Arrangement at her feet

[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

[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?

[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."
https://<span style="color:Blue">htt...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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Wickerman]

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 precise..

Actually Mariab, ..but a ligature is a thin cord with, in some cases a loop at each end. This method was popular on the continent because it was swift & silent. And you don't need to be an arm wrestler to apply it.

Considering the heavy clothing and large collars, & coats many of these women wore an assailant cannot apply an armlock around the neck because her clothing is obstructing his arm from apply sufficient pressure.
Whereas flipping a cord over the head (equally from behind) and crossing your hands to pull tight is all thats required to apply a garotte.

The ease and swiftness doesn't even compare to a cumbersome armlock, couple this with the fact that even a wimp could apply the garotte and the two methods are not in the same league.
The garotte is only released when the victim goes limp so how is harder?

Besides, I think yourself & Mariab should look up the effects of an armlock to the neck. This method only inhibits blood flow to the brain. Whereas the ligature/garotte both cuts off air supply AND inhibits the flow of blood.
The medical evidence demonstrates the victims suffered asphyxiation BEFORE they died. The armlock does not apply pressure to the trachea only the principal veins on the side of the neck.

The victim is not asphyxiated from an armlock to the neck.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

The ease and swiftness doesn't even compare to a cumbersome armlock, couple this with the fact that even a wimp could apply the garotte and the two methods are not in the same league.
The garotte is only released when the victim goes limp so how is harder?

Jon, Read what I wrote please. Even a Thugee who was far more experienced at strangulation than any East Ender, wasn't using one hand to strangle and one hand on a knife. If the knife is the main cause of death, the garotte would not have been used, and an arm around the neck or simply tugging back the head with a fistful of hair is much easier than a garotte. It's simple, I think.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Besides, I think yourself & Mariab should look up the effects of an armlock to the neck. This method only inhibits blood flow to the brain.

This is indeed very possible and would explain how Stride became unconscious, since the doctors looked hard and could find no evidence of strangulation or poisoning. No bruising to the neck. Of course, since most suspects wouldn't have the knowledge, height, or capability of a an 'armlock', this would be a hard sell. Not to me, of course, since my preferred suspect had the height, the capability, and the knowledge.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott