Mary Jane and Blotchy

[Wickerman]

An hour and a half is "plenty of time to sober up"? Not in my experience.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

For what it's worth Jason, I take it he strangled her on the bed ...

Is there any evidence of strangulation?

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, but the reality as you seem to see it is to dismiss what other witnesses reported, and replace their accounts with your own speculation.
You dismiss them without giving a reason, take for instance the statements of Bowyer, Kennedy & Lewis do not conflict with any factual information obtained from elsewhere.
Perhaps it is because most of the significant statements by these three are only found in the press, yet the one case you have shown considerable interest in is the Stride case, where the bulk of all our sources come from the press.
There's a double-standard here, if you can believe Mrs Mortimer (Stride case) then you can believe Mrs Kennedy (Kelly case).

I think youve missed the big consideration that I have used consistently, regardless of thread content. Corroborative accounts. Or at least accounts from a source that we know had intimate knowledge of the person concerned or of the environment. Or both.

The issue with Kennedy and Lewis isnt a problem unless you make it one, they are certainly one account perhaps given by 2 people. But from one story. Sarah appears at the Inquest, Mrs Kennedy does not. The only other option to reconcile identical accounts from 2 people is the witness themselves giving 2 different names. As for the other points, no-one saw Bowyer, no-one saw Mary leave her room after 11:45pm Thursday night, no-one saw George unless you decide George was Wideawake, not s single shred of corroboration or evidence that George knew Mary at all, no secondary verification Carrie knew Mary personally, no-one saw or heard anything Israel Schwartz says he saw and heard, in fact no-one saw or heard him and he isnt called for the evidence at the Inquest, no-one saw Diemshutz arrive or leave for help...but, Fanny Mortimers statement of an empty quiet street is validated by several secondary sources, the young couple and Wess to name 2. We know Mary Ann Cox had to walk past Marys door...which she did multiple times that night. We know Elizabeth Prater lived upstairs and logically would bump into Mary at least from time to time.

Theres no double standard, in fact the same filters are in place for any of these discussions....can we believe the people who we know knew the person or persons they saw, and do we have any secondary sources. There is a tendency for many to see what you would like to see, or what you think you see, or what you believe is the case. I review the evidence, apply these filters and extrapolate on the basis of that foundation. When the evidence doesnt answer the question, it certainly doesnt mean there is no answer.

[Wickerman]

Is there any evidence of strangulation?

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.

[Wickerman]

I think youve missed the big consideration that I have used consistently, regardless of thread content. Corroborative accounts. Or at least accounts from a source that we know had intimate knowledge of the person concerned or of the environment. Or both.
...

I notice you conveniently avoid offering corroboration for Cox being in the court at midnight, and while we're at it, who else saw this Blotchy character?
Where is your corroboration for him being there?
Prater is the only one who could vouch for Cox, and she testified she didn't see Cox down the passage between 1:00-1:20 am.
Did Cox have the wrong night, the wrong time?, after all, Cox claimed there was no noise or scream of "murder".
Was Cox just making it up?

Maybe, Cox tried to fix up this Blotchy character because he had rejected Cox in favor of Kelly at some point recently.
Kelly was young & attractive as opposed to Cox being, as described by the Star reporter - "a miserable specimen of East End womanhood".

It is odd that you would choose 'corroboration' as your means of dismissing a witness, yet can offer no corroboration for the witnesses you choose to believe.

Whether Cox was being truthful or not, I have just demonstrated how weak your argument is.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Ok, lets address these;

I notice you conveniently avoid offering corroboration for Cox being in the court at midnight, and while we're at it, who else saw this Blotchy character?
Where is your corroboration for him being there?

I have every reason to be confident that Mary Ann knew Mary, likely very well. She had to pass her room every time she went out to Dorset. I can therefore give her credibility that she knew Mary when she saw her, and that by extension, her reporting Mary with "company" can be considered reliable.

Prater is the only one who could vouch for Cox, and she testified she didn't see Cox down the passage between 1:00-1:20 am.
Did Cox have the wrong night, the wrong time?, after all, Cox claimed there was no noise or scream of "murder".
Was Cox just making it up?

The 2 women who heard that cry around 4am were in much closer proximity to Marys room than Cox was, for one, and we dont know precisely where Elizabeth was when she was on the street, or which way Mary Ann went out of the tunnel. So allowances can be made.

Maybe, Cox tried to fix up this Blotchy character because he had rejected Cox in favor of Kelly at some point recently.
Kelly was young & attractive as opposed to Cox being, as described by the Star reporter - "a miserable specimen of East End womanhood".

Im not saying your supposition is impossible, but have you never known attractive women who have less than attractive women friends?

It is odd that you would choose 'corroboration' as your means of dismissing a witness, yet can offer no corroboration for the witnesses you choose to believe.

You know of course the meaning of corroboration, right? Secondary source validation. George has none, Carrie Maxwell has none, Israel Schwartz had none, Morris Eagle had none, Louis Diemshitz had none. Fanny had that secondary source validation, and Mary Ann and Elizabeth can very easily be assumed to have personal knowledge of Mary Kelly.

Whether Cox was being truthful or not, I have just demonstrated how weak your argument is.

Responding to that would be just argumentative, lets just say that all youve "proven" is that youll take anyones word if it meets the storyline you expect to see. I prefer to deal with what is known, what is proven, and speculate beyond that using those foundations.

Sure, your Mary Ann Cox premise might be right, what proof do you have that Mary Ann fits your theory. The fact she is less attractive than Mary?

Maybe before trying to disparage you should look more carefully at what has been stated. If you understand it correctly, which Im not sure you do, then yuou would see that accepting uncorroborated statements over singular accounts isnt good practice when looking at recreating events.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.