How did he do it?

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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,

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Wickerman]

Hello Abby. Below is an excerpt from the "Daily Telegraph" report from the inquest of Polly Nichols.

"there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."

Does sound like strangulation, given the lacerated tongue.

Cheers.
LC

Certainly, but notice no bruises around the neck, hence the question, how was it done?

The bruises on the face...



are consistent with her head being held down with the left hand....



while the killer sliced her throat with the knife in his right hand.

Just my conjecture.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby. And this from Dr. Phillips's inquest on Chapman.

"The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen. . . . I noticed a bruise over the right temple."

(Taken from "The Daily Telegraph"--posted on Casebook.)

Notice that this, too, sounds like strangulation. Also, the bruise to the head is noteworthy.

Cheers.
LC

Thanks LC!

[Abby Normal]

Did he kill them silently?

You have the 'oh murder' with Kelly, Chapman's 'no' (assuming these witnesses heard what they thought they heard and from whom).

I don't think he would necessarily have been caught had he killed them anything other than silently.

To me, the nature of the 'no' and the 'oh murder' suggests there was a struggle of sorts and these words were spoken during an attack.

of course, but silently and quickly enough that they did not scream and struggle either loudly or longly enough to either escape or attract rescuers.