population that many slept in alleys and ate out of dumpsters! |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 06:24 pm | |
Hiya Vila;
In one breath you talk about how long it would take to reverse a coat, and then you say, take off the coat, pull on gloves (up to the elbow is suppose?) put on an apron, and then gut, and slash your victim!!!!
Randy;
Your absolutely correct. This person (trying to be politically correct.) slaughtered these women in very public places. They could not have been random killings because he had to have known where the PC on duty was at all times.
I have said many times that we are underestimating Jack!!
Chris;
Ask any surgeon. You cut the wrong place just by 1/2 inch, and you hit a bleeder. Hell, on a trauma case, a bleeder can erode quickly, and you have a bleedout on your hands.
Jack was not a surgeon!! From the wounds I have heard discribed, and the photos I have seen, the person who inflicted them had a very rudimentary knowledge of anatomy.
Jack killed first!!!
Then he mutilated!!!!
But there was still blood.
Diana;
I am not Scott Medline, but I have attended many autopsies.
I am also a combat vet.
I have seen many knife wounds. There is very little bleeding if the heart has stopped.
There would have been very little for Jack to worry about. Other than getting caught that is.
He would have worn gloves if for no other reason that that it was cold.. Even the murders in August would have been cold. It had been one of the coldest & wettest Summers end.
He did not have time for all this clothes changing and rearranging.
The alleyways were dark, and many!! The lighting was worse than poor!! With what little blood he would have gotten on him, with his staying in the dark would have unnoticed
Herb |
Author: Vila
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 08:34 pm | |
Herb,
Yeah, I apologize for that transition. It was a bit abrupt. I'm afraid a sudden flash of inspiration struck me and I began typing too fast to express myself clearly.
The 1st paragraph was essentially my dismissing my own notion that Jack would take the time necessary to turn the coat inside out. The 2nd paragraph was a speculation on what *I* would do to commit one of Jack's killings. Obviously my slow fingers couldn't keep up with my racing imagination. In future posts I'll try to signal my lane changes as well as use less chatroom-like shorthand. This isn't a chatroom, so I can aford to use a bit more verbiage to insure that I express myself more coherently. My apologies again for the confusion.
Vila |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 20 April 2002 - 09:12 pm | |
| Wear dark clothes and put your hands in your pockets -- pretty good. Did any of the witness sightings describe dark clothes? |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 06:41 am | |
Diana:
I'm still not sure that the witness "sightings" were of JtR. The descriptions I have read seem to indicate that there were more than 1 Ripper. They very in almost every detail, but I still think that most of them descibe the clothes as dark.
Herb |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:26 am | |
| So, Herbert, we are talking about hands and possibly cuffs only. Hands were possibly encased in dark colored gloves. But then we have to deal with the issue of Carrie Brown and why La Bruckman got it on his shirt front. If ALB was JTR he would have been good at, by this time, avoiding/concealing mess. Still, he didn't slit this ones throat so maybe the strangulation wasn't quite enough to finish her and if the heart was beating weakly . . . I'm going to read what casebook says about CB again and get back to this. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 07:50 am | |
| I read a chunk of Mike's dissertation again. He cut a cross in her back. He would have had to turn her over to do that, something he didn't have to do with the Whitechapel victims. The most probable position for the strangulation would have been face up. Then, lets see . . ., either do the evisceration and then flip her over and do the cross and then flip her back, OR, flip her over, do the cross, then flip her back and do the evisceration. On the other hand, if she wasn't too heavy he could have rolled her onto her side and held her in that position with one hand while he cut the cross with the other. If she was heavy, turning her would have necessitated shirt front contact, a situation that didn't exist with the canonical 5. |
Author: HERBERT SHAFFER
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 04:16 pm | |
Diana;
Not even cuffs. Cuffs were an addition to Victorian Male dress. As were collars. These things were easily removed if they were soiled. Toss them over a fence.
I keep saying; these murders were not random!!
In fact they were very well planned.
The Police of the time were no match for Jack....
He might have been they!!!!
Think about the eyewitness desciptions.
Most of these were within seconds of the times of death. The bodies being found within 15min. of the sightings.
Even aknowledging that the mutilations were not made with percision, (any competant surgeon, Scrub Nurse, or even Scrub Tech, could have made better incisions), it still would have taken time, this seems to me to indicate that the witnesses, (if not lying) saw sever different JtRs. (please excuse me. I am thinking while I am typing...)
Herb (going aside for a moment to collect my thoughts, but still on line.) |
Author: Vila
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 09:14 pm | |
| Herb is struck by Vila Syndrome: The inability to compose a message for the Board without generating other trains of thought that cry out to be persued. |
Author: Michael Conlon
Sunday, 21 April 2002 - 09:46 pm | |
A little earlier on this thread, I asked if there wasn't a story concerning a man with the appearance of a sailor seen washing up at a public tap shortly after the murder.
The story I was thinking of is from the 'Star' for Oct. 1, 1888: "From two different sources we have a story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone was on the look-out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger, whereupon he tries to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat."
If this story does indeed describe the killer, than the notion that a hand 'wiping' would be initially sufficient to clean up , would support those who contend that JTR would not be greatly covered in blood.
Of course there is no strong evidence that this sighting has any significance. Just as a self-serving aside, when La Bruckman was arrested, he was described as wearing a "short jacket" and a "sailor's hat".
regards,
Mike |
Author: maria giordano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 11:46 am | |
From my rudimentary knowledge of such things I'm assuming that blood wouldn't be spurting out of anywhere once the heart stopped beating, but would ooze out, following the laws of gravity.
Jack must have got his hands and maybe forearms bloody from scrambling around in guts hacking at organs.
How to clean up? Pull down your shirt/coat sleeves and either take off the gloves you wore to make the mutilations or put gloves on over your bloody hands.
My big question is : how did he get away with the organs he removed in the Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly murders? Does this question belong in a different thread?
Maria |
Author: Jim Leen
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 12:08 pm | |
Hello Everybody,
I posted some while ago about the issue of cuffs, couldn't have been much because I can't remember any detail!
Any hoo, the gist of it was that British army surgeons were easily noticeable because of the number of buttons attached to their jacket cuffs. Quite simply, they undid a few buttons, completed the operation, wiped their hands then re-fastened their cuffs. Bloody shirts etc hidden in an instant.
Now isn't the name D'onston Stephenson immediately conjured?
Finally, Maria, I assume the organs would go into a jacket pocket.
Thanking you and apologies if I've covered old ground
Jim Leen |
Author: maria giordano
Monday, 22 April 2002 - 01:25 pm | |
Jim -
I was thinking a jacket pocket too, and maybe one lined with "American cloth" or oilskin.
Maria |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 07:20 am | |
Hi Maria,
Maybe wrapping the organ in cloth and putting it in a pocket? Or if the murders are planned, Jack could carry a small jar to place the organ in.
According to Ivor Edward's D'Onston theory. Jack(D'Onston) placed the organ behind his tie, because it would be a place the police would not look if he was stopped and searched.
Regards,
Chris H. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 09:11 am | |
Diana,
Not much time today it is 8:15 and I am already behind the 8-ball.
The issue of blood on the killer and his clothing is vital. The blood of the victim can only be in one of or a combination of 4 places. On the victim, inside the victim, on the surrounding area or on the person. Its that simple. No mystery involved. The laws of physics did not cease to apply in Victorian England. Once the heart has stopped the blood IMMEDIATELY starts to settle in the lowest part of the body. This is called lividity (Livor Mortis). It causes the purple discoloration of the skin and is caused by gravity. At the time of death the blood IMMEDIATELY loses its ability to congeal. However, in cases of instant death, the blood has been known to retain its ability to coagulate for up to 30 minutes. The blood congeals around the wound. I refer everyone to Polly Nichols. Nichols’ wide open eyes is a sign of instant death. The blood somewhat coagulated in her hair and throat is the other sign. I know the reports state the blood was oozing but the medical examiners report also states that congealed blood was found in the neck.
Because of a non-beating heart and gravity, the body becomes just a container for the blood. The blood is still in its liquid state. In normal autopsy situations, after opening the thorax, the medical examiner takes a tool that looks like a pair of cable cutters and cuts the collar bones and lifts the rib cage out of the cavity. The heart and lungs are both exposed. They are removed and weighed. Blood does get on the medical examiner’s hands and coat along with some drippage on the table and floor, not to mention the scale. The rest of the organs are also examined and likewise weighed. This is done with the body on the steel table, in a well lighted room and with exact precision. The M.E. has to make his way through fat, which is a liquid, lumpy yellowish mass of goop, to reach the lower abdominal organs. After the autopsy the M.E. has blood and other stuff on his hands arms and scrubs.
Now picture the Whitechapel Killer leaning over Kate Eddowes. In the dark corner, of a dimly lit area. Only a few minutes, working under enormous stress and stooped over his cadaver. I would definitely say he got blood and other stuff on his person. The blood would have been on his hands and clothing.
The blood would have been concealed from view by the fact that he wore an over coat. This coat would have been dark in color. As several people pointed out, the dark coat would not show signs of blood as easily as a lighter color. He would have opened his coat before the killing. He would have closed it after the killing. He would have worn dark colored gloves during the killing or during the mutilation. This is evident by the lack of crescent abrasions in the bruises found in the neck. By cutting the throat left to right the vagus (pneumo-gastric) nerve would have been cut first. This nerve lies directly next to the left carotid artery. Once this nerve is severed the heart immediately stops and death becomes instant.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 23 April 2002 - 08:03 pm | |
| The only reason criminals wear gloves is because of finger printing and in 1888 Jack was safe in this respect. It is out of the question that Jack wore gloves while working on Chapman, Eddowes, or Kelly. You just dont perform surgery like that wearing leather gloves.Operating by touch in dim light is hampered by gloves anyway and Jack had no reason to wear them. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 04:19 am | |
I do not think a uterus is visible when ripping up the abdomen from the front on a body who is lying.
Even if you grab out the bowels.
There could have been some light in the case of Chapman, not a lot in the case of Eddowes but in neither case I think it was phisically possible to remove it by sight.
What I know is that when you plunge your hands in the pelvis the uterus is quite easy to locate by touch.
In fact, going down, is the first thing that could someway "stop/block" your hand.
If you want to get to the uterus in the dark (but I think this is always true) you have better try to find it by touch (and I think we may safely assume that the uterus was the aim).
For this reason I do not think that gloves could have been used during the mutilations.
It is likely nevertheless that they were used after, during the "escaping" from the murder site, to conceal blood on the hands.
A dark coat seems having been confirmed by more than one witness.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 07:24 am | |
Hi Scott,
One quick question. Why would Jack open and close the coat? I understand why he would open it, in case he got blood on his torso the coat could hide this fact. However, the closing of the coat would mean that he would have to use his bloodied hands to close it, meaning that he would smear blood(and in Eddowes case, fecal matter) on the coat. If he's taking his gloves off after the kill, then closing the coat, then the using of the gloves is pointless, because he will get blood on at least one of his hands from the removing of the garment. Just curious what your thoughts are on this?
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 07:58 am | |
Hi All.
Large coats have large pockets, dont they ??
I would just plunge my hands in them.
Wouldnt leather gloves become slippy if they were covered in cack ? And, therefore, wouldnt that make a knife a tad difficult to work with ??
Monty
 |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:29 am | |
*SIGH* Once again too many are reading too much into the post. I stated the killer wore gloves during the killing OR during the mutilation. I did not say he wore them during the killing AND during the mutilation. The key word in that sentence was OR.
I have already covered the opening and closing of the coat in another post. But just to save time, not for me but for those concerned about the opening and closing.
The opening of the coat serves several purposes.
1. If the killer kept the knife safely stashed under then he would have to open it to retrieve it.
2. If he were to let the victims believe that he was a paying customer then the coat would have to be opened for the killer to allow the victim access.
3. The open coat would allow the majority of any bodily fluids to spray the clothes or other garments underneath.
By closing the coat the killer of course covers any incriminating evidence.
The touching of the coat with goop covered hands would not cause as much mess as letting the stuff get all over it.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 09:56 am | |
Hi Scott,
He wouldn't have to open the coat if he had a forearm sheath for the knife.(Sheath's like this were very common place around the time. Especially for criminals or ex-soldiers.) It would take two seconds to slide the knife out and back in, under the sleeve of his coat, without having to open it.
There would be quite a bit of mess if Jack has to button the coat after the kill, which he would have to do, cause the coat would probably slide open as he walked.(As all coats tend to do.)
Adios,
Chris H. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:12 am | |
And what would be more messier,noticible and incriminating blood spatter on the coat or blood smears.
Aloha
Scott |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 10:43 am | |
I totally agree for the coat.
I just doubt you can find the uterus in the dark with gloves on your hands.
I think you may find it by touching, not by sight.
And for this, better is working with bare hands.
But I must aknowledge I never opened an abdomen and never went with my hands in a woman pelvis.
I agree that for being a serious student on the case this is an unforgivable lack of experience.
It can't last.
Aleikum Salaam.
Graziano. |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:58 am | |
Hello Everybody,
Did the killer really have to wear gloves at all? I would think not, for the simple reason, that fingerprinting was in its infancy. Also, although I've led a sheltered life, I'd imagine that dusting internal bodily organs for prints would be nigh well impossible.
Therefore, the killer would only wear gloves if he was to leave some tangible form of incriminating evidence behind. And since he always remembered to remove the murder weapon, which would be extremely incriminating, the need for gloves is surely negated.
As for the coat, considering that the indigents were unlikely to pass comment on a grubby, noisome garment, surely the killer wouldn't feel the need to disguise the mess down his front. If the jacket was dark the blood stains wouldn't be obvious anyway. But if he did have to remove a particularly repellent stain wouldn't he just slice off a piece from his victims apron and wipe the mess away?
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 05:13 pm | |
The reason I said gloves may have used is that one of the tell tale signs of strangulation is not present. This sign is the crescent shaped abrasions (scrapes) or shallow lacerations (cuts) that would be present in the bruises found on the neck. These scrapes and cuts are left by the fingernails of the assailant. In the extremely small minority of strangulation cases, that these tell tale scrapes and cuts are not found two (2) causes have been found to be the reason. The assailant had extremely close cropped nails or he/she wore gloves. Since gloves enlarge the size of one’s fingers I am led to believe the killer either had large hands or wore gloves. This is based on the evidence found in the Polly Nichols murder. Nichols received a blow from a fist or she was strangled. After laying the bruise configurations out on a mannequin it is easy to see that Nichols was indeed strangled.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 08:49 pm | |
Hi Scott,
The pictures of Polly shows the bruises to be along her jaw, not the lower part(along the neck) but the upper section(on the face). If both of the bruises on both sides of her face are from one hand, then Jack had RATHER big hands. If the bruises are from both of his hands, then he wouldn't have adequate pressure to cause a strangulation. It could be possible that one of the bruises on her cheek(maybe even both) are from something that happened prior to her death.(After all it had been an hour since she was last seen alive, till the time of her murder.) There was a scream reported on Brady Street around the time of the murders. This could have been Polly being assaulted by either Jack, or maybe even someone else.(After all the screams were not heard on Bucks Row, but it is possible that Jack strangled Polly on Brady and carried her body to Buck's Row, where there would have been more coverage, to perform the mutilations.)
Also there is at least one case where a gentleman wearing 'dark clothes' was stopped by a mob due to stains on his clothing. Luckily for the gentleman the stains were only grease paint. However, this displays how closely one looks at his/her neighbors during the time of these killings. I'm sure the prostitutes would have been looking rather closely themselves. And they were the closest to the killer than anyone else. So anything that appeared out of the ordinary, would have risen their suspicions, as well as their screams. Although there is the possibility that Jack didn't wear the same clothing for all the killings, but this of course would mean he was someone rather well off by Whitechapel standards.
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 April 2002 - 11:19 pm | |
Scott, I am sorry to see that you have shifted idea about Mary Nichols.
I think she (together with Stride) is the most telling case that strangulation could not have been used at all.
I totally agree with Chris Hintzen here above about the bruises on the face and I would go further stating that they are most likely to have been produced by the (right) hand/fingers of the assailant keeping something tight on the mouth/nose of the victim.
I totally agree with you about traces of assailant fingers/nails on the neck, but I think it is not wrong to state that more often than the assailant's, it is the victim's own you find -scratches?- (struggling for pulling away what prevent breathing).
In any case, in honor of the strangling-theory supporters:
"His face is black and full of blood
His eye balls farther out than when he lived
Staring full ghastly, a strangled man
His hair upreared, his nostrils streched with struggling
His hands abroad displayed, as one that grasped
And tugged for life, and was by strength subdued"
W.S. (S. for Sciaca Sperri - Sicily)
Bye. Graziano.
P.S.: Scott, remember that when Nichols was found by Cross and Paul, neither of them mentioned the open eyes.
P.S.(2): In some article (Tabram, Nichols) it is reported that the victim was discolored.
Does that mean something like "livid" or right the opposite, something more like "pale" ?
I have a problem with english here. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 03:29 am | |
Hi Graz,
'To discolour', in my dictionary, gives: 'to take away colour from; to change or to spoil the natural colour of; to alter the appearance of; to mark with other colours, to stain; to dirty, disfigure.' 'Discoloured' is simply defined as 'stained, etc.: many-coloured'.
Take your pick.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 07:40 am | |
Graz,
Morgue photos show Nichols eyes partially open.
Not fully granted but they aint shut either.
If he wore gloves then I would have thought it would be because he wanted to keep his hands clean. Peeling them off when he had completed the deed. No need to clean his hands and there wouldnt be much mess on his dainty whites.
Monty
|
Author: Scott E. Medine
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 09:05 am | |
You are wrong Graz about the nail scratches. There could possibly be marks left by the victim on their own neck but any marks left by the victim are for the extreme vast majority of times left on the assailant. I also stated the nail marks would have been INSIDE the bruises. That is where these marks are usually found. As far as the big hands theory goes, I believe the killer had big hands I stated that in the profile. The only other reason for the big hand impression would be gloves.
As far as the open eyes...Cross and Paul did not report them but they were reported by Neil. As far as them being partially closed in the morgue photo I presume the doctor or mortician closed or attempted to close the eyes as is the norm prior to burial.
Why would the killer remove the gloves when the mutilation started, from a psychological stand point it could be he enjoyed the feeling of placing his hands inside the blood and stuff of the vicitms.
Discoloration can be from strangulation. This color however is usually seen in the face. It is however more pronounced and easier to see in the eyes, lips and tongue. I am along the lines of thinking that the discoloration is from lividity. Since lividity starts IMMEDIATELY at the time of death, the trained eye can pick up its presence within 30 minutes postmortem. Within 2 hours postmortem it is present to anyone with the displeasure of viewing the body. Lividity also changes with the movement of the body. Today it is common practice to limit the movement of the body which means the body is transported to the morgue in the position it was found. The body may stay at the morgue for days to weeks depending on the work load of the jurisdiction where the body is found. For this simple reason it is very important that attention is paid to the time the doctors performed their post mortem exam. Important note: EXAMINING THE BODY AT THE SCENE IS NOT THE POST MORTEM!!!!!
It is also important to note that in none of the cases did the victims die from strangulation. The beating or strangling of the victims was only a method to bring them under control. Death came from the slash to the throats. Technically speaking death came from the severing of the Vagus nerve.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Chris Hintzen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 09:25 am | |
Hi Scott,
There is evidence that Jack didn't wear gloves in at least Annie Chapman's case. Within the post mortem evidence the doctor stated there are slight abrasions along her chin. This was probably done by the killer's nails as he held her chin while cutting her throat.
Also, the doctors of the period state it was the cutting of the artery as the cause of death. Is it possible that the Doctors didn't know about the Vagus nerve severing/stops the heart instantly, wasn't known then? Or perhaps the Doctors were just incompetent?
Sincerely,
Chris H. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 09:37 am | |
Hi all,
Based on my reading of the medical reports, it would appear that everyone here engaged in the debate of whether the victims were strangled or knifed to death are partially right and partially wrong.
It appears in at least the Chapman and Nichols cases that the victims were strangled into unconsciousness and then died from their throats being slit.
Rich |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 09:59 am | |
Hello Everybody,
Given the number of wounds applied to each victim, is it not the case that there were several injuries that could have caused death, either instantly or almost instantaneously?
I would give an example but I'm afraid age and red wine have disconnected a few synapses.
Incidentally, nice to see reasoned debate on the boards again.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 10:01 am | |
Hello Everybody,
Given the number of wounds applied to each victim, is it not the case that there were several injuries that could have caused death, either instantly or almost instantaneously?
I would give an example but I'm afraid age and red wine have disconnected a few synapses.
Incidentally, nice to see reasoned debate on the boards again.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 25 April 2002 - 10:03 am | |
| whoops, see what I mean about the synapses? |
