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

[Errata]

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?

...

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.

I can't say for sure that he would have recognized them. My father is a doctor and the first couple of time he saw them on me he thought they were terrible bruises. I had to show it to him in direct bright light so he could see the fading at the edges of the stains.

They were described as pressure marks by Blackwell, but they wouldn't have been from hands. Pressure marks come from sustained pressure, like the lines you get on you from your waistband or your watch. Or the odd hand print on your face when you wake up. But the smaller the point of contact, the faster it marks. And the shoulders were described as "equally marked". That really sounds like marks from clothing. I mean, it would take about 30 minutes for the killer to make any lasting pressure mark with his hands. But it would only take minutes for him to imprint the seams of her bodice into her shoulders. But pressure marks aren't blue. In living people they are a pretty livid red, in dead people they are the same color as the rest of the skin.

The bluish discoloration is described as being on the front, both shoulders but more the right, under the clavicle and across the front. Now she was found on her left side, which might explain why more the right shoulder than the left. But the description of the placement of the discoloration matches perfectly with the neckline of a bodice. Which is not only where the dye marks on us were, but also the pressure marks. Well, ours were a couple of inches lower, since the necklines of the Victorian era and the modern renaissance festival aren't exactly in the same place.

I can't swear they were dye marks. But she was out in the rain that night. And they weren't bruises. Bruises change. And nothing on a corpse should be blue, unless they were either profoundly cyanotic or poisoned. And then it's never marks on the skin. I think it likely he didn't immediately recognize the discoloration. And the Inquest was the day after the murder. He wouldn't have had time to monitor the marks and see if they broke down the way a bruise does. I think he mentioned them because he wasn't sure if they were going to end up being significant, and I would imagine by the time she was released for burial he realized that they in fact were not significant.

[Wickerman]

Lets not jump to any conclusions now....

[lynn cates]

consensus

Hello Jon, Velma. So we have reached a consensus?

Hope it's contagious.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hi Curious.
Yes, thats what I initially thought you meant, but which other bodies?

Dr. Phillips was not involved in the Tabram & Nichols cases, Chapman was his first.
Phillips was consulted on the Eddowes case and bruises were looked for and duly noted. No mention of bruises around the collar bone on Eddowes.

This I think serves to enforse the interpretation offered by Lynn, Dr. Phillips had only seen those bruises once before on Annie Chapman.

Regards, Jon S.

Thanks, Jon,

I should have thought to check to see who the doctors were on the other murders, but didn't think of it.

Think you and Lynn are right.

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Curious.
Yes, thats what I initially thought you meant, but which other bodies?

Dr. Phillips was not involved in the Tabram & Nichols cases, Chapman was his first.
Phillips was consulted on the Eddowes case and bruises were looked for and duly noted. No mention of bruises around the collar bone on Eddowes.

This I think serves to enforse the interpretation offered by Lynn, Dr. Phillips had only seen those bruises once before on Annie Chapman.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

is JTR always going to cut a throat in the same way, or will this vary, especially if this location is far riskier and she has to be killed far quicker than the others.


.

Hi, Malcolm,

Then would he not have concentrated on a deep, effective wound?

A practiced hand is a practiced hand, accustomed to digging deep, and not a tentative hand that does not slice even one side all the way.

Not to mention that the two immediately before Stride had been strangled . . .

I don't really think "everything else" does look like JtR -- that is why I wonder if the marks on her chest are not terrible important . . . .

The daring and boldness of the killer and Stride's age and profession fit the earlier deaths but not the body.

So what do those marks on Stride's shoulders mean? Was this a first, or had the doctor seen them on two other occasions – as in on other bodies?

[lynn cates]

reasoning

Hello Malcolm. Ah, but if you push that reasoning very far, you will need to check ladies killed by gunshot and poison.

Who does the killer seem to be?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

old theory

Hello Velma. Well, some mysterious murders had been committed but not solved.

I recall that, in "Lloyds" the next day, the interruption theory was already being espoused.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

is JTR always going to cut a throat in the same way, or will this vary, especially if this location is far riskier and she has to be killed far quicker than the others.

it's who the killer seems to be/ location chosen/ theory etc, that swings it in JTRs favour, rather than what's seen.

simply because, without mutilations this doesn't look like JTR at all, no of course it doesn't, but this matters little, because everything else does

.

[curious]

My point is departure is depth of/number of neck cuts.

Cheers.
LC

Mine too. This cut appears tentative, not practiced and sure.

However, there is probably a reason Stride was considered a Ripper victim, could it have been the marks on her shoulders? (and we'll never be able to say for sure)

Maybe not, though, when looking at all the murders Wayne Williams of Atlanta is considered to have committed, it seems obvious to me that there had to have been more than one killer, but the authorities were thrilled to hang all of them on Williams to get the case off their desks.

Anyway, working at a paper where editors sometimes edit in mistakes and the writers don't always get a chance to read the story before it goes to press makes me consider that one quote seriously . . . .

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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