Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[GUT]

G'day Lynn

Hello GUT. Precisely. The answer seems obvious--two cuts, just as with Polly.

Cheers.
LC

No doubt in my mind, might have even been more than two.

[Wickerman]

Are you saying there was only one cut?

The words I've highlighted are all plural.

I think, if you try to envisage how a killer might cut all around the neck while the body is laid down, it isn't easy.
He cuts her throat from left to right across the front then, at some point, he must have removed the knife, and taken up a different position, perhaps grasping her hair to raise her head up?, then re-insert the blade into the wound to carry the same wound around to the front.
The result, one continuous overlapping wound, but more than one cut.

That's why I keep saying, one wound does not mean one cut.
Phillips did not say how many cuts were employed, neither did Brown in the Eddowes autopsy.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi GUT,

Are you saying there was only one cut?

The words I've highlighted are all plural.

I'm repeating the words of the doctor who performed the PM on Chapman.

But rather than just randomly picking out some of the words (two cuts) and only using those and ignoring all of the others, I'm suggesting that we attempt to understand what he is actually describing, by using all of the words he used.

As Wickerman pointed out " One wrap-around wound does not mean one sweep of the knife ", which I agreed with.

Are you claiming the wounds in Nichols throat are identical with those on Chapman?

[Mr Lucky]

I think, if you try to envisage how a killer might cut all around the neck while the body is laid down, it isn't easy.
He cuts her throat from left to right across the front then, at some point, he must have removed the knife, and taken up a different position, perhaps grasping her hair to raise her head up?, then re-insert the blade into the wound to carry the same wound around to the front.
The result, one continuous overlapping wound, but more than one cut.

That's why I keep saying, one wound does not mean one cut.
Phillips did not say how many cuts were employed, neither did Brown in the Eddowes autopsy.

Hi Wickerman,

Once again, I heartily agree

[GUT]

G'day Mr Lucky

I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

As Wickerman pointed out " One wrap-around wound does not mean one sweep of the knife ", which I agreed with.

So two cuts making one wrap around, I have no problem with that view.

Are you claiming the wounds in Nichols throat are identical with those on Chapman?

No.

[lynn cates]

apart

Hello Jon. They were separated by half an inch.

To be fair, however, Polly's were an inch apart.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi GUT

So two cuts making one wrap around, I have no problem with that view.

Fair enough, that's my general view but I think there may have been more than two cuts needed to trace all the way round her neck. maybe four , five or even more

Regarding the knife marks on the spine - I think the killer would be on her right, so by pulling the knife toward himself, it would cut through the softer tissue and then stop on the bone in her neck, marking the left part of the spine. This would not occur when cutting the neck closer to him on the right.

My view is the wrap-around wound overlapped and the two 'ends' failed to match up, this is the reason why there are two cut marks on the left side of the spine. The 'two' is of no real significance.

No.

Phew! , I thought I was misunderstanding you, too

[GUT]

G'day Mr Lucky

Fair enough, that's my general view but I think there may have been more than two cuts needed to trace all the way round her neck. maybe four , five or even more

Back at post 241 I said:

No doubt in my mind, might have even been more than two.

The reports that are extant are simply not sufficient to decide.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. They were separated by half an inch.

To be fair, however, Polly's were an inch apart.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
I think the model suggests it was the beginning and end of the same wound which were separated by a half inch.

[Wickerman]

Hi GUT



Fair enough, that's my general view but I think there may have been more than two cuts needed to trace all the way round her neck. maybe four , five or even more

Precisely, who knows how many.
Coles's throat was sliced three times within the same wound.

My view is the wrap-around wound overlapped and the two 'ends' failed to match up, this is the reason why there are two cut marks on the left side of the spine. The 'two' is of no real significance.

Sorry, hadn't seen you wrote this.
This answers Lynn's question.

[lynn cates]

beginning and ending

Hello Jon. Thanks.

And yet, they BEGAN on the left side. They ENDED on the right.

Where do you get the idea that it was an overlapping incision?

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Wickerman

Precisely, who knows how many.
Coles's throat was sliced three times within the same wound.

Good point, 'within the same wound' which is remarkable similar to McKenzie's throat wound - Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.' So, Chapman, McKenzie and Coles all appear to have some kind of multiple number of cuts within the same wound.

Just going back to the idea of the killer changing his M.O. An additional point to consider is that Mary Kelly also had two cut marks on her vertebrae just like Chapman, but conversely Nichols only had one mark on her vertebra.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman



Good point, 'within the same wound' which is remarkable similar to McKenzie's throat wound - Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.' So, Chapman, McKenzie and Coles all appear to have some kind of multiple number of cuts within the same wound.

I am so pleased you arrived at that conclusion

For several years now I have interpreted the wound to the throat of Eddowes as being produced by more than one cut (two?).
The text below is taken from the original inquest record, not the press version.
Dr Frederick G. Brown does not speculate on how many cuts were applied, he merely describes the wound as he found it.

I have reproduced the relevant portion below, but separated it into two paragraphs just to make it clearer that the wound appears to be the result of more than one slice across the throat.

The superficial cut is described first.
The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear.

Then the deeper cuts are described.
The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side - the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed - the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking the intervertebral cartilages....

I take the superficial cut as being quite separate from the cuts that severed all the deep structures to the bone.
At least two cuts.

[Scott Nelson]

Wouldn't a jagged wound imply more than one cut?

[Mr Lucky]

The superficial cut is described first.
The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and 1/2 below the lobe and about 2 1/2 inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear.

Then the deeper cuts are described.
The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side - the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed - the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone the knife marking the intervertebral cartilages....

I take the superficial cut as being quite separate from the cuts that severed all the deep structures to the bone.
At least two cuts.

Hi Wickerman,

Yes, I think there is good case to be made for this. I think there is no doubt that the deeper cut can not be exactly the same as the superficial cut, but of course this relies on a literal interpretation of the words 'superficial' and 'deeper'.

I think the problem understanding what the medical testimony is actually describing is largely caused by the perspective of the modern investigator - effectively what they define as 'ripper killings' and 'non-ripper killings' colours what they infer from the testimony. Yet, these are artificial groupings based solely on a combination of a hoax letter giving us the notion of 'the ripper' and modern profiling (another hoax!), but there is no reason for the killer to have been bound by any of these notions. (at least pre Mary Kelly ) - I always try to refer to him as 'the killer' or 'the murderer' not as 'jack the ripper', btw.

My take on things is that the killer doesn't exist in isolation - he learns from the world around him, largely from the press. One of the things he could have learnt from the press after the Chapman killing is that throttling the victim in to silence before using the knife is unnecessary - the damage done to the throat could prevent the victims from crying out.

To go back to Mitre-Square, there is a mechanism that allows both a superficial cut and a deep cut to exist in the same wound;- the deep cut is actually a stab wound, and the long superficial cut is a slicing wound started with the edge, not the point of the knife, but done over the original stab wound.

I think both double event victims were stabbed in the side of the throat, then lowered to the ground, only then was the knife was removed - allowing the blood flow to be directed downwards. In Strides case, the blade of the knife faced outwards, and the killer by simply pulling the knife forward cut through the softer tissues -giving the appearance of a slash type wound (just like Nichols ) - However, in Eddowes case the knife marked the cartilage in her spine, which would indicate to me, that the blade of the knife faced the wrong direction to repeat the same pulling forward action, and therefore it was just withdrawn through the same entry wound, with out any specific additional cutting action.

In the case of Eddowes, I suspect that the superficial cut was added later - tracing over the stab wound's entry. Possibly done at the same time as the other facial damage.

There is other indications that I believe support this hypothesis, - notably, the penetration wounds on the carotid sheath, and the location of the blood at the scene, the clotted blood at the Eddowes scene was near her to the left of her neck, whilst the fluid blood ran down the slight slope in the other direction. -- blood only clots up to the moment of death , after death the blood draining out of the body remains fluid until it dries up.

This is something I've pondered about for some time now and I realise there is some leeway with the mechanics of the throat wounds, - but I still think we need to use as much of the information as possible, to give us the best chance of understanding what happened to the victims.