Ecchymosis, swollen tongues, severed windpipes and blood loss

[Jon Guy]

Trevor Marriott wrote:

"As you know I am in conflict with many posters on here over many of the issues in particular the Eddowes murder in order to add clarity to some of the disputed issues I contacted an independent Forensic pathologist and put to him several important questions his answers were interesting to say the least in relation to some of these hotly disputed issues.

Here are the questions and the answers.

Q . Is Ecchymosis always consistent with strangulation or suffocation?

A. Ecchymosis is just another word for a bruise and, as such, it is quite non-specific. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising to the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

Q Is a swollen tongue and face always consistent with the above.?

A. swollen tongue and / or face is another finding that is non-specific. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

Q. If the killer stuck the knife into a victim’s windpipe severing it would death be instantaneous.

A. Severing a windpipe would not cause ‘instantaneous’ death. The level of the cut would most likely be below the vocal cords, so the victim would be unable to shout or cry out particularly well. They would almost certainly have been able to carry out some form of breathing, at least at first, through the hole in their neck. If they were then to die of their injuries (e.g. from blood loss, choking on inhaled blood, gradual airway blockage, etc.), this would take some time (perhaps a few minutes or even longer). They could, of course, become unconscious for some time prior to dying.

Q. Would there be very much blood loss from this method of killing.

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally."

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8157&page=29

Regarding strangulation, in the case of Nichols we have scratches made by fingernails on the neck, and with Chapman there are the finger bruises which to my mind demonstrate hands around the throat.

In the cases of Stride, Eddowes and McKenzie, all of whom seem to have been laid down without signs of suffocation or strangulation. Certainly, in the
cases of Stride and McKenzie they appear to have been simply pushed down and had their throat cuts quickly, putting them into shock. McKenzie, unlike Stride, did not have her windpipe severed and the doctors noted that she would have been unable to call out due to being in shock.

Regarding the severing of windpipes it is tempting to think that the reason Stride "screamed but not loudly", as noted by Schwartz, was due to the fact that BS Man had severed her windpipe at this point (unbeknown to Schwartz)

The same with Eddowes, where the doctors could see no obvious reason for her being on her back prior to the throat cut. Again, I think she was pushed down and her throat was cut quickly putting her into shock. The abrasions on her left cheek due to her head been held down forcefully as her throat is cut.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott wrote:

"As you know I am in conflict with many posters on here over many of the issues in particular the Eddowes murder in order to add clarity to some of the disputed issues I contacted an independent Forensic pathologist and put to him several important questions his answers were interesting to say the least in relation to some of these hotly disputed issues.

Here are the questions and the answers.

Q . Is Ecchymosis always consistent with strangulation or suffocation?

A. Ecchymosis is just another word for a bruise and, as such, it is quite non-specific. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising to the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

Q Is a swollen tongue and face always consistent with the above.?

A. swollen tongue and / or face is another finding that is non-specific. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

Q. If the killer stuck the knife into a victim’s windpipe severing it would death be instantaneous.

A. Severing a windpipe would not cause ‘instantaneous’ death. The level of the cut would most likely be below the vocal cords, so the victim would be unable to shout or cry out particularly well. They would almost certainly have been able to carry out some form of breathing, at least at first, through the hole in their neck. If they were then to die of their injuries (e.g. from blood loss, choking on inhaled blood, gradual airway blockage, etc.), this would take some time (perhaps a few minutes or even longer). They could, of course, become unconscious for some time prior to dying.

Q. Would there be very much blood loss from this method of killing.

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally."

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8157&page=29

Regarding strangulation, in the case of Nichols we have scratches made by fingernails on the neck, and with Chapman there are the finger bruises which to my mind demonstrate hands around the throat.

In the cases of Stride, Eddowes and McKenzie, all of whom seem to have been laid down without signs of suffocation or strangulation. Certainly, in the
cases of Stride and McKenzie they appear to have been simply pushed down and had their throat cuts quickly, putting them into shock. McKenzie, unlike Stride, did not have her windpipe severed and the doctors noted that she would have been unable to call out due to being in shock.

Regarding the severing of windpipes it is tempting to think that the reason Stride "screamed but not loudly", as noted by Schwartz, was due to the fact that BS Man had severed her windpipe at this point (unbeknown to Schwartz)

The same with Eddowes, where the doctors could see no obvious reason for her being on her back prior to the throat cut. Again, I think she was pushed down and her throat was cut quickly putting her into shock. The abrasions on her left cheek due to her head been held down forcefully as her throat is cut.

All very well saying they were pushed down but you have to consider three important factors with that.

1.If the victims were pushed down they would be in a position to offer up some form of resistance, and would be in a better position to attempt to get up, and to scream out.

If they were pushed down face down first the killer would not have any room to insert the knife in their throats and draw it across.

2. You have to also consider the position the killer would need to be in to cut the throats in the way some of these had their throats cut.

3. The position the victim would need to be in

In my opinion the victims could not have had their throats cut while they were laying on their backs. Chapam and Eddowes were almost decapitated you have to consider the force needed to do that and the angle the killer would have to been in to be able to use that kind of force. If you look at the victims being on their backs the angles are all wrong.

A much more simpler way would be an attack from behind using the element of surprise. It is clear that the killer/s went with the victims on the premise of having some for of sexual activity. How did sexual contact take place with these type of prostitutes. Simply by them facing a fence bending over and hitching their skirts up. This course of action would be ideal for the killer to take the victim by surprise from behind and then put one hand across their nose and mouth to stop them crying out and to then cut the throat with the other hand.

[Jon Guy]

All very well saying they were pushed down but you have to consider three important factors with that.

1.If the victims were pushed down they would be in a position to offer up some form of resistance, and would be in a better position to attempt to get up, and to scream out. .

It was Dr Phillips who thought that McKenzie was held down whilst her throat was cut and the reason she didn`t cry out (she may have struggled) as her windpipe was not touched, was due to shock.
Now, McKenzie had evidence of bruising due to being held down, and almost identical bruising also appear on Stride, which is why I have made the assumption that she was held down whilst her throat was cut.

If they were pushed down face down first the killer would not have any room to insert the knife in their throats and draw it across.

I think the evidence shows that Stride, McKenzie and Eddowes were forced down on to their left side.
Both McKenzie and Stride had more defined bruising over the shoulder and upper chest, on the right side which may indicate that the killer was on their right side pushing them down and then onto their left side.

2. You have to also consider the position the killer would need to be in to cut the throats in the way some of these had their throats cut .

If he was on their right side, or behind to the right, he would be in the ideal position (on their right) to roll them onto the left side.

In my opinion the victims could not have had their throats cut while they were laying on their backs. Chapam and Eddowes were almost decapitated you have to consider the force needed to do that and the angle the killer would have to been in to be able to use that kind of force. If you look at the victims being on their backs the angles are all wrong .

I agree, I think they were all rolled over on their left side to compensate for arterial spray.

A much more simpler way would be an attack from behind using the element of surprise. It is clear that the killer/s went with the victims on the premise of having some for of sexual activity. How did sexual contact take place with these type of prostitutes. Simply by them facing a fence bending over and hitching their skirts up. This course of action would be ideal for the killer to take the victim by surprise from behind and then put one hand across their nose and mouth to stop them crying out and to then cut the throat with the other hand.

Phillips does mention that a hand may have been placed over the hand and mouth of Stride, and this could have occurred with the others too.
Whomever killed them, was certainly a powerful man, and if he was a strong individual maybe he didn`t need to "pretend" he was going through with the sex act and may have just took them by surprise with brute strength.

[No Luck Yet]

Mr. Guy, not to disagree quite, but may I ask how you picture this procedure going on? Because, as I imagine it, it seems slightly awkward.

Agreed that a strong man certainly could have thrown the women down, whether out of the blue, or braced against a fence, or on the way to said fence, or however. But if she was still alive and was shoved to the ground, wouldn't you expect her to scream? A lot? And besides that, to fight tooth and nail to get back up?

Would Jack have been able to cover their mouths while lowering them down? And if he then needed to adjust his grip to pin them in the right position and draw his knife, would he still be able to keep them still and quiet? That's what seems like the awkward part.

I just wondered if perhaps you were picturing something a little different than I was, or if, perhaps, he was just confident enough that he didn't care if they screamed? (I know some did cry out, but again, given any opportunity to struggle, wouldn't you expect a bigger ruckus?)

[Barnaby]

I think we all agree that Jack wasn't a torturer and killing was simply a means to an end. What the end is, of course, is debatable.

Because of this probably correct belief and the presence of throat cuts, I know that I often fall into the "death was rather instantaneous" mindset.

Regardless of the specific m.o., to me these details bring back the very real possibility that mutilations began while the victims were still alive and possibly conscious. Quite frightening.

[Jon Guy]

Hello No Luck Yet,

Agreed that a strong man certainly could have thrown the women down, whether out of the blue, or braced against a fence, or on the way to said fence, or however. But if she was still alive and was shoved to the ground, wouldn't you expect her to scream? A lot? And besides that, to fight tooth and nail to get back up?

Yes, I would expect a fight back and screaming.
But, in the case of McKenzie it was noted by the doctors that there was no physical reason for McKenzie not to cry out, other than her going into shock.

The case of McKenzie may be a clue as to how the killer operated.

Would Jack have been able to cover their mouths while lowering them down? And if he then needed to adjust his grip to pin them in the right position and draw his knife, would he still be able to keep them still and quiet? That's what seems like the awkward part.?)

We can only follow the clues, as given by the doctors, and what I glean from the doctors reports is that the killer was powerful and very quick.

I just wondered if perhaps you were picturing something a little different than I was, or if, perhaps, he was just confident enough that he didn't care if they screamed? (I know some did cry out, but again, given any opportunity to struggle, wouldn't you expect a bigger ruckus?)

To be honest, I wouldn`t be surprised if there was a bigger ruckus
than most of us imagine taking place. For example, was that the Ripper swinging Stride about ? How did Tabram get that bang on her head. Did Mrs Lilley overhear Nichols murder from her bed ? Did Kelly shout out and retreat to the corner of her bed as she tried to defend herself ?

[Jon Guy]

Regardless of the specific m.o., to me these details bring back the very real possibility that mutilations began while the victims were still alive and possibly conscious. Quite frightening.

I don`t know about the mutilations, Barnaby, but maybe the throats were cut whilst still conscious.

[No Luck Yet]

Hello No Luck Yet,

Yes, I would expect a fight back and screaming.
But, in the case of McKenzie it was noted by the doctors that there was no physical reason for McKenzie not to cry out, other than her going into shock.

The case of McKenzie may be a clue as to how the killer operated.


We can only follow the clues, as given by the doctors, and what I glean from the doctors reports is that the killer was powerful and very quick.

To be honest, I wouldn`t be surprised if there was a bigger ruckus
than most of us imagine taking place. For example, was that the Ripper swinging Stride about ? How did Tabram get that bang on her head. Did Mrs Lilley overhear Nichols murder from her bed ? Did Kelly shout out and retreat to the corner of her bed as she tried to defend herself ?

Thank you for clarifying, sir. It seems then I was picturing more or less what you were saying, going by his "swinging Stride about" - he'd pretty much just throw them down and then pin them and cut the throat? And hope to avoid the noise and struggle pretty much just by that strength and speed?

The other possibility that occurred to me would have been his wrestling them down. It seemed that would give him more control, but then he'd wind up on the ground too and would probably get pretty dirty...

May I ask one more question, though? Do you see skill in this maneuver, or just strength? And if there's skill, does that suggest to you any particular trade, or anything of that nature? That the killer would have been familiar with fighting or restraints? Or just that he was strong?

[Observer]

May I ask one more question, though? Do you see skill in this maneuver, or just strength? And if there's skill, does that suggest to you any particular trade, or anything of that nature? That the killer would have been familiar with fighting or restraints? Or just that he was strong?

A very good question NLY. Something I've always marvelled at is the speed and efficiency the murderer displayed from Nichols on. He certainly seems to have hit the ground running. It makes you wonder if he had any experience in street crime of a violent nature.

He was certainly a very strong individual.

Then again, no one witnessed any of the assaults, they might not have been as efficient as the evidence suggests.

[Observer]

Agree with all of the above Jon regarding the opening stages of the assault upon the victims.

[Wickerman]

We can only follow the clues, as given by the doctors, and what I glean from the doctors reports is that the killer was powerful and very quick.

One example: According to reports Dr Gordon Brown conducted a test using an associate who's job it was to remove the uterus.
We read that the subject in question managed to complete those mutilations in three minutes, but in the process he did injure the bladder.
The killer did not injure the bladder.

[Jon Guy]

One example: According to reports Dr Gordon Brown conducted a test using an associate who's job it was to remove the uterus.
We read that the subject in question managed to complete those mutilations in three minutes, but in the process he did injure the bladder.
The killer did not injure the bladder.

Thanks for that, Jon. I saw that newspaper article, over on JTRForums, I believe. Gems like this article confirm that there was a lot unreported stuff going on with the medicos. Especially with Dr Brown, who seems to have immersed himself in the case following Eddowes murder.

[Jon Guy]

Hi No Luck Yet

Thank you for clarifying, sir. It seems then I was picturing more or less what you were saying, going by his "swinging Stride about" - he'd pretty much just throw them down and then pin them and cut the throat? And hope to avoid the noise and struggle pretty much just by that strength and speed??

Yes, that`s how I see it going down. Maybe with the left hand over the mouth and nose whilst he made the throat cut.

The other possibility that occurred to me would have been his wrestling them down. It seemed that would give him more control, but then he'd wind up on the ground too and would probably get pretty dirty...?

If he wrestled them down he could have used his own weight to pin them down, which would leave his hands free.

May I ask one more question, though? Do you see skill in this maneuver, or just strength? And if there's skill, does that suggest to you any particular trade, or anything of that nature? That the killer would have been familiar with fighting or restraints? Or just that he was strong?

Just strength. The victims were generally all quite slight, ill or drunk, and vulnerable to any male with above average strength and the inclination.

If I associated any trade with the killer it would be an animal slaughterer of some kind. Only because he knew how to handle a knife, and rolled the victims onto their left side to avoid arterial spray. Of course, the basic knowledge of internal organs seems to be present too.

What do you think ?
Do you see evidence of skill or a trade?

[Observer]

Hi No Luck Yet
Yes, that`s how I see it going down. Maybe with the left hand over the mouth and nose whilst he made the throat cut.

I'd agree, the bruises on Nichols face suggest this. I do not believe she was strangled.

Just strength. The victims were generally all quite slight, ill or drunk, and vulnerable to any male with above average strength and the inclination.

Mary Kelly would have a handful. Strength, and above all speed would have rendered her useless though.

[GUT]

Mary Kelly would have a handful. Strength, and above all speed would have rendered her useless though.

plus the fact that she may have been as drunk as a skunk.