Throat Cuts

[Fleetwood Mac]

A sawing action, typically the result of an instrument not sufficiently sharp enough, will result in an uneven cut which may wander in one direction on the push stroke, then a different direction on the pull stroke, like...

I think you're getting lost in lots of speculation, Jon.

What do you think of the information left to us by Dr Brown and Dr Phillips?

The actual notes they made.

Do you think Liz's and Annie's throat wounds are similar and Annie's is the odd man out? From the notes they left us.

[Elamarna]

I really wish you had not used that term, an apron can be torn, but not skin, not when a knife is the obvious weapon.

Although we cannot be sure, a jagged wound is the result of the knife not making one continuous slice through the skin.
You can produce a jagged cut by adopting a sawing action, pushing the knife down and pulling back up, or in and out, but in either case dragging the knife forward.
A sawing action, typically the result of an instrument not sufficiently sharp enough, will result in an uneven cut which may wander in one direction on the push stroke, then a different direction on the pull stroke, like...

More extreme

Less extreme


This does not mean the instrument was blunt, it means it was not sufficiently sharp enough to do the job.
Loose skin will often cause a jagged wound. We see loose skin over Eddowes abdomen, but it is also possible Annie C. had loose skin around her neck.
With Eddowes the killer can pull her head back to tighten up the skin, which will result in a more clean cut, whereas you can't tighten up the abdominal skin, so the same instrument is more likely to result in a jagged wound across her abdomen, as opposed to the clean cut across the throat - using the same weapon.

Jon, I tend to agree with almost all of that.
My only change would be that the "sawing" motion you mentioned while very possibly being caused by knife, which was not sufficiently sharp, could also result from a of lack of experience in using a knife in that manner.

I think the two images are very useful.

Steve

[Wickerman]

...We cannot reasonably take Dr Phillips to task over what he meant by a 'jagged cut'.

He quite clearly had the ability to observe the difference between a jagged and clean cut, and he simply meant that the skin had been torn. That is what and all a jagged cut is.

He simply meant that the skin was torn, and you don't see that with a clean cut.

I really wish you had not used that term, an apron can be torn, but not skin, not when a knife is the obvious weapon.

Although we cannot be sure, a jagged wound is the result of the knife not making one continuous slice through the skin.
You can produce a jagged cut by adopting a sawing action, pushing the knife down and pulling back up, or in and out, but in either case dragging the knife forward.
A sawing action, typically the result of an instrument not sufficiently sharp enough, will result in an uneven cut which may wander in one direction on the push stroke, then a different direction on the pull stroke, like...

More extreme

Less extreme


This does not mean the instrument was blunt, it means it was not sufficiently sharp enough to do the job.
Loose skin will often cause a jagged wound. We see loose skin over Eddowes abdomen, but it is also possible Annie C. had loose skin around her neck.
With Eddowes the killer can pull her head back to tighten up the skin, which will result in a more clean cut, whereas you can't tighten up the abdominal skin, so the same instrument is more likely to result in a jagged wound across her abdomen, as opposed to the clean cut across the throat - using the same weapon.

[Elamarna]

Aye, I think we've been 'round the houses so it's about time to agree to disagree, Steve.

The final points I'd make, are:

It's not a case of holding Dr Phillips in high esteem, I'm saying that whatever detail Dr Phillips does not communicate, he leaves us more than enough detail to be able to conclude that Annie had a different wound to the similar Liz and Catherine wounds.

Dr Phillips was not recording his findings for the benefit of you and I 150 years later. That doesn't render him 'unclear'. He recorded that which he observed, whether or not you think he was 'unclear' or would like more information.

And,




Dr Brown (Catherine):

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.

Dr Phillips (Liz):

On neck, from left to right, there is a clean cut incision six inches in length; incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck. The carotid artery on the left side and the other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through, save the posterior portion of the carotid, to a line about 1-12th of an inch in extent, which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery. The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw

Dr Phillips (Annie):

The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand.

Liz's and Catherine's throat wounds were similar, in that the incision was deepest at the point of incision on the left hand side, and tailed off at the right hand side, which is what modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut from behind; and Annie's is different in that the cut is carried right around the neck and again in front of the neck, ending at a different point to Liz and Catherine.

I've looked back through our discussion, Steve, and it's noticeable that when I've made the above specific points, at no point have you attempted to address those specific points. Rather, you have moved the discussion towards wider, abstract concepts such as: "Dr Phillips was unclear".

There is sufficient and clear information there to tell us that Catherine and Liz had a similar throat wound, and Annie's was very different.

But, all good things come to an end as they say, and I agree that we may well have exhausted the conversation!

My parting thoughts

The description of Phillips and Brown, for me just highlight the problems I see with these reports.

I addressed those issues in one post, and saw no need to repeat them FM
And of course we don't agree on how significant the differences are, if at all.

But mutual disagreement is fine.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I do not believe we have enough detail from written reports to draw the conclusions you do.
In short I do not believe the differences between Annie and Catherine are anymore than natural variation, evolving use of the knife, plus variation due to avaliable working space.

Steve

I totally agree with you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

I suspect you hold Phillips in a far higher esteem than I. But that's an entirely different debate FM.

Aye, I think we've been 'round the houses so it's about time to agree to disagree, Steve.

The final points I'd make, are:

It's not a case of holding Dr Phillips in high esteem, I'm saying that whatever detail Dr Phillips does not communicate, he leaves us more than enough detail to be able to conclude that Annie had a different wound to the similar Liz and Catherine wounds.

Dr Phillips was not recording his findings for the benefit of you and I 150 years later. That doesn't render him 'unclear'. He recorded that which he observed, whether or not you think he was 'unclear' or would like more information.

And,

In short I do not believe the differences between Annie and Catherine are anymore than natural variation, evolving use of the knife, plus variation due to avaliable working space.

I feel we will need to agree to disagree on the cuts, as I do not think the different approaches we are taking will reach a consensus, but it's always interesting to see how others think.

Steve

Dr Brown (Catherine):

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.

Dr Phillips (Liz):

On neck, from left to right, there is a clean cut incision six inches in length; incision commencing two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw. Three-quarters of an inch over undivided muscle, then becoming deeper, about an inch dividing sheath and the vessels, ascending a little, and then grazing the muscle outside the cartilages on the left side of the neck. The carotid artery on the left side and the other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through, save the posterior portion of the carotid, to a line about 1-12th of an inch in extent, which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery. The cut through the tissues on the right side of the cartilages is more superficial, and tails off to about two inches below the right angle of the jaw

Dr Phillips (Annie):

The throat had been severed. The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand.

Liz's and Catherine's throat wounds were similar, in that the incision was deepest at the point of incision on the left hand side, and tailed off at the right hand side, which is what modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut from behind; and Annie's is different in that the cut is carried right around the neck and again in front of the neck, ending at a different point to Liz and Catherine.

I've looked back through our discussion, Steve, and it's noticeable that when I've made the above specific points, at no point have you attempted to address those specific points. Rather, you have moved the discussion towards wider, abstract concepts such as: "Dr Phillips was unclear".

There is sufficient and clear information there to tell us that Catherine and Liz had a similar throat wound, and Annie's was very different.

But, all good things come to an end as they say, and I agree that we may well have exhausted the conversation!

[FrankO]

Apologies Frank I misread your original message. I think Abby's earlier post about the sheet is a good one. I think in the sheet being thrown over and cut through is the source of those few seconds of awareness that let her call out, possibly those small cuts you mention as well.

No worries, Wulf, I wasn't clear enough. I had all forgotten about the cuts in the sheet, but they go very well with the notion of a very short-lived 'defense'/awareness on Mary's part before it was over and the killer cut her throat.

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

I would say that Dr Phillips' job was to record that which what he observed, and that's what he did.

Obviously, at the inquest he expanded upon his post mortem findings but only when asked. The coroner did not ask what that particular observation, i.e. the throat wound and the cuts to the vertebrae, suggested.

I suspect you hold Phillips in a far higher esteem than I. But that's an entirely different debate FM.

I think it's fair to point out that Dr Phillips did not state 'irregular', he stated 'jagged'; nor does Dr Phillips tells us that 'two cuts coincided or overlapped to a degree'.

This is one of the points we have been discussing what does jagged mean?
As for Phillips not saying if the cuts touched that is very important, because he does not even mention a second cut in his testimony other than the two cuts to the vertebrae .

Regardless of all of that, we clearly see a very different throat wound when compared with Liz and Catherine, which were similar. That really is my point. Surely there is no question on that? Surely we wouldn't suggest that because Dr Phillips does not go into minute detail in terms of what he saw, we simply cannot say that Annie's throat wound was of a different nature to the similar Liz and Catherine versions?

Here is where we do disagree, I do not believe we have enough detail from written reports to draw the conclusions you do.
In short I do not believe the differences between Annie and Catherine are anymore than natural variation, evolving use of the knife, plus variation due to avaliable working space.

I feel we will need to agree to disagree on the cuts, as I do not think the different approaches we are taking will reach a consensus, but it's always interesting to see how others think.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

The obvious example is the suggestion that Anne had two separate wounds that were very close togeather, one possible clipping the other, thus creating an irregular edge.
It's interesting that while Phillips talks of two cuts to the verebrae. He seems to only talk of a single surface wound.

This is also another example Phillips's description being less than clear.

I would say that Dr Phillips' job was to record that which what he observed, and that's what he did.

Obviously, at the inquest he expanded upon his post mortem findings but only when asked. The coroner did not ask what that particular observation, i.e. the throat wound and the cuts to the vertebrae, suggested.

I think it's fair to point out that Dr Phillips did not state 'irregular', he stated 'jagged'; nor does Dr Phillips tells us that 'two cuts coincided or overlapped to a degree'.

Regardless of all of that, we clearly see a very different throat wound when compared with Liz and Catherine, which were similar. That really is my point. Surely there is no question on that? Surely we wouldn't suggest that because Dr Phillips does not go into minute detail in terms of what he saw, we simply cannot say that Annie's throat wound was of a different nature to the similar Liz and Catherine versions?

[Elamarna]

I think it's the same thing, Steve. The wound is irregular, or jagged, because the skin is torn.

Do you have an example of what you mean?

The obvious example is the suggestion that Anne had two separate wounds that were very close togeather, one possible clipping the other, thus creating an irregular edge.
It's interesting that while Phillips talks of two cuts to the verebrae. He seems to only talk of a single surface wound.

This is also another example Phillips's description being less than clear.

[Fleetwood Mac]

We can assume that that Jagged means torn, but it can also mean irregular, such as would be seen if two cuts coincided or overlapped to a degree.

I think it's the same thing, Steve. The wound is irregular, or jagged, because the skin is torn.

Do you have an example of what you mean?

[Elamarna]

No bother, Steve.

It's entirely possible that I misrepresent a lot of things. None of us on this board are leading the world into the coming enlightenment any time soon, and we're all quite capable of being wrong in this sphere where none of us are well versed in these matters.

All I'm saying is that it needs to be demonstrated in order to hold water.



I think we disagree on the way we look at things and it follows what we can deem to be reasonable or otherwise, in large part.

We cannot reasonably take Dr Phillips to task over what he meant by a 'jagged cut'.

He quite clearly had the ability to observe the difference between a jagged and clean cut, and he simply meant that the skin had been torn. That is what and all a jagged cut is.

He simply meant that the skin was torn, and you don't see that with a clean cut.

And this is the issue that separates us.

We can assume that that Jagged means torn, but it can also mean irregular, such as would be seen if two cuts coincided or overlapped to a degree.

As you say, we look at things differently.

No problem with that. It keeps us all on our toes.

Steve

[Scott Nelson]

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....."

Getting a bit off topic here....but I've looked at the photos and diagrams of the corner. I think there would have been plenty of room to turn her over...no need to have to pick her up. This assumes she was probably strangled in the corner, and fell against the fence -- possibly landing on her side.

One thing I speculated about years ago is that the Ripper might have propped open the door by blocking it with his body as he sat on the steps performing the mutilations. That way he could watch the hallway for tenants.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So if I have said, that you have specifically misinterpreted the wounds I withdraw that.

No bother, Steve.

It's entirely possible that I misrepresent a lot of things. None of us on this board are leading the world into the coming enlightenment any time soon, and we're all quite capable of being wrong in this sphere where none of us are well versed in these matters.

All I'm saying is that it needs to be demonstrated in order to hold water.

I prime example of this was the use by Phillips of the term jagged for the throat cut sustained by Annie.

We do not know what Phillips actually meant by that term, we can speculate yes, but we can't know.

I think we disagree on the way we look at things and it follows what we can deem to be reasonable or otherwise, in large part.

We cannot reasonably take Dr Phillips to task over what he meant by a 'jagged cut'.

He quite clearly had the ability to observe the difference between a jagged and clean cut, and he simply meant that the skin had been torn. That is what and all a jagged cut is.

He simply meant that the skin was torn, and you don't see that with a clean cut.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I am really at a loss now, trying to understand just what you are attempting to compare.

The throat wounds, Steve. That is what the OP is concerned with.

It's obvious that the cuts to Catherine and Annie have differences

I agree, and based on that which was observed and communicated by the doctors, Liz's and Catherine's are similar and Annie's is the odd man out.

As recorded by the doctors, Liz's and Catherine's were deepest on the left hand side at the point of incision and tailed off on the right hand side where the cut was more superficial. The cuts were of a very similar length.

Annie's on the other hand, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw.

That's my only point. Liz's and Catherine's very similar, Annie's very different.

I think it may be instructive. There's a reason for that.