Strangulation or not

[Trevor Marriott]

It has been suggested that the victims were first strangled before having their throats cut, as that researcher who I believe was Herlock was suggesting that the black blood found in the victim's brain was a direct result of strangulation. I was asked by the researcher to ask Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist and has opined many times on the medical evidence in this case and also the Thames torsos for his comments. I have now received his reply and it is set out below

" There are several things that, over the years, have been attributed to strangulation, but more recently have been found to be non-specific (unfortunately!).

So, a protruding tongue was often interpreted as "evidence" of hanging, strangulation, etc. in years gone by, whereas now we wouldn't read too much (if anything) into a protruding tongue. Observations such as injuries (e.g. bruising/scratches) to the neck, together with profuse petechial haemorrhages (i.e. not just a few) above the neck compression level are good when you see them, but they may be subtle (or absent altogether) in cases of genuine strangulation - so a complete absence of neck / facial signs does not exclude strangulation.

As for the "black" blood, it is certainly the case that blood changes its colour depending on the level of oxygenation. Fully oxygenated blood is bright red, whereas it progressively darkens as the oxygen is removed. Deoxygenated blood is, therefore, a very dark red, but it is still red, rather than black. However, in comparison to the "red" colour that might be expected, deoxygenated blood may appear so dark (especially in poor lighting conditions) as to be described as "black" by an observer.

If you were to observe the blood leaving the brain via the veins, it would appear dark red (as the brain has extracted oxygen from it) in comparison to the bright red ("fresh") blood being supplied to it via the arteries. This is a normal finding, and the finding of "black" (i.e. very dark red) blood in the brain would not be a specific indicator of strangulation.

The other snag is, when a person dies the various body tissues don't stop using oxygen - the tissues will continue to extract oxygen from the blood, making it appear dark in colour. So, regardless of whether you are stabbed, strangled or die of natural cause, the blood in a dead body is unlikely to display a bright red colour, and will instead appear dark red / almost black.

If the victim was indeed strangled before being stabbed, this is not something that could be "diagnosed" by a protruding tongue or very dark red blood. She may, of course, still have been strangled, but you would need some other evidence to conclude that safely."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not me Trevor.

[Wickerman]

It has been suggested that the victims were first strangled before having their throats cut, as that researcher who I believe was Herlock was suggesting that the black blood found in the victim's brain was a direct result of strangulation. I was asked by the researcher to ask Dr Biggs who is a forensic pathologist and has opined many times on the medical evidence in this case and also the Thames torsos for his comments....

Indeed you were, though it is was not Herlock you made that request.

I have now received his reply and it is set out below

" There are several things that, over the years, have been attributed to strangulation, but more recently have been found to be non-specific (unfortunately!).

So, a protruding tongue was often interpreted as "evidence" of hanging, strangulation, etc. in years gone by, whereas now we wouldn't read too much (if anything) into a protruding tongue. Observations such as injuries (e.g. bruising/scratches) to the neck, together with profuse petechial haemorrhages (i.e. not just a few) above the neck compression level are good when you see them, but they may be subtle (or absent altogether) in cases of genuine strangulation - so a complete absence of neck / facial signs does not exclude strangulation.

As for the "black" blood, it is certainly the case that blood changes its colour depending on the level of oxygenation. Fully oxygenated blood is bright red, whereas it progressively darkens as the oxygen is removed. Deoxygenated blood is, therefore, a very dark red, but it is still red, rather than black. However, in comparison to the "red" colour that might be expected, deoxygenated blood may appear so dark (especially in poor lighting conditions) as to be described as "black" by an observer.

Certainly, this was already agreed to by both parties in our previous posts. Taken as individual points there is no certainty whether each one was caused by suffocation or strangulation. The question was whether if all points observed on the same body would indicate suffocation or strangulation, as opposed to anything else?
If there could be another cause then lets see you come up with one.

If you were to observe the blood leaving the brain via the veins, it would appear dark red (as the brain has extracted oxygen from it) in comparison to the bright red ("fresh") blood being supplied to it via the arteries. This is a normal finding, and the finding of "black" (i.e. very dark red) blood in the brain would not be a specific indicator of strangulation.

The other snag is, when a person dies the various body tissues don't stop using oxygen - the tissues will continue to extract oxygen from the blood, making it appear dark in colour. So, regardless of whether you are stabbed, strangled or die of natural cause, the blood in a dead body is unlikely to display a bright red colour, and will instead appear dark red / almost black.

This seems like Dr Biggs is talking to you, do you think he would have explained this to another doctor, likely not right?
The 'snag' in this reply is that it was a physician who noticed the difference in the colour of blood, not me, not some author, but it was recorded as noticeably different in 1888.

It's a case of what is the most likely common denominator that can cause all these same conditions to the same body.

If the victim was indeed strangled before being stabbed, this is not something that could be "diagnosed" by a protruding tongue or very dark red blood. She may, of course, still have been strangled, but you would need some other evidence to conclude that safely."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ideally, yes the hyoid bone can be injured or broken as a consequence of strangulation, but not always, and hardly ever as a result of suffocation.

It's clear you are pushing for proof because you have been challenged.
Like most theorists you will argue for the possibilities of your theory, but you know you cannot find proof. Yet, as soon as you are challenged you insist on others offering proof. It's a well known tactic, sadly we are dealing with probabilities, and measuring the likely hood in degrees of probability.

So, what is the common denominator of a body found murdered with:
- swollen tongue.
- Bruises on neck.
- clenched fingers.
- Turgid fingernails.
- Black blood in the brain.

[The Rookie Detective]

From the killer's perspective, there are several reasons why he may have favoured strangulation prior to mutilation...


Pros -

reduces the chances of the victim screaming from being stabbed or making too much noise
can exert more control/move to the floor
reduces the victim's pulse and blood pressure so that when the cutting starts, the chances of random blood splatter are greatly reduced
provides a less frantic reaction from the victim/ reduced capacity to resist
more accurate in terms of subduing the victim i.e. restricting the airway/voice box, has a higher chance of success than initiating an attack by stabbing the neck.


Cons -

Takes longer than just stabbing the victim.


I think it's important to remember that based on the victim's (impossible to tell with MJK), the killer's reason to use strangulation wasn't to kill, it was to control. The killer needed less than 30 seconds to make his victim unconscious. Part of his ritual was bringing them close to death through strangulation, but not entirely.

Once he had subdued them and positioned them on the floor, he then began to stab and cut.
At this point, the victim was still alive, but barely. The idea was that they would still feel everything, but couldn't respond or fight back. Based on the distinct whispers/VOICES that Mrs Lilley heard outside her window, I also believe that he whispered and spoke to them as he mutilated them.

Different voices are explained by the killer having a split personality disorder. (Not the same as schizophrenia)
That would also explain the question of left or right-handedness...he could use both depending on the dominant personality at the time.

It's likely the double cut to the neck held significance, as did the placement of certain organs.

He kept them alive while he mutilated them and the use of strangulation is the only way he could achieve that amount of control. If he just wanted to kill them, then all the victims would have been found with multiple stab wounds and nothing else.

But the fact that he uses multiple methods of strangulation, stabbing, cutting and mutilating is indicative of someone who aims to punish and inflict pain and torture.

Strangulation was absolutely part of his ritual and formed the fundamental basis of his attacks.

There were undoubtedly other women who came close to being murdered, but because all the elements weren't in place, he chose not to attack.

The police should have questioned prostitutes to ask if they had any clients who backed down at the last minute from the opportunity to have intercourse. This is because I don't believe he was looking for sex, he was looking to control, dominate, punish and dehumanize his victims.
This is not representative of a man who is 'known' to have been violent to prostitutes, it instead is reflective of a person who comes across as more subtle and unassuming in their manner.

Another reason why i believe the killer had a split personality, is that someone who may appear relatively timid and unassuming; has the ability to change and have immense strength and power. i.e. the killer may have been physically weaker than his ability was once he had begun attacking his victim. He didn't have to be "big and strong" to overcome and strangle his victims, he could have possessed immense strength once his more dominant personality took over and began killing.

I believe it's the same with some of the letters and correspondences that the killer wrote; there were written by the same killer, but in different hands based on the personality that was dominant at the time.

This of course isn't sustainable and over time, it would have been harder to conceal. I don't believe he stopped after MJK, but it was a turning point. I believe that he killed Alice the following year; because it bore all the hallmarks of Nichols, the double cut to the neck, the positioning of the body from east to west and the fact they were both left alive when he'd left them because of timing restrictions.

If he had the opportunity to kill inside every time, then every victim would have presented like MJK. The reason why none of the other victims ended up like MJK, was because of the restrictions on timing. With MJK he knew he had hours and her killing is a true reflection of what he wanted to do to all his victims.

So why did he only kill inside once?... because he was married... and being seen entering a property has more risks than randomly killing a victim on the street.

But going back to the strangulation point... he almost certainly used it as an initial attack method. Otherwise, there would have been too much risk of his victim fighting back, too much noise if he failed to sever the vocal chords, too much blood flow from blood pressure, less control of her physically if she fought back etc...

Strangulaiton is also the only way he could control keeping her alive long enough to make her feel pain and suffering through mutilation which wasn't done post-mortem, it was inflicted as the victim was dying.

Evil and sadistic psychopath

Thoughts please gentlemen?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi TRD, I've picked out a few of your points to respond to.

From the killer's perspective, there are several reasons why he may have favoured strangulation prior to mutilation...



I think it's important to remember that based on the victim's (impossible to tell with MJK), the killer's reason to use strangulation wasn't to kill, it was to control. The killer needed less than 30 seconds to make his victim unconscious. Part of his ritual was bringing them close to death through strangulation, but not entirely.

Once he had subdued them and positioned them on the floor, he then began to stab and cut.
At this point, the victim was still alive, but barely. The idea was that they would still feel everything, but couldn't respond or fight back. Based on the distinct whispers/VOICES that Mrs Lilley heard outside her window, I also believe that he whispered and spoke to them as he mutilated them.

Reasonable enough, we don't know what his motives were so maybe he did desire to do this. Killers do unpleasant things.

Different voices are explained by the killer having a split personality disorder. (Not the same as schizophrenia)
That would also explain the question of left or right-handedness...he could use both depending on the dominant personality at the time.

No. Different voices are explained by the killer and the victim talking.


He kept them alive while he mutilated them and the use of strangulation is the only way he could achieve that amount of control. If he just wanted to kill them, then all the victims would have been found with multiple stab wounds and nothing else.

But the fact that he uses multiple methods of strangulation, stabbing, cutting and mutilating is indicative of someone who aims to punish and inflict pain and torture.

Strangulation was absolutely part of his ritual and formed the fundamental basis of his attacks.

Strangulation could have been important to him, could have been a means to an end. If post mortem mutilation was his goal, any method of killing is essentially a means to an end. Either could be relevant, depending on the individual. I tend to think the rapid subduing and severe throat cuts suggest he wanted them totally dead quickly.

There were undoubtedly other women who came close to being murdered, but because all the elements weren't in place, he chose not to attack.

This I would say is a certainty.

The police should have questioned prostitutes to ask if they had any clients who backed down at the last minute from the opportunity to have intercourse. This is because I don't believe he was looking for sex, he was looking to control, dominate, punish and dehumanize his victims.
This is not representative of a man who is 'known' to have been violent to prostitutes, it instead is reflective of a person who comes across as more subtle and unassuming in their manner.

That's the benefit of hindsight though isn't it? Police today would look at things like that, but back then they didn't really understand what they were dealing with and understandably looked for violent suspects.

Another reason why i believe the killer had a split personality, is that someone who may appear relatively timid and unassuming; has the ability to change and have immense strength and power. i.e. the killer may have been physically weaker than his ability was once he had begun attacking his victim. He didn't have to be "big and strong" to overcome and strangle his victims, he could have possessed immense strength once his more dominant personality took over and began killing.

That's not so much a split personality as someone who can regulate their behaviour. He appears normal because he has to, it's how he lives every day. It's one personality, that of a psychopath who knows when keep a lid on it.

I believe it's the same with some of the letters and correspondences that the killer wrote; there were written by the same killer, but in different hands based on the personality that was dominant at the time.

I personally don't think any were written by the killer, but plenty others do.


So why did he only kill inside once?... because he was married... and being seen entering a property has more risks than randomly killing a victim on the street.

Sorry, run that past me again, because it sounded like you said being seen going into a property was riskier than murdering a person in the street. I presume you mean being seen entering a property that a victim is later found in? It's no different to being seen on the street is it? If anything it's less risky.

But going back to the strangulation point... he almost certainly used it as an initial attack method. Otherwise, there would have been too much risk of his victim fighting back, too much noise if he failed to sever the vocal chords, too much blood flow from blood pressure, less control of her physically if she fought back etc...

Strangulaiton is also the only way he could control keeping her alive long enough to make her feel pain and suffering through mutilation which wasn't done post-mortem, it was inflicted as the victim was dying.

Evil and sadistic psychopath

Pretty much

Thoughts please gentlemen?

Well, the strangulation ideas are fair enough, but you seem to get a bit carried away with the whole split personality stuff at times. It's better left for scriptwriters. He doesn't need a split personality, he just needs to be a truly terrible human being. There have been many throughout history, and many more will come.

(I'm assuming non gentlemen can share their thoughts too?)

[The Rookie Detective]

Brilliant post!

I agree with pretty much everything you said and you certainly have a very logical viewpoint.


And yes, just to explain about the killing inside; I was referring to the added risks of being seen physically going inside a property in relation to AFTER the body is found. Killing MJK inside was riskier in the sense that anyone could have seen him going in and out of the room and then after she was found, there may be witnesses who then state they saw you going in and out of the property. It would then be much more likely for you to be convicted.
Whereas killing on the street, there are more escape options, potentially less lighting and more scope for plausible deniability.

He took more of a risk with MJK because he risked being seen going inside AND coming out of the room. It would also have been very hard to explain if a woman had just been murdered in the same room.
Whereas when he killed outside, he had multiple escape routes, the cover of darkness and the ability to blend in.


And yes of course, not just gentlemen can comment haha!

My apologies.

[Wickerman]

Good post, well thought out.

...I think it's important to remember that based on the victim's (impossible to tell with MJK), the killer's reason to use strangulation wasn't to kill, it was to control. The killer needed less than 30 seconds to make his victim unconscious. Part of his ritual was bringing them close to death through strangulation, but not entirely.

Once he had subdued them and positioned them on the floor, he then began to stab and cut.
At this point, the victim was still alive, but barely. The idea was that they would still feel everything, but couldn't respond or fight back.

Interesting, I wouldn't have gone quite that far. I think the cuts to the throat (and yes, there were two), was intended to quickly kill the victim.
I wouldn't have thought he intended to keep them on the edge of life so they feel the pain of mutilation. I'm sure his prime thrill was the strangulation, how it gives him power over the victim while he holds their life in his hands.

I believe it's the same with some of the letters and correspondences that the killer wrote; there were written by the same killer, but in different hands based on the personality that was dominant at the time.

I leave the letters aside, I see no strong evidence the killer wrote any of the letters. There are some points of coincidence, I can't deny that, but even if he did write some, that possibility doesn't add any significance to the mystery in my view.

I believe that he killed Alice the following year; because it bore all the hallmarks of Nichols, the double cut to the neck, the positioning of the body from east to west and the fact they were both left alive when he'd left them because of timing restrictions.

Not for me, eight months is too long between murders. I could see Rose Mylett being one of his attempts on 20 Dec., but none of the rest.

But going back to the strangulation point... he almost certainly used it as an initial attack method. Otherwise, there would have been too much risk of his victim fighting back, too much noise if he failed to sever the vocal chords, too much blood flow from blood pressure, less control of her physically if she fought back etc...


Thoughts please gentlemen?

I took the liberty of hi-liting your most significant point on the use of strangulation. Doctors of the time saw and noted evidence of it, but couldn't prove it.

[FrankO]

Evil and sadistic psychopath

Thoughts please gentlemen?

Hi RD,

Based on the evidence I don't think we can claim he was sadistic in the sense that his victims were still alive whilst he was cutting into them. In fact, the medical evidence tells us that the mutilations were done post-mortem.

My view of the killer is that he wanted dead bodies to cut in, not just motionless women who might still cry out at some point. Therefore, I think he first strangled them into unconsciousness whilst laying them down as there legs were going limb, then cut their throats to ensure death and then went ahead with what he actally came for, the mutilations.

I agree with what you wrote under Pros & Cons, especially the control he had over his victims and the blood flow.

So, evil? Yes. Sadistic? Not in the sense that he got off on seeing his victims suffer excrutiating pain. I would add 'very practical'.

The best,
Frank

[Darryl Kenyon]

I don't believe Jack was an out and out sadistic killer as such, otherwise I believe he would have chosen locations were he could have tortured his victims first.
Personally I suspect that he wanted control and dominance over his victims but could only achieve this with their death and he needed to incapacitate them quickly, maybe showing an introverted personality. Without trying to derail the thread this is one of the reasons I believe Martha was probably his very first kill . IE He overkilled her in a knife frenzy [ after attempted strangulation ], to make sure she was dead before attacking her vaginal area [ with one or two stab wounds ] , before learning very quickly that cutting a victims throat [ again after attempted strangulation ] is easier to make sure of death.
Regarding strangulation another reason to suspect this is how he first attacked the poor women is the lack of blood [ most notable I think in Polly's case ] at the crime scenes or at least some of them.
I don't believe he killed mainly outdoors because he was married or because he may have been spotted entering a room, I just think that he went were the unfortunate women led him. Perhaps deciding not to kill outdoors after the double event because of the influx of extra police patrolling the streets .

Regards Darryl

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

Based on the evidence I don't think we can claim he was sadistic in the sense that his victims were still alive whilst he was cutting into them. In fact, the medical evidence tells us that the mutilations were done post-mortem.

Another brilliant post and I agree with you.

The only query that I have; not against you, but against the so-called "medical evidence" at the time...is this...


How can the mutilations have been inflicted post-mortem when Nichols was arguably still alive when Lechmere and Paul found her?

Alice McKenzie, was also found with blood running from her throat, ergo, she still had a pulse and still alive. That would indicate that he was mutilating them as they lay incapacitated.
He also never had the time to kill and then mutilate. For me, it was all done at the same time, in order to save time and inflict more suffering.

Alice McKenzie's only reason to not be labeled a ripper victim, is because it occurred after MJK and it is almost inconvenient.

When you look at the murders, with Alice McKenzie, it shares striking similarities to the Nichols murder and almost feels like he's come full circle and started again.
2 signature cuts to the throat
Body position from East to West
Similar cut patterns, but not as deep.

The evidence may suggest post mortem mutilation, but for me, at least 2 of his victims were still alive when he left them, whether he was interrupted is beside the point.

I just feel that once he had incapacitated his victim, he began to cut and mutilate immediately...and may have even began cutting the abdomen BEFORE the throat.

But i may of course be wrong about him getting a thrill from cutting as they were unconscious and he may well have waited for them to die first and in the Nichols case, he may just have been interrupted, which would make Lechmere more of a suspect than he already is.

[Trevor Marriott]

Certainly, this was already agreed to by both parties in our previous posts. Taken as individual points there is no certainty whether each one was caused by suffocation or strangulation. The question was whether if all points observed on the same body would indicate suffocation or strangulation, as opposed to anything else?
If there could be another cause then lets see you come up with one.

What about throat-cutting that seems a good alternative and certainly fits the evidence!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This seems like Dr Biggs is talking to you, do you think he would have explained this to another doctor, likely not right?

Of course he is talking to me I asked the question

The 'snag' in this reply is that it was a physician who noticed the difference in the colour of blood, not me, not some author, but it was recorded as noticeably different in 1888.

Dr Biggs gave his reply on this

It's clear you are pushing for proof because you have been challenged.

I am not pushing for proof it was you who asked me to ask an expert

Like most theorists you will argue for the possibilities of your theory, but you know you cannot find proof. Yet, as soon as you are challenged you insist on others offering proof. It's a well known tactic, sadly we are dealing with probabilities, and measuring the likely hood in degrees of probability.

I have no theory. In my opinion and having regard to my previous conversations with Dr Biggs on this same topic I was merely trying prove or disprove your absolute belief that she was strangled first which Dr Biggs has done

I didn't expect you to agree with the good doctor you clearly have your own opinion and that is not going to change but you got your answer which you clearly don't want to accept, so there is nothing more to say on the topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

I believe it's the same with some of the letters and correspondences that the killer wrote; there were written by the same killer, but in different hands based on the personality that was dominant at the time.

Interesting post overall Rook. On the letters that most dismiss, we're talking about a time without electronic writing/typing. For someone criminally minded it would have been a great asset to master various styles of handwriting, as a means of forging to win confidence and recommendations, obtaining money and position etc. In a time when handwriting was key for communication, I can imagine that people were more competent and those with the right skills could master various styles for ill intent. I don't see any need to associate different writing styles with different personalities for the same killer. My own view is that the majority of the letters are rubbish, but I think the killer did also write a fair few in different styles, and there are some curious similarities in phrases that link some of them in different handwriting styles IMO. I think the purpose of the letters was to essentially show off and demonstrate that just as he could dominate women, he could dominate the police and witnesses, essentially saying I know where you are and what you are doing and you can’t find me – I am in control of this.

[Abby Normal]

hi rookie
the ripper was not a sadist. tjere is no evidence of torture or trying to prolong the dying. everything the ripper was into was post mortem, and like most post mortem type serial killers, like dahmer, kemper gein etc., tje ripper wanted human female "dolls" to play with. specifically with him... what his knife could do to tje female body.

[Ms Diddles]

hi rookie
the ripper was not a sadist. tjere is no evidence of torture or trying to prolong the dying. everything the ripper was into was post mortem, and like most post mortem type serial killers, like dahmer, kemper gein etc., tje ripper wanted human female "dolls" to play with. specifically with him... what his knife could do to tje female body.

Yeah, that's my take on it too Abby!

I think these were blitz attacks.

Swift and relatively painless, the focus being on the postmortem mutilation.

[mpriestnall]

Yeah, that's my take on it too Abby!

I think these were blitz attacks.

Swift and relatively painless, the focus being on the postmortem mutilation.

And not getting caught!