Different Killers

[lynn cates]

under the radar

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I presume you are aware of his thinking as stated on his charts? Just a short time before the ladies were killed, Jacob went into his old butcher's shop, tail of freshly slaughtered ox in hand. He wore his apron with knives affixed.

Now, I agree about his flying under the radar, but there you go. There were tales from the public about "Leather Apron" and some of them approximated Mrs. Fiddymont's lad.

Cheers.
LC

[John G]

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!"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hallo Trevor,

But doesn't the opinion of your expert, effectively that nothing can be ruled in or out, resulting in an inconclusive assessment, seriously undermine the arguments made by a number of posters: that certain victims, I.e. Eddowes and Kelly, should be excluded from the series, largely on the basis of the opinions, conclusions and forensic analysis of Victorian GPs?

Regards,

John

[Batman]

Sorry where is the expert journal quote that the neck artery when cut through won't push blood through at 300 ml per beat approx.
???

Its ridiculous that it wouldn't happen because that's blood going to your brain to keep you alive. Its supplied ones head with oxygenated blood.

Again where the blood is, isn't a mystery.

There is no blood soaked scarf.

Its pooled in the ground, where she was killed.

Again Kudos to Phillips. Ahead of his time and a testimony to science over fairy tales.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hallo Trevor,

But doesn't the opinion of your expert, effectively that nothing can be ruled in or out, resulting in an inconclusive assessment, seriously undermine the arguments made by a number of posters: that certain victims, I.e. Eddowes and Kelly, should be excluded from the series, largely on the basis of the opinions, conclusions and forensic analysis of Victorian GPs?

Regards,

John

I guess you can interpret it which way you seek fit, and I am sure as you say the theorists will still ply their theories, using the argument nothing can be ruled out.

But in effect the medical evidence from 1888 should be treated with caution and not used to decide which were victims of a lone killer and which were not. That can looked be done using other means firstly by disregarding the throat cuttings.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry where is the expert journal quote that the neck artery when cut through won't push blood through at 300 ml per beat approx.
???

Its ridiculous that it wouldn't happen because that's blood going to your brain to keep you alive. Its supplied ones head with oxygenated blood.

Again where the blood is, isn't a mystery.

There is no blood soaked scarf.

Its pooled in the ground, where she was killed.

Again Kudos to Phillips. Ahead of his time and a testimony to science over fairy tales.

Well I guess you being an expert forensic pathologist we should accept what you say as being correct

[Batman]

Well I guess you being an expert forensic pathologist we should accept what you say as being correct

I've given references. So have others.

[Batman]

Silk handkerchief, no blood.

Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut.

Doesn't this just outright refute the idea the handkerchief captured the blood/spray? There is no mention of it being blood drenched. In fact all they describe is that it was just cut through.

[Trevor Marriott]

Deceased had a silk handkerchief round her neck, and it appeared to be slightly torn. I have since ascertained it was cut.

Doesn't this just outright refute the idea the handkerchief captured the blood/spray? There is no mention of it being blood drenched. In fact all they describe is that it was just cut through.

And how have you managed to ascertain it was cut when you haven't seen it ?

It could have been cut or torn at some time previous by the victim or she could have acquired it in that state

https://www.trevromarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

And how have you managed to ascertain it was cut when you haven't seen it ?

It could have been cut or torn at some time previous by the victim or she could have acquired it in that state

www.trevromarriott.co.uk

That italics is a quote from Dr. Phillips, Trevor. He said it was cut not torn during the attack.

Anyway it doesn't matter that much when it was cut. Its the absense of blood on it that refutes the idea it captured the blood spray while standing up during a rear assault.

Phillips says down on the ground. Which is the same as the others.

[Trevor Marriott]

That italics is a quote from Dr. Phillips, Trevor. He said it was cut not torn during the attack.

Anyway it doesn't matter that much when it was cut. Its the absense of blood on it that refutes the idea it captured the blood spray while standing up during a rear assault.

Phillips says down on the ground. Which is the same as the others.

As has been pointed out the opinions of the doctors, which appear to have been readily accepted in 1888 were nothing more than guesswork !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

As has been pointed out the opinions of the doctors, which appear to have been readily accepted in 1888 were nothing more than guesswork !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then you have no pathology upon which to make any claims in your books Trevor.

All you can say is that you are working from the guesses. So your conclusions can't be any better than their guesses.

Now, that's your line of reasoning about guessing, not mine. So whenever you mention a Whitechapel Murder, I know when you bring up anything medically forensic, anything little smidgen of a forensic pathology detail at all, you are guessing it, because you say its based on guesses.

I don't deal in guesses. I deal with the facts.

Anyhow I don't think Dr. Phillips guessed there wasn't blood on the handkerchief anymore than I am guessing their isn't blood on my keyboard, which I am surprised about, because my head should have bashed it a few times trying to get across to you that the forensics for an upright rear attack just isn't there, while the forensics for a ground attack from the front, are.

Happy guessing Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then you have no pathology upon which to make any claims in your books Trevor.

All you can say is that you are working from the guesses. So your conclusions can't be any better than their guesses.

Now, that's your line of reasoning about guessing, not mine. So whenever you mention a Whitechapel Murder, I know when you bring up anything medically forensic, anything little smidgen of a forensic pathology detail at all, you are guessing it, because you say its based on guesses.

I don't deal in guesses. I deal with the facts.

Anyhow I don't think Dr. Phillips guessed there wasn't blood on the handkerchief anymore than I am guessing their isn't blood on my keyboard, which I am surprised about, because my head should have bashed it a few times trying to get across to you that the forensics for an upright rear attack just isn't there, while the forensics for a ground attack from the front, are.

Happy guessing Trevor.

I am nor even arguing the issue of the scarf. I think in the grand scheme of things it is insignificant because we don't know where or at what angle the scarf was on her before the attack, and where it finished up on her after the is also open to debate.

There were no forensics in 1888 in any of these murders and what information has been left behind for us to assess and evaluate is not enough for anyone like you to argue your case using modern day forensics.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

There were no forensics in 1888 in any of these murders and what information has been left behind for us to assess and evaluate is not enough for anyone like you to argue your case using modern day forensics.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then you have no forensics to tie your suspect to the Whitechapel Murders by your own line of reasoning Trevor.

Which strikes me as strange as when presenting Mr. Feigenbaum as JtR you have no qualms what-so-ever about comparing the forensic evidence from Eddowes pathology to murders in America.

I mean why shouldn't it be good enough for anyone else if its good enough for you?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then you have no forensics to tie your suspect to the Whitechapel Murders by your own line of reasoning Trevor.

Which strikes me as strange as when presenting Mr. Feigenbaum as JtR you have no qualms what-so-ever about comparing the forensic evidence from Eddowes pathology to murders in America.

I mean why shouldn't it be good enough for anyone else if its good enough for you?

Did I say that I had forensics to tie Feigenbaum to any of the murders?

You need to read what you seek to challenge in more detail before responding. It might be a good idea to then engage you brain properly before rushing to put pen to paper.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pcdunn]

JTR time and again..

Not since the late 1800's, anyway.

Unless he's like. you know, a vampire.

Or a Time traveler...