Greetings from the past

[Sam Flynn]

But some cannot see or dont want to see the flaws

Most of us are well aware of the flaws in the evidence. The trick is to circumvent those flaws by means of a rational reconstruction of the likely truth.

[Wickerman]

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

The most commonly assumed method is that the victim was subdued in some way, either choked or strangled.
She is laid down and her head held firm with his left hand, while he used the knife across her throat in his right hand.
Nichols has the pressure marks on her jaw which are consistent with this approach.

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

I wasn't talking about Eddowes - you said to the point of decapitation. This only happened with Chapman. It is the Chapman case I was using as the example.
A cut of 6-7 inch around the throat, as with Eddowes, does not constitute an attempt at decapitation.

How did he manage to put her at ease?

All the unfortunates are "put at ease" by their clients. Otherwise there wouldn't be a transaction.

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.

So where is all that blood which will spray out and flood down her neck and over her clothes?

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.

Wrong.

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.

There's no fooling you is there Trevor.

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.

It only takes a matter of seconds to mark the face.
As the couple seen by Lawende & Co. was never confirmed to be Eddowes with her killer, then your concern over time constraints is possibly self imposed.

... 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.

The apron is worn over the clothes, only under the jacket but over the skirts.
Her jacket likely being open. So this apron was the second piece of clothing.
How can that be so difficult to remove - with a sweep of the knife?

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"

The alternatives are supposed to be aligned with the evidence, including the medical evidence. But you dismiss this as being only "guesswork". Like we (you?) should know better than what the doctor actually saw?

[Roy Corduroy]

"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.

Not an argument with you my old geezer, because you specialize in pointless arguments.

And yeah, it's your method if you ascribe to it. And yes your method is worse than the one I ascribe to. Worse. That's the key word here.

No I don't want to argue **** with you.

Roy

[harry]

I have been taught that cutting the throat is more convenient with the victim standing,and also that if not done correctly, can result in a measure of resistence.Whereas stabbing is a more likely and efficient way if the victim is lying down.

[Wickerman]

I see, but as none of the victims had stab wounds, then where does that leave us?

The only victim who was nearly decapitated was Chapman, and the cut to her throat was described as encircling the neck, in a spiral fashion.
How do you do that with the victim standing in front of you, or behind you for that matter?

You can't even achieve that with the body on its back, but grasp it by the hair and pull it upright, to a sitting position, makes it far easier for a killer standing over the corpse.

[harry]

Tabram had stab wounds.She was a victim.Eddowes may have been on her knees Jon.

[Elamarna]

I have been taught that cutting the throat is more convenient with the victim standing,and also that if not done correctly, can result in a measure of resistence.Whereas stabbing is a more likely and efficient way if the victim is lying down.

Can one ask by whom?
I am not being argumentative here, it's just that my experience is different to that.

Just to be clear, I have no issue over the suggestion that the initial cut may have been standing when attacked, it's the suggestion that the cuts are easier from that position. I do not beleive from experience that is correct.
Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I see, but as none of the victims had stab wounds, then where does that leave us?

The only victim who was nearly decapitated was Chapman, and the cut to her throat was described as encircling the neck, in a spiral fashion.
How do you do that with the victim standing in front of you, or behind you for that matter?

You can't even achieve that with the body on its back, but grasp it by the hair and pull it upright, to a sitting position, makes it far easier for a killer standing over the corpse.

One flaw in the evidence Dr Brown stated that the facial cuts were committed after death, thats guesswork, there is no way he could have come to the conclusion other than by guesswork.

The doctor states there was a superficial cut around the throat ancillary to the main throat wound, that adds weight to the fact that the killer was not able to do a clean job on the victim, and allows for the fact that the facial cuts as described by the doctor were as a result of her trying to avoid having her throat cut from behind by the killer.

I dont subscribe to the killer facing the victim. In my opinion it would be even more difficult to stab her throat and then there would be the leverage problem in trying to draw the knife across at such a deep angle as is described.

As to the triangular cuts which some suggest were done by the killer by design, that I dont belive to be the case.The doctor stated that there was a cut on each side amongst all the other facial cuts which peeled up the skin and formed a triangular flap. No mention of any design.

As a guess I would say the killer was behind her, and as a guess, may have been right handed cutting the her throat from left to right as is in line with the medical evidence.

I also think that the nicking of the eyelids and the term flaps of skin has been over exaggerated by many over the years suggesting that this was also done by design. The crime scene sketch has done a lot to enhance this misguided theory.

Dr Brown describes them as nothing more than cuts. If you look carefully at the cuts to her left cheek, the one on her cheek is in direct line with the one on her eyelid, consistent with both being done by a long bladed knife in one swoop of the knife. You can see evidence of a flap of skin in ever day life if you cut your finger or hand with a sharp instrument, the cut forms a flap which you can lift up. A small flap with the aid of a plaster will heal itself, bigger flaps may need stitches.

I dont now have time to expand further, but you an others who have all day, every day to study these issues and will no doubt give then you best unbiased attention as always.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

[Trevor Marriott]

Can one ask by whom?
I am not being argumentative here, it's just that my experience is different to that.

Just to be clear, I have no issue over the suggestion that the initial cut may have been standing when attacked, it's the suggestion that the cuts are easier from that position. I do not beleive from experience that is correct.
Steve

How are soldiers taught to kill? Swiftly and silently standing up from behind, cutting the throats !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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.

The problem here Trevor is cutting the Larynx will not cause death, if the carotids are cut brain death will follow but the heart will continue to beat for several minutes, there will be massive blood loss.


I can personally accept either cut from behind with victim standing, or from the side or even above the head with victim on ground. Both work.
I tend to favour the on the ground option but it's not set in stone.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

I also think that the nicking of the eyelids and the term flaps of skin has been over exaggerated by many over the years suggesting that this was also done by design. The crime scene sketch has done a lot to enhance this misguided theory.

The misconception lies in the interpretation of those wounds as "inverted V-shaped incisions", rather than triangular flaps of skin - which is precisely how Dr Brown described them. However, cutting/carving "initials" into the skin - as with the point of a knife - sounds rather more dramatic, so it's little wonder that this erroneous reading of the wounds was the one that historically gained the most traction.

To be fair to the crime-scene sketch (actually, it was drawn at the mortuary), what it portrays is by no means inconsistent with the "peeled-up triangular flaps" that were there in reality.

[Elamarna]

How are soldiers taught to kill? Swiftly and silently standing up from behind, cutting the throats !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's a fair point, which is why i do not discount it, it's one of those which can go either way, particularly for an untrained person.
If you think the killer had military training you may have a point; however do we k ow if this method was used I 1888? Genuine question?

Steve

[Elamarna]

One flaw in the evidence Dr Brown stated that the facial cuts were committed after death, thats guesswork, there is no way he could have come to the conclusion other than by guesswork..

Actually there was, it relates to bleeding and bruising. However we do not seem to have the original notes and so do not know his reasoning, it could be guesswork or it could be based on science.

The doctor states there was a superficial cut around the throat ancillary to the main throat wound, that adds weight to the fact that the killer was not able to do a clean job on the victim, and allows for the fact that the facial cuts as described by the doctor were as a result of her trying to avoid having her throat cut from behind by the killer..

I find it very hard to picture Trevor, and the noise such a struggle would make, given you are suggesting the first attack did not work would surely have been heard by Morris.

I dont subscribe to the killer facing the victim. In my opinion it would be even more difficult to stab her throat and then there would be the leverage problem in trying to draw the knife across at such a deep angle as is described..

Great we agreed.

As to the triangular cuts which some suggest were done by the killer by design, that I dont belive to be the case.The doctor stated that there was a cut on each side amongst all the other facial cuts which peeled up the skin and formed a triangular flap. No mention of any design.

Why is it you always look for words and if they are not present you assume any ideas involving such can be discounted.
For a second time however I agree with your conclusion, while not the reasoning.
I beleive there may have been an overall design, but the facial wounds are collateral to that design, the individual wounds are not by design and have no individual mean.

As a guess I would say the killer was behind her, and as a guess, may have been right handed cutting the her throat from left to right as is in line with the medical evidence.
.

It's possible, and so is the attack once on the floor. Neither is conclusive, I have swayed one way and another over the years, at present leaning towards ground attack by a slight margin.

I also think that the nicking of the eyelids and the term flaps of skin has been over exaggerated by many over the years suggesting that this was also done by design. The crime scene sketch has done a lot to enhance this misguided theory.
.

See my above comments.

Dr Brown describes them as nothing more than cuts. If you look carefully at the cuts to her left cheek, the one on her cheek is in direct line with the one on her eyelid, consistent with both being done by a long bladed knife in one swoop of the knife. You can see evidence of a flap of skin in ever day life if you cut your finger or hand with a sharp instrument, the cut forms a flap which you can lift up. A small flap with the aid of a plaster will heal itself, bigger flaps may need stitches.

Interesting observations.
Again see above.


Steve

[Wickerman]

Tabram had stab wounds.She was a victim.Eddowes may have been on her knees Jon.

Who killed Tabram?

[Wickerman]

One flaw in the evidence Dr Brown stated that the facial cuts were committed after death, thats guesswork, there is no way he could have come to the conclusion other than by guesswork.

If you cut your face, and quite deep the same as the victim, the cuts will bleed, quite profusely. The cuts continue to bleed because the circulatory system is pressurized, you are still alive.
Slice the face of a corpse, even one just dead for minutes, the blood that comes out is limited. It flows more subject to gravity than pressure. The amount of blood around wounds can indicate whether the victim was dead or alive.
The doctor is able to deduce this because he understands how the circulatory system works. Is this what you call "guesswork"?

The doctor states there was a superficial cut around the throat ancillary to the main throat wound, that adds weight to the fact that the killer was not able to do a clean job on the victim, and allows for the fact that the facial cuts as described by the doctor were as a result of her trying to avoid having her throat cut from behind by the killer.

On the contrary, the throats of two other victims were cut twice. One deep and short, the other longer and not so deep.
Dr Brown did not speculate on how many cuts he observed to the throat, he just described the state of the throat wound.
I see his description as indicating Eddowes throat was cut twice, just like Nichols & Chapman.
This longer cut was, in my opinion, not made in an attempt to decapitate, but to remove evidence of the cord he used to strangle her. This was an opinion expressed by Dr Brownfield and I accept it as valid.

I dont subscribe to the killer facing the victim. In my opinion it would be even more difficult to stab her throat and then there would be the leverage problem in trying to draw the knife across at such a deep angle as is described.

Agreed.

As to the triangular cuts which some suggest were done by the killer by design, that I dont belive to be the case.The doctor stated that there was a cut on each side amongst all the other facial cuts which peeled up the skin and formed a triangular flap. No mention of any design.

As I described before, it looks more to me like the killer tried to slice off her face, as he had her on the ground.

I also think that the nicking of the eyelids and the term flaps of skin has been over exaggerated by many over the years suggesting that this was also done by design. The crime scene sketch has done a lot to enhance this misguided theory.

There had been a few suggestions in the press following the Chapman murder that police should photograph the eyes of the victims. I think this killer was just acknowledging that he knew of these suggestions, this is why he nicked the eyelids. Killers have been known to follow the investigation in the papers.

Dr Brown describes them as nothing more than cuts. If you look carefully at the cuts to her left cheek, the one on her cheek is in direct line with the one on her eyelid, consistent with both being done by a long bladed knife in one swoop of the knife. You can see evidence of a flap of skin in ever day life if you cut your finger or hand with a sharp instrument, the cut forms a flap which you can lift up. A small flap with the aid of a plaster will heal itself, bigger flaps may need stitches.

Yes, but as to the diagonal slice across her right cheek, I think this was done by accident. The apron was tied around her neck, and the killer is crouched beside her right shoulder. He is low enough and near enough to grab the apron and slice a section off, the tip of the knife inadvertently slicing her right cheek - as her head was said to be turned on its left side.
Her right cheek was uppermost and so was wounded as he pulled the apron up over her head to slice a piece off.

Thankyou for those clarifications.