was Eddowes strangled?

[Wickerman]

An effective strangulation would render someone unconscious in 5-10 seconds (depending on health/fitness). If performed 'correctly' with the arm, the pressure compresses the whole neck and doesn't leave any marking or bruising (unlike ligature, bar or hands). Once the pressure is released the victim will remain unconscious for around 5 seconds before 'waking up' over the course of another 5-10 seconds.

We often see demonstrations of this type of choke-hold, but the participants are usually wearing T-shirts or leotards, these women wore thick woolen coats with large collars. The arm-hold is not so effective when thick clothing is in the way. It's ok when wrestlers use it, but if the victim has a stiff, or thick woolen collar the arm is not so tight, the application looses its effectiveness.
I doubt this method was used myself.

[Wickerman]

Hmmm, could be an injury caused by the tongue pushing through the teeth during strangulation?

The laceration of the tongue could have occurred as he pressed his hand down on her jaw... the tongue trapped between the teeth - as with Chapman, due to strangulation, again.

[Greenway]

We often see demonstrations of this type of choke-hold, but the participants are usually wearing T-shirts or leotards, these women wore thick woolen coats with large collars. The arm-hold is not so effective when thick clothing is in the way. It's ok when wrestlers use it, but if the victim has a stiff, or thick woolen collar the arm is not so tight, the application looses its effectiveness.
I doubt this method was used myself.

In the video I posted where the instructor was accidentally rendered unconscious, if you look carefully you will see that he uses the clothing to make the strangle more effective - there are lots of different methods. The technique works by compressing the whole neck - a thick woollen collar would be no defence but I doubt I can find a video to prove that.

It's the simplest method of rendering someone unconscious, doesn't leave marks, and requires no equipment. It doesn't require much skill if the attacker is significantly stronger than his victim. For me it makes the best sense of the evidence, but I'm open to other possibilities.

Why does he need to hide the garrotte marks?

[Greenway]

There wouldn't be any bruises around Eddowes neck if he used a cord, as a garroter does.
This is a genuine corpse after the use of a cord.



Dr. Brownfield suggested the killer runs his knife through the ligature (cord) mark to hide the fact it was used.

"But, if the other victims had been first strangled would there not be postmortem indications?" - "If he cut the throat along the line
of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation."

This is likely why we see no external signs of Eddowes being strangled/suffocated.

Yes, a ligature leaves a very clear, distinctive mark - not present on any victim. How did he manage to cut with such force that a number of victims were nearly decapitated, exactly along the ligature mark every time, in the dark?

[Ms Diddles]

There wouldn't be any bruises around Eddowes neck if he used a cord, as a garroter does.
This is a genuine corpse after the use of a cord.



Dr. Brownfield suggested the killer runs his knife through the ligature (cord) mark to hide the fact it was used.

"But, if the other victims had been first strangled would there not be postmortem indications?" - "If he cut the throat along the line
of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation."

This is likely why we see no external signs of Eddowes being strangled/suffocated.

I'd never really considered this before, Wick but to me it makes sense.

The (horrible) picture which you posted shows how deep and clearly defined the ligature mark is, so I'm thinking it would be relatively easy even in the dark and under pressure of time to trace the line quite precisely with a blade.

[Wickerman]

Why does he need to hide the garrotte marks?

In the 1860's there was a rash of garrotings across London, it was used by muggers to render their victims unconscious so they could be robbed. Yet, some victims died. Muggin was not always considered a capital offense so when the prison's became overcrowded periodically the less dangerous offenders were let out on what was known as "Ticket-of-Leave', which was like our modern Parole.
The use of the garrote never really died out, it was still used sporadically into the 1880's.

The Met police posted the names of all the Ticket-of-Leave men who were out on leave in the Police Gazette. So, if any one of these men used a garrote while out on leave the police would know who to look for.

[Wickerman]

Yes, a ligature leaves a very clear, distinctive mark - not present on any victim. How did he manage to cut with such force that a number of victims were nearly decapitated, exactly along the ligature mark every time, in the dark?

If it was light enough to remove internal organs, it was light enough to see the ligature mark.

[Ms Diddles]

If it was light enough to remove internal organs, it was light enough to see the ligature mark.

Agreed, plus with a deep, clearly defined groove such as the one pictured it could be done largely by feel.

[Wickerman]

I'd never really considered this before, Wick but to me it makes sense.

The (horrible) picture which you posted shows how deep and clearly defined the ligature mark is, so I'm thinking it would be relatively easy even in the dark and under pressure of time to trace the line quite precisely with a blade.

Yes, and a common question has arisen over the years asking "why the second cut?"
It only took one slice of the knife, as with Stride, to kill the victim, so why does this killer take the time to run the knife all around the neck? He did this with Nichols, Chapman had a circular incision, Kelly had numerous cuts. Stride only the one, but sadly Dr. Gordon-Brown never told us how many cuts were applied to Eddowes. He simply described the appearance of the wound, but the terminology he used implies more than one cut.

Stride is the odd one out, if this was the same killer then he must have been interrupted from making that second cut.
I've had to wonder if he didn't use the garotte this time as following the Chapman murder the press first mentioned the possibility (by Phillips?) of strangulation. So perhaps he changed his method in case the authorities had guessed what was being used?

[Greenway]

If it was light enough to remove internal organs, it was light enough to see the ligature mark.

In a number of the cases it would be too dark to do anything by sight IMO - unless he had an assistant carrying a lantern, which I don't believe to be the case.

[Greenway]

Agreed, plus with a deep, clearly defined groove such as the one pictured it could be done largely by feel.

Some of the cuts to the throat would have required a tremendous amount of force to inflict - I'd keep my fingers well out of the way.

[Wickerman]

Some of the cuts to the throat would have required a tremendous amount of force to inflict - I'd keep my fingers well out of the way.

I'm intrigued as to why you think that?
The only part of dismemberment, or mutilation that requires any amount of effort is cutting through the tendons to separate joints.
I speak with some experience as my first three years out of school I served as a butchers apprentice.
The sharper the knife, the less effort is required, but this killer never separated joints he only sliced muscle which takes no real effort. If you can slice roast beef for Sunday dinner, you can cut someones throat.

[Ms Diddles]

If the ligature indentation was deep enough, wouldn't the knife kinda slip in then naturally follow the groove without too much effort?

I hasten to add that I'm a vegetarian of 35+ years standing, so have zero experience of butchering meat (or humans, obviously!!!).

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm intrigued as to why you think that?
The only part of dismemberment, or mutilation that requires any amount of effort is cutting through the tendons to separate joints.
I speak with some experience as my first three years out of school I served as a butchers apprentice.
The sharper the knife, the less effort is required, but this killer never separated joints he only sliced muscle which takes no real effort. If you can slice roast beef for Sunday dinner, you can cut someones throat.

if he killed her from behind then he would have first inserted the knife into her throat and then drawn it across if the knife was inserted into the throat deeply then an amount of force would be needed to draw the knife across to the point of almost decapitation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Greenway]

If you can slice roast beef for Sunday dinner, you can cut someones throat.

It's not a good comparison. The larger wound on Nichols's neck would take considerable force IMO - I'm not a doctor, pathologist or butcher though so would be interested to hear other opinions.