Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greetings from the past

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    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.

    What other explanation is as valid ?
    Are you suggesting that her facial wounds could have been self-inflicted, caused by her accidentally jiggling her face against the blade? If so, words fail me.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Are you seriously suggesting that her facial wounds might have been accidentally caused by her jiggling her face against the blade? If so, words fail me.
      Yes but not against the blade as you conveniently worded it to suit, against the movement of the knife towards her throat.

      what other motive would there be to explain those injuries, and the direction of those cuts, especially as none had been see in any other of the victims.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        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 ?

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Do you really think these are defensive wounds, Trevor? If Eddowes were struggling, wouldn't the wounds to the cheeks and eyelids be more haphazard? The nicks appear very deliberate, in my opinion.

        What other explanation is as valid? The one the witnesses suggested when they analyzed the crime scene, seems like a good start.

        Comment


        • Good morning Wickerman,

          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          No-one has ever seriously proposed their throats were cut while standing.
          Stephen Hunter proposed it in this article in (Aug 2015 Ripperologist click)

          Roy
          Sink the Bismark

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Yes but not against the blade as you conveniently worded it to suit, against the movement of the knife towards her throat.
            I didn't "conveniently word" anything to suit. Besides, you're saying precisely the same thing: "not against the blade... [but] against the movement of the knife". How was she to cut herself on the "movement" of the knife, if not against the blade?
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Trevor is insane.

              Anyway, had Eddowes been killed standing up, and put up a struggle, surely the night watchman would've heard something? And yet the square was silent as a crypt.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                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
                Interesting idea.

                The relative simitary of the wounds on ever side of the faceleaves me thinking Not.


                Thanks


                Steve

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  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 ?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                  What is valid from the wounds is a botched attempt at skinning.
                  However it's certainly not conclusive.


                  Steve

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    We know medical opinion way back then was at time nothing more than guesswork.
                    Dr Brown, in the court record, observed:

                    "...no spurting of blood on the bricks or pavement around"

                    "...There was no blood on the front of the clothes "


                    The Daily Telegraph wrote:
                    "There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket."

                    The Daily News reported:
                    "...There was no blood on the throat part of the jacket or dress."

                    Is this guesswork?
                    Looks like direct observation to me.
                    If a person had their throat cut while standing, the blood spurts out and the collar, breast and outer clothing down the front is naturally bloodstained.

                    It strikes me that the one who is guessing Trevor, is you.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      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.


                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      I have Trevor, although not on Humans, have you tried the experiment to end point at all?

                      It's actually not difficult, unfortunately that proves nothing either way, however it certainly does not support the idea you propose.

                      I was hopeing for some insight from your Personal experience.



                      Steve
                      Last edited by Elamarna; 09-30-2017, 10:23 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Roy Corduroy View Post
                        Good morning Wickerman,



                        Stephen Hunter proposed it in this article in (Aug 2015 Ripperologist click)

                        Roy
                        Thankyou for the reminder, that method is even worse than Trevor's.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          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.
                          Are you volunteering yourself as the subject?

                          This is simple.
                          In most cases two cuts were in evidence. The first kills the victim by slicing the juglar. The killer then grasps the victim by the hair and pulls the body upright into a sitting position, and slices around the neck in a quick sweep of the knife, then casts the body down on its back again.
                          It takes barely several seconds.
                          Where's the problem?
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Are you volunteering yourself as the subject?

                            This is simple.
                            In most cases two cuts were in evidence. The first kills the victim by slicing the juglar. The killer then grasps the victim by the hair and pulls the body upright into a sitting position, and slices around the neck in a quick sweep of the knife, then casts the body down on its back again.
                            It takes barely several seconds.
                            Where's the problem?
                            The problem is with your account, but I do not intend to argue on here. I was asked for my opinion, and I have given it. Where is the point of that if right from the outset people are going to dismiss it without really thinking it over properly.

                            So what is the account, and explanation, and motive to suggest the killer specifically targeted the face, especially as the cuts are mostly all at the same angle across the face, when no other victims had similar facial injuries.

                            How did the killer get the victim into the position you describe to be able to cut the jugular?

                            How did he manage to subdue her in the first instance to do what you suggest?

                            How did he manage to put her at ease?

                            My interpretation of the medical evidence is that the killer stabbed the victim in the throat from behind, and then drew the knife across with great force. That couldn't be done with the victim on her back in my opinion. The angles would be all wrong.

                            Dr Brown believed death was almost instantaneous by the way the knife was stuck in her throat, so that is why there is a distinct lack of blood at the crime scene, and why no sounds were heard, that first wound severed the vocal chords and larynx, that would not result in a mass blood loss.

                            Whoever killed her and some of the other victims, knew how to do so using a knife, of that there is no doubt in my opinion.

                            And I would be happy to hear in this case, why with limited time available, the killer takes time to mutilate the face, then takes time to be artistic with his knife by cutting the eyelids. He then stabs her through her clothing, and then lifet up her clothes, and rips open the abdomen and by reason of that and with even greater difficulty, then removes a uterus and a kidney, and then takes time to cut or tear a piece of apron from an apron she was wearing, and apron that on the face of it was the most difficult item of all the clothing to get hold off, and then he nonchalantly walks off into the darkness carrying incriminating evidence and not to mention the knife.

                            I might agree if the killer had unlimited time with the victim but that wasn't the case was it, and besides there is the likelihood that he was disturbed by Pc Harvey limiting the time even more that he would have had with the victim

                            It constantly amazes me on here, you and others ask for other alternatives and when they are shown to you disregard them outright, and what do we get, "Wheres the evidence" "Where are the sources"

                            As far as evidence is concerned and the testing off it. Yes I agree, it has not been tested, and there are grounds for asking why wasnt some of it tested back then, but the passage of time will not now allow us to do so. But what we can do is to look at what the evidence is and to identity the flaws and how it would or should have been tested. Then we can ask ourselves can we really now totally rely on that evidence. The answer is no we cant, if we can identify flaws they may change the way we look at this mystery and everything connected to it;

                            But some cannot see or dont want to see the flaws

                            Its called not being blinkered from the truth

                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-30-2017, 03:11 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Thankyou for the reminder, that method is even worse than Trevor's.
                              I don't know what Trevor's method is, so I can't gauge what you are saying.

                              Are you saying cutting someone's throat while standing up is impossible? Or that it's harder to do than the multi step method you describe, of first wrangling the victim to the ground, then cutting their throat?

                              Because I find the method described in the article to be not only medically possible, but very quick and efficient. And very deadly. The killer and victim are facing each other standing up. The killer issues the deadly throat cut, severing the victim's windpipe, which causes an embolism, resulting in death. And oh yes, the victims falls down, too.

                              Your method, Wickerman is the one that is worst. The multi-step scenario.

                              Roy
                              Sink the Bismark

                              Comment


                              • "My method"?
                                Should I be honored to be credited with the most widely accepted method?

                                Looks like m'laddo is looking for an argument, as if there isn't enough pointless arguments afoot.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X