Arrangement at her feet

[mariab]

I'm not having any problems grasping your robbery ruse theory, Tom, and I'm not entirely excluding it as a possibility, I'm only saying it's a bit complicated as a process.
By the by, did Le Grand have a history of also robbing the young prostitutes he cut and beat? I don't recall anything about taking their money. I've been meaning to re-read your Examiner 2 piece since a while, I hope to manage to do this at some point during the weekend.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not going to discuss the robbery ruse theory further, because clearly nobody is grasping it. Suffice it to say that my preferred suspect (Le Grand) carried on him a weapons arsenal, the least of which was a knife, but I'm stating the killer held a knife to the victims' throats because that's the only weapon we have empirical evidence for the killer possessing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Tom (I think) was referring to using an arm with a choke hold and then using the knife. It would be harder to use the garotte and then release it and use the knife, or more time consuming to be more precise.

I was referring to a chokehold + knife, Michael, and I agree with you.
Abby is correct as well.

[The Good Michael]

On the contrary, the use of a garotte/ligature requires 'considerably' less effort than a strangle-hold using the arms. You have to be strong to hold a person in such a grip.
.

Tom (I think) was referring to using an arm with a choke hold and then using the knife. It would be harder to use the garotte and then release it and use the knife, or more time consuming to be more precise.

Mike

[Wickerman]

In the dark? There is no reason whatsoever why the killer would want to obliterate the trace of strangulation.

Certainly there is, as garroting was a known phenomena, then equally those 'muggers' who used a garotte were known by their associates, or even by the police for previous assaults.
The use of the garotte 'could' have helped identify him, at the very he could have ended up on a short list of suspects known to carry a garotte.

Plus, it's easier to attack with a stranglehold then knife, than to pull out some rope, then a knife.

On the contrary, the use of a garotte/ligature requires 'considerably' less effort than a strangle-hold using the arms. You have to be strong to hold a person in such a grip.

... I think the first smaller cut, over the left carotid, is to 'bleed' the victim...to get the first, more violent spurts out of the way while the killer kneels behind them....

The slice to the juglar is the killing cut, however you see it. Which makes the second cut pointless, unless there was a point not immediately obvious to the authorities.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Agree. Another reason why the mugger scenario doesn't cut it in this case.
In my opinion (as I've said in a previous post) it went like this: Non threatening approach, perhaps pay, blitz attack as in grab the throat, cut, empty pockets, mutilate, flee.

Hi mariab
I think this is the most likely scenario with the minor chage that he probably mutilated first then emptied the pockets. I find the robbery ruse hard to accept. Why waste time and alarm the victim before hand? You would be giving them more opportunity to scream out, struggle etc.

I think once he got them where he wanted them he went straight for the strangle hold to incapacitate them and lower to the ground. Then take knife out and fatal throat slash on the ground to kill. i think then once he was finished with the mutlilations he put the knife and organs in his pocket and rifled through there pockets for money(and his money back) or other things he found and wanted to keep(more trophies?) In Eddowes case, after he secured the organs he kept the knife out to cut her apron, then put the knife and apron away. I think the trinkets found around them were pretty much where he randomly left the items he did not want.

[mariab]

To Tom Wescott:
Oh, OK. I agree.
Not to be irreverent here, but when you said “blood on the rocks“ I initially thought, Spike at Willy the Snitch's bar.

[Tom_Wescott]

What do you mean “the blood“? Not the blood on her right hand, possibly transferred by Dr. Johnston?

The blood on the rocks and in the gutter corresponded to her neck wound, and along with the pristine state of her clothes, indicated she was not moved by her killer after death. As soon as she was moved a bit, the cachous dropped loose from her hand. I imagine the same would have happened had the killer jostled her, digging in her pockets, or moving her body around.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Is this the reason for the 'second' cut to the throat?

I don't think so, because I don't think the Ripper would care if they knew he strangled the women. I think the first smaller cut, over the left carotid, is to 'bleed' the victim...to get the first, more violent spurts out of the way while the killer kneels behind them. The second is to inflict the deep damage he feels is important.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

In the case of Stride, the medical evidence shows no signs of drinking alcohol, or at least not enough to register, so where did all the money go? She must have been robbed, but her pockets were certainly not gone through nor was her body moved after she fell. The blood and cachous tell us that.

Believe me, Tom, I've been speculating with different (plausible) scenarios pertaining to this. An idea is that BS/Pipeman might have taken away her money, and she followed one of them semi-willingly inside of the Yard because she knew them (pimp-wise). Or she might have fled inside of the Yard, taking out the cachous to nibble, and her assailant followed her. In these scenarios, she would have been robbed of the money, but her assailant didn't have time to go through her pockets, as he got interrupted by Diemshitz and his poney.

What do you mean “the blood“? Not the blood on her right hand, possibly transferred by Dr. Johnston?

"If he CUT THE THROAT ALONG THE LINE of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation."
http://<span style="color:Blue">http...24.html</span>
Is this the reason for the 'second' cut to the throat?

In the dark? There is no reason whatsoever why the killer would want to obliterate the trace of strangulation. Plus, it's easier to attack with a stranglehold then knife, than to pull out some rope, then a knife.

[Wickerman]

To Wickerman:
Ligature leaves marks,

Well here's Dr. Brownfield's suggestion:

"If he CUT THE THROAT ALONG THE LINE of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation."
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881224.html

Is this the reason for the 'second' cut to the throat?

[lynn cates]

work

Hello Tom. No, I am not proposing that Baxter endorsed that view--but he merely endorsed a possibility (I am trying to advert to his exact language).

At any rate, I recognise the difficulty with Eddowes--harder to disengage from the canon than Liz and MJ.

That means I have my work cut out, eh?

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

To C.D. and Maria, and Lynn,

You lost me here, Tom. How does the medical evidence help us determine whether it was a fake robbery or a prostitute/client scenario?

As I interpret the medical evidence relating to Chapman's hand, it seems clear that the rings were removed before she died, thus a robbery. In the case of Stride, the medical evidence shows no signs of drinking alcohol, or at least not enough to register, so where did all the money go? She must have been robbed, but her pockets were certainly not gone through nor was her body moved after she fell. The blood and cachous tell us that.

Yup. It's in his summation of the Stride inquest. Of course, he noted what was, to his mind the great similarity in all 4--the killer made away quickly and quietly.

Summing up evidence is far different from endorsing an idea, and it sounds like Baxter was of the opinion that Eddowes was indeed a Ripper victim. Likewise, it should be pointed out that while Dr. Phillips could only ascribe 'with medical certainty' Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly to one hand, he conceded that taking other evidence into account, all 5 women were likely killed by the same hand.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

To Wickerman:
Ligature leaves marks, I'd suggest a wrestling type like throat grab.
The money he payed them he obviously took back, along with any other valuables they might have spotted.

[Wickerman]

...In my opinion (as I've said in a previous post) it went like this:
Non threatening approach,...

Absolutely, there's a suggestion of this with both Chapman (Long's evidence), and Eddowes (Lawende's evidence).

perhaps pay,...

Possibly, it is reasonable, but not certain, to expect Chapman would only take her client into the backyard after he has offered her the fee.
Likewise, because Eddowes takes her client to the darkest corner of Mitre Sq (where she is less likely to be able to identify money offered), it is reasonable to conclude she was offered the money first, where it was light.

blitz attack as in grab the throat...

As there are no external indications of throttling (thumb/finger marks), but some internal indications do exist for asphyxiation then it seems very likely she was strangled by some means that leaves no marks, or subsequent throat slashing rendered the marks invisible. Hence my suggestion that a ligature was used, quick & silent.

cut,... empty pockets,

I think it very likely that the slashing of the clothes may have also slashed open the string-pockets they were wearing (example, Eddowes), which caused her belongings to fall out.
Which then leaves the question, "where is the money he offered?"

mutilate, flee.

I think the mutilation runs in direct conflict with the robbery issue. If you go to such length's to mutilate why make the pretense to robbery. Likewise, if robbery is the motive why such extreme mutilation?

These, lowest-of-the-low in the class of Unfortunates are hardly a choice target for theft. They pretty much had a 'from-hand-to-mouth' existence, it's not like they had anything more on them above the price of a bed for the night or for their next swill of gin.

Regards, Jon S.