Front or Rear attack?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk