Facial Mutilations

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn.

I suspect this conflict is due to Baxter interpreting what Phillips has said.
Though in part this is true, from below the left ear, to the right side of her larynx, it was cut in two places.

[lynn cates]

walk around

Hello Jon. Thanks.

OK, try this. Hold a surrogate knife in your hand and try doing this with a pillow. Obviously, you will need to do a walk around. But surely the fence impedes on the other side?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

OK, try this. Hold a surrogate knife in your hand and try doing this with a pillow. Obviously, you will need to do a walk around. But surely the fence impedes on the other side?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
Precisely, which is why I wrote that he had to step to his/her right side to complete the cut.

Try visualize this.
The Killer stands behind victim, his back to house wall, fence to his left, body in sitting posture, supported by his knees.

Chapmans body is the 'clock', she (propped up) is facing the bottom of the yard - this is 12:00. The fence is at 9:00 to her body.

The killers first cut, right handed, begins at 9:00, round to 12:00, and finally terminates at about 4:00 (behind right ear).

He steps to his right (her right side), still holding the head by the hair.
Now he is facing the fence.

He re-places the knife at 4:00 (the start of the second cut), drags it around to 9:00 (passing below the previous cut), then terminating the cut at 1:00.

[lynn cates]

incisions

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, but how deep can one cut whilst holding one by the hair?

Notice that Dr. Phillips refers to "incisions" (plural) on the neck. (Ultimate, p. 86.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

spiral

Hello (again) John. You'll notice that Dr. Llewellyn describes one of Polly's cuts as : "a circular incision." Was that a spiral, too?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, but how deep can one cut whilst holding one by the hair?

Hi Lynn.
How sharp is the knife?

Notice that Dr. Phillips refers to "incisions" (plural) on the neck. (Ultimate, p. 86.)

Does that indicate that there were two cuts?
The first one ending behind the right ear, and the second one beginning in the same wound?

(I concede, behind the right ear is an arbitrary location)

[Wickerman]

Hello (again) John. You'll notice that Dr. Llewellyn describes one of Polly's cuts as : "a circular incision." Was that a spiral, too?

Cheers.
LC

Difficult to compare different terminology when used by different doctors.

[Harry D]

Would you suppose Harry that the two deep parallel cuts administered to Chapman and Nichols were born of a desire to efficiently kill, and disable those two unfortunate women? Or do you suppose the reason to have been born of a fevered mind, which in the process of hallucination perceived Nichols and Chapman to have been sheep, and thus needed to be butchered?

I'm willing to suspend disbelief for the multi-killer hypothesis, and Isenschmid as a suspect, but this talk of Isenschmid suffering delusions and mistaking prostitutes for cattle is a bridge too far.

[Michael W Richards]

Since the title of this thread has little or nothing to do with how many cuts were made to the throat, how deep they were and how they came to be...I thought Id offer an observance regarding the facial mutilations....there is a great deal of difference when the knife holder is slashing a face vs carving one. The wounds to Kates face may have been collateral damage, at the very least they might have been small, intentionally placed cuts and nicks. There had been incidents in the area, prior to these Whitechapel cases, where spies and people who ratted out others would have a word carved into their face as a reminder to others. I would imagine "traitor" might have been one of those. In the broadest of interpretations I suggest the wounds to Kates face may well have been in that context..hardly out of the question since we do have a story that states Kate told her that she was about to turn evidence into the Police that would cast suspicion on someone for the previous murders.

Now.... Marys face...essentially obliterated by slashes...., not cuts, or nicks, or any fancy shmancy partial or complete denuding of bone as we see in other places.

I suggest one of these murderers was emotionally involved with his victim.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

minimum

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Does that indicate that there were two cuts?"

At least. But again, Baxter's dictum and the two notches seem to indicate as much. A spiral is HIGHLY impractical.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

terminology

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Difficult to compare different terminology when used by different doctors."

So then Dr. Phillips' terminology is difficult to understand?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

diamonds in the rough

Hello Harry.

"this talk of Isenschmid suffering delusions and mistaking prostitutes for cattle is a bridge too far."

And yet, his chart indicates that he stuffed his pockets with rocks thinking they were diamonds.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Hello Harry.

"this talk of Isenschmid suffering delusions and mistaking prostitutes for cattle is a bridge too far."

And yet, his chart indicates that he stuffed his pockets with rocks thinking they were diamonds.

Cheers.
LC

Oh, I'm not arguing that Isenschmid was a few crumbs short of a biscuit, Lynn. There's some difference between confusing rocks for gemstones, and what you're suggesting, however. For example, I'd assume that some kind of solicitation took place for Annie to end up in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St with her killer. We're supposed to believe that in his hallucinating state, where he may or may not have thought he was talking to a sheep, Isenschmid somehow struck a deal with Annie for some nooky out back, and Annie herself was quite undaunted by this deranged, wild-eyed butcher that she went ahead with it.

[Observer]

I'm willing to suspend disbelief for the multi-killer hypothesis, and Isenschmid as a suspect, but this talk of Isenschmid suffering delusions and mistaking prostitutes for cattle is a bridge too far.

Indeed, there's no pulling the wool over your eyes.

[Observer]

Oh, I'm not arguing that Isenschmid was a few crumbs short of a biscuit, Lynn. There's some difference between confusing rocks for gemstones, and what you're suggesting, however. For example, I'd assume that some kind of solicitation took place for Annie to end up in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St with her killer. We're supposed to believe that in his hallucinating state, where he may or may not have thought he was talking to a sheep, Isenschmid somehow struck a deal with Annie for some nooky out back, and Annie herself was quite undaunted by this deranged, wild-eyed butcher that she went ahead with it.

You know he could have been armed with mint sauce, lethal. On a more serious note, the conversation he was having with Chapman didn't seem to be anything other than a punter arranging "some nooky out back", at least, that is what Long observed. Of course, we have the proponent of this ridiculous theory informing us that voices were raised, thus implying our mad butcher was off his trolley at the time. Is it reasonable to assume that (with a maniac on the loose) Chapman would have willing gone into the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, with a deranged hallucinating isenschmidt ? Of course we have to ask ourselves whether it's possible to remain calm and act in a normal manner, while entertaing the thought t that the woman you are conversing with is a sheep, and it would be nice if you could butcher her and make a few bob out of the lamb chops to be had from her carcass.