Dressed to kill.

[Wickerman]

Before the advent of DNA testing, the most likely place to find seminal secretion was on the thighs.

Trace evidence left between the thighs is to be expected, but whether this is related to the very last encounter, or a penultimate encounter may not be determinable. The important factor in looking for & noting the presence of semen on a dead prostitute is in an attempt to establish if her death was related to her occupation.

One mixed with vaginal secretions, they would never find anything on the inside.

Which brings us back to my initial question, did the doctors look in the correct location, given the previous discussion, for semen?

But evidence of actual penetration would have to come from an internal examination.

It would, and evidence of penetration in the rear could also be determined from an internal examination.

.

[Errata]

Trace evidence left between the thighs is to be expected, but whether this is related to the very last encounter, or a penultimate encounter may not be determinable. The important factor in looking for & noting the presence of semen on a dead prostitute is in an attempt to establish if her death was related to her occupation.



Which brings us back to my initial question, did the doctors look in the correct location, given the previous discussion, for semen?



It would, and evidence of penetration in the rear could also be determined from an internal examination.

.

Sure, but from the rear would not necessarily mean in the rear. So to speak. I would not think it a terribly common practice, because without certain niceties beforehand, anal sex is usually very traumatic. Physically, not emotionally. It rips the tissue, causes a lot of bleeding, can rupture the rectum, cause fistulas, even cause enough trauma to kill slowly and painfully. Now a prostitute can prepare herself to a certain extent for such an encounter, but it is somewhat predicated on imminence. Prepping for it hours in advance does no good.

[Wickerman]

Sure, but from the rear would not necessarily mean in the rear. So to speak.

Agreed, the initial debate on 'from the rear' was in response to a question of how the killer might strangle the victim. That it might have been while her back was turned for sex.

.

[Errata]

Agreed, the initial debate on 'from the rear' was in response to a question of how the killer might strangle the victim. That it might have been while her back was turned for sex.

.

Mostly my comment was due to your statement that

"It would, and evidence of penetration in the rear could also be determined from an internal examination."

Which if referring to anal sex is true, but in reference to vaginal sex is not true. Unless the sex is rough enough to bruise or rupture the front of the vagina. Which is not easy to accomplish, and typically requires foreign objects. Cervical bruising is common enough, but that doesn't tell you what position the sex happened in. Any other adjustment the body might make to accommodate the position are gone within minutes.

[Wickerman]

Mostly my comment was due to your statement that

"It would, and evidence of penetration in the rear could also be determined from an internal examination."

Which if referring to anal sex is true, but in reference to vaginal sex is not true. Unless the sex is rough enough to bruise or rupture the front of the vagina. Which is not easy to accomplish, and typically requires foreign objects. Cervical bruising is common enough, but that doesn't tell you what position the sex happened in. Any other adjustment the body might make to accommodate the position are gone within minutes.

Yes, I understood the way the subject was headed, we got off on a tangent.
It isn't necessary to propose anal sex (and I did not intend to do so) was the preferred or only method employed. Conventional intercourse with the victim's back turned towards the killer as you have also described in an earlier post is all that was necessary for the killer to choke her from behind.

.

[Futzbucket]

We do know that the throat was slit from left to right, giving us the possibility that JtR was left-handed. This could also mean that JtR is right-handed and slit their throats from behind, then to position himself over her for his extraction.

Turning the victim around so she turns her back on the suspect would be an ideal method of gaining a significant advantage, and would not gain any suspicion from the victim.

JtR's biggest concern was time. The police walked in regulated patterns that were monitored. Because of this, as long as you waited for a constable to pass, you could anticipate a good 10-minutes or so until someone comes back around.

It would not surprise me to learn JtR's MO was to turn the victim around, place them in a sort of choke hold until they pass out, slit their throat, and then as quickly as possible create as much damage as possible.

[Damaso Marte]

Are you suggesting the victims were not cut on the ground - or at least not throat-cut? This would be a heterodox position, even for Stride.

[Futzbucket]

I believe they were both cut while on the ground and their throats were cut.

Imagine a choke hold from behind. When the victim looses consciousness, you would only need to take a step back to place them on the ground, on their back. You're now in a position standing at their head, and if you were to slit their throat from this position, then the slash would show as coming from left to right.

Seems the most time-effective approach with the least noise.

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello FB.

"It would not surprise me to learn JtR's MO was to turn the victim around, place them in a sort of choke hold until they pass out, slit their throat, and then as quickly as possible create as much damage as possible."

Well, Polly and Annie showed signs of strangulation (lacerated/protruding tongue) and both had consistent bruising patterns.

Cheers.
LC

[Deathtosnails]

I think 'Jack' would have prepared the vicitm verbally to be entered from behind. His own preference or 'going along' with the victims preference.

Either way, once behind and in position, I think he may have used a Gary Ridgway style ruse to get her into a position of his adavantage. Perhaps something along the line of "can you hear someone coming?"

Her head pops up, his arms go around her neck, knife already in place, starts to choke her until he thinks he's in control.

She starts to pass out and slits her throat against her body weight on the way down. No blood on him. She's passing out already and is a 'willing' victim to him.

It didn't always work. He may have had to hold her face down to have another go at her throat even though the first cut did the trick. She didn't die as quickly as he'd have liked.

Hmmm, anyhoo, my metric cents worth.

[Damaso Marte]

A choke hold would very well explain why Eddowes showed neither signs of strangulation, nor being thrown to the ground. Of course, each time we discuss choke holds here, somebody points out that they were not as well understood in Victorian London as they are today.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Eddowes

Choke hold isn't neccesarily the term I might go with. More of a quick takedown maneuver type thing. Executed swiftly and efficiently, it might have taken a second at most? Killer behind/beside the victim. Right side. Left arm around shoulder. Grab mouth/jaw, turn victim left and bring down to ground, slit throat. Killer could have even used the knee to knock victim off balance. It could be done with such swiftness the victim wouldn't even realise what transpired and the throat already be slit. That and it would leave the killer in a position to restrain the victim until unable to move about anymore. I gots a feeling that he waited for the body to drain, at least somewhat, before attempting anything else. Hold the body still until there was no danger of movement anymore and let it empty to make ripping and removal of internals less messy. Also allow any potential interlopers to appear. Something like that maybe. It could all be quite practical, or maybe just deliberate. Anyways.

[lynn cates]

departure

Hello Damaso. Whilst others, like me, point out that IF Kate were subdued in that manner, it seems to represent a significant departure from two of the previous slayings.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

bruising

Hello DLDW. One quick point.

"Grab mouth/jaw. . ."

Would this have left facial bruising?

Cheers.
LC

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

I think he might have worn a waist to knee length coat the longer coat gives a good deep pocket just fine for a knife or use of the sleave as you can hold a long blade there with ease I dont think gloves would of been of use to him and I think if I recall rightly an exspensive item in that time, as for a hat a soft cap sounds likely not sure about the stalker I mean how common were they? and was it fitting for the place and time? saying that a description is given of a man with said attire.