Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott
Lets be straight about this once again, because as usual you have twisted what i have said.
Dr Brown mentions a stab to the liver he is specific about that. So that means for the liver to be stabbed the knife must have entered the body via the point of the knife now in my books that process is called a "stab".
I do not suggest that any cuts to the clothing can be matched to the stab to the liver. I did mention the stab to the liver because it does not appear to show up on any of the photographs. The reason for that could be because that stab was where the knife first entered the body through the clothing and was then drawn down. Brown mentions the wound going up but either he is mistaken or the killer was at an angle to the body whereby he was able to do that.
As to the clothes being thrown up and the knife then being used to make the cut then, this is not a plausible explanation. The clothes were affixed around the waist so simply throwing all the clothes up would cover the sternum area and make it almost impossible for the killer to gain free access to that area and to be able to draw a knife up or down through the thrown up clothing.
At last you make an argument and it's not a bad one to a degree.
Of course it is just one of many put forward.
Like Jon Guys it meets the medical needs of the data.
Why not do that in the first place rather than ignore points.
However back to the issue, you are playing semantics here over stab. However it is good to see you amend your position as I see it.
You say you have not; so be it guess it's back to how we interpret what we write.
I see no reply to you statement I had not answered your question and of course no reply to the other issue.
Don't worry it won't go away.