was Eddowes strangled?

[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?

[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.

[DJA]

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

[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.

[Meet Ze Monster]

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.

The reason I believe that Nichols was strangled first was due to the very low amount of blood. Some speculate the killer may have used a chord or such item to strangle rather than his hands. This would reduce bruising. I think the key to the answer is in the condition of the eyes. If the reports give details on the eyes displaying broken blood vessels then strangulation would be doubtless.

[MrTwibbs]

The reason I believe that Nichols was strangled first was due to the very low amount of blood. Some speculate the killer may have used a chord or such item to strangle rather than his hands. This would reduce bruising. I think the key to the answer is in the condition of the eyes. If the reports give details on the eyes displaying broken blood vessels then strangulation would be doubtless.

Unfortunately I don't think any of the reports mention blood in the eyes. However it does mention slight laceration to the tongue in Dr L's statement re:Polly

[Greenway]

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.

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.

I don't think the marks on the victims 'prove' this method was used by any means. But they are consistent with the killer using (discovering?) and 'refining' this technique through the course of the attacks.

The advantage is that the victim can be taken completely by surprise, with an arm around the neck from behind. The victim is incapable of making a sound or offering any resistance, and after 5 or so seconds the murderer can lower his victim to the floor and cut her throat while she is still unconscious. I'm not aware of any evidence that the women were thrown or violently forced to the ground. The MO seems to be to cut their throats whilst they were on the ground. I would think it's very hard to force a woman to lie on the ground and then cut her throat without leaving marks on elbows, knees, hands etc, and without her making a sound, if she is conscious and struggling.

[Greenway]

A Practical illustration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJeEPzYctMs

[Michael W Richards]

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?

Elizabeth Stride had her scarf twisted tightly and the cut on her throat corresponded to the line of the scarf. So, she was grabbed by the scarf and it was twisted as he cut her. That might constitute choking. Not necessarily strangulation.

[Losmandris]

I have to agree with Greenway here. I believe they were rendered unconscious first before being laid on the ground. Where their throats were cut. It may not have been intentional but a couple of the victims, Chapman for example were strangled to death rather than unconscious. This could have been a result of them really struggling or just over zealousness on behalf of the murderer.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Dave,

OK, I'll bite. Where and when were the eye mutilations performed and how was the body transported to Mitre Square without the spilling of blood and entrails?

Cheers, George

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

OK, I'll bite. Where and when were the eye mutilations performed and how was the body transported to Mitre Square without the spilling of blood and entrails?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

My money is on Eddowes being strangled in 6 Mitre Street after she told Jack that she replied to the police that her name was "nothing".

The two cholesterol removals around her eyes were actually a result of research conducted by Gull and Sutton.That would have been done indoors with a small scalpel before she was taken into Mitre Square between police beats.

Everything points to Henry Gawen Sutton being Jack the Ripper.
All the mutilations relate to Eddowes being his patient,along with Nichols,since December 1867.

[Meet Ze Monster]

Unfortunately I don't think any of the reports mention blood in the eyes. However it does mention slight laceration to the tongue in Dr L's statement re:Polly

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

[Michael W Richards]

Hi George,

My money is on Eddowes being strangled in 6 Mitre Street after she told Jack that she replied to the police that her name was "nothing".

The two cholesterol removals around her eyes were actually a result of research conducted by Gull and Sutton.That would have been done indoors with a small scalpel before she was taken into Mitre Square between police beats.

Everything points to Henry Gawen Sutton being Jack the Ripper.
All the mutilations relate to Eddowes being his patient,along with Nichols,since December 1867.

The problem with all this DJA is that youve offered a great "story" along the lines of the Royal Conspiracy, but the details are mostly of your own creation so far.

[DJA]

The problem with all this DJA is that youve offered a great "story" along the lines of the Royal Conspiracy, but the details are mostly of your own creation so far.

The facts I have continually supplied have nothing to do with "The Royal Conspiracy".

The cuts inflicted on Eddowes are consistent with her Rheumatic Fever from December 1867.The strep has also invaded her kidneys.

She also seems to have had cancer.

Unlike the piffle you post on Stride's murder,these are historical medical facts.