Bruises on Victims, Is This JtR's Identifying Mark?

[curious]

Quoting Dr. George Bagster Phillips at the inquest of Elizabeth Stride:

Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar-bone and in front of the chest there was a bluish discolouration, which I have watched and seen on two occasions since. (My italics)

I have never seen this discussed.

The quote appeared in the Times (London) Thursday, 4 October 1888, and appears here on Casebook under Victims, Elizabeth Stride.

Phillips appears to be saying that he noted distinctive bruises on a body, kept looking for it, and had seen it twice since he first observed it, which I take to mean Chapman and Stride.

1. Does anyone have any idea what these marks mean? how the killer may have inflicted them?

2. Is this the way the authorities arrived at the number of victims of the killer who came to be known as JtR? Were these marks JtR's trademark that perhaps the authorities kept quiet, but which were so distinctive, even unique, that only one killer was leaving them on his victims?

[lynn cates]

hypotheses

Hello Velma. This has been mentioned, but mostly on the Stride threads.

There was some notion that these were received as Liz was placed on the ground. But from my point of view, I don't think that could happen whilst clutching cachous without spilling them.

There was also an hypothesis that she got then in her supposed fracas with BS man.

At any rate, I cannot imagine them being inflicted too long before her death.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Those bruises on Stride were undeterminable as to time of origin, hours or days. The same bruises on Chapman, each the size of a man's thumb, were days old.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Hi, Lynn,
Thanks. I don't remember seeing that discussion.
But isn't the interesting part of the quote that he had seen these marks before, had watched for them and seen then twice since he first saw them?

That's what I find so fascinating, the possibility of the killer leaving tell-tell marks.

[lynn cates]

bruises

Hello Jon. Yes, the ones on Annie's chest, but the face and neck were recent.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Those bruises on Stride were undeterminable as to time of origin, hours or days. The same bruises on Chapman, each the size of a man's thumb, were days old.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi, Jon,
I had noticed the information about the "days old" marks on Chapman.

But the doctor makes the point of watching for them and having seen them twice since (the first time).

Perhaps they were "kept back" and not mentioned earlier . . . ?

[lynn cates]

Stride

Hello Velma. I thought that he referred to the marks on Stride--that he was watching the changes in them, becoming more distinct?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

dating bruises

Hello (again) Velma, Jon. From Chapman's inquest:

"The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and the sides of the jaw . . . ." ("Ultimate Companion" p. 88)

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. I thought that he referred to the marks on Stride--that he was watching the changes in them, becoming more distinct?

Cheers.
LC

Gotta say, Lynn, that was not how I read it, but I can see that possibility. It had not occurred to me that coroners kept going back to the same body after having performed the examination. . . He did mention examining the body at the scene, then the autopsy at 2 p.m., when the body was in full rigor.

How disappointing if that was all he meant.

[Wickerman]

Hello Velma. I thought that he referred to the marks on Stride--that he was watching the changes in them, becoming more distinct?

Cheers.
LC

I think you're correct there Lynn.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

quote

Hello Velma. Here is the quote from "The Times."

"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar-bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since." ("Ultimate Companion" p. 158)

So, I read it as:

1. At post mortem he notices bruises.

2. He has seen the body twice since that time taking special care to see if there is a change in the bruises.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Jon. Thanks. I am informed that, by looking for changes, he would be able to get the time a bit closer to the actual event.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

So, this is a left field possibility, but I used to work renaissance festivals in a place with inevitable rain. Anyone wearing black, brown, blue or grey bodices that got wet developed blue rings staining their skin around the armholes, the top and the back wherever the chemise did not protect the skin. But usually at the topstitched lines.

Making for a peculiar showing at the end of the day.

When I first read about those discolorations, that's what I thought of. I also thought it was an odd word choice, to say "discoloration" instead of bruise or mark. It made me think it was just that. Discoloration.

[curious]

Hello Velma. Here is the quote from "The Times."

"Over both shoulders, especially the right, and under the collar-bone and in front of the chest there was a blueish discolouration, which I have watched and have seen on two occasions since." ("Ultimate Companion" p. 158)

So, I read it as:

1. At post mortem he notices bruises.

2. He has seen the body twice since that time taking special care to see if there is a change in the bruises.

Cheers.
LC

But the fact that he was watching them makes them important, doesn't it?

Would he not have recognized the discoloration from the dye in her clothing as being just that?

I think you and Jon are likely right, Lynn, but I also recognize that people explaining things know what they're saying, but don't always word it so the listeners understand what they meant.

Besides that, people writing it down, then "translate" it into their own words. It happens in newspapers all the time. It is easily proven by recording a conversation, and taking notes. Even when I interview someone, and think I am writing the exact words, I will discover occasionally, when I listen to the recording, that I have used a synonym instead of the actual word the other person used. Plus, a person may be giving a great quote, but you don't get it all written down. Parts get omitted because the speaker can talk faster than a person can write.

Therefore, I find the "I have watched and have seen on two occasions since" particularly intriguing since it comes from a newspaper report.

Particularly since it is tacked on to the end of his remark . . .

I realize we can't go hieing off here, but . . . wondering since he had "seen it on two occasions since."

And I read in some other reports, that the marks were thought to be pressure marks from hands where Stride had been grabbed on both shoulders.

NOW, for the million dollar question:

If these marks appeared on Stride only, does this not indicate that her killer is a different one from the earlier murders? If the approach and markings on the body are different, it is not just that he did not have time to make the mutilations, but his approach, not strangling, everything is different. Lynn, I know I'm preaching to the choir here with you, but others might have some thoughts that will help explain or discuss this.

However, if the doctor was actually referring to marks he had seen on other bodies, this could be the reason the authorities believed all the murders to be by the same hand.

I am trying to find anything that ties all these deaths together, or definitely cuts some of them loose.

Do these marks, or pressure points, accomplish that for Stride?

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Velma.

"But the fact that he was watching them makes them important, doesn't it?"

Absolutely. Bruises, cuts, sorts of cuts, etc are all VERY important.

"Would he not have recognized the discoloration from the dye in her clothing as being just that?"

I believe so.

"I think you and Jon are likely right, Lynn, but I also recognize that people explaining things know what they're saying, but don't always word it so the listeners understand what they meant."

Quite right.

"Besides that, people writing it down, then "translate" it into their own words. It happens in newspapers all the time. It is easily proven by recording a conversation, and taking notes. Even when I interview someone, and think I am writing the exact words, I will discover occasionally, when I listen to the recording, that I have used a synonym instead of the actual word the other person used. Plus, a person may be giving a great quote, but you don't get it all written down. Parts get omitted because the speaker can talk faster than a person can write."

Completely agree.

"Therefore, I find the "I have watched and have seen on two occasions since" particularly intriguing since it comes from a newspaper report."

Yes.

"Particularly since it is tacked on to the end of his remark . . ."

Right. And so, "Since what?" I think he means since he first saw them. I could, of course, be mistaken.

"And I read in some other reports, that the marks were thought to be pressure marks from hands where Stride had been grabbed on both shoulders."

Indeed. Question is, was she grabbed by her assailant? Someone else?

"NOW, for the million dollar question:

If these marks appeared on Stride only, does this not indicate that her killer is a different one from the earlier murders?"

Possibly, but not necessarily. Let's say, however, that Stride was not grabbed by the face/throat as her "predecessors" were.

"If the approach and markings on the body are different, it is not just that he did not have time to make the mutilations, but his approach, not strangling, everything is different."

I think the BIGGEST difference is the depth of neck wound, not the lack of mutilations. (See comments at inquest: "There is a great dissimilarity . . . ")

"Lynn, I know I'm preaching to the choir here with you, but others might have some thoughts that will help explain or discuss this."

Hope so.

"However, if the doctor was actually referring to marks he had seen on other bodies, this could be the reason the authorities believed all the murders to be by the same hand."

Don't think that is his meaning. Of course, one cannot absolutely discount one killer.

"I am trying to find anything that ties all these deaths together, or definitely cuts some of them loose."

Good luck. I think the evidence is there, still awaiting a verdict.

"Do these marks, or pressure points, accomplish that for Stride?"

Well, amongst other things. My point is departure is depth of/number of neck cuts.

Cheers.
LC