A Whip and a Prod

[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...

[DJA]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Go on....

[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?

[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.

[DJA]

Hi NBFN,

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

Does that tell you anything?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Yes - that I'm on the right track

[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

[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.

[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?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

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.

Is this when in a vertical or horizontal position?

If vertical, and the bow starts at the front and she is pulled from behind, the bow position likely doesn't change.

If horizontal, and scarf is pulled upward by grabbing material at back of neck, the bow position should swivel around.
However, why would he grab there, and not at right side of neck?

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.

The relevant quotes from #349:

Let's assume death occurs two minutes after the wound is inflicted (does anyone have a better estimate?).

So we have Phillips estimate of 12:43-1:03 - for a mean of 12:53.

We also have Blackwell's estimate of 12:46-12:56 - for a mean of 12:51.

The mean of the means, is 12:52.

So time of death arrived at is 12:52, and time of cut is 12:50.

If death actually occurred 5 minutes after the cut (rather than 2):

• In the interruption model she would therefore die at about 1:06 - so when Louis & co go for police, she is still alive!
• In the nefarious club/conspiracy theory scenarios, she would therefore be cut at 12:47 - and who is walking by the club at that moment?

[Robert St Devil]

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

I believe you are correct, Jeff.

Dr. Blackwell @ the inquest: There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying.

[Michael W Richards]

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:





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?

Blood clotting is usually due to a reaction to damaged vessels causing platelets to bond together to the affected area , and it begins when the body recognizes that kind of damage. So initially, you wouldn't see clots in the stream, you would as time progressed and the clotting process advanced. That's why clots would be seen in subsequent blood flow, closest to the wound site, not in the initial flow or spill that's now further from the injury in this case.

[JeffHamm]

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:





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?

Maybe. I think any stain that could be traced back to the stream of blood, not necessarily traced back to the neck itself, would fit though. So, if it looked like someone in the crowd disturbed the original stream a few feet away from the body, then while the stain doesn't trace directly back to the neck it does trace back to the "original flow", with "from the neck" describing the source of the flow not the location where the trace leads to). Again, language is inherently vague on details, which is why it is such a shame that even these stains were not described. But crime scene analyses was not as it is today, we've had over a century of improvements in what should be done and recorded since 1888 after all.

In general, Phillips tends to always voice opinions on the grand side of the scale. More blood than expected, events require more time (compared to other doctor's estimates), and more skill is required (Phillip's thinks medical knowledge is required, many other contemporary doctor's tend to think butcher/slaugterman at most, some suggest no anatomical knowledge at all). I don't mean that in a disparaging way, we all have our way of forming opinions and voicing them. It strikes me that Phillips is the "go to guy" for a larger than most opinion though (and I don't mean this as a reference to your post, that's just my impression, and one I should probably investigate more systematically and see if it stands up to scrutiny, meaning I should put my opinion to the test as well!).

As for the clott, I think the clot near the neck is due to the fact that is blood that has pooled, the blood that flows is blood that has "filled up" the pool and then moves on (not sure how to describe that, but the first spills start the pool, the later blood adds volumne that then creates the flow) . The movement of the blood as it flows would prevent clotting from forming as quickly as well I think, and also it would be less noticeable due to there being less blood along the stream. I don't know enough about clot formation, but I would think clot would form more quickly in the wound, and so more is likely to then dislodge into the pool by the neck, and result in more clot forming there. That creates a mass that will be less prone to flowing on. Again, I don't know that for sure though. Clot forming in the blood pooling around the neck is mentioned in other cases though (Eddowes I think), can't recall it it is mentioned in the Kelly, Chapman, or Nichol's cases though?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I believe you are correct, Jeff.

Dr. Blackwell @ the inquest: There were no spots of blood, but there was a little trodden about near to where the body was lying.

Ah, yes, that's the sort of thing I was talking about. Nice to see there are direct statements to that effect rather than just my speculative examples. Thanks.

- Jeff