Miller's Court - The Fire

[Shaggyrand]

My main issues with that are 1/ in the case of a punch or blow hard enough to knock them cold, there'd be evidence of blunt force, surely? And 2/ strangling is a slow and arduous way of killing somebody, leaving time for the victim to struggle about. This is why I'm kind of convinced he took them down swiftly, from behind, and cut their throats either immediately before, during or after this act. Simply throwing a person suddenly off balance like that might have prevented them from struggling, for the split second it took to cut their wind-pipe through. He could, that way, have rendered them helpless or dead in a matter of a scant few seconds, which could explain the lack of struggle and blood on their hands - the simply hadn't the time to react, and being weary and/or drunk likely did not help matters.

I agree with your issues. This might get a laugh but what about a blood choke, or if we must call it this- a sleeper hold? Apply pressure on the carotid artery and you go out in just a few seconds from behind, stay out for plenty of time for the throat cutting, would explain the most victims not reaching for their throats, it requires little physical strength and doesn't leave marks. Not saying that this is how it was done but it fits a lot better than some other ideas I've read.

[Rosella]

I like the surprise immediate attack from behind and the pressing of the carotid artery ideas very much. However, the women's clothing of the era is a bit of a problem. Would a (high) stiff collar plus, in some places a silk neckerchief as well, pose an obstacle to hard pressure by fingers?

[Ausgirl]

I agree with your issues. This might get a laugh but what about a blood choke, or if we must call it this- a sleeper hold? Apply pressure on the carotid artery and you go out in just a few seconds from behind, stay out for plenty of time for the throat cutting, would explain the most victims not reaching for their throats, it requires little physical strength and doesn't leave marks. Not saying that this is how it was done but it fits a lot better than some other ideas I've read.

But why would he need plenty of time for the throat cutting? It was the mutilation he spent time on, and this was obviously his goal.. I tend toward thinking the dispatch of the victims was all about brevity, making them dead as quickly as possible so he could get on with it. Having their throats cut down to the bone would pretty much preclude any chance of a struggle, I think.

I'm having a total brain fart over who may have had signs of strangulation during autopsy, and who did not. But that's worth looking into for clues about this aspect of the crime.. keeping in mind that strangulation is slow, but something along the lines of what you're describing is not (and neither is throat-cutting).

[Joshua Rogan]

I like the surprise immediate attack from behind and the pressing of the carotid artery ideas very much. However, the women's clothing of the era is a bit of a problem. Would a (high) stiff collar plus, in some places a silk neckerchief as well, pose an obstacle to hard pressure by fingers?

I think it's a plausible idea too. And it wouldn't necessarily require direct finger pressure on the carotid. I recall a thread where someone posted accounts of gangs who 'garrotted' victims with an arm squeezed around the neck from behind.

I'm not sure that a stiff collar would always be protection either, it might even help restrict blood supply under some circumstances - didn't Dr Bond suggest that Rose Mylett was 'strangled' simply by pressure from her own collar?

[Damaso Marte]

I'm having a total brain fart over who may have had signs of strangulation during autopsy, and who did not.

Nichols and Chapman. Nobody else.

[Ausgirl]

Nichols and Chapman. Nobody else.

Thank you so much. My head's like a sieve this week, too much going on!

[Robert St Devil]

Nichols and Chapman. Nobody else.

Best swag at possible strangulation for the 1st 3:
Polly... a hand over her face
Annie... her described appearance in the pm
Eliz... ecchymosis on her neck, dark clots in heart, kerchief described as possible being used, Schwartz statement that he saw a woman screaming silently may suggest that Jack the Ripper struck her in the throat or damaged her larynx as an initial assault

I don,t remember if Mary Jane had ecchymosis on her neck; if she did cry ,,murder,, then strangulation probably didn,t happen.

As to thr other discussion: I,d have to say that Annie Chapman may have struggled while dying too based on inquest testimony.

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Bond, from Kelly's autopsy again;

"The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis."

I'm not medically proficient enough to know if this translates into signs of strangulation (there don't seem to be any others), but due to the reports of "oh murder" and presence of possible defensive wounds, it seems she may have been conscious when attacked with a knife.

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

[Errata]

The problem with strangulation or a "choke hold" is that the victim still has at the very least 10-15 seconds to get themselves the hell out of danger. So people fight like hell, break nails, scrape palms, gouge out the dirt at their feet, grab at fencing or walls. Now 10 seconds doesn't seem like a lot of time, but as someone who has run this particular experiment, I promise you that you do not want to be on the receiving end on anything something can throw at you for 10 seconds. Getting bashed repeatedly in the face frankly sucks. And you can still scream. Sort of. It sounds more like someone murdering a duck that a full throated slasher movie scream, but it's noise, when you don't want any.

I mean, evidently there is some combination of attacks that essentially takes the place of stoving someone's head in, at least in terms of creating a placid victim. He did it. And theoretically alone, which takes out the other obvious answer. So the answer is out there. I just have no idea what it is.

[Robert St Devil]

Dr Bond, from Kelly's autopsy again;

"The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis."

I'm not medically proficient enough to know if this translates into signs of strangulation (there don't seem to be any others), but due to the reports of "oh murder" and presence of possible defensive wounds, it seems she may have been conscious when attacked with a knife.

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

That's as far as I could ever take the evidence to support a case for strangulation. There's nothing definitive, but there are patterns consistent with other strangulation cases.
1. Obviously, strangulation (or, garroting) 'of persons unknown' was not "uncommon" for the London region. There is the historical record of The Great Garrote Scare 20 years prior, and assaults by garrote gangs were reported in the early 1890s. Garroters saw themselves in a professional manner and rendering a victim unconscious immediately was a point of great pride.
2. There is the direct and indirect presence of a potential strangulating device [ie. the kerchief] common to four of the cases.
3. An investigative technique employed when investigating garroting is searching for the presence of 'discs' under or near the body. Indian Thugees were known for using their head-wraps pinned by a medallion as strangulating devices. In the movies, the medallion is portrayed for its aesthetic form; however, the medallion would be used to crush the larynx during the immediate action of the strangulation. As garroting was adopted into London practice, other materials were used to serve this component's purpose, such as hard round discs wrapped in a piece of cloth. It was recommended to search near or under the body for such items. Most garrote victims tend to have been 'deposited' in the same place as their assault, and it is generally believed that the 'hard discs' would have fell onto the ground after the strangulation was completed but before the body was laid down. With regards to the Jack the Ripper murders, coins and buttons are found around some of the bodies.
4. In the early 1890s, a man was killed by a professional garrote gang in the alley off a London street. The man had taken up drinking with some other men and a woman at a bar. Upon leaving, he was forced into an alley by the gang members. One of the men forced the knot or clasp of the victim's tie into his larynx, crushing it in the process. The whole operation took less than 5 minutes. In his post mortem report, the doctor reported conditions similar to Elizabeth Stride's injuries ["...the left ventricle firmly contracted, and the right slightly so. There was no clot in the pulmonary artery, but the right ventricle was full of dark clot. The left was firmly contracted as to be absolutely empty] and Mary Jane Kelley ["...the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis"].

However... I am challenged by a certain practice that was also being reported at the times of the murder: that being, the practice of forcing a woman to lay on the ground while a knife was drawn across her throat.

* I was wrong earlier with regards to ecchymosis being reported on Eliz.

[C. F. Leon]

(What was the lunar phase on the night of Sep 30, 1888?).

Yep, Jack was quite the BAD boy, wasn't he? (cue the theme from "Cops"). You also have to, as Errata says, realize that these terms in 1888 were stronger than they are today. They would end up using euphemisms for the euphemisms... (and then have to coin new words to cover THOSE).

- CFL

[C. F. Leon]

I've read somewhere that the poor would snatch lumps of coal from the train tracks where they would fall off of the over-laden lories. And yes, Jack (& the rest of the underclass) would have been much more used to lower lighting conditions than are the modern-day population even consider "annoying". There was no SERIOUS Light Pollution crisis in the 1880s!

Regarding starting a fire- well, from Boy Scout training, to start a fire you need tinder to start the spark, kindling to get it hot enough to actually burn and then the fuel to get the long-duration heating fire. Coal is the fuel and it is darn-near IMPOSSIBLE (at least very difficult & time-consuming) to START the fire directly from the spark using fuel only. (One reason that the match was such a useful invention.) These people usually had embers already burning or material that they had scrounged to start the fire set up in the fireplace.

- CFL

[Sam Flynn]

(What was the lunar phase on the night of Sep 30, 1888?).

Moon phases, including percentage of phase and the moon's elevation above horizon here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=103071&postcount=3