Throat Cuts

[Fleetwood Mac]

I was talking with Steve about Dr Phillips and Liz, including Dr Phillips' belief that Liz's throat was cut while she was on the ground. My interpretation of that is Liz was lying on her back, in Dr Phillips' opinion. I thought I'd have a look 'round the internet for any studies of throat cuts.

I found this article:

Homicidal Cut Throat: The Forensic Perspective - PMC (nih.gov)

In which the following is stated:

Homicidal cut throats can be produced in two different ways; depending on whether they are produced from the back or the front [4]. Of those two methods, cutting a person’s throat from behind is the most common. The head is pulled back, and the knife is then drawn across it. The knife is drawn across the neck, from left to right by a right-handed assailant and from right to left by a left-handed individual [6]. The wound inflicted deepening at the beginning and then tails off at the opposite side of the neck [8].

The homicidal cut throat injuries inflicted from behind are usually longer. They usually starts below the ear, runs obliquely downward and medially, then straight across the midline of the neck, and ends on the opposite side of the neck, lower than its point of origination [6].

Contrary to that, the homicidal cut throats inflicted from the front tend to be short and angled. Horizontal wounds inflicted from the front are the least common [6]. Further, instead of the neck being cut with one long, continuous motion, these wounds are inflicted by several swipes or slashes [6]

The sources used for this statement include:

Vincent Di Maio, an American pathologist, he was a board-certified anatomic, clinical and forensic pathologist, and a private forensic pathology consultant.

Claas Buschmann, a Forensic Pathologist and Deputy Director of the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Germany.

Michael Tsokos, a lecturer of forensic pathology and legal medicine at the University of Hamburg, Germany, and the Police Academy of the City of Hamburg. He is the primary or senior author of more than 120 scientific publications in international peer-reviewed journals and the editor of a number of books dealing with topics of forensic pathology.

Dr Blackwell described Liz's cut as this:

In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.

My reading of this is that Liz's cut throat corresponds very much with the type of wound modern day pathologists would expect to see in the event of a cut performed by somebody stood behind Liz.

Obviously, modern day pathologists are in a position to draw on years of research and study and their own experiences, i.e. in a much better position than Dr Phillips to determine what the nature of the wound meant for where the murderer was in relation to the victim.

Thoughts on what this means for Dr Phillips' assessment of the position of Liz's body when her throat was cut? Thoughts on the nature of the wounds on the other women?

'Just to add: whatever anyone thinks Dr Phillips intended with his 'short bladed shoe-maker's knife' statement, it was all predicated on Liz's position when her throat was cut and so in the event he had that wrong then his statement is rendered meaningless.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe Blackwells suggestion that she may have been cut while falling is substantiated to some degree by the scarf being twisted tight and the edge of the scarf cut in a manner that mirrors the actual cut. It seems probable she was cut from behind while he held the scarf, or he supported her with the scarf being pulled tight and twisted, and then ran the knife across her throat as he dropped her. I think the evidence that Polly, Annie and Kate were cut while on the ground is reasonable. And it appears Mary was able to defend herself from the knife somewhat, likely she was cut from behind as well. By a left handed man, if thats a correct assumption. She was on her right side facing the wall when attacked with the knife, so a right handed man would have had an awkward reach.

[Aethelwulf]

She was on her right side facing the wall when attacked with the knife, so a right handed man would have had an awkward reach.

Perhaps that is the reason Mary, if it was Mary, had the chance to cry out. Thos few seconds of awkwardness alerted her. Perhaps she woke up and saw someone above her and reaching over? If he was left handed could he have done it cleanly without any noise?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I believe Blackwells suggestion that she may have been cut while falling is substantiated to some degree by the scarf being twisted tight and the edge of the scarf cut in a manner that mirrors the actual cut. It seems probable she was cut from behind while he held the scarf, or he supported her with the scarf being pulled tight and twisted, and then ran the knife across her throat as he dropped her. I think the evidence that Polly, Annie and Kate were cut while on the ground is reasonable. And it appears Mary was able to defend herself from the knife somewhat, likely she was cut from behind as well. By a left handed man, if thats a correct assumption. She was on her right side facing the wall when attacked with the knife, so a right handed man would have had an awkward reach.

This is what Dr Brown had to say:

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 about 2½ inches 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 on the left side—the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed—the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. 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.

That is very much consistent with the type of cut the modern day pathologists mentioned above, would expect to see in a cut inflicted from behind the victim. It's a long cut, beginning below one ear and ending below the other ear, and the cut is more severe and deep at the left hand side of the neck, which is in line with a right handed person cutting from left to right and stood behind the victim.

There may be a further clue in that Dr Brown states:

There were abrasions under the left ear.

and:

A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

This may suggest that Catherine was not fully subdued at the point of the knife being produced, nor did Jack have a firm grip of Catherine's head, i.e. Catherine was able to wriggle trying to avoid having her throat cut. In turn, it may suggest Jack was behind Catherine when he cut her throat as opposed to Catherine being subdued and held firm on the ground.

[Elamarna]

I was talking with Steve about Dr Phillips and Liz, including Dr Phillips' belief that Liz's throat was cut while she was on the ground. My interpretation of that is Liz was lying on her back, in Dr Phillips' opinion. I thought I'd have a look 'round the internet for any studies of throat cuts.

I found this article:

Homicidal Cut Throat: The Forensic Perspective - PMC (nih.gov)

In which the following is stated:

Homicidal cut throats can be produced in two different ways; depending on whether they are produced from the back or the front [4]. Of those two methods, cutting a person’s throat from behind is the most common. The head is pulled back, and the knife is then drawn across it. The knife is drawn across the neck, from left to right by a right-handed assailant and from right to left by a left-handed individual [6]. The wound inflicted deepening at the beginning and then tails off at the opposite side of the neck [8].

The homicidal cut throat injuries inflicted from behind are usually longer. They usually starts below the ear, runs obliquely downward and medially, then straight across the midline of the neck, and ends on the opposite side of the neck, lower than its point of origination [6].

Contrary to that, the homicidal cut throats inflicted from the front tend to be short and angled. Horizontal wounds inflicted from the front are the least common [6]. Further, instead of the neck being cut with one long, continuous motion, these wounds are inflicted by several swipes or slashes [6]

The sources used for this statement include:

Vincent Di Maio, an American pathologist, he was a board-certified anatomic, clinical and forensic pathologist, and a private forensic pathology consultant.

Claas Buschmann, a Forensic Pathologist and Deputy Director of the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Germany.

Michael Tsokos, a lecturer of forensic pathology and legal medicine at the University of Hamburg, Germany, and the Police Academy of the City of Hamburg. He is the primary or senior author of more than 120 scientific publications in international peer-reviewed journals and the editor of a number of books dealing with topics of forensic pathology.

Dr Blackwell described Liz's cut as this:

In the neck there was a long incision which exactly corresponded with the lower border of the scarf. The border was slightly frayed, as if by a sharp knife. The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw, but without severing the vessels on that side.

My reading of this is that Liz's cut throat corresponds very much with the type of wound modern day pathologists would expect to see in the event of a cut performed by somebody stood behind Liz.

Obviously, modern day pathologists are in a position to draw on years of research and study and their own experiences, i.e. in a much better position than Dr Phillips to determine what the nature of the wound meant for where the murderer was in relation to the victim.

Thoughts on what this means for Dr Phillips' assessment of the position of Liz's body when her throat was cut? Thoughts on the nature of the wounds on the other women?

'Just to add: whatever anyone thinks Dr Phillips intended with his 'short bladed shoe-maker's knife' statement, it was all predicated on Liz's position when her throat was cut and so in the event he had that wrong then his statement is rendered meaningless.

Just when I thought I had covered the issue of throat cuts in inside Bucks Row in depth, I find some new info I just must add into the chapter on wounds.
Thanks FM.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just when I thought I had covered the issue of throat cuts in inside Bucks Row in depth, I find some new info I just must add into the chapter on wounds.
Thanks FM.

Steve

I reckon there is a very interesting inference from those experienced, modern day pathologists able to draw on decades of experience of throat cut study and research.

That being:

They state that throat cuts from behind follow a pattern: long cuts, starting below one ear, ending below the other ear, deepest at the point of initial incision, the cut tails off at the other side of the throat.

What they seem to be saying is that it's just the natural flow of a knife when cutting a throat from behind, i.e. it begins under the ear and the incision point is where the cut is deepest, not out of any anatomical knowledge, it's simply the natural flow of a cut from behind.

In other words, whether or not the murderers in their research/study or Jack had heard of a carotid artery, a cut severing the carotid artery at the side of initial incision, is what those modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut performed from behind.

Therefore, cutting the left carotid artery (four of the murders) does not equate to targeting the carotid artery, which in turn removes the pillar supporting the premise that Jack knew a lot about what he was doing.

[Elamarna]

I reckon there is a very interesting inference from those experienced, modern day pathologists able to draw on decades of experience of throat cut study and research.

That being:

They state that throat cuts from behind follow a pattern: long cuts, starting below one ear, ending below the other ear, deepest at the point of initial incision, the cut tails off at the other side of the throat.

What they seem to be saying is that it's just the natural flow of a knife when cutting a throat from behind, i.e. it begins under the ear and the incision point is where the cut is deepest, not out of any anatomical knowledge, it's simply the natural flow of a cut from behind.

In other words, whether or not the murderers in their research/study or Jack had heard of a carotid artery, a cut severing the carotid artery at the side of initial incision, is what those modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut performed from behind.

Therefore, cutting the left carotid artery (four of the murders) does not equate to targeting the carotid artery, which in turn removes the pillar supporting the premise that Jack knew a lot about what he was doing.

You will find not disagreement from me on that.
I don't believe he had any idea of what he was doing, other than it would lead to a quick death.

[Wickerman]

A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

This may suggest that Catherine was not fully subdued at the point of the knife being produced, nor did Jack have a firm grip of Catherine's head, i.e. Catherine was able to wriggle trying to avoid having her throat cut. In turn, it may suggest Jack was behind Catherine when he cut her throat as opposed to Catherine being subdued and held firm on the ground.

You might have raised a point I debated many years ago.

A "superficial cut" is one that only penetrates the skin but does not injure the deep muscles. So how is it that he then describes severer injury to the deeper muscles?

The two statements do not make sense, and Dr Brown is the only doctor that does not say how many cuts there were, he only describes how the overall wound appears to him.

There were two cuts to the throat of Eddowes, as we see with Nichols, and as we see with Chapman, though Chapman's is described as overlapping.

First cut:
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 about 2½ inches behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear.

Second cut:
The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side—the large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed—the larynx was severed below the vocal chords. 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.

"Large vessels", "deep structures", and cuts "to the bone", cannot be the result of a "superficial cut".

[Fleetwood Mac]

A "superficial cut" is one that only penetrates the skin but does not injure the deep muscles. So how is it that he then describes severer injury to the deeper muscles?

"Large vessels", "deep structures", and cuts "to the bone", cannot be the result of a "superficial cut".

Agreed, Jon.

There is no way we can reconcile 'superficial cut' with the deep cut Dr Brown describes. They are by any reasonable assessment, two different cuts.

The article I linked includes this:

It was noticeable that the deep cut throat found in this case was a single incision without surrounding injuries. Multiple, parallel, superficial cuts found above and below the deep fatal cut in homicides suggest that the deceased attempted to get away, his head was not sufficiently immobilized by restrain and he was intoxicated or tortured.

It follows that when we consider Catherine's superficial cut and the abrasions under the left ear, at the point of incision, it is reasonable to suggest that Catherine wasn't subdued and she was struggling. That seems to me to be more likely to happen with Catherine stood up, and when we consider the nature of the deep cut, which modern day pathologists believe displays the usual signs of a cut from behind; then there is a decent argument to suggest Catherine didn't have her throat cut when she was lying on her back.

[Aethelwulf]

Agreed, Jon.

There is no way we can reconcile 'superficial cut' with the deep cut Dr Brown describes. They are by any reasonable assessment, two different cuts. Sounds like this was attempted from the front

The article I linked includes this:

Multiple, parallel, superficial cuts found above and below the deep fatal cut in homicides suggest that the deceased attempted to get away, his head was not sufficiently immobilized by restrain and he was intoxicated or tortured.

There is an example of multiple cuts in this case. Doesn't say whether they are parallel or not but the multiple cuts fit with someone struggling to get away, successfully. This was also done from the front, which also fits your previous example: Further, instead of the neck being cut with one long, continuous motion, these wounds (from the front) are inflicted by several swipes or slashes.

Daily Telegraph 22nd Nov 1888 ALARMING OUTRAGE IN WHITECHAPEL

What has he done?' and she replied, 'He has cut my throat.' I asked for a light, and a woman brought a candle, for the room was very dark. I then saw that there were five or six wounds in the neck, which seemed to me to be gaping and at least 3in long

I brought him in about 6.30, and when I was half-asleep I felt a knife cross my throat, which woke me up, and I screamed

[Wickerman]

...

The article I linked includes this:

It was noticeable that the deep cut throat found in this case was a single incision without surrounding injuries. Multiple, parallel, superficial cuts found above and below the deep fatal cut in homicides suggest that the deceased attempted to get away, his head was not sufficiently immobilized by restrain and he was intoxicated or tortured.

It follows that when we consider Catherine's superficial cut and the abrasions under the left ear, at the point of incision, it is reasonable to suggest that Catherine wasn't subdued and she was struggling. That seems to me to be more likely to happen with Catherine stood up, and when we consider the nature of the deep cut, which modern day pathologists believe displays the usual signs of a cut from behind; then there is a decent argument to suggest Catherine didn't have her throat cut when she was lying on her back.

That, I think, will be a tough sell.
I agree some women are attacked with a knife the way the article suggests, and yes that may cause a superficial cut, but the victim will have been screaming and shouting which doesn't appear to be the case with Eddowes.
If a woman is resisting a knife attack, you can put money on it that she is screaming the house down.
None of the victims of JtR appear to have had the chance to cause any commotion, with the exception of Kelly.

I do concede the attack on Stride may better fit the suggestion offered here, which was different to Eddowes. But as for Eddowes being attacked with a knife while standing, I can't subscribe to that idea. For instance, look at Chapman's wound, it begins under one ear and continues around the neck, overlapping the start point, more like a spiral.
You can't do that with a victim stood up, she had to be on the ground and pulled up to a sitting position, all the while resisting? No, she was out cold for some reason.

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps that is the reason Mary, if it was Mary, had the chance to cry out. Thos few seconds of awkwardness alerted her. Perhaps she woke up and saw someone above her and reaching over? If he was left handed could he have done it cleanly without any noise?

The issue with that is that we have 2 witnesses that said they heard "oh-murder" as if from the courtyard, and they listened for further sounds. Elizabeth, upstairs in her room, did not hear anything after that. She had also stated before that she heard when Mary moved "things" about. For me personally, based on both Elizabeth and Sarah's description and location of that cry, and the fact that Diddles upstairs was disturbed by something just before that cry, suggests that what they heard was a pissed off Mary being woken from a hangover type sleep by someone who wanted into her room. She cried out "oh-murder" while her door was open, and thats why the witnesses though it came from the courtyard. She then allowed that entry, and then crawled back in bed, scootching over to the right side, and laying on her right side. Like she expected someone to climb in behind her. For me, that would narrow the list of men who got into that room around 4am. One of the 2 Joe's she had been seeing.

Whoever he was, he waited until she was dozing again, then he attacked her from that left side of the bed, there was no room on the right side, and thats why I think he was left handed. A right handed killer wouldnt be able to access her throat unless he held the knife with his right hand, with the blade pointed downward. Awkward. To my knowledge, this is the ONLY Canonical murder that has evidence the killer may have been left handed. An ambidextrous man isnt likely, truly ambidextrous people amount to about 1% of any given population.

[Aethelwulf]

The issue with that is that we have 2 witnesses that said they heard "oh-murder" as if from the courtyard, and they listened for further sounds. Elizabeth, upstairs in her room, did not hear anything after that. She had also stated before that she heard when Mary moved "things" about. For me personally, based on both Elizabeth and Sarah's description and location of that cry, and the fact that Diddles upstairs was disturbed by something just before that cry, suggests that what they heard was a pissed off Mary being woken from a hangover type sleep by someone who wanted into her room. She cried out "oh-murder" while her door was open, and thats why the witnesses though it came from the courtyard. She then allowed that entry, and then crawled back in bed, scootching over to the right side, and laying on her right side. Like she expected someone to climb in behind her. For me, that would narrow the list of men who got into that room around 4am. One of the 2 Joe's she had been seeing.

Whoever he was, he waited until she was dozing again, then he attacked her from that left side of the bed, there was no room on the right side, and thats why I think he was left handed. A right handed killer wouldnt be able to access her throat unless he held the knife with his right hand, with the blade pointed downward. Awkward. To my knowledge, this is the ONLY Canonical murder that has evidence the killer may have been left handed. An ambidextrous man isnt likely, truly ambidextrous people amount to about 1% of any given population.

Nice story but I'll go with the what seems more obvious. The cries of murder relate to the start of the murder of Kelly.

[Michael W Richards]

Nice story but I'll go with the what seems more obvious. The cries of murder relate to the start of the murder of Kelly.

Then you have to come up with something to explain why, with 2 women listening, no other sounds were heard. No bed moving, no tussle, no muffled sounds. With my suggestion as to how that cry occurred you dont have to explain that lack of further sounds at all.

[Aethelwulf]

Then you have to come up with something to explain why, with 2 women listening, no other sounds were heard. No bed moving, no tussle, no muffled sounds. With my suggestion as to how that cry occurred you dont have to explain that lack of further sounds at all.

I don't see it as a problem. Something alerted Mary. The killer's movement in the room, on the bed. Perhaps he reached over with that awkward position if right handed, perhaps she saw the knife. Whatever it was, she had time to call out. He then silenced her. Maybe hand over her mouth first, or strangled. All he needed to do with the bed is lift the lower end very slightly and pivot it on the feet at the top to move it out. Doesn't need to have been noisy. He could have waited a while to do that if he started on the other side. Given what he was doing I suspect he went out of his way to make sure he made as little noise as possible.