Throat Cuts

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not lack of ability. But a very different way of recording the information FM.

I'm still not clear, Steve.

What we're discussing on this thread, or at least in the OP, are the throat wounds observed and communicated.

When Dr Brown stated this:

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.

Are you saying that what Dr Brown communicated was not actually Catherine's throat wound?

[Trevor Marriott]

Not lack of ability. But a very different way of recording the information FM.
Today there would be sketches made, exact measurements made.
In 1888, this simply was not the norm.
The written reports are all open to interpretation.
Until recently, even in the "Missing Evidence" documentary, that's less than 10 years ago, the wounds to Mary Ann Nichols were said to be far different from what many say today.
Indeed the external wounds to Mary's abdomen are one of the few things Christer and I broadly agree on.



Can I ask if you have read the full comments by Biggs?
As I said, the statements by Trevor on this thread, do not in my opinion.fully reflect Biggs.

Steve

No you are right they don't I have tried to give some of his answers in an attempt to answer specific questions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

This is meaningless Trevor in the context of this thread.

1) You're putting forward Dr Biggs' information and suggesting this is the one, true answer.

2) That is being questioned and questions are being put to you, including the experience of other pathologists.

3) Your response is: Dr Biggs is correct and anyone not happy with it should find a doctor.

What's the point in that? That's not discussion. That's you posting and claiming it is correct and when challenged repeating that it is correct.

You may as well have just come on and said: "all of your arguments are pointless, Dr Biggs is the sole authority, read it in my book, don't challenge me with alternative information because you're wrong and I have no intention of responding to the points in your challenge".

It would have saved you a lot of time.

'Just out of idle curiosity:

When Dr Biggs stated: it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Did you not think to tell him that Dr Phillips and Dr Brown did not observe and communicate 'slashing going on' in relation to the throat wounds?

Dr Biggs in his answer was covering all possibilities and there is no direct evidence to show how the throat were cuts and he has explained that there is not enough to show that. How do you know that one or more of the victims did not put up a struggle you need to take the blinkers off,

As I keep saying the opinions of the Victorian Doctors according to Dr Biggs are nothing more than guesswork accept what an expert has stated and move on or find your own expert.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I wouldn't agree with this at all, Steve. Of course we cannot draw definite conclusions, I agree with that part, but there's an inference that the doctors' observations are of limited value. How limited you don't make clear.

It's fair to say that the doctors made assumptions based on their experience, which in some cases will have been very limited. I've no argument with that.

But, when saying the descriptions of the throats wounds are 'relatively poor', then you're questioning the ability of the doctors to observe and communicate that which they saw in front of them; and what they saw in front of them were similar throat wounds in Catherine and Liz, and very different in Annie. I'd say that would not be reasonable.

By way of example:

Dr Brown stated:

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.

Is the argument you're putting forward this: Dr Brown did not have the ability to communicate what he saw? What Dr Brown describes wasn't actually Catherine's throat wound at all? Catherine had some other throat wound?

We have the same evidence/information from Dr Phillips in relation to Liz and Annie.

I would suggest that you simply cannot reasonably claim that the information from both of those doctors is of limited importance because we do not have photographs or we consider it to be 'relatively poor'. The inference would be that both doctors did not hold the ability to observe and communicate. In the event that's what you're saying, I would strongly disagree, and by extension you'd be suggesting that we should more or less ignore everything said by the doctors given that they did not hold the ability to observe and communicate; and that would include everything from stomach contents to blood splatter.

Not lack of ability. But a very different way of recording the information FM.
Today there would be sketches made, exact measurements made.
In 1888, this simply was not the norm.
The written reports are all open to interpretation.
Until recently, even in the "Missing Evidence" documentary, that's less than 10 years ago, the wounds to Mary Ann Nichols were said to be far different from what many say today.
Indeed the external wounds to Mary's abdomen are one of the few things Christer and I broadly agree on.

And, I'm not sold on Dr Biggs at all based on what Trevor has posted here. We're talking of the throat wounds on this thread as opposed to the mutilations, was Dr Biggs when he gave his wider assessment? In fact, when Dr Biggs does mention the throat wounds, as per Trevor's posts on this thread; he states this:

It could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut.

The former is a clear misrepresentation of the information left to us; the latter discounts important notes left to us from both doctors.

I'm going to say that when Dr Biggs gave his assessment, more questions should have put in front of him given that his assessment begs more questions than it gives us answers.

Can I ask if you have read the full comments by Biggs?
As I said, the statements by Trevor on this thread, do not in my opinion.fully reflect Biggs.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

Dr Biggs has clearly stated that the Victorian doctor's opinions are not to be relied on and has given his reasons

If you are not happy with Dr Biggs answers and professional opinion then I would suggest you find your own forensic pathologist and ask him the questions you seek to answer.

Dr Biggs has been more than helpful in giving his professional opinions not only in these murders but in regards to the Thames Thorsos, the full extent of his involvement and opinions can be found in a complete chapter relative to Dr Biggs in my book Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is meaningless Trevor in the context of this thread.

1) You're putting forward Dr Biggs' information and suggesting this is the one, true answer.

2) That is being questioned and questions are being put to you, including the experience of other pathologists.

3) Your response is: Dr Biggs is correct and anyone not happy with it should find a doctor.

What's the point in that? That's not discussion. That's you posting and claiming it is correct and when challenged repeating that it is correct.

You may as well have just come on and said: "all of your arguments are pointless, Dr Biggs is the sole authority, read it in my book, don't challenge me with alternative information because you're wrong and I have no intention of responding to the points in your challenge".

It would have saved you a lot of time.

'Just out of idle curiosity:

When Dr Biggs stated: it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Did you not think to tell him that Dr Phillips and Dr Brown did not observe and communicate 'slashing going on' in relation to the throat wounds?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sadly as he said, those descriptions are not really enough to make definitive conclusions on.

I actually agree with Michael, that it's a shame we have only relatively poor descriptions of the wounds rather than photos.
It makes assesment difficult, but not impossible.

Steve

I wouldn't agree with this at all, Steve. Of course we cannot draw definite conclusions, I agree with that part, but there's an inference that the doctors' observations are of limited value. How limited you don't make clear.

It's fair to say that the doctors made assumptions based on their experience, which in some cases will have been very limited. I've no argument with that.

But, when saying the descriptions of the throats wounds are 'relatively poor', then you're questioning the ability of the doctors to observe and communicate that which they saw in front of them; and what they saw in front of them were similar throat wounds in Catherine and Liz, and very different in Annie. I'd say that would not be reasonable.

By way of example:

Dr Brown stated:

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.

Is the argument you're putting forward this: Dr Brown did not have the ability to communicate what he saw? What Dr Brown describes wasn't actually Catherine's throat wound at all? Catherine had some other throat wound?

We have the same evidence/information from Dr Phillips in relation to Liz and Annie.

I would suggest that you simply cannot reasonably claim that the information from both of those doctors is of limited importance because we do not have photographs or we consider it to be 'relatively poor'. The inference would be that both doctors did not hold the ability to observe and communicate. In the event that's what you're saying, I would strongly disagree, and by extension you'd be suggesting that we should more or less ignore everything said by the doctors given that they did not hold the ability to observe and communicate; and that would include everything from stomach contents to blood splatter.

And, I'm not sold on Dr Biggs at all based on what Trevor has posted here. We're talking of the throat wounds on this thread as opposed to the mutilations, was Dr Biggs when he gave his wider assessment? In fact, when Dr Biggs does mention the throat wounds, as per Trevor's posts on this thread; he states this:

It could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut.

The former is a clear misrepresentation of the information left to us; the latter discounts important notes left to us from both doctors.

I'm going to say that when Dr Biggs gave his assessment, more questions should have put in front of him given that his assessment begs more questions than it gives us answers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I'm not convinced Dr Biggs answers the question at all. Taking two parts of your post:

There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut. If this is true, then there is certainly scope for profuse haemorrhage from the neck, as well as ongoing leakage of blood from the neck after death. However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’... where only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and; on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared.

Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course, cannot be relied upon.

Dr Phillips and Dr Brown tell us that there was more to the throat wounds than merely 'large vessels on both sides of the neck being cut' (Liz and Catherine).

They tell us that the incision is deepest on the left side of the neck and more superficial on the right side of the neck, i.e. the cut tailed off.

I'd suggest that Dr Biggs' conclusion: "made from left to right.....can't be relied upon", discounts an important part of the evidence left to us by both doctors.

And, as per the OP, we have three experienced pathologists who disagree with Dr Biggs. In their experience, they see a definite pattern in a cut from behind, undertaken by a right handed person; that being the point of incision is at the left hand side of the neck and is deepest there, and it tails off at the right hand side of the throat and the cut is more superficial at that side.

A couple of questions to Dr Biggs would be: why do they see that pattern but Dr Biggs believes they're wrong? has Dr Biggs overlooked the nature of the wounds, i.e. there was more to them than 'large vessels on both sides of the neck being cut'?

Dr Biggs has clearly stated that the Victorian doctor's opinions are not to be relied on and has given his reasons

If you are not happy with Dr Biggs answers and professional opinion then I would suggest you find your own forensic pathologist and ask him the questions you seek to answer.

Dr Biggs has been more than helpful in giving his professional opinions not only in these murders but in regards to the Thames Thorsos, the full extent of his involvement and opinions can be found in a complete chapter relative to Dr Biggs in my book Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Trevor,

I'm not convinced Dr Biggs answers the question at all. Taking two parts of your post:

There is a description of the ‘large vessels’ on both sides of the neck being cut. If this is true, then there is certainly scope for profuse haemorrhage from the neck, as well as ongoing leakage of blood from the neck after death. However, I have dealt with cases where ‘vessels in the neck’ have been ‘cut’... where only minor vessels and other structures have been cut and; on closer inspection, the truly ‘large’ vessels have been spared.

Stating that the wounds were made ‘from left to right’ is not as clear as it might at first seem, and of course, cannot be relied upon.

Dr Phillips and Dr Brown tell us that there was more to the throat wounds than merely 'large vessels on both sides of the neck being cut' (Liz and Catherine).

They tell us that the incision is deepest on the left side of the neck and more superficial on the right side of the neck, i.e. the cut tailed off.

I'd suggest that Dr Biggs' conclusion: "made from left to right.....can't be relied upon", discounts an important part of the evidence left to us by both doctors.

And, as per the OP, we have three experienced pathologists who disagree with Dr Biggs. In their experience, they see a definite pattern in a cut from behind, undertaken by a right handed person; that being the point of incision is at the left hand side of the neck and is deepest there, and it tails off at the right hand side of the throat and the cut is more superficial at that side.

A couple of questions to Dr Biggs would be: why do they see that pattern but Dr Biggs believes they're wrong? has Dr Biggs overlooked the nature of the wounds, i.e. there was more to them than 'large vessels on both sides of the neck being cut'?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are some trying to build support for an anti-strangulation argument?

Not at all, Jon.

I have no suspect in mind nor any vested interest in terms of how those murders happened.

When people suggest there is some agenda or another, that's when the discussions go down the pan. It's an attempt to introduce some other reason as to why an idea is being put forward in an attempt to negate that idea, when really the strength of the argument should rest on the idea alone.

What I'm saying in this:

Maybe there hasn't been enough focus on the throat wounds themselves in order to give us an idea of what happened. Those throat wounds are a definite piece of evidence. Instead, the focus has been on other areas in an attempt to explain the position of the victims when they were murdered, some of which is speculation rather than evidence.

To recap, these are the people who, in their experience, have observed a noticeable difference when a throat is cut from behind and when a throat is cut from the front:

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.

Surely that counts for something; surely that's interesting.

And then, they say this:

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].

Catherine's wound is a mirror image, including the wound being deepest at the point of incision and tailing off at the right hand side of the neck, and being lower than the point of origin on the left hand side of the neck.

I would have thought that is an interesting insight for anyone who is interested in this case. It doesn't provide us with any definite conclusion, but it must surely be food for thought.

And then of course there is the very pertinent question: why are Liz's and Catherine's throat wounds similar and Annie's very different? I think that's a relevant question.

There's no agenda, Jon, 'simply reading of those throat wounds and discussing them.

[Elamarna]

Agreed.

If you read Trevor's books FM, where the opinions are quoted in detail, rather than some of Trevor's replies here; it appears that Biggs was given the details of the wounds.
Sadly as he said, those descriptions are not really enough to make definitive conclusions on.

I actually agree with Michael, that it's a shame we have only relatively poor descriptions of the wounds rather than photos.
It makes assesment difficult, but not impossible.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

I posted that bit for the very reason you take the position above. A study of such wounds vs an opinion of what a specific wound might indicate, without having the benefit of an image or photo.

Agreed.

[Elamarna]

There are three tools important to a butcher; his boning knife with a 5-6 inch single-sided blade, stout back; A Steak knife about 10 inch long, and 2-2.5 inch broad, not pointed, used purely for cutting joints of meat; and a steel, used for sharpening both knives.
The steak knife is too long, and too wide to be of any use in confined spaces. Besides, there were stabs to her body, the width of these stabs tell the doctor the width of the blade & to what degree the tip was shaped to a point.
This is why the steak knife was ruled out.

Wicky and Scott.

There always seems to be some debate about the Coram knife.
Coram called it a bakers knife.
Phillips a Chandlers knife, " a slicing knife"

Even the length of the blade is debated.
Often it's said to be 10 inches. Coram himself suggested nearer to 12 and 1 inch in width.

This discrepancy, although small appears to have come from a single press report
The East London Observer, which says the blade was apparently about 10 inches .

Given the blade was shown to Coram at the inquest, this report gives the impression of possibly being written by someone who was not present to view the knife, and who ignored the testimony of Coram.
Possibly a 2nd hand report.
It was of course rounded at the end and as you say NOT suitable to stabing.

Steve

[Wickerman]

The doctor thought the Coram knife was a chandler's cutting knife. It was about 10 inches long. Why was this too long to have been used on Eddowes?

There are three tools important to a butcher; his boning knife with a 5-6 inch single-sided blade, stout back; A Steak knife about 10 inch long, and 2-2.5 inch broad, not pointed, used purely for cutting joints of meat; and a steel, used for sharpening both knives.
The steak knife is too long, and too wide to be of any use in confined spaces. Besides, there were stabs to her body, the width of these stabs tell the doctor the width of the blade & to what degree the tip was shaped to a point.
This is why the steak knife was ruled out.

[Wickerman]

Why couldn't she have been turned on her back after her throat was cut?

There was only three feet between the steps and the fence, not enough space to roll it over.

If she was on her side facing the fence, he would have to pick her up and replace the body in the same spot on its back. Try it, I'll bet you don't even get the body up of the ground.
You might have heard the expression - "sounds good on paper....."

[Wickerman]

The doctor thought the Coram knife was a chandler's cutting knife. It was about 10 inches long. Why was this too long to have been used on Eddowes?

This is what I mean.
A Steak-knife, Chandlers Cutting knife, as opposed to a boning-knife, which is shorter and more like the weapon Brown described.