Front or Rear attack?

[Batman]

Ever since the Ustinov's "The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper" I was led to believe that JtR struck from behind, hand over mouth, right hand going left to right.

However after reading books and autopsy reports, the bruising seems to suggest that JtR accousted them from the front, pushed them down, put pressure over the face and chest and while on their right side slashed from their left to right so the blood would spray right and away from them. The killer ripped from left to right and didn't move between the legs at any time.

Schwartz reported seeing a frontal assault on Stride. Lewande reported Eddowes had her hand on the suspects chest.

Mary Kelly prevented JtR from going on the right because the partition blocked this side of the bed.

[Rosella]

I am old enough to remember Donald Rumbelow's speculation in his original edition of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' that Jack's victims, (with the exception of Mary Kelly of course) had their backs to him and faces to the nearest wall/fence when first attacked. This was to facilitate easier sexual penetration.

Rumbelow moved away from that in the latest edition and talks about the facial bruising and marks on some of the victims which made it appear that Jack may have punched them from the front immediately before killing them.

Rumbelowe was mistaken about Annie Chapman's punch in the eye which was the result of an earlier fight, but certainly, Polly Nichols had marks on her jawline both left and right which seem to point to a frontal attack.

[gnote]

I believe the majority of experts both medical and otherwise think the killer attacked from the front.

[lynn cates]

frontal assault

Hello Batman.

"Schwartz reported seeing a frontal assault on Stride."

Yes. And that is the #1 reason why I dismiss his story. Liz could not have possibly died in a frontal assault.

Cheers.
LC

[Stephen Lee]

I've never been sure about this.

Their is a lot to be said about attacking from the rear. He would have been able to get to his knife unobserved. It would have given him the element of surprise. He would have caught the victims off balance as he dragged them back on their heels to the ground. A hand over the mouth area so they couldn't cry out (and causing the bruises). The injuries were performed once they were face up on the ground thou. They would have been too shocked (and drunk) to fight back.

Thou Annie Chapman may have kicked the fence when she was on the ground and managed to cry out.

[Gman992]

Strangled them from the front, laid them down, and sliced their throats to be sure?

[Damaso Marte]

Strangled them from the front, laid them down, and sliced their throats to be sure?

or sliced their throats as mutilation

In any event, I think the overwhelming majoritarian view is that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes had their throats cut while they were on the ground. I don't think anyone favors a "cut while standing" model for any of these three killings.

I haven't heard the Nichols or Chapman facial wounds explained as punching before - that's certainly interesting.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course the victims had their throats cut from behind, if they were cut from the front. The killer would have been covered in the spray from the arteries in the neck. He was either too careful to take the risk or too smart for that. .
That should give you all something to think about

Regards
Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

I think the medical evidence might sway you otherwise Mr Holmes.

[Sherlock Holmes]

OK why is that Jon?

[Trevor Marriott]

or sliced their throats as mutilation

In any event, I think the overwhelming majoritarian view is that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes had their throats cut while they were on the ground. I don't think anyone favors a "cut while standing" model for any of these three killings.

I do !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

The medical evidence doesn't suggest a rear attack at all. It is easy to have this image of a punter asking her to bend over and then slicing the neck. If he did it this way there would be a splatter very different from what the evidence revealed.

What the evidence says is something quite unique to JtRs MO. He appears to prefer a frontal blitz. Pushing them down onto their back first, strangling them into unconsciousness but not death. Then he cuts. That's why the blood pooled the way it did.

[Trevor Marriott]

The medical evidence doesn't suggest a rear attack at all. It is easy to have this image of a punter asking her to bend over and then slicing the neck. If he did it this way there would be a splatter very different from what the evidence revealed.

What the evidence says is something quite unique to JtRs MO. He appears to prefer a frontal blitz. Pushing them down onto their back first, strangling them into unconsciousness but not death. Then he cuts. That's why the blood pooled the way it did.

Not necessarily so

Inquest

"The doctor, too, has been closely questioned upon this point, and has stated that though he should have expected to find more blood upon the clothes and ground, it was possible that the greater part had run into the loose tissues of the body, the fact that she was lying upon her back contributing to this"

Its quite easy to imagine and attack from behind sticking the knife into the throat drawing it across and then letting the body fall back to the ground.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

OK why is that Jon?

Well, in the cases of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, it can be determined that the killer positioned himself at the right side of the victim, as they were laid on the ground.
As these victims were so close to walls/fences then it was appreciated that blood spatter would be expected on these vertical surfaces had their throats been cut while they were standing.

Also, had the throat been cut while standing the blood would be expected down the front breast on the victims, but in each case none existed.
In all cases the significant blood flow was down to the ground from the neck and the blood soaked into their clothing down their rear, but not down their front.

In all cases, once on the ground, the throat had been cut on the left side of the neck first, the side furthest away from a killer who was positioned by their right side. Presumably, the killer knew that this would cause any blood to spurt away from his position.

So, technically, he sliced their throats from the front because they were laid down on the ground first.
Whether the assault originally began from the front or the rear, while standing, cannot be determined, and what the nature of this original assault was is anybody's guess. But, their bodies were laid out before their throats were cut, in that respect we have to concede that he cut their throats from the front.

So the big question is, how did he get them to lay down without resistance?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So I was right about it being a frontal attack then? I didn't think that was going to happen. All j was puzzled when you said he was on the right side of their bodies yet he trted the knife on the left hand side. Thank you for clarifying that too, my good man.

Regards
Mr Holmes