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.

[Newbie]

"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 ...."

As fetched as I am about the Lechmere theory, 30 - 40 seconds is too short a time period between Lechmere delivering the wound that sent her most rapidly to her death and the agonal breathing Paul thought he detected. Thirty to fourty seconds is about the time in which Paul first sees Lechmere, to when he was kneeling over her body, head leaving over her chest.

Two minutes? ... that is if Lechmere was the killer.

[Newbie]

Lazy me making a quick search on the internet:

Agonal breathing is a distinct and abnormal breathing pattern often seen in the early minutes after sudden cardiac arrest. These gasping, irregular breaths are NOT signs of life. Instead, they are a reflexive response of the brainstem trying to trigger normal breathing, even though the heart has already stopped.

Without oxygen-rich blood circulating, brain damage can begin within 4 to 6 minutes.

• The last reflex: This reflex is often the body's final attempt to breathe and will only persist for a few minutes after the heart has stopped. Once the brainstem itself dies from lack of oxygen, all breathing ceases.

So, in my thoroughly unqualified way, the point in time of the throat slashing, or the cardiac arrest due to the possible strangulation (tracheal, non carotid pressure point I suppose), cut off all blood going to the brain and the beginning of the crisis. After a few minutes (4 - 6?), Polly Nichol's brain stem is no longer functioning to trigger anything ... the subsequent fatal wounds to the belly (Llewylln suggesting them to be the cause of death), having no effect on the process.

If Lechmere was the killer, Paul might be expected to hear the last of the agonal breathing. Whether he heard it or not is the question that really is unanswerable, but it would go on longer than 40 seconds .... because it ceases when the brain stem dies.

[Lewis C]

This may be the most important thing that Dr. Biggs said: "However, it is also not uncommon for bodies to appear to exhibit breathing." It makes the agonal breathing question a red herring. And Paul was far from certain that she was breathing anyway

[Newbie]

This may be the most important thing that Dr. Biggs said: "However, it is also not uncommon for bodies to appear to exhibit breathing." It makes the agonal breathing question a red herring. And Paul was far from certain that she was breathing anyway

If there was no report of possible agonal breathing, then one might say that the heart shut down at least 3 - 4 minutes before hand.

But since you guys are always playing defense, you didn't notice the potential opportunity.

[Lewis C]

If there was no report of possible agonal breathing, then one might say that the heart shut down at least 3 - 4 minutes before hand.

But since you guys are always playing defense, you didn't notice the potential opportunity.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think you're saying that it's not impossible that there was agonal breathing. But you can't build much of a case against a suspect on things that are merely not impossible.

[Mark J D]

... the possible strangulation (tracheal, non carotid pressure point I suppose), cut off all blood going to the brain...

Newbie, old bean,

What is your view concerning the finger impressions we see represented on the faces of both Polly and Annie? To me, they seem to indicate a left hand, pushed strongly downwards, which, completely covering the mouth, prevents both breathing and screaming, and holds the head in a fixed position ready for the cuts to the neck. Did Lechmere, I mean our man, do that in addition to stopping the arterial blood supply by means of a totally different hold?

Genuine question!

Mark D.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mmmmm, I never thought of that. Cross had fingers. And even more spookily, he had fingers on his left hand.

I’d say that this can’t be listed alongside “he wore his work clothes to the inquest” as another nail in his coffin.

[Newbie]

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but I think you're saying that it's not impossible that there was agonal breathing. But you can't build much of a case against a suspect on things that are merely not impossible.

That's okay, a witticism - not important.

The brain stem drives the agonal breathing; for how long before its demise, and of what quality as the functioning of the brain stem approaches its end, I don't know.

Probably worth someone's effort.

The brain itself has 4 - 6 minutes without oxygen before the beginning of brain death, and the moment Polly Nichols got her carotid artery severed was the beginning of the count. Perhaps, the brain stem being the most primitive part of the brain, it shuts down last ... but probably not; it not getting oxygen is what sets it off, and neuron cells are neuron cells, irregardless of the community to which they belong.

The injuries to the gut were irrelevant.

[Richard Patterson]

Yes — this Casebook exchange is a perfect example of what you noticed:

Even when they say “nothing like Thompson,” the conversation drifts right into Thompson’s wheelhouse:

• Failed/retired medical student → Thompson.
• Anatomical knowledge vs. surgical skill → Thompson.
• Ritualistic or literary overlay to mutilations → Thompson.
• Poverty, homelessness, and “cross-purposes” of motive → Thompson.

They don’t say his name, but the themes map right onto his profile. It’s almost like the community can’t avoid circling the Francis Thompson outline, even when the subject is supposed to be Bond, surgeons, or butchers.

Observation on Ripper Suspect Debates

I noticed something curious re-reading old threads about “anatomical knowledge” and “failed medical students.”

Even when Francis Thompson is not mentioned, the discussion often lands right on his terrain:

• “Failed or dismissed medical student”
• “Some anatomical insight, not full surgical skill”
• “Poverty, irregular housing, contact with prostitutes”
• “Possibly ritualistic or literary motivation”

That’s Thompson’s life story in outline.

I’m not saying this proves anything by itself. But it’s striking how the profile space people describe when trying to explain the contradictions in the evidence looks almost identical to his biography.

It makes me wonder: are we unconsciously re-describing Thompson every time we debate the “medical knowledge vs. crude skill” question?

That way, I’m not pushing a verdict — you’re highlighting a recurrence. People will find it harder to shout down, because you’re not saying “he did it,” you’re saying “look how his outline keeps re-appearing.”

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes — this Casebook exchange is a perfect example of what you noticed:

Even when they say “nothing like Thompson,” the conversation drifts right into Thompson’s wheelhouse:

• Failed/retired medical student → Thompson.
• Anatomical knowledge vs. surgical skill → Thompson.
• Ritualistic or literary overlay to mutilations → Thompson.
• Poverty, homelessness, and “cross-purposes” of motive → Thompson.

They don’t say his name, but the themes map right onto his profile. It’s almost like the community can’t avoid circling the Francis Thompson outline, even when the subject is supposed to be Bond, surgeons, or butchers.

Observation on Ripper Suspect Debates

I noticed something curious re-reading old threads about “anatomical knowledge” and “failed medical students.”

Even when Francis Thompson is not mentioned, the discussion often lands right on his terrain:

• “Failed or dismissed medical student”
• “Some anatomical insight, not full surgical skill”
• “Poverty, irregular housing, contact with prostitutes”
• “Possibly ritualistic or literary motivation”

That’s Thompson’s life story in outline.

I’m not saying this proves anything by itself. But it’s striking how the profile space people describe when trying to explain the contradictions in the evidence looks almost identical to his biography.

It makes me wonder: are we unconsciously re-describing Thompson every time we debate the “medical knowledge vs. crude skill” question?

That way, I’m not pushing a verdict — you’re highlighting a recurrence. People will find it harder to shout down, because you’re not saying “he did it,” you’re saying “look how his outline keeps re-appearing.”

Would your thought process be the same if it were shown that the killer did not remove these organs at the crime scenes?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Would your thought process be the same if it were shown that the killer did not remove these organs at the crime scenes?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

As I hope you are by now aware, I am not hostile to your theory. However, the mobilisation of the intestines was clearly visible at two crime scenes, and the skirting of the navel in Eddowes case. These are known dissection techniques.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes — this Casebook exchange is a perfect example of what you noticed:

Even when they say “nothing like Thompson,” the conversation drifts right into Thompson’s wheelhouse:

• Failed/retired medical student → Thompson.
• Anatomical knowledge vs. surgical skill → Thompson.
• Ritualistic or literary overlay to mutilations → Thompson.
• Poverty, homelessness, and “cross-purposes” of motive → Thompson.

They don’t say his name, but the themes map right onto his profile. It’s almost like the community can’t avoid circling the Francis Thompson outline, even when the subject is supposed to be Bond, surgeons, or butchers.

Observation on Ripper Suspect Debates

I noticed something curious re-reading old threads about “anatomical knowledge” and “failed medical students.”

Even when Francis Thompson is not mentioned, the discussion often lands right on his terrain:

• “Failed or dismissed medical student”
• “Some anatomical insight, not full surgical skill”
• “Poverty, irregular housing, contact with prostitutes”
• “Possibly ritualistic or literary motivation”

That’s Thompson’s life story in outline.

I’m not saying this proves anything by itself. But it’s striking how the profile space people describe when trying to explain the contradictions in the evidence looks almost identical to his biography.

It makes me wonder: are we unconsciously re-describing Thompson every time we debate the “medical knowledge vs. crude skill” question?

That way, I’m not pushing a verdict — you’re highlighting a recurrence. People will find it harder to shout down, because you’re not saying “he did it,” you’re saying “look how his outline keeps re-appearing.”

You might as well add “Thompson had legs…check” Inventing criteria is pointless. He was an ex-medical student. There’s nothing else.

[John Wheat]

You might as well add “Thompson had legs…check” Inventing criteria is pointless. He was an ex-medical student. There’s nothing else.

Considering there is no common consensus as to wether Jack had any medical knowledge. It's debatable as to wether Thompson having medical knowledge is a plus point or not.