Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[GregBaron]

The Song Remains the Same...

Good stuff Errata, thanks for the details. I must say I agree with your analysis although like Abby Normal, I think the Polly and Annie were partially strangled and laid to the ground. The others, who knows........?

I hate to join Lynn's chorus but I must admit the melody becomes sweeter by the day...

With that said, I must also say, the MO may vary but the Signature remains the same......



Greg

[lynn cates]

cheers for the chorus

Hello Errata.

"The real irony is there is no form of asphyxia or ischemia that really fits all of the attacks. Polly Nichols displayed clear signs of asphyxia (the protruding tongue), which is attributed to throttling. But it is also a sign of dry drowning, and if she was not dead when her throat was cut then dry drowning is a real possibility. Also the protruding tongue so typical of a strangulation death is caused by a broken hyoid bone. And the hyoid bone does certainly break during strangulation, but it can also break during a throat cutting. Annie Chapman also showed signs of asphyxia, but same problems with Polly Nichols also apply here. Liz stride had no evidence of asphyxia, Nor did Catherine Eddowes. Mary Kelly, poor soul, there's no way to tell."

You are singing my song. It was like satori when it first struck me.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Thanks Errata
very informative. I would imagine then that JtR strangled (causing ischemia) his victims to unconscioussness first and then cut there throat after lying them on the ground.

From a purely practical level, I think a lateral vascular choke hold is probably more likely than a two handed manual strangulation. The problem with either is that you have a window in which the victim can fight like hell. With the choke hold it is a much shorter one, but still about ten seconds.

And while a choke hold is a better restraint in that you control the victims ability to break the hold, because you are behind them you cannot control the arms and legs which are probably kicking and thrashing. And Annie Chapman at least was killed in a very confined space. The should have been a very short space of one hell of a racket. Throttling takes longer, and the victim can fight longer, but it has the advantage of being in front of the victim. Any blows, kicks, etc. from the victim will be taken by the attacker. So as long as the attacker can hold onto the throat during this period, it will be a quieter method since blows to the human body are much quieter than say, blows to a wooden fence.

The real irony is there is no form of asphyxia or ischemia that really fits all of the attacks. Polly Nichols displayed clear signs of asphyxia (the protruding tongue), which is attributed to throttling. But it is also a sign of dry drowning, and if she was not dead when her throat was cut then dry drowning is a real possibility. Also the protruding tongue so typical of a strangulation death is caused by a broken hyoid bone. And the hyoid bone does certainly break during strangulation, but it can also break during a throat cutting. Annie Chapman also showed signs of asphyxia, but same problems with Polly Nichols also apply here. Liz stride had no evidence of asphyxia, Nor did Catherine Eddowes. Mary Kelly, poor soul, there's no way to tell.

Does this mean they weren't strangled? No. But with two victims showing signs of asphyxia, and two victims showing signs of being fully alert at the time of their death, I don't think we can say it's definitely his MO. And yet all of them seem to have been subdued to a certain degree. The most efficient way to subdue these women would have been a blow to the head. But there is no evidence of skull fractures, concussion, etc. On the other hand, the only autopsy in which the head even appears to have been examined was Catherine Eddowes, and that was simply looking for bruising beneath the hair. As her hair was still partially up when she was photographed, it does not appear to have been a particularly thorough search. So who knows.

I think if strangulation or choke-holds were part of his "thing" then all of the victims would have had obvious signs. I think at best it was simply a tool he used when he felt it necessary, and not an act he was particularly attached to.

[Abby Normal]

This is kinda tricky. If a person is completely prevented from getting any air into the lungs whatsoever, and nothing else untoward occurs (like, a stroke, brain hemorrhage, heart attack, etc. Then it can actually take up to eight minutes to die, depending on the temperature, state of health, etc. But after four minutes, significant brain damage occurs, and a person is unconscious from 30 seconds to 2 minutes after the restriction of air flow. And thats assuming that oxygen deprivation is the only thing going on.

Since there is some debate as to the technical terms for everything, the AMA defines it as this for the purposes of autopsy. All deaths in this manner, no matter the method are known as asphyxia. The types of asphyxiation are suffocation (literally not enough air in the atmosphere, like in a gas chamber), smothering (the obstruction of nose and mouth), choking (like on a ham sandwich), strangulation (manual or ligature, an external tightening around the neck), hanging, drowning, dry drowning, positional asphyxia (a posture that does not allow the lungs to expand) and crush asphyxia (if something heavy falls on your chest or neck). When blood cannot reach the brain, however that may be accomplished is ischemia. Hanging and strangulation can also result in ischemia, but a person dies from one thing or the other. The act of causing manual strangulation is called throttling, the act of causing ligature strangulation is referred to as garotting (regardless of whether an actual garotte is used or not). The act of causing an ischemic death through manual strangulation is a choke hold. The lateral vascular choke-hold is what was used by muggers of the time period. And I could tell you how the choke-hold created the word "mugger" or "mugging", but a: I doubt anyone really cares and b: I'm still transferring files from the old computer to the new.

And knowing is half the battle. (Yo Joe!)

Thanks Errata
very informative. I would imagine then that JtR strangled (causing ischemia) his victims to unconscioussness first and then cut there throat after lying them on the ground.

[Monty]

Ah – I over egged that – I should have said ’...in my opinion probably...’
I would also suggest they probably didn't shout out 'Murder'!

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ah – I over egged that – I should have said ’...in my opinion probably...’
I would also suggest they probably didn't shout out 'Murder'!

[Monty]

Fair enough Lechmere,

However the use of the line "The Paul-Cross conversation was almost certainly whispered..." misleads.

Its either certain or its suggestion. One or tother.

To suggest they whispered because residents who lived in the immediate area didnt hear a word isnt reasonable. due to many variables.

However, that is my suggestion.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Monty
I am very much alive to the many attempts to create new ‘facts’ in this case which is why I certainly didn’t ‘state’ that the Cross-Paul discourse was conducted in a whisper, but discussed the possibility that it was – based in part on Harriet Lilly’s testimony which is how this thread opened.

However I would also suggest that as none of the other residents who lived right on top of the murder site and were supposedly restless that night heard a thing, it seems likely that the Cross-Paul discourse was conducted in a whisper.
If it was then certain inferences can be drawn, which seem to me to be likely but which cannot of course be proved – namely:
“I would also suggest that Cross initiated it with a whisper, and as a result the conversation continued in a whisper.”
The use of the word ‘suggest’ shows that I accept this is not a cast iron fact.

[Monty]

Do you mean where – as in Bucks Row.
Or where as in where is the source for the whisper.
I don’t recall seeing a source for a whisper – it is just a hypothesis based on none of the residents hearing a conversation beyond some muffled voices.

Well obviously I meant Bucks Row, where else location wise?

So this 'almost certainly' is purely suggestion, hardly certain in any sense. This suggestion, in turn, draws further suggestion which in turn draws myth which....

Monty

[Errata]

"It takes at least 5 minutes" (to kill someone by strangulation). Is there any evidence to support this assertion?

Cheers, Bridewell.

This is kinda tricky. If a person is completely prevented from getting any air into the lungs whatsoever, and nothing else untoward occurs (like, a stroke, brain hemorrhage, heart attack, etc. Then it can actually take up to eight minutes to die, depending on the temperature, state of health, etc. But after four minutes, significant brain damage occurs, and a person is unconscious from 30 seconds to 2 minutes after the restriction of air flow. And thats assuming that oxygen deprivation is the only thing going on.

Since there is some debate as to the technical terms for everything, the AMA defines it as this for the purposes of autopsy. All deaths in this manner, no matter the method are known as asphyxia. The types of asphyxiation are suffocation (literally not enough air in the atmosphere, like in a gas chamber), smothering (the obstruction of nose and mouth), choking (like on a ham sandwich), strangulation (manual or ligature, an external tightening around the neck), hanging, drowning, dry drowning, positional asphyxia (a posture that does not allow the lungs to expand) and crush asphyxia (if something heavy falls on your chest or neck). When blood cannot reach the brain, however that may be accomplished is ischemia. Hanging and strangulation can also result in ischemia, but a person dies from one thing or the other. The act of causing manual strangulation is called throttling, the act of causing ligature strangulation is referred to as garotting (regardless of whether an actual garotte is used or not). The act of causing an ischemic death through manual strangulation is a choke hold. The lateral vascular choke-hold is what was used by muggers of the time period. And I could tell you how the choke-hold created the word "mugger" or "mugging", but a: I doubt anyone really cares and b: I'm still transferring files from the old computer to the new.

And knowing is half the battle. (Yo Joe!)

[Lechmere]

Do you mean where – as in Bucks Row.
Or where as in where is the source for the whisper.
I don’t recall seeing a source for a whisper – it is just a hypothesis based on none of the residents hearing a conversation beyond some muffled voices.

[Monty]

Is it stated Cross and Paul conducted their conversation in a whisper?

Stated by whom?

Either Paul or Cross.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Is it stated Cross and Paul conducted their conversation in a whisper?

Stated by whom?

[Monty]

Is it stated Cross and Paul conducted their conversation in a whisper?

If so where?

Cheers
Monty

[Lechmere]

The human body often takes quite a while to become clinically dead – but this is slightly besides the point in a discussion about how a killer subdued and incapacitated his victim, and as a by product of this slowed or stopped the victim’s heart beat so that there was no appreciable arterial spray.

The Paul-Cross conversation was almost certainly whispered and yes they were ‘both’ not sure whether she was alive or dead. Paul suggested they prop her up to make her more presentable and even tried to pull her dress down further.
Cross seems to have opposed the idea of Polly being propped up which is fortunate as her neck wound would certainly have become apparent.
Cross initiated their conversation. I would also suggest that Cross initiated it with a whisper, and as a result the conversation continued in a whisper.