Tweet
Originally posted by dropzone
View Post
What I have postulated is that the victims were silenced before having their throats cut and the method differs in each case which goes against the normal run of thinking. I have various reasons for believing this however I would imagine you are following the report by Dr Bond where he repudiates the victims were strangled. I’m not saying all the victims were strangled I’m saying various methods of asphyxiation were used so the killer could get his victim in a position to cut their throat. This is consistent with Bond who says and I quote “In all cases the women were laying down when murdered”
Strangulation is not always readily apparent; sometimes, according to Dr. Michael Baden, former Chief Medical Examiner for the state of New York, the only way to determine death due to strangulation is by dissecting the structures of the neck. Such an examination can determine if there are petechiae on the surfaces of the neck organs and if the tiny hyoid bone has been broken, which is almost always a sure sign that strangulation of some kind has taken place. This is not to say that every strangulation victim's hyoid bone is broken; in younger victims (i.e., below age 40), the bones are less brittle and so are less likely to break under strain. This is particularly true in cases of so-called "soft strangulation," which occurred in the murders committed by serial killer Arthur Shawcross, and leaves virtually no telltale marks. Furthermore, and with no disrespect to the police surgeons of the time, but they were not trained forensic pathologists. Given the kind of minute attention to detail as is frequently necessary in strangulation cases, it is eminently possible that such evidence, if it existed, was simply overlooked. Even Dr. Baden, who has hundreds (if not more) autpsies to his credit, has stated that "In general, the most difficult cause of death to determine -- from a medical examiner's point of view -- are deaths from strangulation or suffocation."
Method of Attack: Strangulation.
As a killer's modus operandi can alter, another avenue of evaluating Tabram's relation to these crimes is whether strangulation occurred. For strong evidence supports the Ripper strangled his victims, at some point, and then subsequently stabbed them afterwards. In the case of Tabram, Dr. Killeen seems to suggest otherwise. He testified at inquest that he believed all wounds were made while Tabram was alive and she then bled to death. Unfortunately, past this account, we have very little evidence, and nothing to tell us whether the primary indicator of strangulation was even checked - the fracture of the hyoid bone below the jaw. See Brian Innes, Bodies of Evidence (Reader's Digest 2000) at 96. The Illustrated Police News, 18 August 1888, however, did report that Tabram had received severe injuries to the head, the result of "being throttled while held down, and the face and head so swollen and distorted in consequence that her real features are not discernible." Along these same lines, we know as well that Tabram was found on her back, her hands clenched in a repose suggesting strangulation. See Sugden at 362. We likewise have the mortuary photograph, but given its black and white rendering, any inferences drawn from it are accordingly guesswork. That said, the photo does indicate swelling about Tabram's face, an obvious sign of asphyxia, due to raised pressure in the veins. See Innes at 94. It may as well show bruising, which would substantiate the Illustrated Police News report, but again, we have reached the culmination of the photo's usefulness.
Respecting Nichols, strong evidence supports asphyxia occurred. For bruises and abrasions along the jaw indicate, especially when circular in appearance, denote asphyxia. See Innes at page 96. Dr. Llewellyn testified at inquest, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, Monday, 3 September, 1888:
On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers.
The evidence concerning Chapman is clear as well. Dr. Phillips testified at inquest, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, Friday, 14 September, 1888:
The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen.
As read before, Phillips likewise believed the wounds were inflicted subsequent death. Curiously, when seen side by side, Tabram and Chapman's mortuary photos look nearly identical, although this is hardly the medical evidence we would like to confirm Tabram was in fact asphyxiated.
In the case of Eddowes, the throat was horribly damaged, and the face severely mutilated. To wit, Dr. Brown testified at inquest, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, Friday, 5 October, 1888, that haemorrhage from the throat was the cause of her death. However, it is possible Eddowes was subdued by asphyxia, and its effects were obscured by the many brutal injuries to the throat. Consider that the large muscle on her throat was divided through on the left side, and those vessels completely severed. The right vessels were just opened, but the carotid artery was exposed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord, and the jugular vein opened an inch and a half. See Begg, Fido, and Skinner at 39. Even washed, this area, where the primary traces of asphyxia are found, would be useless, as they were absolutely obliterated. But Eddowes hands were clenched, in a manner similar to Tabram, which may suggest strangulation, but is certainly not conclusive.
Seen collectively, there is ample evidence to suggest Nichols and Chapman were subdued by strangulation. Despite her clenched hands, it is generally impossible to tell from the condition of Eddowes whether this is true in her case. Likewise, it is impossible to say anything except Tabram bore the features of a strangulation victim. (Quentin Pitman)
In support of this theory I’ll supply two pieces taken from Casebook but I don’t want to discuss further what is leading off topic. What I was speculating was why Aaron might be carrying a table runner as Dr Fyaz Ismail says the clothe is from St Petersburg. It seems to me unlikely Eddows would have afforded it, and if Aaron had it he had it for a reason.
I then speculated that Harold Jones is known to have had a fetish related to ladies handcerchiefs. This is ripperology not archeology and comparison to offer known serial killer cases is sometimes the only way we can try and understand the motives and behavior of Jack the Ripper.
With regards to when Aaron Kosminski became a police suspect I was fairly clear in my response that we don’t know. The reason I give for this is almost none of the police files known to have existed currently survive. I’m hoping you will do me the courtesy of believing I do know all the arguments relating to when how and who Aaron Kosnminski became a suspect given that I made a detailed documentary on the subject? If you don't like to read perhaps you might like to purchase a copy on amazon, although I'm pleased to say it has recently been sold to american television.
Perhaps you would do well to listen to Paul Beggs wise words and actually read one of his books instead of spending your life in a hole with a tooth brush. You never know you might actually learn something?
Yours Jeff
Comment