Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

[Suzi]

Just as a by the by

Anderson-What a beautiful hand-quite unlike how I would have imagined it to be.
Interestingly- he refers to Bond as Mr...would that be- as is the case today with reference to one of the Specialist/Consultant classes? (Sorry if this has been discussed before)

Suz x

[Stewart P Evans]

Bond

Further to my post above, even Bond initially agreed with the other doctors that it was a case of homicide. Anderson did not like this and in a 'long conference' (on 24 December) pressed his 'difficulties and objections' and referred them to Monro. However, the same afternoon, after Anderson's 'long conference' with him, Bond returned to the mortuary 'to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck'. Bond returned to Anderson to tell him that "he had entirely altered his view of the case, and was satisfied that though death was due to strangulation, it was produced accidentally and not by homicidal violence." This beggars belief and it flew in the face of the conclusions of all the other medical men. It even makes one wonder what sway Anderson held over Bond to influence him in this way. (reference MEPO 3/143, page 5 of Anderson's report of 11 January 1889).

[Stewart P Evans]

Emphasise

And just to emphasise the above point, here it is in black and white from his book -

[Stewart P Evans]

Again

"I am here assuming that the murder of Alice M'Kenzie on the 17th of July, 1889, was by another hand. I was absent from London when it occurred, but the Chief Commissioner investigated the case on the spot and decided that it was an ordinary murder, and not the work of a sexual maniac. And the Poplar case of December, 1888, was a death from natural causes, and but for the 'Jack the Ripper' scare, no one would have thought of suggesting it was a homicide." - Sir Robert Anderson, The Lighter Side of My Official Life, 1910.

Sorry to repeat this again, but, it seems, it needs to be read and understood. Whatever spin anyone may try to put on these words of Anderson, whatever personal interpretation might be placed upon them, whatever suggestions may be made, nothing alters their meaning. The Poplar Crime (Mylett) was pronounced a murder by all the medical men involved (apart from Bond) and was found to be a murder at the inquest. It remained on police files as an unsolved murder from that day on. Anderson knew this. Yet in 1910 he led his readers to believe that it was a death from natural causes but that there had been some suggestion at the time that it was a homicide.

For goodness sake, the death of Mylett was found by both the medical men and an inquest jury to be a murder. Anderson's words are indisputably misleading, wrong, deceptive, mistaken - call it what you will - but they still cast grave doubt on taking his word for granted as being true or accurate. Yet still the pro-Andersonites argue against this.

[auspirograph]

Hi, Auspirograph.
I don't see how a deep cut through the neck, down to the vertabrae, can be seen to argue against the use of a ligature?
Can you explain?



It was caused by a knife, what are you saying?
The murders of Coles and Stride are more similar to each other, and quite different from those of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.



Of course, thats the point!
Dr Brownfield suggested the killer (may have) sliced their necks through the ligature mark to eliminate the mark, destroying the evidence.

Well, if the second cut to the neck down to the vertebrae of the Ripper victims was established as having been made with a knife, then there's no reason to credibly suppose or evidence to indicate that it was made by the killer to eliminate a garrotte mark, as was found and suggested with Mylett is there?

The second cuts could well have been made to ensure that the carotid artery was severed and to allow for the further mutilations. If correct, then the Ripper likely had no certain human anatomical knowledge.

I would agree with you that it is an important point and if the Ripper did attempt to eliminate garrotte marks with the second cut, then it cautiously indicates that Mylett was also a Ripper victim, or at least that she was regarded as such due to similiar neck wounds as Stride and the other victims that could explain Anderson's resistance to the inquest verdict.

Regarding unconsciousness by strangulation in the Ripper victims, medical evidence indicated physical signs on the bodies with enough associated bruising but no indications of the use of a ligature, cord or garrotte.

[Wickerman]

Auto..
The flow of logic goes something like this..

Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes all died within earshot of the general public, in some cases within feet, yet not a sound, a whimper, scream, or anything was heard. Doctors were mystified, and stated as much that they cannot account for the lack of noise, how were these women attacked in almost total silence?

Now, Chapman showed distinct signs of being strangled, this is a solution that would explain the fact no-one heard any screams from her, and the other two victims.
Except, there are no finger marks around Chapman's neck (or Nichols, or Eddowes). Also, Chapman had scratch marks on the side of her neck, "running in a contrary direction to the cut". This means the scratches run vertical because the cut ran horizontal.
Fingernail scratches may well be visible when the victim is being strangled by something very thin, not a broad hand and fingers which would likely cover the neck anyway. How do you scratch your neck when someone has their hand around it? - you can't, not easily. You can dig your fingernails into your skin but thats not what was testified. The doctor saw scratches (which assumes some length).
So, how could they have been strangled if there were no apparent signs of pressure (no fingermarks) to the windpipe or to their jugglar veins?

But, rendered unconscious they were, because all the doctors agreed their throats were cut while the victims laid on the ground.
No victim is going to willingly lay down to have their throat cut, ergo, they must have been subdued in some way that has not left any evidence, no drugs, no fingermarks.

A cord of some kind would not only render the voicebox inoperable, it would also allow the attacker to stand behind the victim, where he cannot be injured by hands, fingers, or the legs of the victim as she struggles and looses consciousness. A cord requires less effort than using the hands, leaves very little evidence by way of marks (no thumb or finger bruises), and the little mark it does leave can be easily eliminated by the use of a knife.

There's no proof, this is all conjecture, but conjecture to some degree based on logic, practical application and the existence of a cut to the neck that is secondary in nature, no visible reason for the second cut, the victim is already dead! (by the first cut to the jugglar). The second cut is viewed as more of an act of mutilation, at least thats how it was interpreted, but this was long before Brownfields suggestion that the cut may have had a true purpose.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

An interesting consideration for sure but there's a problem with that due to one of the few things the police surgeons examining the general Ripper victims did agree on. They considered that the second cut was an attempt to decapitate the head from the body of the victim after the first severed the carotid artery. The considered medical opinion on cause of death.

Hi, Auspirograph.
I don't see how a deep cut through the neck, down to the vertabrae, can be seen to argue against the use of a ligature?
Can you explain?

Further to this, the Ripper doctors were in general agreement that the severing of the artery was caused by a knife and is the main issue that keeps Elizabeth Stride in the picture.

It was caused by a knife, what are you saying?
The murders of Coles and Stride are more similar to each other, and quite different from those of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes.

Apart from the marks found on the neck of Rose Mylett, there doesn't appear to be any other evidence for a Whitechapel murderer using a garrot.

Of course, thats the point!
Dr Brownfield suggested the killer (may have) sliced their necks through the ligature mark to eliminate the mark, destroying the evidence.

[auspirograph]

S R A

Howard,

SRA is an American acronym appearing in the early 1980's referring to Satanic Ritual Abuse, not to be confused with Anderson bias. It is a fascinating theory on your part but I think Anderson's religious preferences were a little more mundane and conservative than that.

[Howard Brown]

Dear SPE:

I certainly am not an Anderson apologist, but do see bias in other area(s)towards SRA, most notably that several individuals infer or toy with the idea that he was an anti-Semite, when even Mentor didn't come close to suggesting that at any point in his rebuttal to SRA and no evidence exists of him being one either. To clarify myself,just because SRA is very worthy of scrutinization in several areas, he's being completely taken apart in other areas by innuendo & faulty perception and I don't think that in the scheme of things its productive to do so.

Chris:

I know you didn't publicly state she was murdered, but from the tone of a previous post,I had assumed you had leaned in that direction.

I would like to see where Debs found the reference to Bond examining the stomach...and if she posts it elsewhere in another place, I'll be sure to post it here.

[auspirograph]

The medical evidence does tend to lean towards accepting Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes as victims of the same killer. One common denominator between them is that they all had their throats cut twice. As the victims throats are all cut while they lay on the ground, obviously unconscious, only one cut through either jugglar vein is required. Why the 2nd cut?

Perhaps... to hide the mark a cord (Garrott?) would make?
This suggestion came about after the body of Rose Mylett was found with such a mark, according to the medical consensus.
An interesting proposal very worthy of consideration.

Hi Wickerman,

An interesting consideration for sure but there's a problem with that due to one of the few things the police surgeons examining the general Ripper victims did agree on. They considered that the second cut was an attempt to decapitate the head from the body of the victim after the first severed the carotid artery. The considered medical opinion on cause of death.

Further to this, the Ripper doctors were in general agreement that the severing of the artery was caused by a knife and is the main issue that keeps Elizabeth Stride in the picture.

Apart from the marks found on the neck of Rose Mylett, there doesn't appear to be any other evidence for a Whitechapel murderer using a garrot. Personally, I don't think she was a Ripper victim unless the Whitechapel murders were committed by several persons in tandem. That the inquest jury concluded murder should have been enough for Anderson but for some inexplicable reason, it was not with all the attendant theoretical confusion.

[Chris]

I must confess I was left scratching my head after reading this:
None of the doctors viewed the body before it had been autopsied. [Y]ou will recall that Dr Brownfield conducted his autopsy ...

Perhaps it means he averted his eyes from the body before the initial plunge of the scalpel?

[Natalie Severn]

Hi ,
Yes,I reckon Rose would have had to have had more than a tablespoonful of the hard stuff to have choked on her own vomit- or some such theory.
I do happen to think the case throws a lot of light on the way Anderson was able to "convince" himself something was so,almost to the point where he seems to have viewed himself as an infallible witness.
---maybe it was his hotline to the Almighty that gave him notions of infallibility----
Cheers How!


PS Just read Stewart"s post-will be very interested to read these!

[Stewart P Evans]

Murder

Personally I would go along with the majority medical opinion of the time that it was a case of murder. Indeed, that was the verdict of the inquest jury and the case remained on Scotland Yard files as an unsolved murder. There is absolutely nothing at all to indicate that it was a Ripper crime.

However, what really amazes me is that Paul Begg, that staunch Anderson apologist, pops up with untenable arguments in a perceived defence of Anderson and yet maintains he has no Anderson bias. His excuse is he is acting as devil's advocate but the result is the same. Another attempted Anderson vindication job. I shall be posting later on his extraordinary arguments.

[Chris]

Nats...I agree with CGP & Rob Clack and others that Mylett was murdered.

I didn't actually express an opinion about that.

As to Bond swaying to Anderson's point of view, I have just now learned from Debra Arif that Bond conducted a test and extricated a tablespoon of whiskey from her stomach, which as you know,is in contrast to the original report which declared no alcohol was present in Mylett. Perhaps,in all fairness, this is why Bond changed his mind in the long run......

In Scotland Yard Investigates (p. 246), Anderson is quoted as saying "But that same afternoon Mr Bond went again to Poplar to make a more careful examination of the woman's neck, and he returned to tell me he had entirely altered his view of the case ..." That makes it sound as though it was the neck, not the stomach, that changed his mind. But perhaps Anderson's report was inaccurate.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Nats:

"Moreover,the topic has been aired a number of times, Howard,and it illustrates Anderson"s intransigence and unwillingness to value medical opinion- although himself, a non -medically trained layman.

Nats...I agree with CGP & Rob Clack and others that Mylett was murdered. I'm not arguing against that at all. I also don't think that everything that is mentioned about Anderson in the negative is correct either. Just because a person is a poor cook doesn't mean he can't discern well cooked food from poorly cooked fare..

As to Bond swaying to Anderson's point of view, I have just now learned from Debra Arif that Bond conducted a test and extricated a tablespoon of whiskey from her stomach, which as you know,is in contrast to the original report which declared no alcohol was present in Mylett. Perhaps,in all fairness, this is why Bond changed his mind in the long run...... Whether or not Mylett was intoxicated is another issue altogether. It would take a lot more than a tablespoon of hooch to get someone accustomed to liquor intoxicated as Alice Graves claimed Mylett was just a few hours before she was found. Even she was three sheets to the wind,, I cannot see how she died from some self inflicted means. In any event, she sure picked an out of the way to kill herself or accidentally die,didn't she?

Cheers !