Throat Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

From the National Library of Medicine, 2016....."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 gradually deepening left end should be the beginning [8] of the cut throat and was reconfirmed by the tail abrasion found at the right end. Therefore, the direction of this cut throat should be left to right.

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]. Therefore, in this case, the neck incision was compatible with a cut throat from behind by a right handed person.

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."

[Fleetwood Mac]

From the National Library of Medicine, 2016....."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 gradually deepening left end should be the beginning [8] of the cut throat and was reconfirmed by the tail abrasion found at the right end. Therefore, the direction of this cut throat should be left to right.

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]. Therefore, in this case, the neck incision was compatible with a cut throat from behind by a right handed person.

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."

Aye, I posted that in the OP.

I'd say Catherine's wound is pretty much what those modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut from behind, including the deeper incision at the point of entry, and the wound tailing off below the right ear at a point lower than where the incision began at the left ear.

[Wickerman]

From the National Library of Medicine, 2016....."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 gradually deepening left end should be the beginning [8] of the cut throat and was reconfirmed by the tail abrasion found at the right end. Therefore, the direction of this cut throat should be left to right.

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]. Therefore, in this case, the neck incision was compatible with a cut throat from behind by a right handed person.

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."



I think the above demonstrates admirably, when compared to the opinion of Dr. Biggs (below). That there is no certain answer to the question of whether the wounds can help us understand exactly how the mutilations were conducted.

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally. The lack of documented arterial blood patterns is not surprising as, despite being common in textbooks; arterial spurting is actually quite uncommon ‘in the wild’. Arteries, even large ones, usually go into acute spasms when cut, providing very effective control of bleeding (at least initially). The large arteries in the neck are quite well ‘hidden’ behind muscles and other structures, so they can be missed by even very extensive cuts to the neck. Also, even if cut, the initial ‘spray’ is blocked by the surrounding structures such that blood either remains inside the body or simply gushes/flows / drips out of the external skin hole rather than spurting.

A.In answer to your question, it is impossible to say with certainty how the wounds were inflicted in terms of ‘reconstructing’ events from the appearance of wounds. This is something that used to be quite ‘popular’ even up until relatively late on in the 20th century, with pathologists stating confidently that a left-handed dwarf with a limp inflicted the injury from behind using a specific knife, etc. Nowadays it is accepted that there is so much variation that in such cases, apart from a few ‘extreme’ scenarios that can be more-or-less excluded, just about anything is possible.

In no way are these two professional opinions mutually supportive.
Either we can use the wounds to help us analyze the method of the mutilation, or we can't.
One opinion counters the other - its a wash.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In no way are these two professional opinions mutually supportive.
Either we can use the wounds to help us analyze the method of the mutilation, or we can't.
One opinion counters the other - its a wash.

I don't see how you've arrived at this conclusion, Jon.

One is built upon the observation of many throat wounds.

The other is built upon a general question asked to one person, and the reply includes this: or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

It follows that the person who wrote that, Dr Biggs, clearly knew nothing of the throat wounds, or he was passing judgement on the mutilation series.

There aren't any guarantees obviously, but Catherine's wound looks very much like the wound those modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut from behind, and so does Liz's; but Annie's doesn't.

By the way, those modern day pathologists, I stated who they were, have a long distinguished history of analysing such cuts.

I would say Trevor's comment from Dr Biggs is pretty much meaningless in this particular situation, in the sense that Dr Biggs has no idea of the nature of the throat cuts and all he really states is: "anything is possible" and "nobody can say with certainty". We know. You could apply that to any and every situation almost. In fact, Dr Biggs' comment reads very much like he's trying to get rid of Trevor and his questions, given that he writes a lot but doesn't say very much. It looks to me like Dr Biggs is saying this: "look, I don't give the first **** about Jack the Ripper, here are a load of words that don't really say anything, and that's the best you're going to get; stop bothering me".

And, what may be telling is that in the event Dr Biggs was really interested, he'd have asked for some more details, including the nature of the wounds. It appears he didn't, given Trevor's post: or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

[Scott Nelson]

The cut to Annie's throat ran around her neck in a spiral. How do you do that if she is on her back?

He lifted her head up or she was on her side before he turned her over?

I'm wondering why the Coram knife wasn't assessed for the wounds on Eddowes as it was for Stride.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't see how you've arrived at this conclusion, Jon.

One is built upon the observation of many throat wounds.

The other is built upon a general question asked to one person, and the reply includes this: or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

It follows that the person who wrote that, Dr Biggs, clearly knew nothing of the throat wounds, or he was passing judgement on the mutilation series.

There aren't any guarantees obviously, but Catherine's wound looks very much like the wound those modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut from behind, and so does Liz's; but Annie's doesn't.

By the way, those modern day pathologists, I stated who they were, have a long distinguished history of analysing such cuts.

I would say Trevor's comment from Dr Biggs is pretty much meaningless in this particular situation, in the sense that Dr Biggs has no idea of the nature of the throat cuts and all he really states is: "anything is possible" and "nobody can say with certainty". We know. You could apply that to any and every situation almost. In fact, Dr Biggs' comment reads very much like he's trying to get rid of Trevor and his questions, given that he writes a lot but doesn't say very much. It looks to me like Dr Biggs is saying this: "look, I don't give the first **** about Jack the Ripper, here are a load of words that don't really say anything, and that's the best you're going to get; stop bothering me".

And, what may be telling is that in the event Dr Biggs was really interested, he'd have asked for some more details, including the nature of the wounds. It appears he didn't, given Trevor's post: or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

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.

[Wickerman]

That's their experience of studying various murders spanning decades, i.e. cuts from the front and from behind differ in terms of the nature of the wound.



Well, here's another interesting thing:

From the OP:

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 start 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].

Not only is Catherine's wound deepest at the point of incision and tails off, it is also lower on the opposite of the neck than its point of origin.

I find that interesting. It's not a bad parallel at all.

And, what I find even more interesting is that Liz's and Catherine's wounds were similar and Annie is the odd man out.

In terms of the blood aspect, cutting the carotid artery is rapid, it cuts off blood flow to the brain and because it's fast the blood flow might not be what you expect, e.g. when the veins are severed there is a lot more in the way of blood. And then of course, where the windpipe is cut it may drain the blood straight into the lungs.

I think I'll have a look 'round the internet to see what I can find on blood flow and what have you, but in the meantime, leaving blood flow aside; do you not find it interesting that Catherine's and Liz's wounds were similar and Annie's was very different? Do you not find it interesting that Catherine's wound is very similar to what those experienced modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut throat where the perpetrator is stood behind the victim?

I don't disagree with these observations, I think it's how these results came about that we might disagree.
None of the professional opinions produced here have anything to do with the cases we are talking about.
Each poster who is offering the opinions is trying to explain how they support their own view. I just think that is not necessary the case.
Blood spatter from the carotid artery, in one moment under pressure, in the next the pressure is released, cannot be argued to have drained into the lungs via the windpipe. Doctor Brown was looking for spots of blood circular & oval in a variety of sizes, apparently he saw none.
There was no evidence of blood spraying around the body or down the front of her clothes.
How much blood was under or around the neck on the pavement is irrelevant to the question, some will no doubt soak into the clothes, but that does not answer the question of why no blood spatter.

I wonder if this line of questioning is a reaction to the suggestion of strangulation?
Are some trying to build support for an anti-strangulation argument?

[Wickerman]

I don't see how you've arrived at this conclusion, Jon.

One is built upon the observation of many throat wounds.

The other is built upon a general question asked to one person, and the reply includes this: or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

It follows that the person who wrote that, Dr Biggs, clearly knew nothing of the throat wounds, or he was passing judgement on the mutilation series.

There aren't any guarantees obviously, but Catherine's wound looks very much like the wound those modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut from behind, and so does Liz's; but Annie's doesn't.

We have no third example to judge.
From what I recall, both examples have assumed the victim is upright.

Where's the example of a victim on the ground?

By the way, those modern day pathologists, I stated who they were, have a long distinguished history of analysing such cuts.

I would say Trevor's comment from Dr Biggs is pretty much meaningless in this particular situation, in the sense that Dr Biggs has no idea of the nature of the throat cuts and all he really states is: "anything is possible" and "nobody can say with certainty".

Your reaction to Trevor's source was almost the same as mine four or five weeks ago.
Trevor used the same quotes, and my conclusion was the opinions were vague and very general almost as if Dr. Biggs had not read the medical opinions of Phillips, Brown, Blackwell, etc.
I asked Trevor just exactly what have you told Dr Biggs because his responses seem to be at arms length ffom the specific mutilations we regularly talk about.

... In fact, Dr Biggs' comment reads very much like he's trying to get rid of Trevor and his questions, given that he writes a lot but doesn't say very much. It looks to me like Dr Biggs is saying this: "look, I don't give the first **** about Jack the Ripper, here are a load of words that don't really say anything, and that's the best you're going to get; stop bothering me".

He has my sympathies.

And, what may be telling is that in the event Dr Biggs was really interested, he'd have asked for some more details, including the nature of the wounds. It appears he didn't, given Trevor's post: or it could have happened during a highly dynamic struggle, with all manners of grappling, twisting and fortuitous slashing going on.

Exactly, his replies lacked detail.

[Wickerman]

He lifted her head up or she was on her side before he turned her over?

Wasn't she up against the fence to begin with, how could she have been on her side?

I'm wondering why the Coram knife wasn't assessed for the wounds on Eddowes as it was for Stride.

It sounds to me like that was a steak knife, too long and broad to have been used on Eddowes.
Brown described the weapon as "sharp-pointed knife", steak knives are not pointed as a rule.
The stab upwards into the breastbone likely indicated the width of the blade used, or any other stab on the body.

[Scott Nelson]

Wasn't she up against the fence to begin with, how could she have been on her side?

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

[Elamarna]

Wasn't she up against the fence to begin with, how could she have been on her side?



It sounds to me like that was a steak knife, too long and broad to have been used on Eddowes.
Brown described the weapon as "sharp-pointed knife", steak knives are not pointed as a rule.
The stab upwards into the breastbone likely indicated the width of the blade used, or any other stab on the body.

The Coram Knife was rounded, you. would have struggled to make the wounds Eddowes as you rightly say.

Steve

[Scott Nelson]

It sounds to me like that was a steak knife, too long and broad to have been used on Eddowes.
Brown described the weapon as "sharp-pointed knife", steak knives are not pointed as a rule.

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?

[Scott Nelson]

The Coram Knife was rounded, you. would have struggled to make the wounds Eddowes as you rightly say.

Sorry, crossed posts, Steve. Since the Coram knife was found about 24 hours after Eddowes was murdered, I'm wondering why it wasn't looked at in relation to her murder, even if it seemed unlikely to have been a murder weapon.

[Elamarna]

Sorry, crossed posts, Steve. Since the Coram knife was found about 24 hours after Eddowes was murdered, I'm wondering why it wasn't looked at in relation to her murder, even if it seemed unlikely to have been a murder weapon.

I could speculate because of the location it was found, such would seem odd, but possible . Especially with different coroner's and police involved.

Or maybe there was behind the scenes communications between doctors.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

We have no third example to judge.
From what I recall, both examples have assumed the victim is upright.

Where's the example of a victim on the ground?

Your reaction to Trevor's source was almost the same as mine four or five weeks ago.
Trevor used the same quotes, and my conclusion was the opinions were vague and very general almost as if Dr. Biggs had not read the medical opinions of Phillips, Brown, Blackwell, etc.
I asked Trevor just exactly what have you told Dr Biggs because his responses seem to be at arms length ffom the specific mutilations we regularly talk about.

He has my sympathies.

Exactly, his replies lacked detail.

Perhaps this will satisfy you and others

Q. You have seen and read the inquest testimony of the doctors involved in preparing their reports for the Eddowes inquest do you have any observations to make?

A. There is very little detail of use in this text. Rather than actually naming the anatomical structures injured, there are repeated mentions of ‘tissues ‘being severed. This is vague and does not allow inferences to be drawn with confidence. 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.

Much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous. Repeated use of ‘about’ implies estimations rather than measurements of wounds, and the assumption that a long-bladed knife must have been used is not valid: a short or medium blade could have been used to inflict such injuries. (I’m not saying that I think a particular blade was or was not used, I’m just saying it is not possible to be certain from the description and ‘measurements’ in this case.

As with much of what went on ‘back in the day’, learned medical men would assert things without backup, and this would be taken as fact without challenge. By way of example, it is not possible to say that all injuries were caused by the same instrument, comment on the blade’s sharpness or suggest that the injuries were caused with ‘great violence’. This is just somebody giving their opinion as though it were fact, and giving it in such a way that it is virtually meaningless. Saying that the wounds were made ‘downwards’ means nothing without a frame of reference. 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. The witness states that the injuries might have been done by a left-handed person’. But equally, they could have been done by a right-handed person. Or a one-handed person!

I could go on, but I don’t want to sound overly harsh when the witness was just doing what was the norm back then. What is important to realize is that much of the myth and legend that has become ‘fact’ over the decades might be based upon testimony such as this... and therefore, is open to question? All that can be taken with ‘certainty’ from that paragraph is that there were apparent sharp force wounds to the neck and abdomen. Many other things seem to have been ‘assumed’. The weapon was ‘probably’ a knife, but there is no guarantee of this (and the size/shape/sharpness / etc. cannot be guessed from the description of the wounds). There could have been more than one weapon. The assailant could have been right or left-handed... death might have been caused by blood loss from the wounds... but could also have arisen from a different mechanism (such as a cardiac air embolus or a tension pneumothorax). Some (or all) of the injuries could have been inflicted after death. Has the possibility of self-inflicted injury been satisfactorily excluded, or just dismissed? Etc.

Much of what is ‘known’ appears to be little more than subjective opinion/assumption/guesswork. Even if we can accept all of the ‘objective’ records as fact, there is so little of this available now that it becomes difficult to draw any firm conclusions this far down the line.

I’m not trying to be negative or contrary, I’m just trying to be realistic about what I can honestly say based on what I can trust as genuine. As that remains scanty, there is very little I can say with confidence about these cases.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk