was Eddowes strangled?

[MrTwibbs]

The strangulation theory is somewhat supported by forensics in that there was less blood than should be expected in severed throat killings. In the case of Chapman, the tongue was protruding partway, indicating a likely strangulation. Nichols also was very likely strangled first. Eddowes I also don't believe was strangled first because for the simple fact that the killer committed more elaborate mutilations in a very short timeframe. It stands to reason that after Chapman, the Ripper changed that part of his M.O. because it was more time consuming, and the victim would have had additional time to react. As we know, it was reported that a neighbour heard a struggle at 29 Hanbury Street suggesting Chapman was not immediately subdued. With Eddowes and Kelly, the Ripper perhaps cut them from behind to remove the risk of them vocalising, avoiding the blood spray in the process and reducing time.

Thanks for your input. Chapman was strangled because it is mentioned in the reports but the other killings cite no mention of bruising around the neck although Nichols was examined by Dr L and he does appear to have a bit of a bad rep?
I would expect their to be obvious bruising because according to author Scott Andrew Selby at least 11lb of pressure is needed against the carotid artery for 10 seconds to render the victim unconscious. If pressure is released immediately, the person will regain consciousness, and only after 50 seconds of continued oxygen deprivation will they be likely to die.
I agree with you that it makes sense that he dropped the strangulation aspect to give him more time to mutilate.

[DJA]

Eddowes' "eye mutilations" would have been performed indoors with a small scalpel and lighting.

[Meet Ze Monster]

I was discussing both the Eddowes and MJK murders with a friend recently who was adamant that all of the c5 excluding Stride were strangled. I always believed that Stride, Eddowes and MJK were not strangled because I do not recall seeing anything suggesting this in the source book. I believe the wording used for example in the Eddowes case was no superficial bruises.

Anyone care to clarify this?

The strangulation theory is somewhat supported by forensics in that there was less blood than should be expected in severed throat killings. In the case of Chapman, the tongue was protruding partway, indicating a likely strangulation. Nichols also was very likely strangled first. Eddowes I also don't believe was strangled first because for the simple fact that the killer committed more elaborate mutilations in a very short timeframe. It stands to reason that after Chapman, the Ripper changed that part of his M.O. because it was more time consuming, and the victim would have had additional time to react. As we know, it was reported that a neighbour heard a struggle at 29 Hanbury Street suggesting Chapman was not immediately subdued. With Eddowes and Kelly, the Ripper perhaps cut them from behind to remove the risk of them vocalising, avoiding the blood spray in the process and reducing time.

[MrTwibbs]

I was discussing both the Eddowes and MJK murders with a friend recently who was adamant that all of the c5 excluding Stride were strangled. I always believed that Stride, Eddowes and MJK were not strangled because I do not recall seeing anything suggesting this in the source book. I believe the wording used for example in the Eddowes case was no superficial bruises.

Anyone care to clarify this?