Greetings from the past

[Elamarna]

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

[Harry D]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Wickerman,

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

[jerryd]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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?

[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

[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]

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

[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.