Were all the vics strangled?

[Sasha]

I saw a doco on Aussie TV last night that alleged that the Whitechapel murderer strangled his vics before garrotting them (and consequent other stuff). This is news to me. I would have thought that it would have been simpler and quicker to cut their throats (from behind - as some sexual transactions may have naturally (?) occurred this way than take the time to strangle them (ie risking them screaming etc).

Any thoughts gratefully accepted.
Sasha

[DVV]

Hello Sasha,
you will find several threads about this topic.
About (partial?) suffocation or strangulation, let's just say here that it was not the case for Stride, and it's difficult, as you guess it, to say anything positive for Kelly. But Tabram also seems to have been strangled or suffocated (just have a look at her mortuary photograph, and at Illustrated Police News).
As to an attack from behind (which is the opinion of Rumbelow, Cornwell, and some others), I definitely disagree with this, and I think Baxter did understand JtR's MO quite correctly (at least, it is sure that JtR cut his victims' throat after he had lowered them to the ground).

Amitiés,
David

[Jon Guy]

Hello

The lack of arterial spray found at the crime scene does seem to point at suffocation or strangulation. In fact, the lack of arterial spray does indicate that they were dead when their throats were cut. Also, taking into account that not much blood was found on the front of the victim`s clothes indicates that they were lying on their backs when their throats were cut.

The arterial spray is clearly seen on the wall near Kelly`s head, but as she was most likely in bed when attacked this may account for no signs of suffocation.

[Sam Flynn]

The arterial spray is clearly seen on the wall near Kelly`s head, but as she was most likely in bed when attacked...

...I think "on the bed" would be a safer choice of words, Jon. It covers all the eventualities without implying anything saucy or sleepy, which - in contrast- is how "in bed" is usually construed.

All,

Note that I just pointed that out in passing - please don't let's turn this "General Discussion" into a Kelly-specific "Was/wasn't she asleep" thread.

[Supe]

Folks,

Understand the term. To strangle means to kill by choking or suffocating and in that regard is rather like pregnant--one is not a little bit pregnant nor a little bit strangled. Thus Martha Tabram, whose death was clearly by exsanguination, was not strangled. She may have have choked or partially suffocated (and that is by no means sure) but she wasn't strangled.

Don,

[Jon Guy]

She may have have choked or partially suffocated (and that is by no means sure) but she wasn't strangled.

To strangle means to kill by choking or suffocating ?

[Observer]

Hi Sasha

I saw a doco on Aussie TV last night that alleged that the Whitechapel murderer strangled his vics before garrotting them (and consequent other stuff). This is news to me. I would have thought that it would have been simpler and quicker to cut their throats (from behind - as some sexual transactions may have naturally (?) occurred this way than take the time to strangle them (ie risking them screaming etc).

Any thoughts gratefully accepted.
Sasha

As David said there is compelling evidence to suggest that Stride's throat was cut as she lay on the ground, close scrutiny of the surrounding walls failing to reveal any hint of blood.

The fact is was Stride a Ripper victim? In my mind the one piece of evidence that would suggest she was a victim of Jack the Ripper is in fact the method in which her throat was cut. Quickly lowered to the ground, and if not insensible as the throat was cut, then almost certainly her head held against the ground as the thoat was cut, the killer directing the flow of blood away from his person.

Of course it has been mooted here in this forum that this method of dispatch is not exclusive to Jack the Ripper, that this would be the prefered method of most individuals who felt inclined to cut the throat of one of their fellow humans, I disagree. I believe that murder, which involves the slitting of the throat (especially the first time offender) would result in a much wider distribution of blood in the immediate vicinity. In effect, how many first time offenders would have the forethought to use the method used on Stride? I believe this was the work of someone who had killed by this method on a prior occasion.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Hi Supe,
Tabram's face was very much swollen, nonetheless, and the suggestion of Ill Pol News seems reasonable. That could also explain why nothing was heard, despite the violence of the numerous stabs.

Amitiés,
David

[Supe]

Jon,

To strangle means to kill by choking or suffocating ?

Yes, it has a specific meaning. When you strangle someone you kill them. When you choke someone you may kill them (in which case it technically becomes strangulation), or just render then unconscious or simply make them sore (both in the neck and at you).

Don.

[DVV]

Jon,

To strangle means to kill by choking or suffocating ?

Yes, it has a specific meaning. When you strangle someone you kill them. When you choke someone you may kill them (in which case it technically becomes strangulation), or just render then unconscious or simply make them sore (both in the neck and at you).

Don.

Srry Supe,
I don't understand well. Suppose I start strangling somebody with my hands, then leave him before he dies. Then the verb "to strangle" becomes suddenly unfit in my previous sentence?

Amitiés,
David

[The Grave Maurice]

Not really something I know anything about, but here's what Wikipedia says:

Strangling is compression of the neck that leads to unconsciousness or death by causing an increasingly hypoxic state in the brain.[1] Fatal strangling typically occurs in cases of violence, accidents, and as the mechanism of suicide in hangings. Strangling does not have to be fatal; limited or interrupted strangling is practiced in erotic asphyxia, in the choking game, and is an important technique in many combat sports and self-defense systems (see Chokehold).

[Supe]

Kind of a pointless discussion, especially since the language becomes more and more permissive and imprecise. Still, for centuries strangle had the precise meaning of to kill by choking or suffocation. My 1832 Webster's says that and my more recent dictionary says the same.

I gather that by misuse the word is gaining a fuzzier definition. This is too bad because, just as masterly/masterful or enormity/enormenous have become blurred, maintaining nunaces of definition add greatly to a language.

And David, to answer your question using the precise definition, you start by choking him and if you kill him you have strangled him. You can attempt to strangle him, you can think better of strangling him after you start choking him and stop, and so on--but unless you kill him it isn't strangulation. Or at least that was what I was taught many years ago. But then awful once meant awe inspiring.

Don.

[DVV]

Hi Supe,
Maybe so, no problem, from a lexical point of view. However I remember another thread weeks ago, when some posters tried to clarify the essential difference between strangulation and suffocation/ asphyxia. It seemed to be rather a matter of MO: as an example, you can strangle with your hands, or with your hands holding a string, rope, etc, while suffocation/ asphyxia can have very different causes (exhaust fumes, scarf in the throat...).

Amitiés,
David

[Sasha]

Thanks for all your insights, guys! Seems there is little consensus on this one - especially with the main example being Tabram, who is not usually considered to be one of the C5! The doco made little of evidence (or lack of evidence of arterial spray) but pointed more to post mortem facial swelling as evidence of strangulation of the victims. Hard to see how this could have been the case for Mary Kelly - since there was little face left to establish that strangulation had, or had not, taken place.

I'm guessing too that most people here would have seen, or at least heard of this doco. It centred around a forensics expert who, in collaboration with John Grieve and other purported experts, set out to establish a psychological profile (and identicate) of JTR and where he may have lived. I'd seen many docos of this genres that really tells us very little that is new - if anything at all. The only new bit for me was they had found a scarf which allegedly belonged to Cathy Eddowes. Unfortunately it revealed no DNA (or at least no useful DNA) but perhaps highlights a remote possibility that some collector or other person may have (unbeknownst to them?) a piece of the puzzle? Yes, I'm probably dreaming!

Sasha