Coincidence?

[packers stem]

Hi Packers Stem

Surely if someone eviscerated poor Kate in one of the empty houses, there would be significant amounts of blood in that house. While they may not have looked in that house that evening, at some later date the blood would be noticed, even if completely dried. Given that the murder was common knowledge at the time, someone would surely have reported it.

If I understand your suggestion, Kate was killed in an empty house, mutilated and eviscerated. Then all would be placed back in the body to carry it to the spot where Kate was found and then the intestines removed again and placed over her shoulder. All without spilling blood on the way. Why would the murderer do this? He had no problem leaving Mary Jane Kelly in the house he murdered her in?

Also, what prompts you to think this is even a likely scenario? Is it simply to allow the murderer more time? Do you discount the sighting of Kate by those leaving the club?

Think of it as a 'safe house' and not 'the murderer'

The couple seen by Lawende ,Harris and Levy could have been absolutely anyone .
Their actions do not suggest a prostitute and client, that's for sure..... chatting quietly ,hand on chest

[DJA]

There was blood spray on the wall behind Chapman's head.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Syncope doesn't mean being strangled; it means loss of consciousness due to the failure of the heart's action. Dr Phillips said that the cause of death was syncope brought about by the blood lost when Annie's throat was cut. As the quote you supplied says: "death arose from syncope... in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat". Any suffocation or strangulation happened before death ("breathing was interfered with before death") and, whilst it rendered Annie insensible, it didn't kill her.

Thanks for clearing that one up Sam

As I think that Annie and her killer were more likely to have been standing nearer to where Annie’s feet eventually were might it not have been possible that the killer rendered Annie unconscious and lowered her to the ground by the shoulders. This might have meant that the killer found himself kneeling behind Annie’s head. He could then have cut Annie’s throat in that position thus giving the same effect as if he’d cut her throat from behind whilst standing up. Wouldn’t this at least cast doubt on whether the killer was left or right handed? He might have been ambidextrous of course.

I have no set idea or bias toward left or right handed just for the record.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
Yes, a quantity could mean anything but as it was just by the shoulder and neck its not going very far .
Unfortunately all we have is a sketch of a sketch made where the original was made in the dark .

I'm basing things on his inquest testimony, not the sketch, or sketch of sketch, which would be more open to concern.

So we have to look to the other side of the neck .
Browns claim that this was blood serum needs to be taken with the fact that it had been raining ,

Brown says nothing about rain. That was my concern.

the pavement sloped , there were gutters from the buildings which could be releasing water and that the trail doesn't even appeared to reach the road .

The flow of gutter water is not as far as I'm aware documented anywhere? We do know it was raining for a brief time around 1:30 as that is Lawende's testimony, and that it was heavy enough that they didn't leave the club, but apart from that ...

He was going by the light of a bullseye lantern .
It all indicates very little blood .

I would disagree. The description sounds similar to Stride's case.

Which of the empty houses do you have evidence of a search for blood having taken place?

I'm pretty sure it's documented that they searched the area and surrounding buildings, however, fair call, I can't put my finger on the source for that right now. Hopefully someone can chime in and either correct me or verify such a thing is recorded in the existing material.

The one in my mind has a shutter a yard from where the body was found.
The yards were searched at the time ( in the dark ) for a person in hiding, not for anything else.

Could you provide the source for that "not anything else" please?

The lack of an imagined blood trail is neither an inconvenience nor evidence of anything at all .

The lack of evidence for a blood trail is just that, no evidence to support a blood trail, which is what one would expect to find if a body such as Eddowes' was moved.

a lack of evidence is not evidence of something else .
For example, in Pinchin Street they found no evidence of cart tracks or footprints. This is not evidence of the torso falling from the sky.

Cart tracks on a paved road are a bit harder to see than a trail of blood from an eviscerated corpse.

I suspect you are picturing a single person carrying a dead body over his shoulder which is not what is being suggested.

No, I thought you were describing two people carrying her, one at shoulders one at legs type thing.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Syncope (medicine) - Wikipedia

[Sam Flynn]

So if she was dead from syncope ; i.e being strangled

Syncope doesn't mean being strangled; it means loss of consciousness due to the failure of the heart's action. Dr Phillips said that the cause of death was syncope brought about by the blood lost when Annie's throat was cut. As the quote you supplied says: "death arose from syncope... in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat". Any suffocation or strangulation happened before death ("breathing was interfered with before death") and, whilst it rendered Annie insensible, it didn't kill her.

[Observer]

:DR Phillips ''From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat''.


So if she was dead from syncope ; i.e being strangled, are you suggesting that the killer held up a dead women up from behind while he cut her throat ?

Ripperologist should probably re think that one for very obvious reasons.


Both throat cutting and the mutilations were done while the killer was on Chapman right side, the evidence clearly points to this happening .

You beat me to it. Chapman was initially strangled, there's no way her throat was cut whilst she was standing

[FISHY1118]

As has been suggested many times by ripperologists......from behind.

:DR Phillips ''From these appearances I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, and that death arose from syncope, or failure of the heart's action, in consequence of the loss of blood caused by the severance of the throat''.


So if she was dead from syncope ; i.e being strangled, are you suggesting that the killer held up a dead women up from behind while he cut her throat ?

Ripperologist should probably re think that one for very obvious reasons.


Both throat cutting and the mutilations were done while the killer was on Chapman right side, the evidence clearly points to this happening .

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Of course you dont , you never do , however now it here for all to see in post 121, you've contradicted yourself, so let people judge it for what it .

I see no contradiction in post #121 (which is your post not mine btw.)

As I’ve stated Fishy, when we originally discussed which side of Annie the killer was on I was talking about for the mutilations and not for the murder. This fact is obvious because we had been talking about the possibility of the killer brushing against the fence. You know very well that it’s my suggestion that the noise was made by the killer brushing against the fence whilst mutilating Annie. So I was making a point about A which you countered by discussing B.

Have you tried simulating cutting Chapman throat from left to right from her left hand side with your right hand ? whilst holding her chin up with your left hand. let me know how that works out .

As has been suggested many times by ripperologists......from behind.

[etenguy]

Hi Jeff
Yes, a quantity could mean anything but as it was just by the shoulder and neck its not going very far .
Unfortunately all we have is a sketch of a sketch made where the original was made in the dark .
So we have to look to the other side of the neck .
Browns claim that this was blood serum needs to be taken with the fact that it had been raining , the pavement sloped , there were gutters from the buildings which could be releasing water and that the trail doesn't even appeared to reach the road .
He was going by the light of a bullseye lantern .
It all indicates very little blood .

Which of the empty houses do you have evidence of a search for blood having taken place?
The one in my mind has a shutter a yard from where the body was found.
The yards were searched at the time ( in the dark ) for a person in hiding, not for anything else.

The lack of an imagined blood trail is neither an inconvenience nor evidence of anything at all .
a lack of evidence is not evidence of something else .
For example, in Pinchin Street they found no evidence of cart tracks or footprints. This is not evidence of the torso falling from the sky.

I suspect you are picturing a single person carrying a dead body over his shoulder which is not what is being suggested.

Hi Packers Stem

Surely if someone eviscerated poor Kate in one of the empty houses, there would be significant amounts of blood in that house. While they may not have looked in that house that evening, at some later date the blood would be noticed, even if completely dried. Given that the murder was common knowledge at the time, someone would surely have reported it.

If I understand your suggestion, Kate was killed in an empty house, mutilated and eviscerated. Then all would be placed back in the body to carry it to the spot where Kate was found and then the intestines removed again and placed over her shoulder. All without spilling blood on the way. Why would the murderer do this? He had no problem leaving Mary Jane Kelly in the house he murdered her in?

Also, what prompts you to think this is even a likely scenario? Is it simply to allow the murderer more time? Do you discount the sighting of Kate by those leaving the club?

[FISHY1118]

I don’t understand your point Fishy?

Of course you dont , you never do , however now it here for all to see in post 121, you've contradicted yourself, so let people judge it for what it .

Have you tried simulating cutting Chapman throat from left to right from her left hand side with your right hand ? whilst holding her chin up with your left hand. let me know how that works out .

[packers stem]

The statement by Brown at the inquest (as recorded in the official records) concerning the blood was "...There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of the arm, and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to th eright shoulder - the pavement sloping in that direction." and later "no blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs - no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middel of the body - several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connection. When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. ..."

I think that covers all the statements by Brown concerning blood.

The testimony does not indicate if the amount of blood was large or small, just "a quantity". The area it covered, however, was by the neck and right shoulder, which does not sound like a small amount to me (clearly, opinions will vary). The lack of a blood trail, however, is not simply an inconvenience, it's evidence of absence of the body having been moved after the wounds were inflicted. Neck wounds, and eviscerated abdomens, tend to drip a lot of blood and moving such a body is going to leave a bloody trail, whether you carry it or drag it. There also will be a rather large bloody mess at the location of the throat cutting and disembowelment. The surrounding areas were searched and such a tell tale sign was found to be absent.

There is also no signs of blood running down her clothes, or along her legs, etc, as one would expect if she had been moved and carried after being cut open.

Effectively, the evidence of the state of the body indicates she was mutilated where she was found. I suppose, though, you could argue she was strangled behind the fence, and then brought to that location where her throat was cut and the mutilations took place? That would at least allow for her to have been strangled prior to Watkins patrol, and then as soon as he left the square, she could be brought into the yard to have her throat cut, etc. But that would mean she was killed at 1:30, which is during the rain that held Lawende and company back at the club until 1:33-1:35, and if her throat was cut during the downpour, much of the blood from the initial cutting would have been diluted and washed away, and quite possibly prevented the clot that is mentioned from forming at all (but someone with more medical knowledge than me would be better able to indicate that). So again, the description of the blood around her does not fit with her throat being cut during rain heavy enough to keep Lawende et al from leaving the club for a few minutes.

But perhaps then, she was strangled elsewhere, and after the rain stopped she was brought into the square, etc? But now, there's no more time available than the far more probable, and simpler, explanation that it was when the rain stopped that she and JtR made their way into the square, and he attacked and killed her on the spot.

All the moving about of a pre-mutilated body with the throat cut to the spine on one side leaves a blood trail, and a rather noticeable one at that. It also gets blood all over the body and the clothes, which is also decidedly absent (but it was looked for - not absent because they didn't examine for it).

I can see nothing to support the notion she was killed and mutilated anywhere except where she was found.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
Yes, a quantity could mean anything but as it was just by the shoulder and neck its not going very far .
Unfortunately all we have is a sketch of a sketch made where the original was made in the dark .
So we have to look to the other side of the neck .
Browns claim that this was blood serum needs to be taken with the fact that it had been raining , the pavement sloped , there were gutters from the buildings which could be releasing water and that the trail doesn't even appeared to reach the road .
He was going by the light of a bullseye lantern .
It all indicates very little blood .

Which of the empty houses do you have evidence of a search for blood having taken place?
The one in my mind has a shutter a yard from where the body was found.
The yards were searched at the time ( in the dark ) for a person in hiding, not for anything else.

The lack of an imagined blood trail is neither an inconvenience nor evidence of anything at all .
a lack of evidence is not evidence of something else .
For example, in Pinchin Street they found no evidence of cart tracks or footprints. This is not evidence of the torso falling from the sky.

I suspect you are picturing a single person carrying a dead body over his shoulder which is not what is being suggested.

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,
If Kate's four layers prevented a blood trail over a few yards, the same could be said for there not being blood sprayed all over Mitre Square?
With regard to Stride, you say there was no strangulation and blood everywhere? Yet the reports state that her scarf was pulled tight, but more pertinently, there was not blood everywhere, Dr Blackwell gives quite the opposite impression.
Are we to assume that whoever killed Kate dumped her and then purposely placed her innards on her?
I totally get what your pointing out, there was far more residual blood in the killing of Stride. That isn't proof that Eddowes was killed elsewhere. We don't know all the variables.

HI
Firstly the four layers of clothing wasn't around the neck if she was lying on the ground when her throat was slit so had this happened in the square then ,no ,it wouldn't prevent blood spatter that didn't exist as we know ,nor a great deal of blood spurting onto the pavement.
However, in terms of carrying , the neck would sink lower into the jacket in transit.
Secondly Blackwell confirmed a great deal of blood in Dutfields yard , a pound of clotted blood , as did many other witnesses and the blood was being washed away in the morning .
I've no idea why you think Blackwell gave the ' opposite impression'
As for the scarf ,it's possible she was pulled back by the scarf , but she wasn't strangled and it still shows a change in MO if you're arguing strangulation.
Chapman and Eddowes also wore scarves, they weren't pulled tight

[JeffHamm]

Hi Etenguy
People are obsessed by blood trails .
She had four layers of clothing including a jacket for blood to soak through before reaching saturation levels where it would be dripping through the jacket ..... and we're only talking a couple of yards of movement .
Yes, the intestines would be dumped on the shoulder after depositing the body and the severed piece ,placed 'by design' as Brown put it .
This would take seconds.

A small amount of clotted blood on the left of the neck means little, the neck would still be oozing blood for some time ,as indeed it was with Nichols, the Pinchin street torso too bizarrely.
When you consider the rain mixing with the blood ,possible guttering flow from the buildings, a tiny bit of blood appears more than it was .
It doesn't compare with the pound of clotted blood next to Stride and the description of a 'river' of blood flowing into the gutter .
Somebody will come along and try the 'strangulation' point and yet there is no evidence of such..... and you have to ask why he didn't strangle Stride ? Blood everywhere there .
Would his initial MO change between Stride and Eddowes?
He hadn't been 'disturbed' at this point in time .

The statement by Brown at the inquest (as recorded in the official records) concerning the blood was "...There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of the arm, and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to th eright shoulder - the pavement sloping in that direction." and later "no blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs - no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around. No marks of blood below the middel of the body - several buttons were found in the clotted blood after the body was removed. There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There were no traces of recent connection. When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. ..."

I think that covers all the statements by Brown concerning blood.

The testimony does not indicate if the amount of blood was large or small, just "a quantity". The area it covered, however, was by the neck and right shoulder, which does not sound like a small amount to me (clearly, opinions will vary). The lack of a blood trail, however, is not simply an inconvenience, it's evidence of absence of the body having been moved after the wounds were inflicted. Neck wounds, and eviscerated abdomens, tend to drip a lot of blood and moving such a body is going to leave a bloody trail, whether you carry it or drag it. There also will be a rather large bloody mess at the location of the throat cutting and disembowelment. The surrounding areas were searched and such a tell tale sign was found to be absent.

There is also no signs of blood running down her clothes, or along her legs, etc, as one would expect if she had been moved and carried after being cut open.

Effectively, the evidence of the state of the body indicates she was mutilated where she was found. I suppose, though, you could argue she was strangled behind the fence, and then brought to that location where her throat was cut and the mutilations took place? That would at least allow for her to have been strangled prior to Watkins patrol, and then as soon as he left the square, she could be brought into the yard to have her throat cut, etc. But that would mean she was killed at 1:30, which is during the rain that held Lawende and company back at the club until 1:33-1:35, and if her throat was cut during the downpour, much of the blood from the initial cutting would have been diluted and washed away, and quite possibly prevented the clot that is mentioned from forming at all (but someone with more medical knowledge than me would be better able to indicate that). So again, the description of the blood around her does not fit with her throat being cut during rain heavy enough to keep Lawende et al from leaving the club for a few minutes.

But perhaps then, she was strangled elsewhere, and after the rain stopped she was brought into the square, etc? But now, there's no more time available than the far more probable, and simpler, explanation that it was when the rain stopped that she and JtR made their way into the square, and he attacked and killed her on the spot.

All the moving about of a pre-mutilated body with the throat cut to the spine on one side leaves a blood trail, and a rather noticeable one at that. It also gets blood all over the body and the clothes, which is also decidedly absent (but it was looked for - not absent because they didn't examine for it).

I can see nothing to support the notion she was killed and mutilated anywhere except where she was found.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Etenguy
People are obsessed by blood trails .
She had four layers of clothing including a jacket for blood to soak through before reaching saturation levels where it would be dripping through the jacket ..... and we're only talking a couple of yards of movement .
Yes, the intestines would be dumped on the shoulder after depositing the body and the severed piece ,placed 'by design' as Brown put it .
This would take seconds.

A small amount of clotted blood on the left of the neck means little, the neck would still be oozing blood for some time ,as indeed it was with Nichols, the Pinchin street torso too bizarrely.
When you consider the rain mixing with the blood ,possible guttering flow from the buildings, a tiny bit of blood appears more than it was .
It doesn't compare with the pound of clotted blood next to Stride and the description of a 'river' of blood flowing into the gutter .
Somebody will come along and try the 'strangulation' point and yet there is no evidence of such..... and you have to ask why he didn't strangle Stride ? Blood everywhere there .
Would his initial MO change between Stride and Eddowes?
He hadn't been 'disturbed' at this point in time .

Hi Packers,
If Kate's four layers prevented a blood trail over a few yards, the same could be said for there not being blood sprayed all over Mitre Square?
With regard to Stride, you say there was no strangulation and blood everywhere? Yet the reports state that her scarf was pulled tight, but more pertinently, there was not blood everywhere, Dr Blackwell gives quite the opposite impression.
Are we to assume that whoever killed Kate dumped her and then purposely placed her innards on her?
I totally get what your pointing out, there was far more residual blood in the killing of Stride. That isn't proof that Eddowes was killed elsewhere. We don't know all the variables.