Superficial cut

[Rya]

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

Not exactly. The inquest testimony: "On the left side of the neck, about 1 inch below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 inches in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 inch in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 inches below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 inches in length." (Italics mine)

Based on Llewellyn's statement, we have no way of knowing the depth of the shorter incision, or the damage to the underlying vessels. If it were confined to the posterior side of the neck, and did not penetrate the sternomastoid muscle, it is unlikely to have touched the carotid artery at all. Perhaps the external jugular vein, but this is not specified, as I would expect in the report. It was the 8 inch incision, which went entirely round the neck (in contrast to that of Eddowes), that was fatal--assuming the woman wasn't already dead by that point, either from strangulation, cardiac arrest, or some other cause. Llewellyn's comments reflect his indecision on all of this. And we cannot know which incision went first. And yes, it is possible that the killer meant to behead the body in Nichols's case--certainly not in that of Kate.

[lynn cates]

sharp observation

Hello Rya. Thanks.

"Based on Llewellyn's statement, we have no way of knowing the depth of the shorter incision, or the damage to the underlying vessels."

Agreed.

"If it were confined to the posterior side of the neck, and did not penetrate the sternomastoid muscle, it is unlikely to have touched the carotid artery at all."

Alright. But, as you say, we don't know.

"Perhaps the external jugular vein, but this is not specified, as I would expect in the report."

Very well. See above.

"It was the 8 inch incision, which went entirely round the neck (in contrast to that of Eddowes), that was fatal--assuming the woman wasn't already dead by that point."

How do we know this? As you say, she could already have been dead. Moreover, we have not ruled out the shorter cut as fatal.

"And we cannot know which incision went first."

Quite. But, as I said in a previous post, a subsequent short cut would have no meaning.

"And yes, it is possible that the killer meant to behead the body in Nichols's case"

Thanks. That seems to me indicated.

"--certainly not in that of Kate."

Precisely. And that is my main point.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Again

Concerning Nichols throat wounds, like most issues connected to the Nichols murder the press reports vary -

'There were two cuts in the throat, one four inches long and the other eight, and both reaching to the vertebrae, which had also been penetrated. ' The Daily News 3rd Sept 1888

[lynn cates]

pressing issues

Hello Lucky. Thanks. They do vary a good bit.

In fact, an early press report in "Lloyd's" has the knife moving upward. At inquest, however, this was corrected to downward. Dr. L went from left-handed to right. Finally, the press report had her clothes torn; inquest, not.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon, Lynn, Rya, all,

Early in the thread, the point was made, when discussing one cut or two re Eddowes, that in order to achieve in one cut the amount of damage done in this case, a tremendous amount of force would be needed.
In conjunction with this, a question. Would a greater or lesser amount of said force be needed in your opinions if the cut was made standing, from behind or in the case of a back-handed, left handed cut made standing in front of the victim?
Likewise, a cut when the victim is lying on her back on the ground, both forehand and backhand cut?
I also ask is it possible that the 'superficial' cut can have been the initial cut causing the victim tofall to the ground in the first place?
Just asking.

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

positions

Hello Phil. That's a good question. At this point, I'm sure I have no good answer.

One thing I can rule out in all three cases: Llewellyn thought that Polly had her mouth clamped shut by a right hand whilst having her throat cut with the left.

But that CANNOT be done IF one is kneeling by her right side. See why? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

...In conjunction with this, a question. Would a greater or lesser amount of said force be needed in your opinions if the cut was made standing, from behind or in the case of a back-handed, left handed cut made standing in front of the victim?
Likewise, a cut when the victim is lying on her back on the ground, both forehand and backhand cut?

Hi Phil.
Your question really boils down to a difference between a "pull" action or a "push" action.
The assailant is either pushing the knife away from himself as in the case of him facing his victim, either standing in front of, or standing over her laying down.
Or, pulling the knife towards himself as would be the case if he is standing behind the victim.
I'm guessing but the weakest action would be standing facing your victim and pushing the knife away from you.

Probably the position with most leverage would be if you are crouched over your victim and pushing down with the knife.
Alternately, being crouched by her right shoulder and dragging the knife towards you across her throat from her left side is how I think it was done.

These victims were cut while they were laid down, that seems pretty conclusive in all cases.

I also ask is it possible that the 'superficial' cut can have been the initial cut causing the victim tofall to the ground in the first place?

I doubt she would fall unless the main arteries were severed, and in all cases it appears those arteries were severed while the victim was laid down.
How the killer got her to lay down is one of the big mysteries.
I prefer the garotte idea, but its a very debatable issue.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Lynn, Jon,

Thank you both muchly for the reply.
I do indeed see the problem Lynn heh heh!

I am thinking of the act in the exact area where it happened.
And the words 'amount of force' used.
I am thinking of space, and sound.
The fall itself would make a certain noise, a dull thud? Unless the killer 'eased' her to the ground.

Jon, those descriptions are very good. A left to right cut from behind when laid down- perhaps when kneeling above the right shoulder.
And then I start thinking of where any light is.

That superficial cut- if it wasnt the cut that caused her to fall- then if there were two cuts, would it not seem sensible it was the 1st of the cuts? As the 'main' cut has served a specific purpose with enabling depth, what purpose a 2nd superficial cut afterwards?
Thats where light comes in. Can the 1st cut, superficial, have been a badly sighted one, and the 2nd, main cut been made after the killer adjusted his position slightly in order to see better what he was doing?

Best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Good discussion.
Questions mixed with propositions mixed with evidence presented.
The way a forum should be.
Keep it coming.
It can just get more interesting the more we add and consider about the forensics.

[lynn cates]

proper thread

Hello Cris. Yes, and, I might add, the way a case ought to be solved.

Thanks for starting it.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Thats where light comes in. Can the 1st cut, superficial, have been a badly sighted one, and the 2nd, main cut been made after the killer adjusted his position slightly in order to see better what he was doing?

A superficial initial cut would start to bleed and thereby indicate the path taken by the blade. Would the darkness of the blood show even in poor light?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

A superficial initial cut would start to bleed and thereby indicate the path taken by the blade. Would the darkness of the blood show even in poor light?

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

Good question. In trying to envisage it, your question, the first thought that comes to mind is position of attacker(when the victim, Eddowes lies prostrate on her back).

1) if X is leaning over the victim, kneeling or crouching at head end of victim, how much of the already poor light is still effective? We know that at least one light source behind the killer, Church Passage, to be both weak and in all probability, blocked by the killer who when working would cause an (encroching) shadow over the relatively small area in front of him, i.e the throat.
That leaves any eventual light coming from the side, as it is I believe, unlikely to be a light source in front of him.
2) the above asks the question- is it impossible that the killer provided his own light?
This may be however, contentious. At this point however, thinking of that superficial cut's visibility to the killer, the detailed mutilation, removal of organs, one, the kidney, hard to locate, and taking the shortage of time used, it can be considered, I opine.

The blood flow is more difficult. I believe, though stand to be corrected, that the initial cut would cause the blood to spurt. Would this affect sight of said 1st, superficial wound? Again, light plays a key role. Infact, having light near would indeed explain the precision of the small nicks under the eyes, for example.
Contrary to this, we have the 'he's so good he could do it with his eyes closed' angle. Without light.

I dont know Colin, to re-enact the precise scene is very difficult, even with lateral thought.
Thats all I have, thoughts.

Best wishes

Phil

[Rya]

Well, here is some wanton speculation for everyone on this topic; I'm going to confine my comments to Eddowes, at least for the most part.

First off, by "superficial," I take it to mean an incision that failed to penetrate the fascia of the neck--that is, the layers of epidermis and platysma. So such a wound would not have felled Kate, only caused her of bleed down her clothing and across the ground. No evidence of such blood trails or splatter, no evidence of blood down her skirt. So as in the previous two canonical murders (I'm leaving Stride out), all injuries with the knife, including the neck wounds, were inflicted while the woman was on the ground, probably on her back, or slightly turned to one side. The heavy pools of blood on either side of her head support this, and the clot in the blood to her left tells us she was not moved after the incision was made. We can't know if the killer moved her from some other point in the square before the wounds were inflicted.

Which leads to two interesting things, particular to Kate's murder. First, we don't know how, given that the woman was prone on her back when her throat was cut, the killer got her to that point. No sex worker would have voluntarily laid down on that ground. The argument in the Nichols and Chapman murders involves asphyxia as the incapacitating maneuver, and there is evidence for this (edema of the face and tongue, bruising, etc.). The lack of blood around Nichols's head suggests she was already dead when her throat was cut (it clearly confused Llewellyn, but he didn't seem to consider strangulation or suffocation as the cause). Phillips found clear evidence of asphyxia in Chapman. But there is no obvious evidence of asphyxia in Eddowes. Nor, it seems, is there evidence that she was struck heavily in the face. Brown, who seems very competent, could not even find contusions to the scalp, back, or elbows (as might occur if she fell heavily and suddenly backwards).

The second, minor detail which is connected with the first involves Kate's bonnet, which was still under her head when she was found. So she fell with her bonnet on; a sign not only of little or no struggle, but also, in conjunction with the lack of bruising on her elbows and the back of her head, a sign of a very soft fall, as though the killer virtually laid her down on the ground before cutting her throat (Nichols, by contrast, was found with her bonnet a meter or two away, on the ground). So whatever the killer did, he did quickly, silently, and with virtually no resistance. Now Eddowes was a tiny, half-starved, still half-drunken woman, and could have been easily overpowered--but the circumstances are still strange. He could have pulled her to the ground and knelt on her chest, but she certainly would have tried to cry out. He could have punched her in the midsection then pulled her to the ground, but he would have been working really fast, and risking loss of control of the victim. The point of this is that, unless Kate simply fainted away (not impossible at all) she may have been conscious and moving under him in the last instant of her life.

All this bears some relation to the neck wound. If she were conscious, or semi-conscious and moving about, it is easy to see how the killer, in laying the blade against her neck, could have inadvertently produced a superficial gash prior to him applying the pressure he needed to sever the sternomastoid and major blood vessels, wind pipe, and so forth. She could have virtually caused the injury herself, trying to lift her head against the weapon, given a very sharp knife to begin with. The whole thing could have transpired in a second or two, and the killer need not have reapplied the blade to her neck (he would have been eager to finish the job as quickly as possible, anyway). The wound would show two trajectories within the incision, one shallow and the other deep (and fatal).

In short, the superficial cut would have suggested that Eddowes was moving and offering some kind of resistance (once on the ground) in this scenario. There is no reason to think the killer needed to trace his prospective incision due to darkness--I don't think the killer needed any light to kill her, and I think he probably committed most of the mutilations by feel, not sight. Although not the nicks on the face. I am more puzzled by the means he used to get her to the ground, and how the nearby watchmen would have been oblivious to the noise. If acts of prostitution were common in Mitre Square, I wonder if the anyone would have noticed the sounds of a brief struggle or her aborted cries. It may have blended into the usual din of arguments and sexual encounters that came from that location during late hours.

This also has some bearing on where the killer was in relation to the victim when he inflicted the throat wounds. If I, as a left-handed person, wanted to perform this act, I would be directly over--or on top of--Eddowes, cutting back towards my left. I'd have more leverage if I was literally kneeling on top of her chest; squatting on my feet is harder, as I could topple forward or backward very easily. By contrast, a right-handed person would be cutting across away from their strong hand--a trickier proposition. Better would be what Wickerman describes, but then you are not able to control her movements under you as you're off to her right side. And you're standing in a growing pool of blood. (How did the killer not leave bloody footprints in this murder? Or we're they simply not reported or noted by investigating officers?). Hence, it's easier for a right-handed killer if Kate is unconscious. But given a strong man, a very sharp blade, and some practice with the weapon, it could have been done successfully any number of ways with either hand.

Sorry for the encyclopedic post; hopefully something of this is of interest to someone. We could also argue whether a single wound that has two trajectories should count as two separate cuts, if that is what is being proposed here. But I'll leave that for everyone else to debate.

[lynn cates]

choosing sides

Hello Rya. Good post. I appreciate your observations about asphyxia in Polly and Annie.

In thinking about which side of Kate the killer was kneeling, Gareth Williams has given an excellent argument. Are you familiar with his piece?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Yes well done Rya, your posts are always thoughtfull.
I guess I had assumed that the killer was righthanded in my opinions, something I failed to mention.
How he managed to get her down on her back is a mystery, which probably only indicates something was overlooked by the medical men, or if observed, failed to be mentioned.

Just a small deviation on that subject.
In the Stride murder, Blackwell details the wounds to the throat beginning at the left side and describes the progress of the cut and the traces of the knife and where it impacted (note: windpipe).
Dr. Phillips makes the very same detailed observation beginning at the left side, etc. Strangely, Dr. Phillips completely omits the fact her windpipe was severed. If it was not for the Coroner asking him the cause of death, Phillips would have made no mention of it at all.
Which only serves to demonstrate that important observations do get overlooked in testimony, even by the most professional of men, in the most serious circumstances.

I admit, I never considered her fainting.

Regards, Jon S.