Mary Jane and Blotchy

[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.

[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.

[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

[Wickerman]

Where is black blood mentioned?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

The newspaper I quoted from was the LONDON Star, of 24 Dec. 1888. Load up the page:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881224.html

See the top left corner of the page - Star (London).

What do you mean "in direct conflict"?, the inquest coverage in the Times is not the same as that published in the Telegraph, so all three are different.
Also, both the Times and the Daily Telegraph mention suffocation and partial strangulation as a conclusion after analyzing various injuries. There were bruises on the neck, a swollen face, the protruding tongue, turgid lips & finger nails,

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

Good, and while you are with him why don't you ask him the same question you posted in post 89?, just a little more accurate.

Originally you only mentioned two criteria (bruises on neck, protruding tongue), whereas Dr Phillips mentions five criteria; bruises on neck, swollen face, protruding tongue, turgid finger nails & lips, black blood in brain.

Quote: 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 obtaining any modern medical opinion we must ensure the source is presented with all the information we have, otherwise the subsequent opinion has little value.

Oh, and to be precise, Dr Phillips suggested these were the ordinary signs of suffocation/strangulation. He made no declaration that these criteria offered 'proof' of strangulation. Likely Dr Biggs will explain to you that doctors in general rarely entertain the notion of 'proof', that is an issue for lawyers not doctors.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, and to be precise, Dr Phillips suggested these were the ordinary signs of suffocation/strangulation. He made no declaration that these criteria offered 'proof' of strangulation. Likely Dr Biggs will explain to you that doctors in general rarely entertain the notion of 'proof', that is an issue for lawyers not doctors.

So on that basis there is no definite proof that she was strangled?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

So on that basis there is no definite proof that she was strangled?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nicely side-stepping the issue once again?

[Trevor Marriott]

Nicely side-stepping the issue once again?

There is no issue to side step the onus is on you to prove that she was strangled before having her throat cut

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

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.

I agree with very little of the above....yes, if she arrived home very drunk at 11:45 Thursday night, she wasnt sober at 2am. Maybe thats why all noise had ceased and the room was dark before 1:30am, she likely went to bed with Blotchy or passed out.

There is no witness who said they saw Mary out after that time that has any secondary verification.

[Michael W Richards]

Seems a lot of folks dont realize that there is no need for her to have been choked. She was on her right side, facing the partition wall, likely asleep or about to be, and someone slid a knife across her throat, right to left...in other words pulled towards the killer. That is a very clear indication of 2 things. Her killer was in her room with her permission, she wouldnt have flipped on her side, scootched over to the right side of the bed, if he wasnt known to her. And secondly, its almost assured her was left handed. Look at the other crimes, see clear evidence of left handed work? See evidence from the professionals that thought he was left handed?

Rhetorical of course, this is the only one of the group that has that kind of evidence regarding a dominant left hand. And dont both pulling out the ambi argument...around 1% of any given population is truly ambi.

[Wickerman]

There is no issue to side step the onus is on you to prove that she was strangled before having her throat cut

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're kidding, right?
You're trying to wind me up?

Listen, I know my memory isn't what it used to be, but clearly it is better than yours.
Go back to post #89, its the one where you injected yourself into a conversation, not a problem, everyone is always welcome. But, you jumped in on an exchange I was having with P.I., take a look at post #84. P.I. made the same mistake you have just made.

This issue began with post #77 where P.I. asked "is there any evidence of strangulation?"

To which I replied that there was, and subsequently gave several factual observations that are consistent with suffocation/strangulation.
This was the conclusion of Dr Phillips who had authority over the post-mortems of Chapman & Kelly.

Once P.I.'s interpretation was challenged, he returns with "where's your proof?".
All of a sudden "any evidence" turns to "proof", like yourself you suddenly reach for the "proof" card when your opinion is challenged.
It's a shame "proof" was not your principal focus when you wrote your suspect book.

There were several points of evidence which lead Dr. Phillips to conclude that Chapman had been strangled.
As much as you might not like it, you can't change the fact.

Ever heard of James Cameron & Francis Camps, two Pathologists from the 60's, or thereabouts?
They separately concluded the Ripper had strangled his victims before using the knife. It was a radical proposal for the time, but modern sexual serial murderers now most frequently strangle their victims first.
Isn't it funny how Pathologists have no trouble recognizing the evidence that suggests strangulation, yet modern theorists, presumably with no particular training in that field seem to struggle to accept the facts.
Perhaps if 'we' listen to those who are trained in the field more often, 'we' will not waste our time inventing theories to contest the obvious?

[Wickerman]

Seems a lot of folks dont realize that there is no need for her to have been choked. She was on her right side, facing the partition wall, likely asleep or about to be, and someone slid a knife across her throat, right to left...in other words pulled towards the killer. That is a very clear indication of 2 things. Her killer was in her room with her permission, she wouldnt have flipped on her side, scootched over to the right side of the bed, if he wasnt known to her. And secondly, its almost assured her was left handed. Look at the other crimes, see clear evidence of left handed work? See evidence from the professionals that thought he was left handed?

Rhetorical of course, this is the only one of the group that has that kind of evidence regarding a dominant left hand. And dont both pulling out the ambi argument...around 1% of any given population is truly ambi.

Would you mind listing those physicians who think the killer was left-handed?