Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Sorry, this is off-topic, but you once wrote that you might be willing to run any forensic questions past your contact, Dr. Michael Biggs. Does that offer still stand?

I was thinking it might be worthwhile to hear Dr. Biggs' thoughts about "agonal breathing."

It has been suggested by certain Lechmere theorist that when Robert Paul felt Polly Nichols' chest and thought he felt slight movement, it could have been agonal breathing by a still very much alive Polly Nichols.

It would be interesting to know if Dr. Biggs thinks this theory is at all probable, considering the extensive nature of the cuts to Poll Nichols' throat and abdomen. Could a person exhibit agonal breathing 30 or 40 seconds after having their throat cut down to the vertebrae, and could that breathing be interpreted as a slight movement of the chest as described by Robert Paul?

If not, is there any forensic explanation for Robert Paul's testimony, other than a witness simply being mistaken?

(Perhaps these questions need to be formulated in more detail, but that's the gist of it. This was something that came up on the 'Charles Cross' thread).

Many thanks.

I have had the following reply from Dr Biggs

This is an interesting question, for which (as usual!) I'll be unlikely to help take you definitively in either direction.

First of all, it is certainly possible for someone who has suffered a mortal wound, including a throat cut down to the vertebrae, to be exhibiting agonal breathing 30-40 seconds later (or even longer).

However, it is also not uncommon for bodies to appear to exhibit breathing (or similar sounds / movements) when examined after death, especially by those unaccustomed to dead bodies. If, for example, you were to move a body even slightly (such as when checking for signs of life) then you could prompt an escape of air from the chest, lolling of the head, etc. which could be entirely post-mortem, but could mimic breathing or a "last gasp".

(It is also possible for the mind to play tricks, especially in a situation of high drama / shock, when there is poor lighting, etc.)

So it could be that there was no actual breathing / movement / noise, and that the observer was simply mistaken due to the ghastly scene presented unexpectedly. Or it could be that the body had been dead for a period of time, but that the slightest movement triggered an escape of air (accompanied by breathing, gurgling or groaning sounds), which was misinterpreted as a genuine sign of life. Or there could have been some genuine respiratory effort / movement of the chest wall (whether conscious or involuntary) a short period of time after the injuries had been inflicted, but before death had actually occurred.

I know that doesn't help you to decide one way or the other, but it's important to stress that both suggested scenarios are possible, and so can't be ruled out on medical / pathological grounds.

I hope that helps?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Lewis C]

I think that does help, because it provides a plausible explanation for why Paul thought that Nichols might have still been breathing, especially since he seems to have only thought that briefly.