Greetings from the past

[GUT]

Pierre you did not tell us the name of your secret suspect.

So the problem for us is we don't know what you're talking about.

But I doubt he does either.

[Abby Normal]

I think someone needs attention.

[Bridewell]

Hi,

As a historian I do believe that our only chance to find Jack the Ripper is the sources from the past. These sources must be produced by the killer himself. Otherwise they can not be connected to the murders.

Regards, Pierre

Okay, so what does this say about your posting of the Hilliard portrait of MQS on another thread?

That source wasn't "produced by the killer himself" so it "cannot be connected to the murders". I don't for one moment think that it could be anyway, but I'm rather surprised to find you arguing against yourself in this way.

[GUT]

Okay, so what does this say about your posting of the Hilliard portrait of MQS on another thread?

That source wasn't "produced by the killer himself" so it "cannot be connected to the murders". I don't for one moment think that it could be anyway, but I'm rather surprised to find you arguing against yourself in this way.

For the very reason suggested by Abby I'd suggest.

I think someone needs attention.

[Pierre]

Okay, so what does this say about your posting of the Hilliard portrait of MQS on another thread?

That source wasn't "produced by the killer himself" so it "cannot be connected to the murders". I don't for one moment think that it could be anyway, but I'm rather surprised to find you arguing against yourself in this way.

It says that there has been a lot of progress.

[Henry Flower]

It says that there has been a lot of progress.

Nobody is interested, Pierre. Either publish or give it a rest.

[Michael W Richards]

For clarification, I assume you mean that the sources must not necessarily be in written form - they can be, but it is not necessary. Is that correct?

I suppose we do have recorded sound from the 1880s, that would be a non-written source.

But more relevant to the case might be, for instance, U-shaped cuts on a victim, interpreted as V-shaped. Would that qualify as an unwritten source, greeting us from the past?

If the V shaped cuts on Katse face were made intentionally, its far more likely they were made by someone branding her as something, not the killer revealing anything about himself. There is historical precedent in Victorian history of stool pigeons and tattletellers being marked for their traitorous behaviors, and we do have a story that Kate was about to reveal someones name to police with the suggestion that he committed one or more of these murders.

[Wickerman]

If the V shaped cuts on Katse face were made intentionally, its far more likely they were made by someone branding her as something, not the killer revealing anything about himself. There is historical precedent in Victorian history of stool pigeons and tattletellers being marked for their traitorous behaviors, and we do have a story that Kate was about to reveal someones name to police with the suggestion that he committed one or more of these murders.

There were no "v's" cut in her face Michael/Kattrup.

The cuts that we see were described as flaps of skin, which means they are slices cut with the flat of a blade, not inscribed with the point of a knife.
There is a cut across the bridge of her nose which appears in-line with the cuts across her cheek.

Back in 2004 I posted this explanation by way of a couple of sketches.



Then in about 2006?, Gareth produced an excellent article in Ripperologist?, making a similar argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

There were no "v's" cut in her face Michael/Kattrup.

The cuts that we see were described as flaps of skin, which means they are slices cut with the flat of a blade, not inscribed with the point of a knife.
There is a cut across the bridge of her nose which appears in-line with the cuts across her cheek.

Back in 2004 I posted this explanation by way of a couple of sketches.



Then in about 2006?, Gareth produced an excellent article in Ripperologist?, making a similar argument.

Defensive wounds !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Defensive wounds !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor.

Now this is an area where I listen to your experience, so why "defensive wounds!"
The "!" Makes that very strong


Could you explain that please, given these are cuts to the face.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor.

Now this is an area where I listen to your experience, so why "defensive wounds!"
The "!" Makes that very strong


Could you explain that please, given these are cuts to the face.

Steve

Well the suggestion has always been that perhaps Eddowes was strangled first before having her throat cut, but it is something I dont subscribe to.

If the killer first attacked her from behind and was attempting to cut her throat, whilst behind her, while holding her from behind, it would be a normal reaction for any person in the same situation to try to prevent that by trying to move there head away from the knife.So the angle of the cuts might point to just that happening.

I dont think the cuts were a deliberate act by the killer especially as nothing of this nature had taken place with any of the previous victims. Perhaps Eddowes was able to put up more of a fight than others.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Trevor.
Both medical opinion, and the circumstantial evidence has always indicated the victims had their throats cut while on their backs, on the ground.

No-one has ever seriously proposed their throats were cut while standing.
Why do you always take the contrary view?

[jerryd]

Well the suggestion has always been that perhaps Eddowes was strangled first before having her throat cut, but it is something I dont subscribe to.

If the killer first attacked her from behind and was attempting to cut her throat, whilst behind her, while holding her from behind, it would be a normal reaction for any person in the same situation to try to prevent that by trying to move there head away from the knife.So the angle of the cuts might point to just that happening.

I dont think the cuts were a deliberate act by the killer especially as nothing of this nature had taken place with any of the previous victims. Perhaps Eddowes was able to put up more of a fight than others.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Her eyelids were nicked as well. You consider those defensive too, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Her eyelids were nicked as well. You consider those defensive too, Trevor?

It is possible that all of those injuries were as a direct result of the actions of the killer and her trying to avoid the knife by thrashing her head about.

With the time available to him, and likelihood he was disturbed, and made of quickly.

What other explanation is as valid ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor.
Both medical opinion, and the circumstantial evidence has always indicated the victims had their throats cut while on their backs, on the ground.

No-one has ever seriously proposed their throats were cut while standing.
Why do you always take the contrary view?

We know medical opinion way back then was at time nothing more than guesswork.

Try an experiment with another person lay them on their back and see if you could get yourself into a position when you would be able to cut the throat to the point of decapitation as was described by the injuries to the throat and neck.

If you are going to kill someone by cutting their throats from behind or to the side ot would be much easier that way than by trying to subdue them on the ground giving them the opportunity to scream out or offer up much more resistance.

And I see we are still defending the old accepted theories

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk