Modern Day Expert Opinion

[Wickerman]

The inquest testimony of the doctors relates to the post mortems as conducted by the doctors and their reports which Dr Biggs was provided with.

Considering an autopsy report contains far more detailed information than was captured at the inquest, your doctor is hindered by a lack of important detail.

And there you go again twisting things around to suit your own purpose. I have not dismissed the doctors testimony I have let Dr Biggs negate much of that testimony. It is other witness testimony whcih I have suggested is unsafe to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have you compared each press version of what the doctor is reputed to have said?
You'll find in most cases the doctor's words are not verbatim but paraphrase, and by the newspaper (either reporter or editor).
So, we can't say for sure if we have the actual doctors words, and if we do, which version are they?
We all must deal with this problem, but so must your Dr Biggs, which lessens his reliability when he can only rely on the same sources as the rest of us.
The point being, doctor's Phillips, Llewellyn, Blackwell, Brown, etc. had first-hand information on which to cast their opinions, all we have (we, includes your Dr Biggs), is mostly a set of differing paraphrase accounts of the medical information.

[Wickerman]

But there professional experience and expertise can be challenged by modern day medical experts such as Dr Biggs.

But Trevor, your Dr. Biggs is also guessing, you know he didn't have an autopsy report to work from, so, like us, he must use his imagination.

You have given an opinion based on your own findings and beliefs which you are entitled to do. I am entitled to challenge that opinion using Dr Biggs in doing so to also challenge what the Victorian doctors have stated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

True, but he isn't an authority on these cases. I'll grant you he is a professional in his field, but he is still applying his knowledge to what you have insisted are unreliable press accounts.
So how does that put you ahead of the game?

[Wickerman]

Strange, then, that Chapman showed the most likely signs of strangulation and also had splashes of arterial spray nearby.

Agreed as to the signs of strangulation, but 'arterial spray'?
I don't recall reading that.

There were a few blood spots on the back wall of the house, about 2ft off the ground.
Most likely cause being due to the killer tossing her intestines towards her head.
Were any spots mentioned on the fence at that low level, I don't recall reading that?

[Trevor Marriott]

Nichols Case.
After hearing Dr Llewellyn's testimony, Coroner Baxter concluded...
"There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying, this circumstance being sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground,..."

Chapman Case.
Subsequent to Dr Phillips testimony, Baxter again concluded...
"The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back; and although in doing so she may have fallen slightly against the fence, this movement was probably effected with care. Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination,..."

Stride Case.
Dr Phillips testimony...
"I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut..."

Dr Blackwell stated...
"I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

Also, Baxter again after the testimony of Blackwell & Phillips, concluded...
"...as it was clear from the appearance of the blood on the ground that the throat was not cut until after she was actually on her back."


Wouldn't you say the facts were also provided by Blackwell & Phillips, based on their professional experience and expertise?

But there professional experience and expertise can be challenged by modern day medical experts such as Dr Biggs.

You have given an opinion based on your own findings and beliefs which you are entitled to do. I am entitled to challenge that opinion using Dr Biggs in doing so to also challenge what the Victorian doctors have stated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Post-mortem reports?
Which are these Trevor, as far as everybody knows the post-mortem records of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, have not survived.
Excepting of course the brief record by Dr Bond, which falls short of being a genuine post-mortem record.
All we have is two inquest records from the coroners and five inquest accounts by the press. Which, incidentally, you have dismissed as unreliable.

The inquest testimony of the doctors relates to the post mortems as conducted by the doctors and their reports which Dr Biggs was provided with.

And there you go again twisting things around to suit your own purpose. I have not dismissed the doctors testimony I have let Dr Biggs negate much of that testimony. It is other witness testimony whcih I have suggested is unsafe to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

Strange, then, that Chapman showed the most likely signs of strangulation and also had splashes of arterial spray nearby.

.....

[Joshua Rogan]

They were most likely at least unconscious or even dead before their throats were cut. Arterial Blood spray happens because the heart is pumping at its usual capacity. If it is reduced significantly or stops it massively reduces the spray.

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified...rinciples.html

Strange, then, that Chapman showed the most likely signs of strangulation and also had splashes of arterial spray nearby.

[Wickerman]

These facts he provided are based on his professional experience and expertise as a forensic pathologist after being provided with all the relevant post mortem reports, and the inquest testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Post-mortem reports?
Which are these Trevor, as far as everybody knows the post-mortem records of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly, have not survived.
Excepting of course the brief record by Dr Bond, which falls short of being a genuine post-mortem record.
All we have is two inquest records from the coroners and five inquest accounts by the press. Which, incidentally, you have dismissed as unreliable.

[Wickerman]

My belief is that they were cut from behind while in a standing position....

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nichols Case.
After hearing Dr Llewellyn's testimony, Coroner Baxter concluded...
"There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying, this circumstance being sufficient to justify the assumption that the injuries to the throat were committed when the woman was on the ground,..."

Chapman Case.
Subsequent to Dr Phillips testimony, Baxter again concluded...
"The deceased was then lowered to the ground, and laid on her back; and although in doing so she may have fallen slightly against the fence, this movement was probably effected with care. Her throat was then cut in two places with savage determination,..."

Stride Case.
Dr Phillips testimony...
"I have come to a conclusion as to the position of both the murderer and the victim, and I opine that the latter was seized by the shoulders and placed on the ground, and that the murderer was on her right side when he inflicted the cut..."

Dr Blackwell stated...
"I formed the opinion that the murderer probably caught hold of the silk scarf, which was tight and knotted, and pulled the deceased backwards, cutting her throat in that way. The throat might have been cut as she was falling, or when she was on the ground. The blood would have spurted about if the act had been committed while she was standing up."

Also, Baxter again after the testimony of Blackwell & Phillips, concluded...
"...as it was clear from the appearance of the blood on the ground that the throat was not cut until after she was actually on her back."

These facts he provided are based on his professional experience and expertise

Wouldn't you say the facts were also provided by Blackwell & Phillips, based on their professional experience and expertise?

[Columbo]

These facts he provided are based on his professional experience and expertise as a forensic pathologist after being provided with all the relevant post mortem reports, and the inquest testimony.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

very nice. That’s the way to do it. Was there anything in his hypothesis that, as a professional, you didn’t agree with?

[Trevor Marriott]

So before your interview with Dr. Biggs, was he given all medical materials from the 1888 medicos or were these general questions you posed to him? In the spirit of this topic, was his opinion based on actually seeing and studying the historical facts?

Columbo

These facts he provided are based on his professional experience and expertise as a forensic pathologist after being provided with all the relevant post mortem reports, and the inquest testimony.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

How the bruises occured in pure conjecture

May I refer back to my interview with Dr Biggs where I asked him about the absence of arterial spray

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So before your interview with Dr. Biggs, was he given all medical materials from the 1888 medicos or were these general questions you posed to him? In the spirit of this topic, was his opinion based on actually seeing and studying the historical facts?

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

If their throats were cut while standing the blood spray would be evident on the front of their clothes. In this case Dr Brown was specific on that point, there was no blood on the front of the victim.

Even the pressure marks left by the thumb and forefingers on Nichols jaw suggest the left hand while her head was on the ground.




Holding her head firm as he cut her throat, no other reason for that finger pattern.

Kelly's body lay on the bed and her throat was slashed untold number of times, according to Dr Bond.

How the bruises occured in pure conjecture

May I refer back to my interview with Dr Biggs where I asked him about the absence of arterial spray

Q. Evidence from the crime scenes seems to show a distinct lack of arterial blood spray. Now given the throats were cut, and in some cases, the carotid arteries were severed is there any explanation for the absence of arterial spray?

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood pattern is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasm when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes / flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

They were most likely at least unconscious or even dead before their throats were cut. Arterial Blood spray happens because the heart is pumping at its usual capacity. If it is reduced significantly or stops it massively reduces the spray.

http://www.forensicsciencesimplified.org/blood/principles.html

[Columbo]

Well, what I wrote isn't part of a theory, I'm not suggesting I know who the killer was.
If the superficial (shallow) cut commenced on the left side of her neck, and the deep cut was also on the left side, then common sense dictates there had to be two different cuts of the knife.

All I'm saying is that evidence does exist that there were two cuts to Eddowes throat (as with Nichols & Chapman), and that there is a bonafide reason for the one cut being superficial.
Whoever used the garrott, or cord, on Mylett's neck is not necessarily the same person as attacked Eddowes, it's just the same method.
The question that comes to my mind is, if the killer of Eddowes used a cord, why then do we not see the same evidence with Stride if they were attacked by the same man?

I think also why does this type of information never appear to be disseminated by experts that are called upon to give their analysis? Forensically this would be significant.

And to do a comparison with Trevors contribution earlier, this is a prime example of how knowledgeable people as yourself and Trevor view the available official information. I know there’s different opinions, but if the sky is blue, it’s blue. Is the surviving documentation really so vague as to provide the option for polar opposite opinions on the medical evidence? It always seemed pretty clear to me when I read the information.

Columbo