Greetings from the past

[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

[harry]

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

[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]

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.

[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

[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?

[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]

"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.

[Roy Corduroy]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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?

[Wickerman]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[Elamarna]

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