Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Throat Cuts as opposed to stabbing.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    If the drawing was taken many hours after, then the body goes through a change, things that were visible at the time become less visible and as the body goes through the rigor mortis process.

    There is also the question that these nicks to the eyelids were not seen or recorded at the crime scene, they were only seen at the post mortem stage many hours later and if as has been suggested that medical student could have been responsible for the removal of the organs then who is to say that they did not as a prank make the cuts to the eyelids, these are equally plausible explanations as is the belief that the killer did them at the scene.
    The full body sketch recording the wounds inflicted upon Kate was made at 03:45 on the Sunday, long before the PM. There's no reason the think the drawing of the facial wounds was done at a later time. Even if it were, the eyelid wounds are visible on both.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

      Iīve seen that suggestion before, Joshua. Would not such a thing have been done with the broad side of the blade facing the eyes, and not with the edge of it doing so? And would not the tip of the knife have "locked" to the lid with little or no cutting effect as he did it?
      I'm not sure there's an established technique for that, Fish, so can't really say. My feeling would be that the knife tip would move the upper lid with it until it was closed, only then cutting through the skin.


      Hereīs a weird suggestion: What if her eyes were already closed, and the killer used the thumb and forefinger of his free hand to lift the eyelids from the surface of the eyeball and then cut the eyelid open, with the intention to make the eyes visible? A long shot, I know, but I feel it could perhaps fit the strange damage done.
      Interesting idea....but wasn't it mostly the lower lids that were cut? Doesn't seem a very effective way to go about it. If he'd wanted to expose the eyes then he could have cut the lids off completely. But what do I know, I'm not a deranged killer.

      Comment


      • #63
        There is a BIG mortuary photo of Eddowes that can be blown up.
        Her left eyelid has had a xanthelasma removed.
        Another was removed from under her right eye.

        Click image for larger version

Name:	xanthelasma-1296x728-slide.jpg
Views:	84
Size:	201.9 KB
ID:	746956

        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by DJA View Post
          There is a BIG mortuary photo of Eddowes that can be blown up.
          Her left eyelid has had a xanthelasma removed.
          Another was removed from under her right eye.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	xanthelasma-1296x728-slide.jpg
Views:	84
Size:	201.9 KB
ID:	746956
          And wouldnīt you know, this tells us that ...?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

            I'm not sure there's an established technique for that, Fish, so can't really say. My feeling would be that the knife tip would move the upper lid with it until it was closed, only then cutting through the skin.

            So you think the cutting was perhaps done not when closing the lids, but intentionally afterwards, is that correct?

            Interesting idea....but wasn't it mostly the lower lids that were cut? Doesn't seem a very effective way to go about it. If he'd wanted to expose the eyes then he could have cut the lids off completely. But what do I know, I'm not a deranged killer.
            Nor am I, to be perfectly honest. But I think we sometimes see the killer exposing hidden things of the body, like the inside of the abdomen, Kellys thorax (by way of cutting through the intercostals) and her femur (by way of cutting away the hiding flesh), and so if the eyes were not damaged, then I am guessing that the lids would have been lifted before he cut, and one reason behind it could be that he wanted to expose the eyeball underneath. Itīs just a thought, but one that sits well with my overall picture of the killer.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 11-21-2020, 02:46 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Are you suggesting that the cut to the bridge of her nose was accidental? Or that peripheral wounds were?

              Kates killer didnt show any particular knife skills or knowledge, in fact the 2 foot colon section, her face, and some other wounds made indicate he did not share the skill set of Annies killer. Then you add the fact that its probable that the reason he cut and tore the apron section was to carry off bits,...so...if thats why he kills, cause it is why Annies killer killed, then why is he unprepared for it? Why would he use up precious seconds doing something he could have been ready to do when he first entered the square?
              I'm not sure if I'm losing the thread here not but I didn't say anything about what the apron section was used for. As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                anthelasmas.

                And wouldnīt you know, this tells us that ...?
                As is often the case,your know it all attitude to others often disregards the actual evidence.

                Your current argument with Trevor is continuing evidence of this.

                There are at least two post mortem photos of Eddowes.

                The most viewed,when blown up shows her eyes partially open.The cuts show what was almost certainly the removal of two Xanthelasmas.

                Another,with her eyes closed,tends to favor Trevor's argument about the sketch being after the PM.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Prosector View Post

                  I'm not sure if I'm losing the thread here not but I didn't say anything about what the apron section was used for. As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.
                  Do you reckon Jack had experience,perhaps even teaching those very skills,especially the belly button cut around?

                  He was carrying chalk.

                  Nichols' demise was very close to the London Hospital,Chapman's not much further.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by DJA View Post

                    As is often the case,your know it all attitude to others often disregards the actual evidence.

                    So when I ask you about what your post tells us, I am displalying a know it all attitude...? Interesting!

                    Your current argument with Trevor is continuing evidence of this.

                    Aha, so THAT is where I falsely claim to know it all!

                    There are at least two post mortem photos of Eddowes.

                    Yes, I kno...oh, sorry. I really shouldnīt do that.

                    The most viewed,when blown up shows her eyes partially open.The cuts show what was almost certainly the removal of two Xanthelasmas.

                    Aha, it was "almost certainly" the removal of two xanthelasmas. I am a bit allergic to the "almost certainly" bit, but fair enough. If you, as medically versed, know that this is so, then who am I to gainsay you?

                    Another,with her eyes closed,tends to favor Trevor's argument about the sketch being after the PM.
                    Okay, so thatīs what you think. Well, you see, personally, I donīt give a rats behind about when the sketch with no time given on it was made, although I think Joshua makes a fair point - why would there be a large gap in time between the sketches? What I can see from my layman know-it-all position is that there are two sketches that both have the eyelids nicked with horizontal cuts, and to me, that tells me that there were likely two horizontal cuts to the eyelids.
                    Take it or leave it. And when you do, I would still like to know in what way the possibility that Eddowes had had two xanthelasmas removed affects the nicks to the eyelids.
                    Although I of course should know it all, the simple fact is that I really donīt.

                    Please donīt tell anybody about it.

                    PS. Read your post once more. Are you saying that the two vertical nicks to the eyelids had been made to remove the xanthelasmas you predispose were there? If so, are you telling us that the killer operated to remove the xanthelasmas or are you suggesting that it was done some time before and that Brown could have mistaken the cuts for recent cuts, made by the killer?
                    Or are you saying that the cuts as such had nothing to do with the suggested xanthelasmas removal? And were dirt poor women like Eddowes likely to have such things operated on?

                    Pardon my ignorance (or disability to follow your reasoning), but you need to help me out here.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-21-2020, 04:08 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      That's an interesting suggestion David. We know that Craig (whether or not he was JTR) had been involved with his father in teaching students (in Edinburgh in the 1860s). He lived in the Mile End Road, not far from the London Hospital and he was perennially hard up and could probably have done with the extra money that lecturing students in anatomy would have brought in. It would also have given him access to the dissecting room. I wonder if there is anything in the London Hospital records although I haven't managed to get much interest or cooperation from them in the past?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Prosector View Post
                        That's an interesting suggestion David. We know that Craig (whether or not he was JTR) had been involved with his father in teaching students (in Edinburgh in the 1860s). He lived in the Mile End Road, not far from the London Hospital and he was perennially hard up and could probably have done with the extra money that lecturing students in anatomy would have brought in. It would also have given him access to the dissecting room. I wonder if there is anything in the London Hospital records although I haven't managed to get much interest or cooperation from them in the past?
                        If that had have been the case he would surely have had access to bodies and body parts lawfully obtained for medical research via the Anatomy Act, although I am aware that bodies and body parts were obtained for medical research by unlawful means and by that I am not referring to murder.

                        No need for any medical person to risk capture by killing on the street to obtain organs, not that any organs were taken from street victims at the crime scenes anyway

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          I think he had another reason altogether for not damaging the eyes in the Kelly and Eddowes cases. I see the nicks not as something that risked the eyes but instead as a parallel to Kelly: damage done that seemingly should have involved the eyeballs - but they were miraculously left undamaged in both cases. Of course, we donīt have it in black and white that there was no such damage at all, but it certainly seems to be the case.
                          The eyelid nicks that did not damage the eyes are indicative of precise control of the knife.
                          The carets below are there to tell us - I did this, deliberately.
                          This was a man with a cool disposition and a very steady hand - it was not some half-drunk thug.
                          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                            The eyelid nicks that did not damage the eyes are indicative of precise control of the knife.
                            The carets below are there to tell us - I did this, deliberately.
                            This was a man with a cool disposition and a very steady hand - it was not some half-drunk thug.
                            Both of you are doing nothing more than making wild speculative guesses

                            The killer carried out a frenzied attack on this victim, are we expected to believe that after doing that he gained his self-control sufficient enough to be able to carefully nick the eyelids, and furthermore having gained that self-control be able to then remove a uterus and a kidney with some medical precision

                            There is no evidence that shows the nicked eyelids were noted at the crime scene

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Both of you are doing nothing more than making wild speculative guesses

                              The killer carried out a frenzied attack on this victim, are we expected to believe that after doing that he gained his self-control sufficient enough to be able to carefully nick the eyelids, and furthermore having gained that self-control be able to then remove a uterus and a kidney with some medical precision

                              There is no evidence that shows the nicked eyelids were noted at the crime scene

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              I think I already pointed put to you the last time that Eddowesī face would have been covered in blood as she was found, and so it may well have been nigh on impossible to see the small nicks to the eyelids. Iīm sure you can see how that works if you put your mind to it.

                              I also donīt think that yu should accuse others of "wild speculative guesses" if you are then going to move on to saying that the killer lost his self-control and was in a frenzy. Not least should you try and be economic about claiming that others are the ones making wild speculations if you are going to claim that a small portion of the damage caused to the face was made by a prankster some time after the victim arrived at the mortuary.

                              If you cannot see who makes the truly controversial guesswork here, you really should not make any comments at all castigating others as wild speculators. There is nothing at all speculative about suggesting that the killer was behind the eyelid damage just as he was behind the rest of the facial damage. It is instead a near certainty, as it happens.

                              Anyone who can take out a kidney from the front of a dead person in utter darkness is anything but a frenzied killer with no self control.

                              Any poster who claims the opposite is the one out of control.

                              And yes, that refers to you.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Trevor, I agree with you that whether or not the Eddowes facial mutilations were deliberate or accidental is pure speculation but I don't personally think that JTR was out of control during most of the killings, except perhaps the last one. Tense and nervous certainly but I think he needed to be pretty much in control to carry out the dissections he did, particularly on Chapman and Eddowes. As for David's point about the London Hospital, I wasn't suggesting for one moment that he carried out the killings to get access to anatomical specimens but he might have assisted in the dissecting room in order to practice on an abdomen or two and, possibly, to earn a bit of extra money. As you know, I think JTR's motive (whoever he was) was revenge on the last victim and a desire to link the killings in such a way as to suggest that they were carried out by doctor or medical student. Anyway, that's speculation also at the moment unless anyone can get access to the London Hospital Medical School's employment records (if such exist) and check to see whether any temporary or part time anatomy demonstrators were employed during that period (look for Prosectors which is what they were called). I'd love to try myself but there's the small matter of the day job.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X