Front or Rear attack?

[Wickerman]

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

Sometimes, without thinking we can leave the wrong impression.
It is perhaps better to say, their throats were cut from the front, not that they were attacked from the front, that is too general a statement, and may conjure up a variety of scenario's.
I should repeat though, I am not suggesting this as a 'fact', but that this is what the medical evidence leads us to believe.

[Batman]

In Nichols case the blood had pooled into her clothes at the back, not front. Gravity wins.
In Chapman's case the blood splattered on the fence about 14" up from the ground. Pressure wins.
In Strides case she was seen by Schwartz undergoing a frontal blitz attack and has brusing on her front.
Eddowes also has pooling around her head. Gravity wins there.
Kelly was lying down and already presenting herself in JtRs victim position of choice.

Nichols may have punched out.

[Bridewell]

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

Why is this not possible please, Lynn?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sometimes, without thinking we can leave the wrong impression.
It is perhaps better to say, their throats were cut from the front, not that they were attacked from the front, that is too general a statement, and may conjure up a variety of scenario's.
I should repeat though, I am not suggesting this as a 'fact', but that this is what the medical evidence leads us to believe.

So what you just said would seem to indicate to me that you believe that they were first attacked from behind and once they were down and possibly unconscious they had their throats cut from the front?
Regards
Mr Holmes

[Wickerman]

So what you just said would seem to indicate to me that you believe that they were first attacked from behind and once they were down and possibly unconscious they had their throats cut from the front?
Regards
Mr Holmes

Yes, he stood over them, clasped his left hand over the jaw (example: bruises on Nichols cheek and jaw), and sliced the throat with the knife in his right hand.
That was likely, in my opinion, repeated with Chapman & Eddowes.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes, he stood over them, clasped his left hand over the jaw (example: bruises on Nichols cheek and jaw), and sliced the throat with the knife in his right hand.
That was likely, in my opinion, repeated with Chapman & Eddowes.

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I don't believe that any of the victims screamed, and if they did it would just be put down to one of the regular incidents you would often get in the east end of London, wouldn't it?
Regards
Mr Holmes

[Rosella]

Well, there was the 'No' that Albert Cadosch heard in the back yard of 29 Hanbury, but we don't know in what tone it was uttered or how long before Annie was killed. Also I suppose the 'Oh, murder!' that was heard by two women in Miller's Court, but no outright screaming.

As far as Stride was concerned there is a theory that the killer grabbed the handkerchief around her neck from the back and pulled hard. I guess Liz would be too busy choking in that particular scenario to make any sound. The Russian singing from the club would mask it anyway.

[Robert St Devil]

Yes, he stood over them, clasped his left hand over the jaw (example: bruises on Nichols cheek and jaw), and sliced the throat with the knife in his right hand.
That was likely, in my opinion, repeated with Chapman & Eddowes.

Not so quick WICK. There is another way to read the Nichol's corpse, but it depends on how you understand "downwards". The Post Mortem suggests that he strangled with his right hand [possibly a thumbprint under the right side of her jaw WITH the fingers imprinting on the left side of her face].
THEN there are reports of downward cuts on the right side of her abdomen.
SUGGESTING that he could have strangled her with his right hand while stabbing her with his left hand.

I still think the clenched fist connects the women more than anything.

[Abby Normal]

I used to think he grabbed them and put them in a headlock with his left arm, using the left hand to cover the mouth and/or pull the head back and then cut there throats from behind with the right. It just seemed like the easiest way to do it and also when I was a kid a bully did it to me and put the knife to my throat (didn't cut thank god, but I thought he was).

But since ive gotten into the case more it seems the evidence shows he strangled them from the front, lowering/forcing them to the ground as he did so. then when they were unconscious, takes the knife out from his pocket and cuts the throat.

[curious4]

There are indications that he choked them with a ligature (neckerchief) which makes the victim lose consciousness very quickly, unlike manual strangulation. Once on the ground the throat-cutting most likely then was carried out as per Wickerman's description.

Best wishes
C4

[Robert St Devil]

CURIOUS. I agree with him slashing her throat on the ground. I have my doubts whether you could cut that deep without using upper arm or shoulder strength. He could accomplish this better with her head against the ground. HOWEVER the signs on Nichols face do seem like they were done by a right hand.

[Wickerman]

CURIOUS. I agree with him slashing her throat on the ground. I have my doubts whether you could cut that deep without using upper arm or shoulder strength. He could accomplish this better with her head against the ground. HOWEVER the signs on Nichols face do seem like they were done by a right hand.

If you read Llewellyn's testimony:

"On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers."

Like this?



Which suits the left hand in this position:



Also, we might recall her tongue, Llewellyn said:

Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue.

Laceration of the tongue is interesting because it suggests two things.

People don't normally bite their tongue unless it is protruding between the teeth, however momentarily.
That may indicate strangulation.

If the tongue was trapped between her teeth, and the killer pressed down hard on her face, as above, then her teeth can lacerate the tongue.
Interestingly, Tom Wescott wondered why Nichols nose looks like it was broken. The left hand (as above) also covers the nose.

Now, I'm not saying there are not other solutions to these little details, obviously there can be.

[Wickerman]

There are indications that he choked them with a ligature (neckerchief) which makes the victim lose consciousness very quickly, unlike manual strangulation. Once on the ground the throat-cutting most likely then was carried out as per Wickerman's description.

Best wishes
C4

Quite so Gwyneth, and with Chapman we read of several vertical scratches on her neck, running contrary to the direction of the cut (a very awkward way of vertical, as the cut was horizontal).
Consistent with Chapman scratching her neck in a struggle to remove something thin & tight around her neck.
Chapman's tongue being swollen too.

And the controversial second cut that goes more around the neck than the first cut, can be rationalized by the killer attempting to obliterate the mark of the ligature.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What was this "ligature"?

Quite so Gwyneth, and with Chapman we read of several vertical scratches on her neck, running contrary to the direction of the cut (a very awkward way of vertical, as the cut was horizontal).
Consistent with Chapman scratching her neck in a struggle to remove something thin & tight around her neck.
Chapman's tongue being swollen too.

And the controversial second cut that goes more around the neck than the first cut, can be rationalized by the killer attempting to obliterate the mark of the ligature.

You have mentioned a "ligature", Wick, what do you think this ligature was, It is unlikely that he came prepared to incapacitate his victim by way of ligature, so I would posit that the ligature used was something the killer could have found at the scene or an improvised ligature.

[Wickerman]

You have mentioned a "ligature", Wick, what do you think this ligature was, It is unlikely that he came prepared to incapacitate his victim by way of ligature, so I would posit that the ligature used was something the killer could have found at the scene or an improvised ligature.

Hi, you say " It is unlikely that he came prepared to incapacitate his victim by way of ligature"

Why?

Garrotting was a common phenomena in the mid 1860's, many a backstreet mugger carried a cord of some description.
We don't know who this killer was, but he was certainly alive through that period and may even have been part of it in his younger days.

Hence the need, in his mind, to remove the mark made by the cord?