Did the murderer have anatomical knowledge beyond that of say a butcher?

[Wickerman]

Again this has been covered previoulsy with Dr Biggs and how does he reply to my question

"Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

can we move on form this now?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Half the doctors in the world are right, the other half are wrong.
This is why patients are strongly advised to always seek a second opinion.

Apparently, you ignored that advise.

[Wickerman]

The killer clearly cut the throats from behind and while they were standing up.

It's this kind of rubbish that makes the more competent theorists dismiss your ideas out of hand.
Even the most novice of theorists have learned why this claim does not fit the evidence.

I would imagine that he was able to manoevere them into such a positon or they manoevered them themsleves to attain a sexual position i.e, standing up and facing away from him, and then he would catch them off guard and cut their throats from behind.

Not, 'cut their throats', but suffocate/strangle them from behind so they can't kick, punch or scratch him.

In my opinon attacking then from the front could have resulted in them screaming out or fighting him off.

At least you figured that much out.

[Wickerman]

and some of us are just tired of having to keep putting facts into the correct perspective. I have covered all of these issues with Dr Bigg a long time ago again I quote Dr Biggs

"A swollen tongue and / or face are non-specific findings. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor, all the various physical abnormalities can have different causes, IF, they appear by themselves, but NOT when they appear together following one incident. Perhaps he forgot to explain that bit.

[FISHY1118]

In haste I didnt see the part of your post relating to facial mutilations, and on that point I still stand by what I suggested

The killer had limited time available to him at the crime scene with the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Now now Trevor you cant have it both ways , you cant stand by what you suggested back then, when youve admitted and proof has shown it not being the case just now . cmon cough it up .

[Trevor Marriott]

Nope.
Having worked in an abattoir and done a lot of kangaroo shooting,I can assure you that is ..... a heap of steaming bullshit.

Well then it is in line with your constant postings

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Animal cruelty: is violence inherent to abattoirs? | Euronews

[DJA]

Again this has been covered previoulsy with Dr Biggs and how does he reply to my question

"Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

can we move on form this now?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nope.
Having worked in an abattoir and done a lot of kangaroo shooting,I can assure you that is ..... a heap of steaming bullshit.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good, because then that means the facial wounds, as in the slits to her eyelids and the ''Vs'' On her cheeks were a deliberate act after death ?

And not as a result of Eddowes defensive manonovers /struggle as you once tried to suggest on a different thread a little while back.

In haste I didnt see the part of your post relating to facial mutilations, and on that point I still stand by what I suggested

The killer had limited time available to him at the crime scene with the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

i agree that the mutilations were done after death and while she was on the ground after the killer had either let he simply fall to the ground or eased her to the ground

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good, because then that means the facial wounds, as in the slits to her eyelids and the ''Vs'' On her cheeks were a deliberate act after death ?

And not as a result of Eddowes defensive manonovers /struggle as you once tried to suggest on a different thread a little while back.

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly not the case.

No blood stains or spray support that.

Again this has been covered previoulsy with Dr Biggs and how does he reply to my question

"Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

can we move on form this now?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So you agree with Dr Brown then that the mutilations and ''facial'' wounds were done after death while she was on the ground, seeings how death was instant and there was no struggle ? .

i agree that the mutilations were done after death and while she was on the ground after the killer had either let he simply fall to the ground or eased her to the ground

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

The killer clearly cut the throats from behind and while they were standing up. I would imagine that he was able to manoevere them into such a positon or they manoevered them themsleves to attain a sexual position i.e, standing up and facing away from him, and then he would catch them off guard and cut their throats from behind.

In my opinon attacking then from the front could have resulted in them screaming out or fighting him off.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you agree with Dr Brown then that the mutilations and ''facial'' wounds were done after death while she was on the ground, seeings how death was instant and there was no struggle ? .

[DJA]

The killer clearly cut the throats from behind and while they were standing up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Clearly not the case.

No blood stains or spray support that.

[Trevor Marriott]

So Eddowes voluntarily placed herself on the wet ground while Jack cut her throat with no sign of any struggle?

I'm curious Trevor how then do you see her murder playing out exactly?

The killer clearly cut the throats from behind and while they were standing up. I would imagine that he was able to manoevere them into such a positon or they manoevered them themsleves to attain a sexual position i.e, standing up and facing away from him, and then he would catch them off guard and cut their throats from behind.

In my opinon attacking then from the front could have resulted in them screaming out or fighting him off.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fanatic]

There is no proof that the killer strangled them first

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The blood around the victims did not show any spray, which indicates the victims were already dead (strangled) when the throats were cut.

I think JTR learned from the early cases where women were attacked with knives and managed to escape… His MO then changed to strangle the victims first, prior to mutilation