Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[lynn cates]

subset

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

Not necessarily. One is merely a subset of the other.

Cheers.
LC

[El White Chap]

If you want to believe in strangulation then that is how you interpret what you see and read.

Huff and puff all you like It still doesn't account for the fact that there is no conclusive medical evidence from any of the doctors, that any of the victims were subjected to strangulation. The nearest any doctor gets to that is in the case Of Chapman where he suggest perhaps suffocation which is different from strangulation in case you didn't know that

It's not about one "believing", I used the words "signs of" and then referred to the notes we do have. As you put it, "there is no conclusive medical evidence". That goes for pretty much most things WCM related.

No signs of strangulation? The 'thumb' sized bruises around the chin and collar bone should be a good enough indicator, actually you don't need a PhD to be able to interpret or understand those.

If it's 'conclusive medical evidence' you're looking for and 125 years later, then I suggest you're the one fighting a losing if not lost battle.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. It seems obvious that the doctor is using suffocation as "lack of air." Precisely what would happen in strangulation.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
But there is a difference is there not between the two with regards to the execution?

[lynn cates]

suffocation

Hello Trevor. It seems obvious that the doctor is using suffocation as "lack of air." Precisely what would happen in strangulation.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Signs of strangulation:


Polly -

Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn
Inquest testimony as reported in The Times:

"...there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers..."



Annie -

Dr. George Bagster Phillips
The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen.

"He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest.


Liz -

Dr. George Bagster Phillips

"and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

If you want to believe in strangulation then that is how you interpret what you see and read.

Huff and puff all you like It still doesn't account for the fact that there is no conclusive medical evidence from any of the doctors, that any of the victims were subjected to strangulation. The nearest any doctor gets to that is in the case Of Chapman where he suggest perhaps suffocation which is different from strangulation in case you didn't know that

[El White Chap]

Signs of strangulation:


Polly -

Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn
Inquest testimony as reported in The Times:

"...there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers..."



Annie -

Dr. George Bagster Phillips
The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen.

"He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest.


Liz -

Dr. George Bagster Phillips

"and under the collarbone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discoloration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since."

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Bond referred specifically to the ecchymosis detected in Mary Kelly's neck tissues, Trev.

I wasn't referring to Mary Kelly she may have been killed by someone other than the killer of Nicholls,Chapman and Eddowes in any event

Ecchymosis is not always attributable to strangling, and as I said before none of the doctors (not even Dr Philips, he mentions suffocation) ever suggested that any of the victims had been strangled.

[Garry Wroe]

Evidence of violent compression or constriction of the neck during life is obtained from the presence of bruising or ecchymoses marks on the neck.

Dr Bond referred specifically to the ecchymosis detected in Mary Kelly's neck tissues, Trev.

[Garry Wroe]

But none of the medical men ever suggested that the victims were throttled first.

Then, Trev, you might care to re-read Phillips' conclusions with regard to Annie Chapman's swollen and protruding tonge and facial swelling.

This is another case of researchers jumping to the wrong conclusions

Or theorists being unaware of the evidence that contradicts their theories.

[El White Chap]

This poll went well for you eh

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, so now it is not the product of specialised training (eg: Are soldiers not taught how to kill swiftly and silently?), but now anyone can do it?

Make up your mind Trevor.




Where did the "nobody" come from?
In one breath you are trying to make a special case for slitting the throat:
"...This killer knew how to use a knife to kill, consistent with how a soldier would kill in the battlefield quick and silent."

Then in the next breath you claim anyone could do it.



Some 'new' theories are not worth the breath expended on them by their supporters.

Isn't it time for a little reflection Trevor?, when so many varied posters, many with no theory of their own, some with a variety of competing theories, are all telling you basically the same thing.
Isn't it time you reevaluated your theory?

Rest on your laurel's Trevor.
You have managed to achieve something rare on Casebook, the ability to gather a diverse assembly of members, and get them all to agree on something.

Well I know you and the other anoraks on here all have the same theories. But all now dispelled.

Time to change and in doing so have a ritual burning of the anorak.

[Wickerman]

Cutting a persons throat with a knife was the main accepted method of killing a person at that time whether they be a soldier or someone off the street.

Oh, so now it is not the product of specialised training (eg: Are soldiers not taught how to kill swiftly and silently?), but now anyone can do it?

Make up your mind Trevor.

If nobody knew how to kill a person by cutting their throat how come we have victims with their throats cut ?

Where did the "nobody" come from?
In one breath you are trying to make a special case for slitting the throat:
"...This killer knew how to use a knife to kill, consistent with how a soldier would kill in the battlefield quick and silent."

Then in the next breath you claim anyone could do it.

You are so desperate to keep the old theory alive aren't you, time to let go

Some 'new' theories are not worth the breath expended on them by their supporters.

Isn't it time for a little reflection Trevor?, when so many varied posters, many with no theory of their own, some with a variety of competing theories, are all telling you basically the same thing.
Isn't it time you reevaluated your theory?

Rest on your laurel's Trevor.
You have managed to achieve something rare on Casebook, the ability to gather a diverse assembly of members, and get them all to agree on something.

[Trevor Marriott]

For clarity, Trev, I’m not indulging in idle speculation when I say that the Ripper throttled his victims before cutting their throats, I’m citing the evidence that emerged through the postmortem and crime scene examinations. Swollen and protruding tongues, floridity in hand and neck tissues, clenched fists and so forth. Arterial jetting also proved beyond doubt that Chapman and Kelly were lying down as their throats were cut. Dr Brown said as much regarding Eddowes. The Ripper’s mode of attack might not make much sense to you, but it served him well. Eminently so given the fact that he escaped conviction.

Evidence of violent compression or constriction of the neck during life is obtained from the presence of bruising or ecchymoses marks on the neck. Hemorrhages in the strap muscles under the skin in the sides of the tissues around the trachea, in the larynx and in the laryngeal structures themselves.

Even throttling to the point of unconsciousness would leave some marks

The doctors found none.

[Trevor Marriott]

For clarity, Trev, I’m not indulging in idle speculation when I say that the Ripper throttled his victims before cutting their throats, I’m citing the evidence that emerged through the postmortem and crime scene examinations. Swollen and protruding tongues, floridity in hand and neck tissues, clenched fists and so forth. Arterial jetting also proved beyond doubt that Chapman and Kelly were lying down as their throats were cut. Dr Brown said as much regarding Eddowes. The Ripper’s mode of attack might not make much sense to you, but it served him well. Eminently so given the fact that he escaped conviction.

But none of the medical men ever suggested that the victims were throttled first. There were no marks on the throats. Now they were there on the spot

This is another case of researchers jumping to the wrong conclusions

[Trevor Marriott]

That technique was not developed in the late 19th century.

Cutting a persons throat with a knife was the main accepted method of killing a person at that time whether they be a soldier or someone off the street.

If nobody knew how to kill a person by cutting their throat how come we have victims with their throats cut ?

You are so desperate to keep the old theory alive aren't you, time to let go