Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

I repeat the question I repeated in # 84:

I note that you have not answered my point that the ecchymosis in this case coincided with the knife wound, which suggests that it was the knife wound that caused the ecchymosis.

Ok, if I missed a question, it wasn't intentional.

You do know that ecchymosis is bruising, yes?

If you stab someone the blade doesn't cause bruising, it is the hilt of the knife, or your fist as it hits the body that causes ecchymosis.
When blood vessels are injured they bleed out into the surrounding skin - this is ecchymosis.
If I slash someone with a blade, there is no ecchymosis, for the simple reason all the injured blood vessels bleed out towards the open wound.
Blood in the human body is under pressure so when you get a knife wound the blood runs out into the open air, not in towards the body.

So, when Dr. Bond noticed ecchymosis, he knew the neck had endured some physical abuse prior to the use of the knife. Whether this abuse was from fingers or a cord around the neck might have been impossible to establish, as he says, due to the extent of random slashing left-to-right, or right-to-left, also impossible to establish with any certainty.

[Trevor Marriott]

In post #88 Trevor, you replied to that post once already.

The report you quoted is from a newspaper not local to London and published 3 months after the inquest and is in direct conflict with the Times and The Telegraph who published the inquest testimony at the time.

Just for clarity, I will speak to Dr Biggs on this matter

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Did Dr Bond also record petechiae in Kelly's eyes? Which is diagnostic for strangulation/suffocation.

It certainly is, but minutae like that would be found in the official post-mortem conducted on Sat. morning by Dr. Phillips.
What we have with Dr. Bond are preliminary notes taken for his own report requested by Anderson. So, he does not go into any real detail, we just get hi-lites. We call his notes a post-mortem only because any investigation of a body after death is classed as a post-mortem, regardless how small.
It's a bit of a misnomer in Bond's case.
If you recall Anderson had requested Bond to create a report of the mutilations of all the victims in the case, well that's what he came up with for the Kelly case.

[Wickerman]

Where is black blood mentioned?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In post #88 Trevor, you replied to that post once already.

[Trevor Marriott]

No dispute there Trevor, but as any policeman will tell you, it is not always one single piece of evidence with which you draw a conclusion, but an accumulation of evidence which all point in the same direction.
What did your Dr Biggs say to explain the presence of black blood in the brain?
Let me guess, you never asked him, right?
Another example of your incomplete research?

Blood turns black as a result of a lack of oxygen, for a brief moment the heart is beating but no oxygen is getting to the brain.
What does that suggest Trevor?

The article offered several medical conditions, not one, all of which point towards one specific conclusion.
- Protruding tongue.
- Swollen face.
- Nails & Lips, turgid.
- Blood in the brain being black, lacked oxygen.

Ask your Dr Biggs, if it is true that these conditions, all taken together - "..are the ordinary signs of suffocation..".

If you object, don't cherry-pick, it is not one or two singular points that led Dr Phillips to draw his conclusion, but five points all together.

Where is black blood mentioned?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Chava]

Strangulation causes ecchymosis around the throat, Dr Bond noted the presence of ecchymosis.
Also, it is well known the fingers of a victim who had been strangled will clench (curl up), which was also noted by Dr. Bond.

Did Dr Bond also record petechiae in Kelly's eyes? Which is diagnostic for strangulation/suffocation.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your replies disappear when I use the 'quote' key.

- If you read the Manchester Guardian, 10 Nov. you will read that the doctors made an examination while they waited for the photographer to arrive. In the photograph we cannot see the right hand, both hands may have relaxed by the time the photographer arrived.

- Why are you asking for proof? Your question was "is there any indication", not "is there any proof".

- Strangulation in the Chapman case was somewhat edited in the press at the time of the inquest. We have a quote published later that year in the Star, 24 Dec. where we read:

The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation. In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat." Subsequently, under cross-examination, the doctor said, "I am clearly of opinion that the person who cut the deceased's throat took hold of her by the chin and then commenced the incision from right to left." The Coroner asked could that be done so instantaneously and a person could not cry out
Dr. Phillips - By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.
The Foreman - There would probably be suffocation? Dr. Phillips was understood to express assent.

It was actually 19th Sept., but you can find some details published on 20th.

I repeat the question I repeated in # 84:

I note that you have not answered my point that the ecchymosis in this case coincided with the knife wound, which suggests that it was the knife wound that caused the ecchymosis.

[Wickerman]

Dr Biggs a modern day forensic patholgist was asked the following question on this issue below is the question and his reply

Q. The Doctors do report that in some cases bruises were found around the victim’s throats and in the case of Annie Chapman her tongue was found to be protruding. Does this point to her being strangled first before her throat was cut?

A. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would, of course, be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation/suffocation.

A swollen tongue and/or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causes, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

www.trevormarriottt.co.uk

No dispute there Trevor, but as any policeman will tell you, it is not always one single piece of evidence with which you draw a conclusion, but an accumulation of evidence which all point in the same direction.
What did your Dr Biggs say to explain the presence of black blood in the brain?
Let me guess, you never asked him, right?
Another example of your incomplete research?

Blood turns black as a result of a lack of oxygen, for a brief moment the heart is beating but no oxygen is getting to the brain.
What does that suggest Trevor?

The article offered several medical conditions, not one, all of which point towards one specific conclusion.
- Protruding tongue.
- Swollen face.
- Nails & Lips, turgid.
- Blood in the brain being black, lacked oxygen.

Ask your Dr Biggs, if it is true that these conditions, all taken together - "..are the ordinary signs of suffocation..".

If you object, don't cherry-pick, it is not one or two singular points that led Dr Phillips to draw his conclusion, but five points all together.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your replies disappear when I use the 'quote' key.

- If you read the Manchester Guardian, 10 Nov. you will read that the doctors made an examination while they waited for the photographer to arrive. In the photograph we cannot see the right hand, both hands may have relaxed by the time the photographer arrived.

- Why are you asking for proof? Your question was "is there any indication", not "is there any proof".

- Strangulation in the Chapman case was somewhat edited in the press at the time of the inquest. We have a quote published later that year in the Star, 24 Dec. where we read:

The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation. In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat." Subsequently, under cross-examination, the doctor said, "I am clearly of opinion that the person who cut the deceased's throat took hold of her by the chin and then commenced the incision from right to left." The Coroner asked could that be done so instantaneously and a person could not cry out
Dr. Phillips - By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.
The Foreman - There would probably be suffocation? Dr. Phillips was understood to express assent.

It was actually 19th Sept., but you can find some details published on 20th.

Dr Biggs a modern day forensic patholgist was asked the following question on this issue below is the question and his reply

Q. The Doctors do report that in some cases bruises were found around the victim’s throats and in the case of Annie Chapman her tongue was found to be protruding. Does this point to her being strangled first before her throat was cut?

A. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would, of course, be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising around the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation/suffocation.

A swollen tongue and/or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causes, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

www.trevormarriottt.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Please see my replies below.

Your replies disappear when I use the 'quote' key.

- If you read the Manchester Guardian, 10 Nov. you will read that the doctors made an examination while they waited for the photographer to arrive. In the photograph we cannot see the right hand, both hands may have relaxed by the time the photographer arrived.

- Why are you asking for proof? Your question was "is there any indication", not "is there any proof".

- Strangulation in the Chapman case was somewhat edited in the press at the time of the inquest. We have a quote published later that year in the Star, 24 Dec. where we read:

The evidence given by Dr. Phillips on 18 Sept. at the Hanbury-street inquest is incontrovertible proof that Annie Chapman was partially strangled before her throat was cut. When Dr. Phillips was called to see the body he found that the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The face was swollen, the finger-nails and lips were turgid, and in the brain, on the head being opened, he found the membranes opaque and the veins and tissues loaded with black blood. All these appearances are the ordinary signs of suffocation. In Dr. Phillip's own words, "I am of opinion that the breathing was interfered with previous to death, but that death arose from syncope consequent on the loss of blood following the severance of the throat." Subsequently, under cross-examination, the doctor said, "I am clearly of opinion that the person who cut the deceased's throat took hold of her by the chin and then commenced the incision from right to left." The Coroner asked could that be done so instantaneously and a person could not cry out
Dr. Phillips - By pressure on the throat no doubt it would be possible.
The Foreman - There would probably be suffocation? Dr. Phillips was understood to express assent.

It was actually 19th Sept., but you can find some details published on 20th.

[Wickerman]

I agree - I think - inasmuch as if she was "drunk" at 12.30am she can't have been "sober" at 2am. Similarly, if she was "sober" at 2am she can't have been all that "drunk" at 12.30am. IMHO the fact that she was on the streets at 2am means she wasn't seriously drunk at midnight.

I used to find, with drink drivers, that they lost about 8 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath every hour. Someone who was double the legal limit for driving in England would take between 4 and 5 hours to drop below the limit.

The testimony of Cox is subjective. You will notice she walked behind Kelly & Blotchy down the passage, she doesn't say Kelly was bouncing off the walls, or staggering about. In fact she says she only noticed she was drunk when Kelly spoke - presumably she was slurring her words?

In other words Cox couldn't tell Kelly was drunk by the way she walked.
So, how drunk was Kelly at midnight?
Theorists choose to overplay her condition in order to keep her in her room, that is the motive behind these "Kelly was too drunk" arguments.

All we can deduce is Kelly had been drinking by midnight when she was seen by Cox, as she will do most nights, she's used to it. And by 2:00 am she was still "spree'ish", according to Hutchinson. Well able to walk by herself at midnight, and equally so at 2:00 am.
Both estimates by Cox & Hutchinson are equally subjective.

[PortilloMoment]

Just a short observation from personal experience: we should be careful not to be too certain in ascribing what might be termed normal physical responses to drug use and its cessation in regular or heavy users. My own experience, personal and observed, is that people who are heavy users can and do behave on a kind of autopilot, enabling actions a less heavy user might find impossible.

On any breath test they'd qualify as well over the limit and their motor skills would undoubtedly be affected, likely memory too. Simple, familiar actions however might still be well within their abilities and it's even possible they might pass (from a distance, at a casual glance or under poor conditions) as sober, or nearly so.

[Bridewell]

It's the context, objections are always raised that Kelly was too drunk at midnight to have been out again at 2:00 am and not appearing drunk, but "a little spree'ish", according to Hutchinson.
Clearly, 2 hours is well sufficient to allow her to recover to be able to walk the streets - she doesn't have to pass a driving test, only stay upright as she walks by herself.
Cox's opinion that she was drunk is subjective in itself.

I agree - I think - inasmuch as if she was "drunk" at 12.30am she can't have been "sober" at 2am. Similarly, if she was "sober" at 2am she can't have been all that "drunk" at 12.30am. IMHO the fact that she was on the streets at 2am means she wasn't seriously drunk at midnight.

I used to find, with drink drivers, that they lost about 8 microgrammes per 100 ml of breath every hour. Someone who was double the legal limit for driving in England would take between 4 and 5 hours to drop below the limit.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

True, but doctors know the difference between a cadaveric spasm, and rigor mortis.
A cadaveric spasm will remain fixed, rigor mortis will relax in a short time.
Look at Kelly's left hand, it is no longer clenched - rigor has passed off, ergo no cadaveric spasm?


That photo was taken prior to the post-mortem.

If strangulation caused clenching of the fingers, which was released by the time that photo was taken, why are the fingers of the right hand still clenched?



We always get the "ecchymosis can have other causes....", and clenched fingers "can have other causes...."
It's a common response when the factual answer is not acceptable, for whatever reason.


Where is the proof that your answer is definitive?


Don't you think Dr Bond would have known there were other causes?


Where did Dr Bond mention strangulation?



Phillips had also dealt with Chapman where he also recorded evidence of strangulation. He was the lead physician at the autopsy so it would come as no surprise to see more indications of the same with Kelly.


I cannot see any mention of strangulation.



The question was "is there any evidence of strangulation?", and the factual answer is "yes". Whether you choose to accept it or not is your decision, I can't change that.
It would be factually wrong to say "no, there was none", you should appreciate that.


It seems to be a matter of opinion, but I note that you have not answered my point that the ecchymosis in this case coincided with the knife wound, which suggests that it was the knife wound that caused the ecchymosis.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for your reply.

I would point out that the ecchymosis in this case coincided with the knife wound, which suggests that it was the knife wound that caused the ecchymosis.

Cadaveric spasm, including that of the fist, can be triggered by violent death without strangulation.

True, but doctors know the difference between a cadaveric spasm, and rigor mortis.
A cadaveric spasm will remain fixed, rigor mortis will relax in a short time.
Look at Kelly's left hand, it is no longer clenched - rigor has passed off, ergo no cadaveric spasm?

We always get the "ecchymosis can have other causes....", and clenched fingers "can have other causes...."
It's a common response when the factual answer is not acceptable, for whatever reason.
Don't you think Dr Bond would have known there were other causes?
Phillips had also dealt with Chapman where he also recorded evidence of strangulation. He was the lead physician at the autopsy so it would come as no surprise to see more indications of the same with Kelly.

The question was "is there any evidence of strangulation?", and the factual answer is "yes". Whether you choose to accept it or not is your decision, I can't change that.
It would be factually wrong to say "no, there was none", you should appreciate that.