Different Killers

[FrankO]

How did they get on the front if it was a rear attack? I don't do coincidences so I think its pretty much clear she was attacked from the front.

I'm not saying she couldn't have been attacked from the front, Batman. What I am saying, though, is that Dr. Phillips opinion doesn't quite fit the evidence. There was apparently no mud to speak of on her back. What does fit the evidence better, in my opinion, is Dr. Blackwell's opinion, who suggested that "the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf [from behind], which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way." The knot of the scarf was on Stride's left side of her neck, suggesting her killer pulled it backwards with his left hand. If Stride was facing the gates when this happened, she would spin and end up on the ground on her left side. By the way, even though I think Stride may not have been a Ripper victim, I do believe the others were.

The best,
Frank

[John G]

I feel that the time has come to declare myself!

For a number of years now I have taken the view that Stride was probably a Ripper victim and that she was most likely killed by BS man. However, whilst I still lean towards Stride being a Ripper victim, or I am at least on the fence, I do now concede that it is unlikely that BS man was the killer.

I have given full consideration to the cachous argument, as proposed by Lynn Cates, and, as I believe I have indicated before, I am in full agreement with it. I cannot see where it is logically flawed.

That said, I am of the firm opinion, as I believe I have indicated before, that this actually strengthens, rather than weakens, the possibility that Stride was a Ripper victim. The clear implication of the argument is that Stride was attacked from behind whilst being completely relaxed, oblivious of the serious and imminent danger she was in, i.e. because her killer was looming ominously behind her, knife in hand, and with murderous intent.

To my mind, this is in no way inconsistent with the likely strategy employed by the killer of the other C5 victims. In fact, it does seem to me to be highly uncharacteristic of what we would expect of a more common domestic murder, surely the only other plausible alternative to Stride having been killed by a cunning stranger; and a stranger who had, in all probability, pre-planned the killing.

[Wickerman]

Strongly disagree with your limiting of what a pathologist can do and should do, which is also to give reasons for injuries. A cause. It is called wound analysis with peer-review galore and is accepted in most western courts as it was accepted in that inquest.

We are not talking about 'wound analysis', any number of causes can produce a pressure point, or bruise - so lets not morph this into a scientific debate.

Doctors do offer speculation as to the type of weapon used but they cannot specify precisely what the weapon was without a unique marking or pattern.
The same goes for bruises.

[lynn cates]

reenactment

Hello Frank. Quite. And all consonant with my reenactment.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

face to face

Hello John. Hard to disagree that BSM--once deconstructed--allows for a killing which was NOT face to face.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wound analysis

Hello Job. And IF we began to do "wound analysis," we would have to discuss B & B and their "unskilful mutilations."

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Where is the blood down her front? Gravity doesn't suspend itself. Approx 300ml a second/beat. Where is the arterial spray?

Clean front. Gravity is real. Scarf NOT soaked in blood. Blood pooled at back of neck on ground.

Why make this any more complex than needs be?

[Wickerman]

Why would blood by down her front when she was laid on her left side, with her throat cut on the left side?

[lynn cates]

eloquent

Hello Jon. Quite.

Eloquently said and without the yowling and foot stamping which preceded it. (Did I mention puerile remarks about Newton?)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Where is the blood down her front? Gravity doesn't suspend itself. Approx 300ml a second/beat. Where is the arterial spray?

Clean front. Gravity is real. Scarf NOT soaked in blood. Blood pooled at back of neck on ground.

Why make this any more complex than needs be?

You were told and shown before that there is not always arterial spray with regards to throat cutting.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

You were told and shown before that there is not always arterial spray with regards to throat cutting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor. What you showed was a post you made quoting a mystery person. I asked you to provide a source from a journal which that person needs to reference because its a big claim. You said they are the source, so I dismissed your claim because there was no evidence forthcoming and the whole mystery pathologist makes it look shady.

Anyway she bled down the back of her neck, which pooled and flowed. So the blood is there and not mysteriously absent at all.

[lynn cates]

the Master

Hello Trevor. Confucius say:

"I will not enlighten a heart that is not already struggling to understand, nor will I provide the proper words to a tongue that is not already struggling to speak. If I hold up one corner of a problem and the student cannot come back to me with the other three, I will not attempt to instruct him again.”
Analects 7.8

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

Arterial spray

Hallo,

Not sure if this helps or just adds to the confusion http://www.davewagner.com/OJ/oj/ng_739.htm. It seems to be an analysis of blood flow rates, and a discussion of the consequences of severing the carotid artery.

The analysis seems to be in respect of the OJ Simpson case. Not sure how authoritative it is but it certainly seems very convincing!

Here's another link in which arterial spray was discussed, during expert witness examination, in respect of the same case. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...n/leetest.html

Sorry if this just adds to the confusion- I'm obviously no expert!

[Harry D]

Isenschmid is an interesting character n' all, and who knows, maybe he was responsible for the earlier murders. Where you lose me is this whole idea that he went from trying to steal from two women, to suddenly thinking it was an average day in the butcher shop. Someone completely out of touch with reality like that would've been caught straight away. It also doesn't explain why Isenschmid was tentative in his approach to Nichols' murder, if he thought he was gutting an animal, and happened to time his escape perfectly.

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor. What you showed was a post you made quoting a mystery person. I asked you to provide a source from a journal which that person needs to reference because its a big claim. You said they are the source, so I dismissed your claim because there was no evidence forthcoming and the whole mystery pathologist makes it look shady.

Anyway she bled down the back of her neck, which pooled and flowed. So the blood is there and not mysteriously absent at all.

I have set out below a compilation of comments and observations from my forensic pathologist who has at my request cast an eye on the medical evidence relating to Eddowes from 1888 which you and others clearly seem to want to accept readily without question. Much of which clearly applies to all the murders.

It makes interesting reading and like other new evidence now in the public domain seriously questions what has for years been readily accepted as fact surrounding these murders.

"Repeated use of ‘about’ implies estimations rather than measurements of wounds, and the assumption that a long-bladed knife must have been used is not valid: a short or medium(!) blade could have been used to inflict such injuries. (I’m not saying that I think a particular blade was or was not used, I’m just saying it is not possible to be certain from the description and ‘measurements’ in this case. As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup and this would be taken as fact without challenge.

By way of example, it is not possible to say that all injuries were caused by the same instrument, comment on the blade’s sharpness or suggest that the injuries were caused with ‘great violence’. This is just somebody giving their opinion as though it were fact, and giving it in such a way that it is virtually meaningless.

Saying that the wounds were made ‘downwards’ means nothing without a frame of reference. Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course cannot be relied upon. The witnesses state that the injuries ‘might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!

I could go on, but I don’t want to sound overly harsh when the witnesses were just doing what was the norm back then. What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this… and therefore is open to question.

All that can be taken with ‘certainty’(!) is that there were apparent sharp force wounds to the neck and abdomen. Many other things seem to have been ‘assumed’. "The weapon was ‘probably’ a knife," but there is no guarantee of this (and the size / shape / sharpness / etc. cannot be guessed from the description of the wounds). There could have been more than one weapon.

The assailant could have been right or left handed… Death might have been caused by blood loss from the wounds… but could also have arisen from a different mechanism (such as a cardiac air embolus or a tension pneumothorax). Some (or all) of the injuries could have been inflicted after death. Has the possibility of self-inflicted injury been satisfactorily excluded, or just dismissed? Etc.

Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion / assumption / guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ record as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line.

I’m not trying to be negative or contrary, I’m just trying to be realistic about what I can honestly say based upon what I can trust as genuine. As that remains scanty, there is very little I can say with confidence about these cases. However, as just about anything that can be imagined is probably possible, most things can probably be argued one way or the other!"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk