Diemschutz arrival

[Bridewell]

That could explain the not very loudly bit.

Just checked 'The Ultimate'. According to Schwartz, BS Man 'had nothing in his hands', which perhaps makes the 'throat already cut' scenario an unlikely one.

Regards, Bridewell.

[miakaal4]

Hi Lynn,
So do feel that whoever killed her had intended to, rather than a spontaneous murder, which might have been a more random attack?

[Bridewell]

Screamed?

Hello Abby. Thanks.

"He might have and not even known it."

But if so, how could she scream?

Cheers.
LC

She "screamed three times but not very loudly". This is, however, Schwartz's account as given through an interpreter. Was 'scream' the meaning which Schwartz was actually trying to convey? Surely, if it was done 'not very loudly' it wasn't a scream, as we understand the word? She cried out? She called to him? She tried to speak? A not very loud scream is something of an oxymoron IMHO.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

compare and contrast

Hello Miakaal. A stab may or may not puncture the intended organ. The knife may or may not strike a bone, thus inflicting damage to the perpetrator's hand.

But a severed carotid (by the way, the assailant did a rum job of severing it--unlike Polly and Annie's assailant) is MUCH quicker and MUCH more efficient.

Cheers.
LC

[miakaal4]

Can someone tell me why, if this was not a JtR kill, he did not stab Liz in the chest/heart or throat? Why the grief of a throat cut? If she was struggling or making a noise would killer not just put his hand over her mouth and stab?

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Harry.

"I think finding the edges of the scarf in darkness,might be a bit tricky."

Do you mean the tails or the edge where it was frayed? If the latter, I'd say that the scarf found the knife.

But if the former, you grab and whatever comes to hand. . .

The observation you make would be like wondering why the golfer hit the ball onto that EXACT blade of grass. He hit it and it landed wherever it landed.

Cheers.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry, yes I'm rather certain that her neck lie over the stones when cut, as a pool of blood had settled on the larger rock and ran into the gutter from there. There was no blood anywhere else.

That explains a great deal, Tom.

As for 'supine position', the other women were turned to their side and cut and bled that way, just as Stride was. That's why we have a puddle of blood to the LEFT of Eddowes, and that's why fences to the LEFT of Chapman was blood spattered, yet nothing to her right, and that's why the wall to the RIGHT of Kelly was painted in blood.

Therein lies the problem, Tom. With respect, you have misunderstood the physiological processes involved in these murders and thus the Ripper’s modus operandi.

The blood spray patterns left on the boundary fence at Hanbury Street and the partition wall at Miller’s Court were caused by blood jetting from the carotid artery, a structure that runs down the side of the neck more or less in line with the earlobe. When cut it emits a jet of blood following the path of least resistance – to the side of the victim, not the front. Hence in order for the Hanbury Street fence and the Miller’s Court partition wall to have been sprayed with arterial blood, Chapman and Kelly must have been lying in a supine position as their throats were cut. Had they been turned on their side the blood would have jetted downwards, towards the ground with Chapman and on to the mattress in the case of Kelly.

Confirmation of the Ripper’s methodology is to be found in the ‘mud’ evidence. On examining the clothing of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes doctors found that only the back of the victims had become mud stained. No debris was discovered on the flanks or the side of the head. In other words the victims were unquestionably throttled, lowered on to their backs, and remained there whilst the sharp force injuries were inflicted.

On this basis, Tom, if you remain certain that Stride was lying on her side when her throat was cut, you really ought to be questioning her validity as a Ripper victim.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Harry. I agree on all points. Well said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

I see nothing wrong with the actions of Diemshutz.All he could surmise from the light of the match was that a seemingly dead person was lying there.How would he know from that quick glance that the person had been murdered. So I do not think he would be expexting a killer to be present
What was done to Stride,if witnesses are to be believed,w as either done in almost total darkness,or after a suitable period which enabled the killer's sight to adjust to the conditions.I think finding the edges of the scarf in darkness,might be a bit tricky.

[lynn cates]

shedding tears

Hello Tom. For crying out loud! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[sleekviper]

Wait a minute, 3 out of 5? LOL, it is the first attempt that counts, how did that go? If not so well, Lynn, you owe me a pint.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Jon. Thanks. All I can offer is this. Take a tissue.

Hi Lynn. Your theorizing has been known to reduce a grown man to tears.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Natural

I knew you wouldn't pay

[lynn cates]

supernatural

Hello Garza. Post it to YouTube.

When your hand opened, how did the cachous insinuate themselves between your fingers?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Garza, you're killing the Scot.
What about a Murphy's ?