Superficial cut

[Wickerman]

With the Nichols and Chapman murders two cuts are specifically mentioned.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

[lynn cates]

similarities

Hello Jon. Thanks. Quite true but, as I have argued elsewhere, the differences to Kate would not be nearly so striking were not Polly and Annie so similar.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

If there were two cuts to the throat, where was each located in relation to each other?

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. Quite true but, as I have argued elsewhere, the differences to Kate would not be nearly so striking were not Polly and Annie so similar.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
I do recall it being argued that the mutilations to Chapman appear more organized, or deliberate, when compared with the locations & directions of the abdominal cuts to Nicolls.

I guess your argument cuts both ways...
(Ouch)

I wouldn't expect those three killings to be carbon copies, I'm sure this killer had no thoughts about limiting his technique.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

If there were two cuts to the throat, where was each located in relation to each other?

The limited description offered in reports only suggests that the knife first opened the skin to a "superficial" depth, but of a duration of 6-7 inch, and the subsequent cut entered the same open wound but penetrating to the bone, more like a deep thrust than a slice, as in the first cut.

The fact no indication was given as to number of cuts, "cut once", "cut twice", or "three cuts", does not automatically make us assume there was only one pass of the knife.

We have the first clear cut described in totality:

"The throat was cut across, extending some six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced beneath the lobe of the ear on the left side and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear."

I am suggesting the above cut was distinct to the doctor as a continuous sweep of the knife.
Quite separate to the next "stab & rip" type wound which entered the open cut at the same location:

"The sterno mastoid was divided and the large vessels of the left side were also severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chords. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking the vertebral cartilage."

It was a short stab down to the bone severing the large muscle & dividing the larynx.

Brown then describes the relatively minor cuts to the arteries on the right side, at the tale end of the superficial cut.

"The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened; the carotid artery had a pinhole opening. The internal jugular vein was opened to an inch and a half in extent, but was not divided."

We have always assumed that there was one cut across Eddowes throat, and I've been of the same mind for a decade or so. Only a year or so ago I noticed that this long-held assumption was possibly not the correct one.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

carbon copies

Hello Jon. Thanks. No, I would not expect great similarity. And that is PRECISELY why I find Polly and Annie's cases so intriguing.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

We have always assumed that there was one cut across Eddowes throat, and I've been of the same mind for a decade or so. Only a year or so ago I noticed that this long-held assumption was possibly not the correct one.

Who's we? This is all old news to many of us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Who's we? This is all old news to many of us.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And the "many" are who?

[Rya]

So Wickerman, are you arguing essentially what I mentioned above, that the killer made two cuts into the same wound, rescoring the swallow cut a second time to the bone?

This is possible, but I am still inclined to think there is some error in the transmission of Brown's evidence here. If he wanted to say the killer retraced the trajectory of his initial cut more deeply, he certainly could have done that more clearly than what is transcribed in the inquest. Perhaps he did, and the comment was misheard by the court and uncorrected by him when reading hs own testimony. The fact that at least 2 press accounts (thanks Hunter) omit the "superficial" comment altogether should give us pause.

Incidentally, only 1 of the cuts on Nichols seems to have been fatal; the other seems, in a word, superficial. And we don't know which of those the killer inflicted first.

[lynn cates]

not superficial

Hello Rya. Don't think you'll find anything superficial about Polly's neck wounds. The shorter one hit the carotid and bled her to death. The deep one was to decapitate--just as with Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Rya. Don't think you'll find anything superficial about Polly's neck wounds. The shorter one hit the carotid and bled her to death. The deep one was to decapitate--just as with Annie.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Could you just clarify this, you believe the shorter cut was done first, and bled her to death. Then after she was dead, the second cut was done solely in order to decapitate Nichols ?

Thanks

[Wickerman]

So Wickerman, are you arguing essentially what I mentioned above, that the killer made two cuts into the same wound, rescoring the swallow cut a second time to the bone?

Yes Rya, that is precisely what I see in the reports. I had noticed you describe the situation perfectly in an earlier post. And, you admit you do not agree. Which is what most people think and have thought for over a decade (contra Mr Wescott).

This is possible, but I am still inclined to think there is some error in the transmission of Brown's evidence here.

That is interesting because I see those lines as only the highlites of a medical report, so yes, edited to some degree, so not complete.
We are trying to make sense of an incomplete transmission of the details.

If he wanted to say the killer retraced the trajectory of his initial cut more deeply, he certainly could have done that more clearly than what is transcribed in the inquest. Perhaps he did, and the comment was misheard by the court and uncorrected by him when reading hs own testimony.

What Brown is itemizing is the location and extent of internal damage to the throat. Dr. Brown has not enumerated how many times the knife passed across the throat in order to inflict that damage.
In the absence of a specific mention, 'we' have always assumed it was only once, but if the quotes are not complete, as evidence by the flow of what is detailed, then this assumption could have been wrong all along.

Incidentally, only 1 of the cuts on Nichols seems to have been fatal; the other seems, in a word, superficial. And we don't know which of those the killer inflicted first.

We tend to assume the juglar was the first cut.

Because Brown did not mention, or the quotes taken from his report did not include, the number of cuts, does not mean there was only one.
What we have, by way of description, is ambiguous.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

bleeding

Hello Lucky. Thanks. But you already seem to have it clear. And later, in Annie's case, there seemed a manual attempt to finish the decapitation.

You will find a similar motif in animal slaughter--the animal must first be bled.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Thanks, but I have to ask, How do know which cut was done first? what are the indications that there was a delay between the first and second cuts?

Sorry everyone else, I know I'm going a little of topic.

[lynn cates]

inductive inference

Hello Lucky. Thanks. Well, there has to be at least a slight delay. The problem is which came first, long cut or short cut?

I arrived at the position through induction only. What would be the point (no pun intended) of a subsequent shorter, and less deep, cut? (I'm beginning to sound like Wynne Baxter.)

Cheers.
LC