Team Jack

[lynn cates]

bruising

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

OK, swelling, but not recent bruising. They checked and found none.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn

Okay so no bruising because she was struck and bled out before there was enough time for it to commence or because she wasn't struck at all? This is why I want a medical/professional opinion. Let's break it down. She ended up on the ground where her throat was slit. That is the most likely since there is a lack of blood on her front. So how did she end up on the f-ing ground? Either she was struck or her murderer executed a takedown. Something similar to your Stride demonstration perhaps. Being reasonable here. She didn't just laydown on the ground. So I'd like to rule out or at least determine what is more likely based on possibility/probability. I think it likely she was takendown vs being struck. But we do have her face and it looks brutal. If the cuts are not likely to produce that look, then aha! We've got something either way.

[Errata]

Okay so no bruising because she was struck and bled out before there was enough time for it to commence or because she wasn't struck at all? This is why I want a medical/professional opinion. Let's break it down. She ended up on the ground where her throat was slit. That is the most likely since there is a lack of blood on her front. So how did she end up on the f-ing ground? Either she was struck or her murderer executed a takedown. Something similar to your Stride demonstration perhaps. Being reasonable here. She didn't just laydown on the ground. So I'd like to rule out or at least determine what is more likely based on possibility/probability. I think it likely she was takendown vs being struck. But we do have her face and it looks brutal. If the cuts are not likely to produce that look, then aha! We've got something either way.

She may have had her throat cut while upright. And she would be the only one to have had that done. Which is why she is less of a mystery to me than the others. If that happened, I completely understand how she got taken down. It's the others that still bother me.

Her face does look very swollen. However swelling does happen to perimortem injuries. Not to something that happened half an hour after she died, but immediately after it does. No matter how much blood loss there is, a person never loses all of it, or even a majority of it without steps taken to ensure that happens. Butchered animals are suspended for this reason. But more important than the blood would be the fluid in the tissue. When tissue is mashed, a lot of fluid is released. Thus juicers. But if the tissue is still encased in skin, the fluid drains to the space between the tissue and the skin, and it swells and distorts. Which is why when boxers have an eye swell shut, they have someone cut the swollen part. A little blood and a lot of fluid looks like a lot of blood. But it is mostly fluid.

And to be frank, there is a window of time in which corpses really don't look so good. When they are swollen and sort of.. doughy. It's an early part of the putrefaction process (and a later one as well if you give it long enough) and if memory serves thats after about 10 hours maybe? but it only lasts a couple of hours. When those gasses release that's when a corpse starts to smell like a corpse. If the photo was taken during that stage, it might explain the disfigurement. The hands are the best way to tell. But there are other pictures of her dead where she doesn't look THAT swollen. So maybe it's a timing thing.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Errata.

Thanks for that. Upright though? No blood on the front or anywhere else that's any different to the others. Would you be so kind as to describe said scenario? Now I'm really curious.

[lynn cates]

take down

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"no bruising because she was struck and bled out before there was enough time for it to commence or because she wasn't struck at all?"

I would suppose the latter. If the former, why were Polly and Annie bruised?

"Let's break it down."

Let's.

"She ended up on the ground where her throat was slit."

Quite.

"how did she end up on the f-ing ground? Either she was struck or her murderer executed a takedown."

Good bifurcation; and, again, I propose the latter.

"Something similar to your Stride demonstration perhaps."

Vaguely similar--except Kate was likely not cut UNTIL on the ground.

"I think it likely she was taken down vs being struck."

Completely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

"Behold the upright."

Hello Errata.

"She may have had her throat cut while upright."

But no arterial spray?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

She may have had her throat cut while upright. And she would be the only one to have had that done.

I have yet to hear of anyone promoting this idea, given the evidence to the contrary.

But more important than the blood would be the fluid in the tissue. When tissue is mashed, a lot of fluid is released.

How do you mean 'mashed'?, are you suggesting she was beaten about the face?

Thus juicers. But if the tissue is still encased in skin, the fluid drains to the space between the tissue and the skin, and it swells and distorts. Which is why when boxers have an eye swell shut, they have someone cut the swollen part. A little blood and a lot of fluid looks like a lot of blood. But it is mostly fluid.

But Boxers are still on their feet. If this was the cause it would be the back of her head which was swollen, and her face would be gaunt. The fluid will gravitate to the lowest point.

And to be frank, there is a window of time in which corpses really don't look so good. When they are swollen and sort of.. doughy. It's an early part of the putrefaction process (and a later one as well if you give it long enough) and if memory serves thats after about 10 hours maybe? but it only lasts a couple of hours.

When there are no holes (wounds?) in the skin to permit these gases to escape then yes, but this was not the case with the body of Eddowes.

[Errata]

When there are no holes (wounds?) in the skin to permit these gases to escape then yes, but this was not the case with the body of Eddowes.

It's not like a balloon. A person standing upright with a bruise on their forehead does not have the bruise slowly slide down their face (and the idea of that gave me the cold grues). It's really on an almost cellular level. The skin is attached to the tissue. Fluids released stay local. Similarly gasses.

As for Eddowes having her throat cut while upright, there's not much of a chance that happened. It's a theory based solely on the small amount of time available, and not based on any evidence. None of them showed any signs of having their throats cut while upright.

[Wickerman]

It's not like a balloon. A person standing upright with a bruise on their forehead does not have the bruise slowly slide down their face (and the idea of that gave me the cold grues). It's really on an almost cellular level. The skin is attached to the tissue. Fluids released stay local. Similarly gasses.

I was pointing out the difference between a bruise on a dead body and one on a live person.
Blood & fluid is still circulating while they live, but Eddowes was dead and on her back.

As for Eddowes having her throat cut while upright, there's not much of a chance that happened. It's a theory based solely on the small amount of time available, and not based on any evidence. None of them showed any signs of having their throats cut while upright.

Right, but Chapman's fingernails were swollen and she had scratches on her neck, apparently running vertical when compared to the horizontal cut. The reason we see no scratches around her larynx could easily be that the cord had already bitten into her flesh and the only location where the cord was accessible was where it was exiting her skin towards the killers fingers.

Vertical scratches are not easily explained as coming from the killer, so regardless how we choose to envisage the how's & why's of Annie Chapman's struggle to grasp the cord (assuming one was used), the source of the scratches are more than likely from Annie's own fingernails.

[lynn cates]

scarf

Hello Jon.

"Vertical scratches are not easily explained as coming from the killer, so regardless how we choose to envisage the how's & why's of Annie Chapman's struggle to grasp the cord (assuming one was used), the source of the scratches are more than likely from Annie's own fingernails."

Quite.

And, rather than a cord, could her scarf have been employed here?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"Vertical scratches are not easily explained as coming from the killer, so regardless how we choose to envisage the how's & why's of Annie Chapman's struggle to grasp the cord (assuming one was used), the source of the scratches are more than likely from Annie's own fingernails."

Quite.

And, rather than a cord, could her scarf have been employed here?

Cheers.
LC

We might think so, it is a shame the doctors had not entertained strangulation at the time. The way the scarf was tied may have presented it as a likely cause, or equally, ruled it out.
We can only speculate.

From a layman's point of view the broad scarf (as opposed to a narrow cord), might leave less distinct signs of application but would be equally effective if pulled tight enough, wouldn't you think?

(We might also consider the scarf worn by Stride in these thoughts?)

[lynn cates]

strangulation

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"it is a shame the doctors had not entertained strangulation at the time."

Phillips did.

"From a layman's point of view the broad scarf (as opposed to a narrow cord), might leave less distinct signs of application but would be equally effective if pulled tight enough, wouldn't you think?"

I think so

"We might also consider the scarf worn by Stride in these thoughts?"

Given no overt signs, I think rather that it merely pulled her off balance.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

At the Chapman Inquest mention is certainly made (by Robert Mann) of a handkerchief being produced, which had blood on it, as though it had been worn around the neck...and Timothy Donovan testified that Chapman was in the habit of wearing it around her throat...also a piece of black woollen scarf, tied in the front with one knot....

As Jon implies, an Interesting possible parallel with Liz Stride...

All the best

Dave

PS Sorry Lynn, I hadn't seen your post...we crossed...think between us we got there

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"it is a shame the doctors had not entertained strangulation at the time."

Phillips did.

Ah, yes of course he did with Chapman.
I was meaning broadly speaking across the murders because we read the repeated astonishment from the doctors at being unable to account for the silence of the victims.
Strangulation would have accounted for it had they entertained the possibility with each victim.
Phillips was quite naturally only commenting on what the physical evidence suggests to him with this one particular murder.

"We might also consider the scarf worn by Stride in these thoughts?"

Given no overt signs, I think rather that it merely pulled her off balance.

But here we are again faced with the absence of noise, and even if the singing from the club drowned out any screams Mrs Mortimer should have heard something leading up to 1 o'clock.

[RivkahChaya]

There's two reasons attacked women don't fight. They think they might survive if they don't fight, or they physically can't.

I never thought about that in terms of the Ripper murders, but it is true that once upon a time, women were told not to fight back when you were confronted with a rapist, because you would be "just" raped, whereas if you fought back, you would be beaten, possibly killed, and probably raped anyway.

This was back when the rapists were in charge of rape-prevention seminars.

Seriously, that was the advice given to women, from the time I was old enough to hear such advice (I'm pretty sure I even read it in Ann Landers column), until I was about 15, when women's self-defense classes started to pop up all over. It probably had more to do with the surge of women into the work force-- there was greater awareness of sexual harassment, and just a lot of things changed. But someone finally did a study and discovered that statistically, women who fought back frequently did not get raped. Occasionally they got bruised, but they didn't get killed, and they didn't get hurt so badly they ended up in the hospital.

Later interviews with men convicted of rape confirmed this. It mainly applied to stranger-rapes, and other kinds of attack, or blitz rapes, but not a lot was known about rape then, there weren't really categories of rape, and some people still thought it was libidos gone amok.

Research in the 21st century showed that there are basically four types, or psychologies of rapist, and two types are looking for the easiest target, which means that if your are struggling and screaming, let alone kicking and punching, he'll go on to someone else. There's one type or rapist, the rarest kind, who has often already made up his mind that he's going to kill his victim before he even goes out. There's not much you can do unless you fight and actually win (there was a story in the paper once about a guy with previous sexual assault charges, who thought he was picking a petite, fragile woman, but she was a professional dancer, wearing Doc Martins, and she kicked him and broke his kneecap, so it does happen), and it takes luck, and maybe some mistiming on his part-- the nearest business was closed, but someone was working late.

Anyway, I don't know if advice along these lines was given to women in the Victorian era, but among women who lived on the street, it may have been common wisdom. After all, some men who would not rape another women see a moral difference in raping a prostitute, because it's more along the lines of petty theft-- if she's selling it for three pence, then a rapist is essentially stealing three pence from her. In fact, even as recent as 2011, it's hard to charge a man with raping a prostitute, but some DAs, in order not to let them go completely free, have settled for "theft of services." I'm not impressed, but it is better than nothing.