Quick question on modus operandi

[Aldebaran]

Could one really, by applying pressure to the carotid arteries of the neck, prevent a victim from screaming bloody murder before she passed out?

[lynn cates]

forensics

Hello Syrius. Thanks for the kind words. The pleasure was all mine.

Much can be learned from forensics--especially in the Stride case.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

We only know that two were strangled. Elizabeth Stride almost certainly wasn't, and neither Catherine Eddowes nor Mary Jane Kelly seem to have shown any signs of it (certainly wasn't mentioned in the post mortem).

As for mud on clothes, I should think that any woman - regardless of social standing - would squat rather than kneel if she were to fellate outdoors, precisely to avoid dirtying her clothes. Especially if the ground was the slightest bit damp.

Strangled or suffocated, we can't be sure of which. Regardless, the victim only lost consciousness, they didn't die by that means.

No evidence around the neck of Stride, but then she wore a small scarf/handkerchief which would cushion the skin from harm - IF, she was truly a Ripper victim.
Doctors did say her scarf had been pulled tight, so maybe this was the cause of her collapsing?

As for Eddowes, she did not suffer from a blow to the head, and she apparently did not lie down willingly, or kicking and screaming, but the killer managed to subdue her somehow.
What else is there if you avoid suffocation?

Kelly had ecchymosis around the neck but her throat was so badly slashed any evidence of strangulation/suffocation was obliterated.

[Karl]

In some cases true, but all five cases?

We only know that two were strangled. Elizabeth Stride almost certainly wasn't, and neither Catherine Eddowes nor Mary Jane Kelly seem to have shown any signs of it (certainly wasn't mentioned in the post mortem).

As for mud on clothes, I should think that any woman - regardless of social standing - would squat rather than kneel if she were to fellate outdoors, precisely to avoid dirtying her clothes. Especially if the ground was the slightest bit damp.

[Wickerman]

Surely, only if he cut exactly along the ligature - and there is no reason why he would, except to destroy the evidence of the ligature. And why would he bother to do that? On the contrary, there is no reason I can think of why he would remove the ligature before cutting the throat, so the ligature mark should be above or below the cut.

Apparently, anyone convicted of garrotting, typically an assault with the purpose of robbery or mugging, would be known to authorities. Often released as 'Ticket-of-leave" men, in other words released on a permit.
Had the police realized a garrotte was the initial weapon they may have had a short-list of potential suspects to round up.

The ecchymosis which developed as a consequence of the garrotte spreads away from the mark and the knife wound obscures the initial definition of the cord.
All you have is a broad red area on either side of the knife wound, not an obvious indication of the use of a garrotte, as ecchymosis is only blood seeping from ruptured blood vessels.

Mind you, manual strangulation does not always leave marks. Not all ligatures will consistently leave marks, either.

In some cases true, but all five cases?

[Syrius]

Thanks again for all these ideas everyone.

Lynn, you've come up with the kind of thing that's able to convince me. If one side of the dress is muddy but the other isn't, the most likely two conclusions are that there was mud on the ground and that she wasn't kneeling. I'm not going to start talking about the location of particular muddy puddles, because that's just daft...so many thanks.

Karl, I would just briefly say that I didn't state there "should be" bruising, just that there may have been. I know very little about the anatomical, biological and medical side of things! I feel like I shouldn't even be pointing this out because it's so nit-picky but I want to make it clear that I asked a genuinely open question...please don't take offence at my pedantry! I do absolutely agree, though, that a person strong enough to strangle someone into unconsciousness is strong enough to lower them to the ground.

The only way that I suppose I could be "right" - though I'd rather know the facts than be right or wrong - is if the Ripper substantially varied his approach from victim to victim, which seems somewhat unlikely.

Thanks to all,

Syrius

[Karl]

Hello Sirius.

From the position of the prostitute, being on her knees and facing her killer as you describe, I find it difficult to envisage how the killer might successfully place his hands around her neck in this very unconventional position.

It would work if a ligature was used. Still, I see nothing to suggest a kneeling position, because of what you say here:

An assailant will not just let her limp body fall, causing the bruises you suggest should be apparent. But keep tight hold of her neck as she slips into unconsciousness and her knees buckle as she collapses to the ground - no sudden impact, hence no bruises.

He naturally maintains the strangle-hold as her body goes limp, and he controls her collapse to the ground by the grip on her throat. If he is strong enough to maintain the strangle-hold while she struggles to break free, he is strong enough for that.

It was suggested at the time that this killer may have used a cord around the neck which would naturally leave a red mark as evidence, though while the body was on its back this killer sliced around the victims neck thereby destroying the evidence of the use of the cord.

Surely, only if he cut exactly along the ligature - and there is no reason why he would, except to destroy the evidence of the ligature. And why would he bother to do that? On the contrary, there is no reason I can think of why he would remove the ligature before cutting the throat, so the ligature mark should be above or below the cut.

Mind you, manual strangulation does not always leave marks. Not all ligatures will consistently leave marks, either.

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Wick.

I have wondered if the reason "why Paul and Cross were unable to pull down her skirt beyond Polly's knees" was because she had hiked it up under her dress to prepare for a standing sexual encounter.

Good point, Lynn, about the wet & muddy dress.

[Wickerman]

Hello Sirius.

From the position of the prostitute, being on her knees and facing her killer as you describe, I find it difficult to envisage how the killer might successfully place his hands around her neck in this very unconventional position.

The more conventional position adopted by the prostitute for servicing clients in the street was for them to remain standing and turn to face a wall while raising their skirts at the rear.
In this position they are wholly at the mercy of their client, and he can very easily grasp her throat and quickly apply pressure.

An assailant will not just let her limp body fall, causing the bruises you suggest should be apparent. But keep tight hold of her neck as she slips into unconsciousness and her knees buckle as she collapses to the ground - no sudden impact, hence no bruises.

The ongoing problem with the manual strangulation method is the lack of finger and thumb pressure marks around the necks of the victims.

It was suggested at the time that this killer may have used a cord around the neck which would naturally leave a red mark as evidence, though while the body was on its back this killer sliced around the victims neck thereby destroying the evidence of the use of the cord.

One victim, Annie Chapman, had vertical scratches at one side of her neck consistent with her trying to remove something thin pulled tight.

Incidentally, the slashing around Kelly's neck also would destroy the marks a cord may have left, so we are in no position to eliminate the potential use of a cord with any of the victims.

[lynn cates]

Liz

Hello (again) Syrius. Actually, Liz could NOT have been on her knees, given that only one side of her dress (left side) was wet and muddy.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Ultimate

Hello Syrius. Thanks.

Both Polly and Annie were bruised about the face.

Do you have Stewart Evans' "Ultimate"? It contains inquest reports.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Syrius.

Joe Barnett makes claim that Mary Jane had returned to prostitution. And, there is loose evidence, depending how you interpret the dark clots in Elizabeth's heart, that she may have been strangled.

Your theory is workable because the bruising about the shoulders could support this manner of sexual positioning. The biggest hurdles will be what injuries might be expected to have occurred to her hands and knees during the strangulation assault if she is kneeling or squatting. Again, this speculation has to be viewed on a case-by-case basis. Because he supposedly had such short time with Catherine Eddowes before the constable rounds-about, her attack could have been blitzed without the pretension of a sexual encounter.

[Syrius]

Hello everyone, and thanks for the really quick responses on this.

I didn't realise that only two victims showed signs of strangulation - bit of an assumption on my part, for which I apologise. I am tempted to sort-of expand my theory and point out that access to the neck would be easier in the scenario described too, but I don't want to go all sort-of scatter gun on this.

Just by-the-by, does anyone happen to know if those two strangled victims showed any bruising, as in the type perhaps sustained when collapsing to the ground unconscious? If they didn't, my suggestion may be a possibiliy.

Thanks to Pcdunn for their thoughts too...The only thing I'd like to just say is that IF that's what happened and the victims were kneeling, I'm not suggesting that the Ripper went as far as actually getting his trousers down - I was thinking more along the lines of, he says what he wants, the victim gets on their knees, he then strangles them...no attempt to undress himself or partially undress himself, for whatever reason. That would probably mean that this wouldn't compromise any attempt to flee, if it were needed. In the event of there being an approaching policeman (or indeed anyone), that wouldn't be inconvenient at all - it may actually be more convenient - he's fully clothed, he can push his victim away (conscious or otherwise) and run, giving the policeman a dilemma of attend victim or follow possible killer, the victim's going to be either unconscious OR conscious but on the floor, and thus unable to stop him from running.

I do totally take your point about the filthiness of the streets, though, although I'd imagine that few prostitutes in Whitechapel would point-blank refuse to kneel down on the basis it was dirty; practically everything was!

Thanks to Lynn as well; I didn't know about the fact that only two were actively soliciting, although it's easy to imagine a Victorian former prostitute, without much money, perhaps agreeing to a quick knee-trembler despite not actually being actively on the game at that point.

At the moment, however, I'm just pleased that no-one has pointed out anything that makes the theory totally unworkable!

Further thoughts very much appreciated!

Syrius

[lynn cates]

myth

Hello Syrius. Interesting.

According to the forensic evidence:

1. ONLY Polly and Annie had definitive signs of strangulation.

2. There is no reason to believe that ANY, save Polly and Annie, were soliciting when killed.

There is a good bit of myth and rumour surrounding the WCM. It behooves us to avoid all that.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Hello everyone,

A quick question regarding the modus operandi of the killer. I think almost all the sources I've read, including the one on the introduction to this site, says that the killer waited until skirts were being raised by the victim before striking. I think that EVERY source I've read suggests that all victims bar Kelly were strangled until unconscious and then the knife came out. I've got no problem with this as a theory and it's certainly plausible, but...

...without wanting to be too vulgar, I can think of another reason why a prostitute's neck may be near a client's hands, assuming the client's hands were by his side and the prostitute was kneeling down. Yet I've not read anything that entertains this possibility.

Is there any particular evidence that rules out the idea of the victims kneeling in front of the Ripper, and being strangled whilst they did so?

I'm not sure where I'm going with this - obviously it's not going to help even in the slightest to discover the killer - but it is interesting (to me) that it doesn't even seem to be considered that the Ripper requested fellatio and then strangled the victims before it commenced.

If someone passes out when they're upright, and then they fall to the ground, would there be bruising? I'd imagine so. but I'm not aware of any bruising be described on the first four canonical victims.

If someone's being strangled and they're kneeling down, they'll have a much harder job escaping the strangulation; they also can't use their legs to, for instance, knee the attacker in the bollocks.

To me, this should at least be a possibility, surely. Just a thought. I'm not an expert on the killings so appreciate I could very easily have overlooked some huge error, but I'd be interested to know, if anyone's able to help me out, why the 'kneeling down' scenario doesn't seem to have got any following. Is it a throwback to Victorian sensibilities - "ladies never move" and all that?

Thanks,

Syrius

Hi Syrius
quite possible. as is the possibility they had there backs to him when he attacked-ie., up against a wall.