A Whip and a Prod

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Still, if you think his phrasing has another interpretation from the one I've offered, do share.

Okay. Let's take the coroner's question - Were there any spots of blood anywhere else? - and the initial part of Phillips' answer...

I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck.

Having thought about this a bit more, I think he could be interpreted as saying:

There was blood which I could trace to the original flow from the neck, from which I considered it had been directly transplanted.

By 'trace', I think Phillips means there is blood in the vicinity of the body which can be visually traced back the neck.
It is not just random contamination.
It's as though someone has had a hand near the wound, and ended up transferring the blood on hand, to the nearby ground.
Who could be responsible for this?
I think this is an important question, although I'm unclear on what traceable versus random contamination would actually look like, short of an obvious sequence of drops.

Having said that, I still don't understand why Phillips then says this:

Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

Is this part of his answer, or is he just volunteering extra information he deems to be of importance, but which may have little relevance to the question?

Also, I don't know what to make of this:

Blackwell: The blood was running down the gutter into the drain in the opposite direction from the feet. There was about 1lb of clotted blood close by the body, and a stream all the way from there to the back door of the club.

Phillips: The blood near to the neck and a few inches to the left side was well clotted, and it had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance to the club-house.

Why is the blood close to the neck clotted, while the blood further away still forms a stream down to the side door?

Shouldn't it be the other way around - the most recently lost blood (at the neck) being liquid - and the least recently lost blood (at the door), being clotted?

[Michael W Richards]

My reply was directed to both of you.

The idea of a neckerchief's bow being pulled at would be more likely to pull the knot open not tighter.

For the umpteenth time ...... Liz was dead before her throat was cut.

Transplant | Definition of Transplant by Merriam-Webster

If the scarf was tied and secured with a bow, grabbing the scarf by slipping fingers under and around the scarf, or over it ... and then turning the hand in, or up, ..twists the scarf and moves the position of the bow. If this is problematic for you I suggest you experiment with a scarf yourself.

And Liz was not dead before her throat was cut, not one medical opinion stated that she dies by strangulation, suffocation, garroting, choking, ...etc. You recall the 2 second murder situation proposed by the first medical man on the scene? She is alive until her throat is cut in that scenario. Then she bleeds to death, the fact that both major arteries were not completely severed slowed the cessation of the heart. She bled out.

And if she was cut around 12:46-12:56...(which Not blamed for Nothing is an estimated earliest time of the cut, not the empirical time of it), and Louis actually arrived at 12:40ish as 4 witnesses stated he was there at that time, then his delay in going for help actually guaranteed her death.

[JeffHamm]

Appreciate your response.
However, I'm still up in the air about Phillips' remarks.
It's as though he is saying:



Why not answer; Yes, and these were ... [or] Yes, and these consisted of ...

Why does he specifically mention 'the original flow from the neck'? Where else could the spots/marks/stains have come from? Surely this goes without saying, and yet he does say it.

Also, I don't see why the 'except' would necessarily be referring to a point in time after the offender has left - how could he have determined that?

To me, it's as though he is referring to some sort of diversion.
Consider the next sentence:



What is the relationship between the flow of blood - unusual or otherwise - and there being marks of blood in the vicinity of the body? Isn't it beside the point?

Finally, who could have been responsible for these marks?
Spooner said he put his hand under her chin, but had no blood on his hands when searched - nor did anyone else.
Did someone clumsily step in the gutter?
If yes, why did this only result in enough blood being transplanted to cause some marks, and not say, half a footprint?

Again, it reads to me like he's saying there was the flow of blood from the throat wound, and the only spots of blood other than any he mentioned already were, in his opionion, not worth mentioning at the inquest because he believed them to be due to crime scene contamination (though he phrases it differently of course). Again, I don't know what he based his opinion on (some spots being due to events after the offender left) because his wording is incomplete. That's the frustrating thing with working with the testimony as we have it, there are questions we would like to ask for clarification, but we can't do that. To me, his use of "except" only makes sense as him referring to "spots he considers contamination" (forms of transplant, rather than contamination, is the word he uses). I can't think of another meaning he might have been trying to convey, but that, of course, doesn't mean there isn't one and even if there isn't, it doesn't mean his opinion is correct. Unfortunately, since all we have is his statement that there are blood stains not described because he thinks they are "after the fact", we know nothing about those blood stains nor what he based his view upon. It might be something very obvious (the pony cart's wheels clearly going through the blood flow and leaving spots, for example, would fit; any imagined situation where it seems clear it was done just then, and given we have nothing to limit our imaginations one could make up all sorts of examples to illustrate the type of things that might count, but in the end, they would just be our illustrations.

Still, if you think his phrasing has another interpretation from the one I've offered, do share. I can't see it being a diversion, unless you mean there were blood stains he doesn't mention even though he thinks they occurred during the murder, and he's trying to cover those ones up in particular? But i can't imagine what those stains could be or why Phillips would want to cover up aspects of this murder scene? Or are you suggesting that Phillips was routinely misdirecting the investigation for all of the murders he was involved in as a medical professional?

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes - that I'm on the right track

[DJA]

Hi NBFN,

There was no blood on her chin or the front of her clothes.

Does that tell you anything?

[DJA]

Hi Josh,

Just spent an hour attempting to find the correct Medical Publication.
Sure it's on this PC,as I have referred to it on previous posts.

One way of explaining the situation is .....

if cause of death was due to loss of blood,Stride would have gone into Hypovolemic shock by the time she had lost the two quarts in the gutter.
She would have been in tachycardia with both ventricles going hell bent.
Clearly not the case.
She was asphyxiated.

It is not that complicated.

Incidentally,Jack showed a degree of organization in his murders.Eddowes in particular.
Perhaps Stride bleeding out into the gutter is further testament to the possibility of pathological training.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It reads to me that Phillips is indicating that there was some blood stains present that he believes reflect "transfer" (i.e. such as a shoe print might leave - to be clear, I'm not saying he's indicating there were bloody footprints, just that those might be one sort of transplant - his statement doesn't specify). However, it also seems to me, given the quotes above, that he appears to be suggesting that in his opinion these "other, transplanted stains" were due to the traffic around the body and not part of the original crime scene activities. (the "I could trance none ..." part seems to indicate there were no further blood spots related to the offender/victim's actions found, and the "...except that which I considered had been transplanted - ...." seems to be him acknowledging there were some other spots but his "except ..." qualifier indicates he believes the transplanting occurred after the offender had left (i.e. either by police examiniations, or by the crowd, etc, but again, he doesn't specify those details).

- Jeff

Appreciate your response.
However, I'm still up in the air about Phillips' remarks.
It's as though he is saying:

[Coroner] Were there any spots of blood anywhere else?
[Phillips] I could trace none except that which I could.

Why not answer; Yes, and these were ... [or] Yes, and these consisted of ...

Why does he specifically mention 'the original flow from the neck'? Where else could the spots/marks/stains have come from? Surely this goes without saying, and yet he does say it.

Also, I don't see why the 'except' would necessarily be referring to a point in time after the offender has left - how could he have determined that?

To me, it's as though he is referring to some sort of diversion.
Consider the next sentence:

Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

What is the relationship between the flow of blood - unusual or otherwise - and there being marks of blood in the vicinity of the body? Isn't it beside the point?

Finally, who could have been responsible for these marks?
Spooner said he put his hand under her chin, but had no blood on his hands when searched - nor did anyone else.
Did someone clumsily step in the gutter?
If yes, why did this only result in enough blood being transplanted to cause some marks, and not say, half a footprint?

[Joshua Rogan]

The heart was small; left ventricle firmly contracted, right less so. Right ventricle full of dark clot; left absolutely empty.

Go on....

[DJA]

The heart was small; left ventricle firmly contracted, right less so. Right ventricle full of dark clot; left absolutely empty.

[Joshua Rogan]

The autopsy of Stride's heart proves she died from asphyxiation.

Again, not according to Phillips. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us as to what he and Blackwell missed...

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Perhaps Liz tied her scarf tight herself?

Blackwell: I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way.

Why knotted and not a simple bow?

Did the murderer pull at the material around the neck, or the end(s) of the scarf, which in the later case did not cause the scarf to come loose, because it was conveniently in a knot?

Blackwell: In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf.

The scarf in that photo does not have the convenient edge that the murderer would have required, to run his knife along, in near darkness.
Please explain how the murderer did in fact manage to trace the lower edge of the scarf.

[Joshua Rogan]

Pretty much what Dr Blackwell said;

"There were no spots of blood-but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying"

[DJA]

Not according to Phillips;

"It is evident that the haemorrhage which produced death was caused through the partial severance of the left carotid artery."

After Phillips all but named Sutton at Chapman's Inquest he seemed to back peddle.
At least until Mary Ann Kelly was dead.

There is the likely hood that Sutton was at the cutting edge of medical knowledge in many areas,as was his big mate.

The autopsy of Stride's heart proves she died from asphyxiation.

[JeffHamm]

It appeared to be aimed at me, given the context of the thread, but never mind.

So, if the baker's clock (or the clock on Commercial Road (who knows?)) is fast, does Louis actually arrive at closer to 12:55? Fanny Mortimer?...

Also, if you're comment wasn't directed at me, that would mean my post #337 has not been replied to, regarding the blood.

So let me try again, to get a response to this...

[Coroner] Did you examine the blood at Berner-street carefully, as to its direction and so forth?
[Phillips] Yes. The blood near to the neck and a few inches to the left side was well clotted, and it had run down the waterway to within a few inches of the side entrance to the club-house.
[Coroner] Were there any spots of blood anywhere else?
[Phillips] I could trace none except that which I considered had been transplanted - if I may use the term - from the original flow from the neck. Roughly estimating it, I should say there was an unusual flow of blood, considering the stature and the nourishment of the body.

What does "I considered [the blood] had been transplanted", mean?

This would appear to be a crucial question.

It reads to me that Phillips is indicating that there was some blood stains present that he believes reflect "transfer" (i.e. such as a shoe print might leave - to be clear, I'm not saying he's indicating there were bloody footprints, just that those might be one sort of transplant - his statement doesn't specify). However, it also seems to me, given the quotes above, that he appears to be suggesting that in his opinion these "other, transplanted stains" were due to the traffic around the body and not part of the original crime scene activities. (the "I could trance none ..." part seems to indicate there were no further blood spots related to the offender/victim's actions found, and the "...except that which I considered had been transplanted - ...." seems to be him acknowledging there were some other spots but his "except ..." qualifier indicates he believes the transplanting occurred after the offender had left (i.e. either by police examiniations, or by the crowd, etc, but again, he doesn't specify those details).

- Jeff

[NotBlamedForNothing]

For the umpteenth time ...... Liz was dead before her throat was cut.

Transplant | Definition of Transplant by Merriam-Webster

The most applicable definition on that page is:

to remove from one place or context and settle or introduce elsewhere

We can use this definition to interpret Dr Phillips' statement...

... I considered [some of the blood] had been transplanted ... from the original flow from the neck.

... to ascertain that some of the blood was moved from one place to another.

The later place is known. The initial context can be reasonably guessed, and using post #349, we have an estimated time. Thus...

Liz Stride was killed at the back of Dutfield's Yard, at approximately 12:50 am.