Stride..a victim?

[Fisherman]

Y

But in my opinion, the evidence points to the fact that they all had their throats cut from behind while still standing.

I think we may safely assume that for example Chapman was on the ground, as given away by the concentrated blood spatter pattern on the fence. Im my view, they were all on the ground as they had their necks cut.

In which case the killer would be able to place his hand over the victims throat to silence and subdue them. If we look at Eddowes and the cuts to her face in my opinion point to her trying to avoid the killer's knife in that way.

She must have wriggled an awful lot if that was the case. The nose came off, an earlobe came off, her eyelids were nicked, and there were two flaps of skin produced, one on each cheek. That does not sound like Eddowes struggling and receiving these damages on account of it. Not at all, actually.

If the motive was only murder and mutilation your theory falls down. The evidenec to suport the evisceration theory is highly contentious

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, my theory does not "fall down" if murder and mutilation "only" was the aim. Where did you get that from...?

[Robert St Devil]

If she were dead when cut, would the blood have flowed all the way to the door?
That flow sounds to me like a heart still beating for some time after.

It may have, I believe that passageway was slanted downwards away from Berners Street, so effectively Liz Stride's feet were higher than her head (geographically speaking).

[Fisherman]

But doesn't the spray of blood against the fence at the Chapman crime scene suggest that she was lying on the ground when her throat was cut?

Beat me to it, Mr Devil! Good on you!

[Trevor Marriott]

But doesn't the spray of blood against the fence at the Chapman crime scene suggest that she was lying on the ground when her throat was cut?

No mention of blood spray

Dr Phillips

"There were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point, and on the wooden fence there were smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased laid"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Y

But in my opinion, the evidence points to the fact that they all had their throats cut from behind while still standing. In which case the killer would be able to place his hand over the victims throat to silence and subdue them.

Phillips: My reason for believing that deceased was injured when on the ground was partly on account of the absence of blood anywhere on the left side of the body and between it and the wall.

Why is Phillips wrong?

Actually this statement is a little incredible - not only was there zero blood on the wall, there was also an absence of it between the body and the wall.
Where then, is the arterial spray?
It's quite an enigma really - all that blood, but no splashes anywhere. It's as though it all just oozed out like a slow running tap.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, my theory does not "fall down" if murder and mutilation "only" was the aim. Where did you get that from...?

If you remove the taking away of the organs you are left with just murder and mutilation, which in my opinion was the sole motive in these murders

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It may have, I believe that passageway was slanted downwards away from Berners Street, so effectively Liz Stride's feet were higher than her head (geographically speaking).

Minutely so perhaps, but they were not on a hill.
Phillips would not be surprised by the amount of blood if it were a simple matter of gravity.

[c.d.]

its unclear to me why people choose to make up their mind first and then try and find evidence for it later.

um...cough...cough

c.d.

[Robert St Devil]

Beat me to it, Mr Devil! Good on you!

It's harder to sequence with Eddowes; if only there had been a report of the condition of the half of the apron that remained on her person; if someone (anyone) had written down that 'there wasn't any blood along the seam of the cut', then I could lay my bets on Jack the Ripper having cut her apron before he cut into any parts of her body; I could claim with more confidence that Eddowes was, in fact, on her back.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Dr Blackwell's testimony, The Times 3 Oct: "Deceased would have bled to death comparatively slowly, on account of the vessels on one side only being severed, and the artery not completely severed.....
....Deceased would take about a minute and a half to bleed to death"

Too fast for me JR - I recalled that 90 second estimate, though. I wonder how accurate it was?

It's late, it's late, it's late, but not too late

[c.d.]

In this case, the big question is; what exactly did the interruption consist of?
What is the point of believing in interruption, if you cannot answer that question?

The interruption (if in fact it occurred) needn't have been related to a physical event. It could simply have been self generated paranoia. A voice in his head that said I am not safe here.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

its unclear to me why people choose to make up their mind first and then try and find evidence for it later.

um...cough...cough

c.d.

Guess you havent been paying much attention old sport...I dont assume Strides murder was committed by a serial mutilating murder since there is no evidence she was, yet you..and others to be fair..do. I dont assume her killer was interrupted without any evidence of that, yet you..and others do. Just like I said, making up your mind about something and then trying to justify it.

I know you are not a follower of being led by the evidence by the many posts which clearly demonstrate that over the years. I take whats there, and pose possible scenarios based on that. Like when Kate told a friend she was going to turn someone in, and suddenly she becomes a murder victim. Like when a woman wears her good evening wear out, wants to brush lint from it, has flowers on her jacket and mints for her breath....and no evidence she is soliciting at all. So...why is she there? I suggest a date or that she is cleaning...backed by those facts and the fact she cleans jews residences for a living at that particular time in her life. Using known data to make conjecture...not just imagination.

When Louis says one thing and 4 people say something else, but all 4 contrary accounts are corroborative accounts with the details given...I dont take the guy who has no validation in the evidence. When a man "of theatrical appearance' says he was somewhere that no-one else with a view to where he says he was can validate, its more likely he wasnt there. Since he is not called to give evidence at the Inquest, guess im not the only one who thought that.

Just because you dont like my suggestions dont think your conclusions without evidence merit more attention. At least everything I suggest has some basis in known and accepted evidence. Not like an interruption...someone sneaking in the passageway and sneaking out,...without any evidence...someone who ripped other women, without any evidence the example youre using was ripped in any way....that Jack killed 5 women, without any proof thats the case...

I make suggestions based on the evidence known,. you and others guess based on what you want to believe. Without any need for evidence to support you apparently...what a luxury.

[Robert St Devil]

Minutely so perhaps, but they were not on a hill.
Phillips would not be surprised by the amount of blood if it were a simple matter of gravity.

True she may have had a weak heartbeat (if any); but her heart was also full of clot [post mortem report] which is consistent with it having been stopped .

[Trevor Marriott]

Phillips: My reason for believing that deceased was injured when on the ground was partly on account of the absence of blood anywhere on the left side of the body and between it and the wall.

Why is Phillips wrong?

Actually this statement is a little incredible - not only was there zero blood on the wall, there was also an absence of it between the body and the wall.
Where then, is the arterial spray?
It's quite an enigma really - all that blood, but no splashes anywhere. It's as though it all just oozed out like a slow running tap.

Dr Biggs on the topic

"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

[NotBlamedForNothing]

In this case, the big question is; what exactly did the interruption consist of?
What is the point of believing in interruption, if you cannot answer that question?

The interruption (if in fact it occurred) needn't have been related to a physical event. It could simply have been self generated paranoia. A voice in his head that said I am not safe here.

c.d.

Something like this?...

Voice: You're not safe here. Perhaps try Mitre Square?