How did he do it?

[Mascara & Paranoia]

It's a bit of a morbid subject but a vital one.

Wickerman's depiction of Nichols' murder seems about right to me. We know there's proof of her and Chapman both being strangled, or at least an indication of that being the case, but I don't think he strangled all of them unless he needed to, and think the first two canonicals were the only instances that he did. With Eddowes I always think of him as catching her off-guard somehow, as I don't think there was any implicit sign that she'd been strangled to the ground before having her throat cut (unless you count the way the flood flowed/lack of spray, though I'm not really all that knowledgable about throat cutting! ).

If I remember rightly there was something to indicate that Stride had been strangled with a scarf? As for Kelly, it would be a next to impossible to tell if there was any bruising of that sort I would've thought. But I seriously doubt either her or Chapman got the chance to cry out for help like some of the witnesses seem to suggest, as if I was about to be murdered I know I'd yell the gaff down rather than just say a 'no' or 'oh, murder' - how stupid is that? In fact, it's almost comical.

[Lechmere]

Some witnesses claim to have heard 'murder' shouted at roughly the time Kelly may have been murdered, but othger wirtnesses are on record as saying that cries of 'murder' were commonplace in the East End at night anyway.

I had a discussion on a Hutchinson thread about the possibility of Kelly crying out 'murder' just before she was killed. It does sound ridiculous to my ear. I am sure someone would come out with an expletive instead.

If chased around the room first or down a street then I can imagine someone may shout out 'help someone's trying to muder me' or something similar. But in a quick attack I think it would never be shouted as it is a clumsy word.

I am sure the cries of murder (if true on the specific murder instances) were just background noise.

[Sally]

Lechmere

I had a discussion on a Hutchinson thread about the possibility of Kelly crying out 'murder' just before she was killed. It does sound ridiculous to my ear. I am sure someone would come out with an expletive instead.

I agree that it does sound ridiculous - now. It sound like something straight out of a melodrama. What I don't know though, is whether it would have sounded like that to people in the LVP. Perhaps it was a standard call for help?

I'm not sure how we'd find out, I doubt there's an easy way.

[lynn cates]

murder

Hello Lechmere and Sally.

"I had a discussion on a Hutchinson thread about the possibility of Kelly crying out 'murder' just before she was killed. It does sound ridiculous to my ear. I am sure someone would come out with an expletive instead."

Well, recall that, in this period, a thief was yelled back by, "Stop! Thief!" and, to this day, a woman assaulted, having divined sexual intent, may cry "Rape!"

"Perhaps it was a standard call for help?"

Perhaps so.

An expletive instead? Perhaps not.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Rape is a quick word - one syllable.
The usage of 'Stop thief' is similar to my scenario of being chased around a room. If chased or given time to think the I think a 'murder' cry is likely or possible - or if someone is beating up his wife, but not actually murdering her. Not however, I think, immediately before a blitz slashing attack.

[curious]

I seriously doubt either her or Chapman got the chance to cry out for help like some of the witnesses seem to suggest, as if I was about to be murdered I know I'd yell the gaff down rather than just say a 'no' or 'oh, murder' - how stupid is that? In fact, it's almost comical.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Albert Cadosch hearing "No."

Thanks,

[curious]

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on Albert Cadosch hearing "No."

Thanks,

Actually, I agree with you and have my own idea of the "no" but wanted someone else's thoughts.

[Phil H]

Is in not possible that Cadoche was absolutely accurate in what he heard, but it was not "Jack" and Annie.?

This is not original thinking by me, I seem to recall a dissertation on Casebook that questions the time of the killing and Richardson's testimony that he had not seen the body.

If the murder occured earlier, Cadoche may have heard someone unknown discovering Annie's corpse - "No!" would be a likely verbal reaction, and the thud was them leaning on the door which banged.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Phil -the excellent Dissertation that you mention is 'Considerable doubt and Annie Chapman" by Wolf Vanderlinden. It certainly convinced me at the time, as I could go with Cadoche not being sure at all from where the voice saying 'No!' was coming from, and infact Cadoche didn't even say whether it was a man's voice or a woman's voice -he wasn't interested ( I note that Casebook has Cadoche, under 'witnesses' definitely hearing the voice coming from the yard of 29, which is simply not true).

However, Cadoche was sure when he said that he heard a 'thud' against the dividing fence...and logically this is a more tangible thing as the
fence would have vibrated. I don't think that he could have been wrong about that.

I PM'd Wolf to ask him his opinion on that thud, since I couldn't think of any
believable explanation, following on so quickly after the 'no', and so rapidly after Mrs Long claimed to have seen Annie in the street (even with a big question mark over that). Here is an excerpt from his reply to me: " I
totally agree that Cadoshe's testimony is a huge fly in the ointment but taken with what Dr. Phillips said, and what the dozen or so forensic pathologists I talked to told me, I have to believe that he was mistaken"

So -no speculation about Richardson -"I have to believe that (Cadoche) was mistaken".

I can easily believe that Maxwell was 'mistaken' about seeing Kelly, because nothing in her statement adds up to what we know. But could Cadoche be mistaken about that thud against the fence? Something stops me going with that.

I also have trouble disbelieving Richardson -because the very inconsistancies in his story don't sound like a liar who has rehearsed his version of events in his head before trotting them out 'off pat'.

I have seen the James Mason film showing the yard of 29, and the door is at the top of the steps, I'm not certain how you could lean against the door
without falling into the garden...but certainly the space is so small that the door might almost touch the fence..

I give a lot of credence to the pathologists, so it is a real conundrum.

[GregBaron]

Choke, throttle, strangle.....etc...

There was a brilliant discussion of this in the past and I remember being surprised few seemed interested in discussing it. It’s the old chokehold versus strangulation scenario. From my understanding to strangle someone to death takes a couple of minutes and eventually blood runs from the mouth. The murderer didn’t have time for this, also the blood spattering would be increased and the front of the dress would have been soaked. A chokehold renders someone unconscious fairly quickly from whence they could be lowered to the ground and cut open. There appear to be various methods by which a chokehold can be enacted. I think for example with Chapman he probably grabbed her throat from the front and maybe lowered her to the ground while choking…as soon as she passed out(sic) he slit her throat. He may have learned the chokehold from street fights, the military or by accident in his earlier attacks? He may have strangled them or throttled them or whatever you want to call it for some time but certainly not to death. I think the evidence would be different.


Greg

[Abby Normal]

There was a brilliant discussion of this in the past and I remember being surprised few seemed interested in discussing it. It’s the old chokehold versus strangulation scenario. From my understanding to strangle someone to death takes a couple of minutes and eventually blood runs from the mouth. The murderer didn’t have time for this, also the blood spattering would be increased and the front of the dress would have been soaked. A chokehold renders someone unconscious fairly quickly from whence they could be lowered to the ground and cut open. There appear to be various methods by which a chokehold can be enacted. I think for example with Chapman he probably grabbed her throat from the front and maybe lowered her to the ground while choking…as soon as she passed out(sic) he slit her throat. He may have learned the chokehold from street fights, the military or by accident in his earlier attacks? He may have strangled them or throttled them or whatever you want to call it for some time but certainly not to death. I think the evidence would be different.


Greg

Hi Greg
I just wanted to point out that you can also make someone pass out using whats called a blood choke. All you do is compress the arteries on the neck-it stops the flow of blood to the brain and you pass out in about 30-60 seconds. it also takes much less force than strangling/crushing the wind pipe-which stops the intake of air into the lungs.

[GregBaron]

Out in 20 or 30 seconds...

Thanks Abby,

The blood choke seems the same as the chokehold to me, same result at least. Nevertheless, it appears what was done with Nichols, Chapman, perhaps Eddowes.......not sure of the others.....oh yeah, wasn't there some indication that the same technique may have been used on Tabram? Interesting..........hmmm


Greg

[harry]

Although the ckoke hold from behind is demonstrated to recruits in the army,it is unlikely that a soldier would ever have to use it.The practical use of the method is not neccessary to kill,but to force the chin up so that the victim cannot cry out.It is the lower jaw movement that enables a person to scream.I believe the method could have been used on Stride,but starting from a sideways position on the part of the killer.

[curious]

.

However, Cadoche was sure when he said that he heard a 'thud' against the dividing fence...and logically this is a more tangible thing as the
fence would have vibrated. I don't think that he could have been wrong about that.

I PM'd Wolf to ask him his opinion on that thud, since I couldn't think of any
believable explanation, following on so quickly after the 'no', and so rapidly after Mrs Long claimed to have seen Annie in the street (even with a big question mark over that). Here is an excerpt from his reply to me: " I
totally agree that Cadoshe's testimony is a huge fly in the ointment but taken with what Dr. Phillips said, and what the dozen or so forensic pathologists I talked to told me, I have to believe that he was mistaken"

So -no speculation about Richardson -"I have to believe that (Cadoche) was mistaken".

I can easily believe that Maxwell was 'mistaken' about seeing Kelly, because nothing in her statement adds up to what we know. But could Cadoche be mistaken about that thud against the fence? Something stops me going with that.

I also have trouble disbelieving Richardson -because the very inconsistancies in his story don't sound like a liar who has rehearsed his version of events in his head before trotting them out 'off pat'.

It has occurred to me that Cadosch actually did hear the thud against the wall. It would be difficult to mistake that.

When reading about the house, it was stated that all sorts of people were in and out of the house, not just prostitutes plying their trade. but that sometimes people came in to sleep.

I suspect perhaps sick, bedless Annie had gone to a place she knew and felt safe, and that would explain the 4 or 5 hours that no one reported seeing her.

Perhaps she had awakened and gone to the privy and was caught by Jack. Like some of the other victims she had a bruise on her hand . . .

However, Cadosch's thud was made not by Annie, but by someone who discovered the body and stepped back in alarm at what he/she saw and hit the fence. Even the conversation and "No" that Cadosch heard could have been two people who had no right to be there in that yard, finding the body and then deciding not to go to the authorities.

How someone could find Annie and not screech, I don't know, but people are very different. Davis was not necessarily the first to find Annie, he was the one who alerted the authorities.

Richardson probably did check the lock on his mother's business that morning. But at 4:45 he must have been just barely able to discern the lock.

So, he walked to the top of the steps, opened the door and glanced to the right to check the cellar door and went on his way. The boot part of the story came up later, and "why" is a big question.

[Rubyretro]

Curious -I have started another thread to discuss this very issue