Superficial cut

[Hunter]

I thought we might attempt to solve a minor mystery and try to determine how many times Catherine Eddowes' throat was cut. Some of the relative evidence is below, but feel free to add anything you consider important as well.

From F.G. Brown's written testimony:

...the throat cut across; below the cut was a neckerchief.

Later in same testimony:

The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and ½ below the lobe and about 2 ½ inches below behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear. The big muscle across the throat was divided through the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery had a fine hole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened an inch an a half, not divided. The blood vessels contained clot. All these injuries were performed by a sharp instrument like a knife and pointed.

From Brown's oral testimony as reported by the Times, Oct. 5, 1888:

The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6in. or 7 in. The sterno cleido mastoid muscle was divided; the cricoid cartilage below the vocal chords was severed through the middle; the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed to the bone, the knife marking the intervertebral cartilage. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just open; the carotid artery had a pin-hole opening; the internal jugular vein was open to the extent of an inch and a half- not divided All of the injuries were caused by some very sharp instrument, like a knife, and pointed. The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate.


Here is the upper part of Foster's sketch made at 3:45 a.m. on the morning of the murder. It is the version that appears in SYI, Evans and Rumbelow, as this has a white background making Foster's lines a bit more clear:

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Cris. Thanks for starting this thread. I believe your position is:

1. One cut.

2. "Superficial" describes the self same cut, but only in its origin.

If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

At one point, heavy weather was made by some about a second cut being indicated on the sketch. I take it you do not accept that?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

To place a knife under the left ear of a subject and apply enough force to cut through the skin & several large muscles to the spinal column, while dragging the knife around and dividing the larynx, and through to the right side, would require an enormous amount of pressure to accomplish this in one sweep.

Such a cut would not begin superfically, only in so far as every cut begins superficially, so why describe it as such?

An example of one sweep is Stride.
If the argument goes that the same man who half-cut Stride's throat with one sweep, also severed Eddowes throat to the bone, also with only one sweep?, why the difference?

A "superficial cut" is not a cut which "begins superficially", all cuts begin superficially.

Jon S.

[lynn cates]

tuning up

Hello Jon. And so you are the two cut man.

"If the argument goes that the same man who half-cut Stride's throat with one sweep, also severed Eddowes throat to the bone, also with only one sweep?, why the difference?"

Careful, mate. You're about to sing my song.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

To place a knife under the left ear of a subject and apply enough force to cut through the skin & several large muscles to the spinal column, while dragging the knife around and dividing the larynx, and through to the right side, would require an enormous amount of pressure to accomplish this in one sweep.

Such a cut would not begin superfically, only in so far as every cut begins superficially, so why describe it as such?

An example of one sweep is Stride.
If the argument goes that the same man who half-cut Stride's throat with one sweep, also severed Eddowes throat to the bone, also with only one sweep?, why the difference?

A "superficial cut" is not a cut which "begins superficially", all cuts begin superficially.

Brown's description is plausible if the type of weapon used was as he described. Throat injuries did not always start with a superficial cut. Many times in murders outside of this skien the victim's throat was stabbed, then the knife drawn across a short distance (James Brown).

The cut Dr. Brown describes started well behind the left ear and was carried around. A knife such as he depicts could do it, providing it was sharp and I'm sure it was. In the end, he doesn't mention two cuts in any of his testimony. As detailed as he was in describing the injuries and as important as such would be, I believe he would have mentioned two separate cuts and detailed them each.

[Wickerman]

Which is why Cris, I alluded to needing the opinion of a physician.

I have to ask myself, why did Brown describe the cut as "superficial", in other words, what does he see in the wound which makes him think there was a superficial cut. He then proceeds to describe very deep wounds which clearly are not consistent with a superficial cut.

My guess, because thats all it can be, is that he saw a score mark across a muscle, perhaps beside the deep cut, which automatically tells him there has been a previous sweep of the knife.

It also is not necessary for Dr Brown to speculate as to how many cuts there were, he is describing the damage to all the structures of the neck. Whether there was one, two or three passes of the knife is not necessary to speculate.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

sketch

Hello Cris, Jon. What are your takes on the look from the sketch that there are two cuts? The one above looks deep; the one below does not.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

The 'extended' cut description can only be the deep looking gash in the diagram due to the description given of the start/end points of the cut.

That seems clear.

The throat was cut across to the extent of about 6 or 7 inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and ½ below the lobe and about 2 ½ inches below behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear.

There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the the above statement, but I think the answer lies in Brown simply not stating that the superficial cut was Jack placing his knife before drawing/extending the knife across the neck which caused the deep gash shown in the drawing.

Perhaps he felt there was no need to as it was obvious to all concerned that there was only one cut.

The other problem with a superficial cut across the neck is that Brown describes the knife as very sharp - so Jack would have had to have almost tickled her with the knife to cause such a cut - doesn't appear to have been his style.

[lynn cates]

cuts

Hello Mac.

"The other problem with a superficial cut across the neck is that Brown describes the knife as very sharp - so Jack would have had to have almost tickled her with the knife to cause such a cut - doesn't appear to have been his style."

I presume you are basing this on Polly and Annie's cuts? In which case, no, a superficial cut was not to be seen.

On the other hand, a single cut to the throat is a distinct variation from Polly and Annie's cases as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

The Sterno cleido mastoid muscle, on the left side is this:



Also, on the left side, the large vessels (carotid & Jugglar) severed to the bone.
Also, the larynx was severed.

The full extent of the deep wounds began at the large muscle (in red), and terminate at the larynx.



On the right side there is no deep wound.
On the right side we only read that the carotid & jugglar, which are near the surface of the skin were not even cut, barely opened. This is where the superficial cut terminated.

One superficial cut breaking the skin to a shallow depth ran from under the left ear to the right side, 6-7 inch in length, barely deep enough to cut the main arteries.

One deep thrust of the knife at the left side to sever the large muscle down to the spinal column and extend to the centre of the throat only, to severe the larynx.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

fine hole opening

Hello Jon. Thanks for posting that. What do you make of the "fine hole opening" rather than severing of the carotid and jugular?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks for posting that. What do you make of the "fine hole opening" rather than severing of the carotid and jugular?

Cheers.
LC

All those wounds to the vessels on the right side are hard to visualize.
The sheath of the vessels "just opened"?
The carotid artery had a "pin-hole opening"? (round?)
The internal jugular "open to the extent of an inch and a half - not divided"?

The jugular is like a straw, how can you have a cut "1 1/2" long in a straw unless the knife changed direction?

They appear to suggest very slight damage to the vessels on the right side, "just opened", "pin-hole opening".

If the day ever dawns when a physician stumbles across Casebook I think we should tie him to a chair and get some detailed answers out of him

The best I can do Lynn is explain it how I interpret it, be it right or wrong who can tell?

All the best, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

forensics

Hello Jon. Thanks. Does it almost sound as if the tip of the knife had gouged the carotid?

"If the day ever dawns when a physician stumbles across Casebook I think we should tie him to a chair and get some detailed answers out of him"

I'm with you. I have a friend who is a physician. I am still working on her; but, so far, she eschews forensics.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. Does it almost sound as if the tip of the knife had gouged the carotid?

Hi Lynn.
What do you mean, the "pin-hole opening"? - syringe?, vampire?

I can't explain it Lynn, even the tip of a knife is not likely to leave a "pin-hole".
The, 1 1/2" long cut must be due to the knife point being turned as it caught the artery.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rya]

We are talking about two separate things here, aren't we? The reference to the term superficial, and the description of the injuries themselves.

With respect to the latter problem, I don't understand the fuss, since Brown's comments seem plain enough. The wound to the neck severed the sternomastoid muscle along with all the major blood vessels in the neck on the left side. Presumably the woman was on her back at this point, or (more likely) on her right side, which would allow for the appropriate pressure to be applied where the cut commenced. The blade was dragged around to the front of the neck along the cartridge, then lifted off when coming against the right sternomastoid muscle, perhaps due to the killer having lost his leverage against Kate's neck, or due to the position of her body or to some involuntary movements by her as she entered her death throes. He may also have simply been adjusting his position to the trajectory of the blood flow. In any event, the minimal damage to the internal structures on the right side of the neck would reflect the killer relaxing the pressure as he pulled the knife off her throat--a "pin-hole" would be a very small rupture in the artery (the vessel being a round tube, not a flat surface) while the one and a half inch slice in the vein would reflect that the knife was being dragged off at an angle rather than directly across the vessel. Definitely not the tip, but some portion of the blade edge (which would have to be quite narrow and as sharp as a scalpel) as it nicked these vessels. This is suggested also from the drawing and photos, which show the killer pulled the blade downwards towards her right clavicle.


As for the reference to the "superficial" cut, honestly, it makes no sense at all in relation to the description as a whole. It makes me wonder if there is some error in the transcription of Brown's statement. Could the official transcriber have misheard the word as "superficial" when in fact Brown was saying something else? Any ideas? Or was there some issue in the reading (and I assume we are witnessing a direct recitation from the autopsy report here) which caused Brown to skip or misread his text? Why did the Times edit the line out altogether? Are there other press transcriptions to compare?

And why does Foster's drawing suggest a second cut, when the photos (albeit of poor quality) don't reflect such a gash?