Did Jack leave the Scene by carriage?

[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!)

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[Wickerman]

.... On the other hand, the only autopsy in which the head even appears to have been examined was Catherine Eddowes,

Actually Erratta, the opening of the head was part of the autopsy proceedure. We do have a passing reference to Annie Chapman's head being opened, it is included in the press reports of the death of Rose Mylett.


"The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation."
Star, 24 Dec. 1888.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Satb

Hello Greg.

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

Thank you very much for that. I appreciate the tenor of your remark. Does that make me a bass fellow? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Actually Erratta, the opening of the head was part of the autopsy proceedure. We do have a passing reference to Annie Chapman's head being opened, it is included in the press reports of the death of Rose Mylett.

Regards, Jon S.

I know that it is part of the autopsy procedure, and it may in fact be a lost records issue, but a passing reference to a major part of the procedure seems strange. And I actually had known that but promptly forgotten it evidently.

And if the passing mention had been in reference to any victim other than Chapman, I would find it to be fairly convincing evidence. But Annie Chapman was suffocating to death before she ever met the Ripper. Some of these signs of throttling just don't count, probably the brain evidence. The black blood is deoxygenated blood in the brain. In an ischemia situation, the black blood would be in both the arteries and veins. In a throttling situation, the blood still moves between head and body, and when the body starts preserving oxygenated blood for survival, the brain is not one of the organs it floods to. So there should have been almost no blood in her brain. all of her blood vessels should have immediately restricted keeping the blood in the torso. And the black blood may have been due to her advanced lung disease. As might her other symptoms. Her tongue didn't actually protrude, but seemed swollen. So it doesn't appear her hyoid was broken.

The real question is, why were the tissues loaded with black blood, when there shouldn't be any blood there at all. It may be poorly worded, but it may mean that she had a brain bleed. Or a concussion. And both can result from throttling (the concussion happens when you just drop someone you have throttled into unconsciousness), but they occur more often not as a result of throttling. I wonder if her having a stroke would result in the extra stiffening on the left side? But they would have recognized a stroke in the brain, so you'd think they would have said.

And here's why I think they didn't open the skull on every case. Firstly, crappy facilities. If there is no light and no trained assistants, you can't saw into the brain. Well, you can, but then you have to take it with you somewhere where you can actually see it, preferably by daylight. Not all of the facilities were awful, but some clearly were. Secondly, and this is the weird part, of all of the post mortem photographs, the only one who looks like her skull may have been opened is Polly Nichols, which has what could be a line above the eyebrows. Unless they collected evidence, washed the body, autopsied it, washed it again, dressed it, took a picture of it, and only then cut open the skull. The procedure of the day was a straight cut right below the hairline. It was with a hand saw, often resulting in chipping or breaking of the skull, and as often as not the top part of the skull did not go back on the head. The scalp was simply stitched over the uncovered brain. Even when it was put back in, it wasn't attached. Just the scalp over the skull stitched back around. None of the women have these stitches, nor do they have the characteristic odd head shape that goes with having a loose top of the skull. Annie Chapman on first glance does have a suspiciously short forehead, which could mean the skull had been opened, until you look at a picture of her alive, and she really did have a short sloping forehead.

The only victim I can say for certain did not have her skull opened was Catherine Eddowes. Her washed and stitched body is displayed in a photograph, and her hair is still mostly up in pins, and long. They would have cut it all off to open the head, or at least unpinned her hair, lest they attempt to remove the top and it's still attached to the hair on the wrong side of the cut. And yes, there is reference to Annie Chapman's brain, but there is no evidence of it actually having been examined, unless they did after the photo was taken. Which doesn't make a lot of sense. Also I think she was autopsied in essentially a woodshed, with no experienced attendants, which is certainly not an ideal circumstance for delicate detailed examination of anything.

But I will admit, that if Catherine Eddowes had the same signs of asphyxia as Annie Chapman, then I would assume it to be from the attack. But Annie Chapman was already so compromised in her lungs, that I can't assume that. Also, the bruises on her face are from the stereotypical thumb and forefinger jaw grip to cut the throat, why wasn't her throat one giant bruise from strangulation, which would had to have occurred before the throat cut? And she would bruise badly, her poor health assured it.

As an aside, the most vigorous of arterial spray which comes from a pinhole wound never jets out farther than at most 16 inches. If the artery is laid open, it doesn't matter what your blood pressure is, it will never jet out more than an inch or so. The blood on the fence near Chapman's head is most likely a transfer or a cast off.

[Wickerman]

I know that it is part of the autopsy procedure, and it may in fact be a lost records issue, but a passing reference to a major part of the procedure seems strange.

I think we need to accept that much of the detailed work of the autopsy was not brought up at the inquest, it was not necessary.
In most cases it is merely the surgeon's conslusion which the Coroner requires, not every detail by which he arrived at that conclusion.

In a throttling situation, the blood still moves between head and body,

Ok, yes, in using the word "throttle" I assume you are only referring to a restriction of the airways, windpipe/trachea, etc.

So I was unclear what you meant by saying..

and when the body starts preserving oxygenated blood for survival, the brain is not one of the organs it floods to. So there should have been almost no blood in her brain.

I must be misunderstanding something here because the human cardiovascular system is always full of blood. At no point can your arteries, veins or capilliaries be empty of blood, they would collapse due to a vacuum, and if a vacuum existed it would pull the blood back to fill the void. Therefore the very idea that 'emptyness' could exist is impossible medically speaking.

all of her blood vessels should have immediately restricted keeping the blood in the torso. And the black blood may have been due to her advanced lung disease. As might her other symptoms.

Black blood is blood pumped through the heart which has not been oxygenated due to the inability of the subject to breathe. The heart still beats even though the lungs cannot fill with air, hence the subsequent blood is darker than normal.
(I know you know this, but I get the impression you are trying to look elsewhere for a reason)

And here's why I think they didn't open the skull on every case. Firstly, crappy facilities. If there is no light and no trained assistants, you can't saw into the brain.

Oil lamps, candles, whatever the situation requires, the task at hand will be accomplished. The doctors are professionals, hence their complaints about the conditions in which they are required to conduct their profession.

And yes, there is reference to Annie Chapman's brain, but there is no evidence of it actually having been examined,

We don't need to see the "evidence", that the skull was replaced and sufficiently "made-up" to present a suitable presence for the camera speaks to the doctor's abilities.

why wasn't her throat one giant bruise from strangulation, which would had to have occurred before the throat cut? And she would bruise badly, her poor health assured it.

Hence the possibility that a cord was used as opposed to manual strangulation, which then explains why the spherical cut all around her neck (to hide the mark of the cord?).

As an aside, the most vigorous of arterial spray which comes from a pinhole wound never jets out farther than at most 16 inches.

Which makes your next suggestion redundant, a sliced artery "begins" with a pinhole cut so the blood will always spray from an artery provided blood pressure still exists in her system.

The blood on the fence near Chapman's head is most likely a transfer or a cast off.

No controversy here, that is how it is described..

"...and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood.."

What I have always wondered is, why the arterial spray(?) was on the wall of the house "behind" her head, not aligned with her neck and, on the fence.
Therefore I suspect those "splashes" of blood came from the killer "tossing'? her inerds over her shoulders..

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."

Therefore..

"On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point,.."

Not arterial spray..

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

I think we need to accept that much of the detailed work of the autopsy was not brought up at the inquest, it was not necessary.
In most cases it is merely the surgeon's conslusion which the Coroner requires, not every detail by which he arrived at that conclusion.


Regards, Jon S.

Yikes! the dreaded multiquote. Let's see if I can handle this. No. I can't. Lets see if I can do this in some sort of logical manner.

A: I agree. Most of the autopsy report would come up in the inquest. But it would be in the report. Which Is why I wonder if it's a lost records thing.

B: Yes, throttle meaning manual asphyxiation.

C: Yeah I explained that poorly. When the body needs either oxygen or warmth, it restricts all blood vessels to the extremities to conserve the center mass. It's not that the blood gets sucked out, but that less flows in and out because of the constriction. Akin to a lane of traffic being closed. You travel the same distance with the same amount of traffic as normal, it just takes much longer to get home. It allows the core to absorb a majority of the oxygen/heat/whatever rather than giving hands feet and head and equal chance at it. And it happens very quickly, as evidenced by how quick your hands can turn blue in the winter.

D. Yes I know this. The question is was the blood not oxygenated because she was throttled, or was it because she had advanced lung disease? This is why I say if these same things were said about Catherine Eddowes, I would assume strangulation of some kind. But Annie Chapman is the one victim who has a legitimate other reason for this condition to be the case.

E: The thing about autopsies is that they still weren't that common. And they were still considered an outrage on the body of the dead person. Which is why it was such a fight to get a family to allow one, especially in wealthy families. And not every doctor would do one. It's not that the science wasn't sufficient for the prevalence of autopsies, the public attitude was not sufficient. On the side of full autopsies being performed, these women were nobodies, so no one who matters is going to object if the doctors wants a little practice and cracks them open. On the side against it, these women were nobodies, who probably got what they deserved and why waste the effort? There was a substitute for a full autopsy, in fact it was the original kind. And until about 20 years ago it was how any autopsy conducted on a Jew was carried out. It is a meticulous cataloging of wounds and marks, solely for the consumption of police. And for the first couple of victims, this may have seemed sufficient. And in fact, more may not have been called for, given the extent of the wounds. Certainly Mary Kelly did not require a full autopsy. It has little to do with the meticulousness of doctors. It has more to do with what was asked of them, and whether or not someone felt the need to examine beyond the obvious causes of death. And it's possible that at first, no one felt that need.

F: It might. But why make up Chapman to conceal the stitches, and not do the same for Eddowes? Or Stride's throat wound? Or take the time to close Nichols' eyes? Certainly no readily available Victorian makeup could even cover stitches like that. A good deal of greasepaint is possible, but that is a purely theatrical find. And beeswax is also possible, assuming a doctor knew how to turn that into concealer. But it seems odd to have a male doctor to apply makeup to a corpse going into to a closed casket, really more odd that a doctor would apply makeup at all. But no females were at his disposal. The nurses who stripped her and started to wash her were gone, and a workhouse inmate with fits seems an odd choice as well. It's not impossible, but the whole thing seems strange.

G: I don't think it was a ligature. Her throat was not cut completely around, and a ligature would even leave a mark over the knobs of the spinal column. If it had been a garotte the spine would have been damaged. And in the end there was no point in hiding a ligature mark. He couldn't possible have been traced by one, especially if he used the victim's kerchief.

H: Technically, just as every bullet wound begins with a burn. But if something happens with enough speed and force, it doesn't really matter how it begins. It reaches it's conclusion fairly swiftly. A swift slice across an artery with a sharp blade (And I've done this way too many times) often starts bleeding before the flesh even parts. So that it is the force of the blood pouring out that actually opens the slice in the flesh. It's kinda mesmerizing, in that "I'm gonna freak out in about two seconds" kinda way.

I'm not really attached to a strangling/no strangling theory either way. I certainly think it would have been way easier to hit them over the head, which makes me wonder if he wasn't doing it for ease, what was he doing it for and why change it up all the time. And while I only enjoy being contrary to a small extent, I really think that questioning every little thing, no matter how stupid leads to answers. I accept there is a good reason to think Annie Chapman was strangled. I just think there is also a good reason why she may not have been, but appears to have been. And I really don't think all of their brains were examined, simply because it may have seemed a waste of effort when the cause of death was so clear. And in the case of poor Mary Kelly, it may have just seemed so monstrous to open up the one part of her that remained intact. I wouldn't have done it.