Theories on Rose being a Ripper victim

[Stewart P Evans]

Observations

Dave, thank you very much for your interesting input and relevant observations. Amazingly a poster on the other boards asks, "What, then, did Robert Anderson do that was wrong?" I think it is patently obvious what he did wrong, not least of all by refusing to investigate a legally proven case of murder any further and putting himself above the law of the land - then years later deceiving his readers with his opinion of the Mylett case, leading them to think it wasn't even a case of murder. I shall be posting further on this.

[Stewart P Evans]

Notes on Strangulation

It is a pity that the full autopsy report on Mylett has, apparently, not survived. However, we do know that the medical opinion was that she died from strangulation.

Strangulation, manual or ligature, may cause death by asphyxiation. This often results, in the case of manual strangulation, in fingernail marks on the throat of the victim. It can also cause haemorrhage in the eyes (petechial haemorrhages) and sometimes trauma to the tongue. Damage is also caused to the interior structures of the neck, throat and larynx.

It is impossible to strangle oneself manually, for as unconsciousness intervenes the hands will relax and the grip will be released.

Sudden vagal inhibition or cerebral anaemia may precipitate death from a grip which would not be capable of causing asphyxia. In cases of manual strangulation the marks of the grip effected are not always prominent and such would appear to be the case with Mylett. Nor are there always fingernail impressions or scratching. Bruises of fingertips are not always sufficiently clear to define on the surface of the skin, but may be revealed in the tissues immediately beneath.

Facial contortion may not always be assumed for victims of strangulation can present a peaceful appearance. Indeed, there are recorded cases of judicial execution where the face of the hanged culprit bore a peaceful appearance and the cause of death was betrayed only by the mark of the rope around the neck.

This, of course, illustrates how it is wrong to deduce anything about the cause of death based on facial expression alone. On these grounds we can dismiss Anderson's assumptions based on the absence of facial contortions. We have already shown that the stated absence of signs of a struggle can be dismissed also.

[Stewart P Evans]

Relevant

The most relevant point in all this, and, I suspect, the main reason for the great interest in this case, is how it reflects on Anderson the man and his ability to relate historical facts in an honest, objective and unbiased manner in his later publications.

In my opinion and, I would have thought, in the view of any objective observer it does not reflect too well on the man. For his footnote comments on the 'Poplar case' are misleading, dishonest and, apparently, based upon his own belief system. If he cannot be relied upon here, then how can he be accepted as the fountain of truth that some would have us believe that he is?

[Cap'n Jack]

'The most relevant point in all this, and, I suspect, the main reason for the great interest in this case, is how it reflects on Anderson the man and his ability to relate historical facts in an honest, objective and unbiased manner in his later publications.

In my opinion and, I would have thought, in the view of any objective observer it does not reflect too well on the man. For his footnote comments on the 'Poplar case' are misleading, dishonest and, apparently, based upon his own belief system. If he cannot be relied upon here, then how can he be accepted as the fountain of truth that some would have us believe that he is?'

Well said, Stewart, and they are the very reasons that I have pursued Anderson for his curt and comfortable dismissal - in the same volume of memoirs - of his detention by a police officer for an indecency offence on a train in the 1870's.

[Natalie Severn]

what evidence....to cast odium for this infamy on one of our people

[QUOTE=Howard Brown;50923]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.

Howard,
I have posted on page 3 of this thread,an answer to your claim that- " Mentor
didnt come close to suggesting he[Anderson] was an anti Semite in his rebuttal to Sir Robert Anderson"- well he most certainly did Howard!

"Mentor"- aka Mr Leopold Jacob Greenberg, Editor of "The Jewish Chronicle"-called SRA"s comments on the "low class" Jewish community "wicked assertions",and he states in his editorial of
Friday 4 March 1910:
"I fail to see-at least,from his article in Blackwood"s-upon what evidence worthy of the name HE VENTURES TO CAST ODIUM FOR THIS INFAMY UPON ONE OF OUR PEOPLE".
If that isnt accusing Robert Anderson of anti-Semitism by name- its a pretty strong indictment!

[Natalie Severn]

Stewart,
Through you being able to present such a broad perspective on this case and by focussing on the police angle as well as the majority police surgeon"s [medical ]findings,this case is gradually beginning to make more sense to me.
Thanks for all the awesome visual support .
Norma

[Howard Brown]

Dear Nats:

With all due respect, Anderson makes the observation..whether correctly incorrectly.. that the Ripper was a "low class Polish Jew" in an identical fashion that other Jews considered those from The Pale of Settlement to be. No one accuses these landed,assimilated Jews of being anti-Semites when they make a sweeping generalization of an entire body of people ( which IS anti-Semitism), but Anderson gets hung out to dry for naming ONE Jew as the suspect in question. Thats not anti-Semitism,Nats...and despite what Mentor said,Anderson did not run and hide from his original sentiment, rather clarifying it to point out he was referring to either those in this suspect's immediate family or those of a certain class of Jews,who were considered pretty vile according to Rabbis themselves.. He was an elitist,Nats..in the manner many of us are when we encounter hillbillies or pikeys...we call 'em "white trash". Whether SRA was right or wrong in his declaration as to who the suspect was, I fail to see any signs of anti-Semitism within or by a remark that a man, who really didn't have to,but did, confront and clarify his position to make sure he was understood.

But back to SPE:

Dear SPE...I have what I consider a pretty important aspect to discuss within this whole Mylett matter which I mentioned on the Forums after Debra Arif was so kind as to put three newspaper article excerpts over there....regarding Bond & alcohol.

If Brownfield did not notice alcohol in her stomach and stated so in his original report...and unless I am wrong, doctors assessed whether a deceased person had imbibed alcohol by smelling their stomachs....then HOW did Bond, according to the newspaper reports Debra found, find what amounted a teaspoon full ?

If this is true...and using the same reevaluation procedures we do about and with other individuals throughout the Case...in particular,Anderson, since he's the flavor of the month here....can we truly trust Brownfield, if alcohol WAS found by Bond in direct contrast to what Brownfield declared several days before Bond even saw Mylett's body? Do you see what I am driving at here?

Not that I think that Mylett strangled herself, which I certainly don't...but could the marks found on her neck been there a significant period of time prior to her death? In other words, she had been exposed to someone who put these marks on her neck...and a little while later succumbed to the effects or trauma of this encounter...and then,in light of the fact that there were no other footmarks in the area,save hers, dropped dead? What do you or anyone else think?

Back to you ...

[Wickerman]

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?

Brownfield did not say there was any evidence, he made a suggestion, thats all.

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.

:-)
Trust me, you'd know if you cut the jugglar..
The doctors who prefer to assign a certain amount of anatomical knowledge to the Ripper did not even consider the point you make, it has no bearing on the issue. The medical men of the time considered a whole different set of details before they arrived at their conclusions.

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, ..

Given the fear of the time yes, they may have been drawn to such a conclusion. All I think it indicates is that Mylett was murdered with a similar implement to what the Ripper may have used.

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.

Thats a little too vague, the bruises that were noted have been written about extensively on these boards, no bruises are recorded on the neck of any of the three victims I have been referring to (Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes).
That said, manual strangulation does not always leave bruise marks.
Reasons for this can be manyfold.

Perhaps the ambient temperature plays a roll, certainly the physical makeup of the victim will be a contributing factor. You will note, Nichols and Chapman were heavy set as compared with Eddowes, yet neither appears to have bore bruises on the neck. Nichols did have bruises on her chin, both left and right side. I think Chapman & Eddowes both had bruises on the back of their hands - this might be consistent with them trying to lash out at an attacker holding them from behind, as I suggested earlier.
I would like to know if the amount of lactic acid present in the victim at the time of the attack may have had a bearing on whether bruises develope on certain parts of the body.

Just as an aside, several years ago another method of strangulation was discussed on the Casebook in connection with these crimes, another way which leaves no marks on the skin.
Perhaps the killer hooked his arm around the throat, again from behind, in what wrestlers call a 'strangle-hold'. This applies pressure to each jugglar vein, one side from the bicep, the other side from the forearm. The victim slips into unconsciousness but still breathes freely. This method does not choke off the air passage, but, simply puts the victim to sleep, due to restricting blood flow to the brain.
This method may take longer to take effect than manual strangulation.

Alternately, we have the common manual strangulation which applies pressure to the air passage but not the jugglar veins, with this the victim chokes to death for lack of air, relatively quickly, unless released prematurely.
Which is not a good idea, the victim may begin to cough, creating too much noise. Manual strangulation itself can be noisey if not applied correctly and swiftly.
The Ripper victims apparently did not choke to death for lack of air.

Lastly, the ligature seems to apply pressure to both jugglar veins, and, the wind-pipe, rendering the victim unconscious sooner than either of the above methods, and, with less noise and resistance.

With the first two methods the victim does at least have something to grab hold of, the killers fingers, hands or arms. With the ligature (garrot), the victim has nothing to grasp, except to tear away (scratch) at their own necks.

The ligature is far more effective and much less risky and less strenuous for the attacker.

Choose your weapon sir..!

[Natalie Severn]

Sir Robert would have us believe that there were Jews committing

the abominable crimes and yet carefully shielded him from the police."
---A more wicked assertion to put into print without a shadow of evidence I have seldom seen.
Thus spake "Mentor"!
And this same,"Mentor" -or Mr Leopold Greenberg, writes in the same "Jewish Chronicle "article , a robust defence of the "low class Jews" Robert Anderson singled out from the Jewish Community to accuse of covering up the crimes of Jack the Ripper,Mentor called it a "nonsensical theory"----"here",he says,"was a whole neighbourhood,largely composed of Jews,in constant terror lest their womenfolk,whom Jewish men hold in particular regard-EVEN"LOW CLASS" JEWS DO THAT "he emphasises,"should be slain by some murderer who was stalking the area undiscovered.
And Mentor was backed up,as I said earlier, by the Chief Commissioner of the City of London Police,Major Henry Smith ,who roundly defended the Jewish Community in its entirety as being a good deal more law abiding than many native East Enders,moreover, Smith "denounced" Robert Anderson for making such "RECKLESS" allegations about the Jewish Community,and ridiculed him for talking a load of nonsense about "pretending to know who the ripper was",when nobody else did.
Night, Night Howie,
its 11.30 here!

[Chris]

... Anderson gets hung out to dry for naming ONE Jew as the suspect in question. Thats not anti-Semitism,Nats...

As I think Natalie made clear, Anderson is not being accused of antisemitism simply because he believed that the Ripper was Jewish. It is rather because he claimed to have deduced in the first place that the Ripper must have been a "low class Polish Jew" on the basis that "people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice". That is what Mentor described as a "wicked assertion".

Obviously it is nonsensical as a method of detection, because everyone knows that all families, of whatever race or religion, tend to protect their own. I think it's undeniable that it's also evidence of prejudice against the Polish Jews in the East End. Perhaps Anderson can be excused the charge of blanket antisemitism, because he had friends among the Anglo-Jewish establishment. But I think it's clear that he was prejudiced.

[Howard Brown]

Perhaps Anderson can be excused the charge of blanket antisemitism, because he had friends among the Anglo-Jewish establishment. But I think it's clear that he was prejudiced.-Chris

And yet no more so,in fact less in several instances, than the authors of the numerous articles on the issue of Polish Jewry who happened to be Jewish, yet they are not labelled anti-Semitic,Chris. I agree that Anderson was probably, if not definitely, an elitist who like many would prefer to be amongst those of his own economic or social class, which included Jews. Elitists are by the very definition of the word, prejudiced. Its probably best that discussion of this aspect appear on another thread,Chris, if its all the same to you. Nats and I seem to be at a point where we will have to agree to disagree about whether SRA was anti-Semitic or not.

[Chris]

And yet no more so,in fact less in several instances, than the authors of the numerous articles on the issue of Polish Jewry who happened to be Jewish, yet they are not labelled anti-Semitic,Chris.

Perhaps you can give us some specific examples of the articles you're thinking of.

By all means on another thread, if you prefer (but preferably another thread on this site).

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Howard Brown;51084]Perhaps Anderson can be excused the charge of blanket antisemitism, because he had friends among the Anglo-Jewish establishment. But I think it's clear that he was prejudiced.-Chris

And yet no more so,in fact less in several instances, than the authors of the numerous articles on the issue of Polish Jewry who happened to be Jewish, yet they are not labelled anti-Semitic.


Howard,
Sticking the language of prejudice as it exists as we talk today, whether by race ,class or gender [ UK definitions]ie -regarding equal access to jobs for example,the groupings are quite specific.If fellow Jews looked down on and bad mouthed other Jews, they are likely showing a prejudice of "class" or social superiority.
In Anderson"s case ,according to the criteria above he,as an upper class white male, is revealing prejudice about ,both " class" and "race".

Anyway I am very aware we must move this to another thread or else the really splendid source materials Stewart Evans has so kindly posted here and his equally compelling statements about the Rose Mylett case which is what this thread is about, will be lost on readers because we are engaged in discussing this other Anderson agenda that keeps rearing its head.
May I therefore I take this opportunity to apologise to Stewart for prolonging this debate about Howard"s earlier remark regarding anti-Semitism.This will be my last post on the matter on this thread.

Thankyou Chris,for clarifying my point earlier.

Best
Norma

[Pinkerton]

Just as an aside, several years ago another method of strangulation was discussed on the Casebook in connection with these crimes, another way which leaves no marks on the skin.
Perhaps the killer hooked his arm around the throat, again from behind, in what wrestlers call a 'strangle-hold'. This applies pressure to each jugglar vein, one side from the bicep, the other side from the forearm. The victim slips into unconsciousness but still breathes freely. This method does not choke off the air passage, but, simply puts the victim to sleep, due to restricting blood flow to the brain.
This method may take longer to take effect than manual strangulation.

Alternately, we have the common manual strangulation which applies pressure to the air passage but not the jugglar veins, with this the victim chokes to death for lack of air, relatively quickly, unless released prematurely.
Which is not a good idea, the victim may begin to cough, creating too much noise. Manual strangulation itself can be noisey if not applied correctly and swiftly.
The Ripper victims apparently did not choke to death for lack of air.

You have this reversed. Manual strangulation, which cuts off the airway, can take up to a few MINUTES to kill a person, whereas applying a chokehold where both sides of the neck are compressed will bring the person to unconscienceness within seconds, and death in under a minute. Also, the chokehold can ALSO compress the airway AS WELL as the blood supply (which will work even faster). This would also prevent someone from crying out.

If the Ripper strangled his victims he most certainly did not manually strangle them. That would have left all manner of marks on the neck, including finger marks and probably broken skin. He either used a chokehold, or used a ligature. I'm going to start a thread specifically about the issue of strangulation. I have a couple of interesting articles on the subject.

[Stewart P Evans]

Long Posts

I see that the debate on this topic is trundling along on the other boards and that Paul Begg has now contributed another lengthy post. Much may be speculation but some valid points are raised. I would like to simplify all this as most readers develop a certain word blindness when reading long posts. I should like to narrow things down to specifics and try not to let it become too complicated.

Paul Begg's concern, naturally, is about the criticism levelled at Anderson over this affair. So he points out Monro's part in the matter in order to shift the onus in that direction. Fair enough, but it is totally irrelevant who the prime mover was, for Anderson's actions remain the same and the criticism of them valid. That criticism is that he was instrumental in pressing the police view at a senior level that this was a death from natural causes and not murder, he refused to investigate the case as a murder (despite the verdict of the jury) and later misleadingly described it as a death from natural causes and not murder. Both he and Monro would naturally prefer that, for it meant that another unsolved murder would not be added to the list and there was some high profile press attention being given to the case - even suggesting the invalid notion that it was another Ripper crime.

There is no doubt that Monro would have preferred a verdict of death from natural causes, rather than murder, and he was senior to Anderson. Anderson agreed with him, was directed by him, and thus became involved in debating the case with the medical men stating he 'pressed my difficulties and objections'. This may be seen in the verbatim reproduction of the official reports in The Ultimate Sourcebook. All to no avail, for the inquest verdict was one of 'murder by person or persons unknown'. The very result that Monro and Anderson did not want.

What is difficult to understand is Bond's part in all this. The murder fell under the jurisdiction of the Divisional Police Surgeon Doctor Brownfield and the highest ranking police medical man Surgeon in Chief, Alexander O. McKellar, also attended and both men, out-qualifying Bond, maintained that it was a case of homicidal strangulation. They were there, they examined the body and, I should hope, were more qualified to reach a decision than any police officer or any modern theorist.

The police objections to this conclusion were based on the placid features of the deceased and the apparent lack of signs of a struggle in the soft ground. Both of these points have been covered previously and, as stated, strangulation (in some of its many forms) is not always accompanied by facial contortion nor by excessive marking of the neck. Also the 'signs of a struggle' idea is invalid as there would have been footprints all around the body from when it was discovered (in darkness) and any slight signs of a struggle (presumably scuffs on the ground) would have obliterated before they were even looked for. As it was initially not treated as a suspicious death then there would have been no real attempt to find such marks anyway.

The fact that Anderson could get away with writing in a report to his chief, Monro, that he had told the Divisional Superintendent that he 'did not intend to take any further action in the matter' indicates that Monro was of a like mind. Today such actions by the police would be regarded as scandalous and a gross neglect of duty. But, moving on to 1910, when writing about the case Anderson was happy to leave to posterity the 'fact' that it 'was a death from natural causes, and but for the "Jack the Ripper" scare, no one would have thought of suggesting that it was a homicide.' This is all he says about the case in his book, so any reader not au fait with the facts would have no idea that it was a case of murder and that the unsolved murder case was still on the books at Scotland Yard. This is a gross distortion of the truth by Anderson.