Superficial cut

[Wickerman]

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

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.

[lynn cates]

2 cuts

Hello Cris. Thanks. Yes, and the difference in these parallel cuts is 1/2 inch (1 inch difference vs 1/2 inch difference).

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

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?

Hi Rya,
I forgot to add this in response to your question about other press transcriptions. This is from the Daily News, Oct 5, inquest report on Dr. Brown's testimony:

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. 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. 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. The cause of death was hemorrhage from the severance of the left columnar carotid artery.

[Hunter]

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

[lynn cates]

more cutting remarks

Hello Jon. I agree that the first smaller cut to both Annie and Polly was the fatal one--done for the purpose of bleeding them to death. The second, deep, cut was to sever the head.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

A superficial wound followed by a much deeper one following the same path?

To me suggests several possibilities:
(1) Different killer.

Different to Stride?, but the same as Nichols & Chapman, who both suffered two cuts.
Thats where my money would go..

The first cut is the killing cut, it divides the carotid artery & Jugular, the second is mutilation.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

Marking the Way

The other possibility is that he is trying to explain an initial cut, not made deeply, which then the killer retraced or reinserted the blade into, before driving it down through the tissues on the left side of the neck. It would usually be possible to notice such a retracing of an initial wound during the neck dissection. In looking at the raggedness and size of the gash in the photos, it could be a wound that was rescored by the killer.

A superficial wound followed by a much deeper one following the same path?

To me suggests several possibilities:
(1) Different killer.
(2) Same killer, but wanting to appear like a different killer.
(3) Killer who has learned that one cut is sufficient but still feels a compulsion of some sort to inflict a second regardless.Superstitious?
(4) Killer who uses a marking line for accuracy before proceeding.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

subdued

Hello Rya. Thanks. Pretty well my view as well. Seems she was somehow subdued and nearly unconscious. And that, in itself, could lessen the spray.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

terminology

Hello Jon. Thanks. I presume he meant "small." I agree that, had he used "pin-hole," it would have been better.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

A fine pinhead was he...

Hi Rya et al,

"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."

I doubt Kate was on her right side Rya. Most likely flat on her back as you first suggested which appears to jive with C1 and C2. The cut would have been from Kate's left to right with the perp over her on her right side. That's how I envision it at least. As Lynn said, arterial spray to her right and more blood on her clothes would probably have resulted from your preferred position.

There was no sign of a struggle (as the others) so I believe she was throttled or bonked over the head. But you would think the autopsy would report a head wound; therefore, I go with the throttle/semi-strangulation/choke-hold hypothesis.

As far as pin-holes or fine-holes I have nothing to add. I have been called a pin-head in the past.

Sorry if I've derailed the thread...


Greg

[Rya]

If she were not dead at this point, would not the arterial spray have been greater, given such a position?

Cheers.

Quite possibly, although arterial "spray" as you call it would vary widely from case to case--there was certainly profuse bleeding around the neck injury. It would not necessarily have spattered the killer, however. The other possibility is that the woman was on her left side, and the killer laid the knife under her throat, pulling the blade upwards, allowing her to bleed out against the ground (which also prevents him from accidentally striking the brick with his knife edge). But this is clumsy and assumes an already comatose victim (was Kate unconscious at this point?). It also could result in the knife going into his own leg or stomach if it slipped or she struggled against him; even neophytes with knives know not to cut towards themselves when applying great force.

[Rya]

There is really nothing ambiguous about Brown's testimony. In his written statement, from his post-mortem notes, he is describing how the cut commenced and the path it followed until it terminated. The rest is going back to provide the detail of the damage done as the knife made its pass.

I agree, Hunter, except that we are given to understand the term "superficial" to mean shallow or insignificant. You would not generally describe a cut as superficial which then, in the same wound, causes catastrophic damage. Unless he is describing a second laceration in the second sentence of his description, before returning to the primary wound. I don't think that is what is he's doing, and I assume you don't either. I'm guessing the Times report just eliminated the reference to "superficial cut" since they were confused by his meaning as well.

The other possibility is that he is trying to explain an initial cut, not made deeply, which then the killer retraced or reinserted the blade into, before driving it down through the tissues on the left side of the neck. It would usually be possible to notice such a retracing of an initial wound during the neck dissection. In looking at the raggedness and size of the gash in the photos, it could be a wound that was rescored by the killer. Otherwise, I have tried to imagine some error in transmission here--"suborbital," etc.--but there is nothing that makes any plausible sense.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. "Pin-hole" is not quite correct. It's "fine hole" if I recall properly.

Hi Lynn.
Would a doctor use a vague term like "fine", does it mean "very small", or "brilliantly done"? Because of the ambiguity of the term "fine" I think it less likely to be a word used by a doctor when describing mutilations to a body.
(not that I'm suggesting he meant, "brilliantly done", only that the word is ambiguous).

"Pin-hole" is very precise, there is no ambiguity attached to that. Except that it leaves us with more questions.


Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

let us spray

Hello Rya. Thanks.

"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."

If she were not dead at this point, would not the arterial spray have been greater, given such a position?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

fine hole

Hello Jon. Thanks. "Pin-hole" is not quite correct. It's "fine hole" if I recall properly.

Trying to imagine what that would be like. Difficult.

Cheers.
LC