Throat Cuts

[Elamarna]

All fine, but where is the evidence that Annie's, Catherine's and Liz's throat wounds have been misinterpreted? I suppose specifically that I've misinterpreted the throat wounds, given that I'm the one who's put forward a suggestion and you've replied that it is entirely reasonably to suggest the throats wounds have been misinterpreted.

Can you explain this.

It's not that you have specifically misinterpreted what was said by the doctors, I believe I may have misunderstood you myself earlier, such happens.

My issue is that the written reports, often simply press accounts of the inquest, are often ambiguous and easy to misunderstand, even by experts.

This I believe is compounded by the lack of sketches made by the doctors, which could clarify any wounds.

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.

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


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

This is what I'm really discussing.

According to Dr Brown, Catherine's cut throat was 6 to 7 inches.

According to Dr Phillips, Liz's cut throat was 6 inches.

How is Liz's cut throat relatively shorter than Catherine's?

And then of course we have the other similarities which we do not see with Annie (mentioned in previous posts).

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

It's obvious that the cuts to Catherine and Annie have differences, possible due in part to the position they were in when the wounds were made.

The link you posted at the beginning of the thread is very informative, it is a good bit of research, it is indicative of where cuts are likely to originate from.

I think we agree on that.

But I don't believe we have sufficient detail to take that debate any further.

The different approaches we take to the issue of the cuts and the knives is itself interesting.

I suspect part of the difference between us, is I don't believe one can make a comparison of the neck wounds in isolation from the other wounds.

And given this thread is about throat wounds, I will let the matter rest

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

This is where we have a difference in wound interpretation.
I see the descriptions of the neck wounds and the body wounds as being a single event.
The descriptions are made by the same individuals, at the same time in the same reports.
They use the same language, with the same issues.
The neck and body wounds are not separate reports.

We will disagree that is a circular argument.

Steve

All fine, but where is the evidence that Annie's, Catherine's and Liz's throat wounds have been misinterpreted? I suppose specifically that I've misinterpreted the throat wounds, given that I'm the one who's put forward a suggestion and you've replied that it is entirely reasonably to suggest the throats wounds have been misinterpreted.

Can you explain this.

[Fleetwood Mac]

IHowever, the cut to the throat of Liz, given it is a relatively short cut, and is purely a slicing cut, is I suggest insufficient to draw a meaningful comparision to either Annie or Catherine.

I do however believe one can compare the latter two.

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.

This is what I'm really discussing.

According to Dr Brown, Catherine's cut throat was 6 to 7 inches.

According to Dr Phillips, Liz's cut throat was 6 inches.

How is Liz's cut throat relatively shorter than Catherine's?

And then of course we have the other similarities which we do not see with Annie (mentioned in previous posts).

[Elamarna]

It is, Steve.

You're suggesting the conclusion on some other event is the evidence for this event.

The very definition of a circular argument, i.e. the evidence for the premise is the premise itself, as opposed to a study of Liz's, Annie's and Catherine's throat wounds.

You'd need to demonstrate that these specific throat wounds on the women in question, have been misinterpreted.

This is where we have a difference in wound interpretation.
I see the descriptions of the neck wounds and the body wounds as being a single event.
The descriptions are made by the same individuals, at the same time in the same reports.
They use the same language, with the same issues.
The neck and body wounds are not separate reports.

We will disagree that is a circular argument.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

Its not a circular argument at all FM.

It is, Steve.

You're suggesting the conclusion on some other event is the evidence for this event.

The very definition of a circular argument, i.e. the evidence for the premise is the premise itself, as opposed to a study of Liz's, Annie's and Catherine's throat wounds.

You'd need to demonstrate that these specific throat wounds on the women in question, have been misinterpreted.

I agree, the apparent jagged cuts are purely about how the knife was used.

Fine. I agree with that.

However, the cut to the throat of Liz, given it is a relatively short cut, and is purely a slicing cut, is I suggest insufficient to draw a meaningful comparision to either Annie or Catherine.

This is worthy of a separate post, I'll do one in a bit.

My own opinion, based on performing many surgical procrdures, is that the killer was not particularly skilled with a knife.

Here, we're getting into the realms of serious conjecture and speculation.

I don't have an opinion on that and I'd be massively out of my depth speculating on that.

All I'm looking at on this thread is the throat wound as recorded by the doctors.

[Elamarna]

What you're suggesting is a circular argument, Steve, i.e. because the abdomen wounds were misinterpreted then we can apply the same argument to the throat wounds. And, I'm not talking of Polly, I haven't mentioned her.

It's not reasonable justification for suggesting the throat wounds of Annie, Liz, and Catherine, have been misinterpreted.

You need to demonstrate how and why the throat wounds have been misinterpreted in relation to Annie. Liz and Catherine, given that's what I've been discussing.

Its not a circular argument at all FM.

Nichols is used as an example to demonstrate how wounds can be misinterpreted, even by experts.

It's is entirely justified and relevant to the question of how we interpret the written reports which we have, and how on their own they are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions on the use of the knife.

You have Dr Brown's and Dr Phillips' throat wound notes at your disposal; in what way am I misinterpreting them?

We have a clue. There were jagged wounds on all of the victims except Liz. There were various clean wounds also. That should tell us that the various jagged wounds were not the result of a blunt or sharp knife, but rather how the knife was used to make those cuts/lacerations. In the event you're suggesting that the jagged wounds were the result of a blunt knife, then why are there various clean and jagged cuts on all of the victims with the exception of Liz?

Pardon, I am clearly NOT saying that the jagged cuts are the result of a blunt knife.

I mentioned it as one possibility, but it should be clear from my comment about how a probably a sharp knife made the cuts on Annie's vertebrae, that I am NOT suggesting a blunt knife was the cause of the jagged throat cuts which lead to the cuts on the vertebrate.

I am surprised that you interpret my post to say I favour a blunt knife.

I agree, the apparent jagged cuts are purely about how the knife was used.

However, the cut to the throat of Liz, given it is a relatively short cut, and is purely a slicing cut, is I suggest insufficient to draw a meaningful comparision to either Annie or Catherine.
I do however believe one can compare the latter two.

I think it's pretty clear that something else was the factor causing those jagged wounds.

I fully agree.

Anyway,

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.

When I say 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, how and why I am misinterpreting the information?

It seems to me we have at some point clearly misunderstood each other; as I tend to agree with your comments above.

Where we do disagree is if the written comments of the doctors on there own are sufficient to make definitive conclusions about the cuts.


My own opinion, based on performing many surgical procrdures, is that the killer was not particularly skilled with a knife.
His long cuts to the body are in most cases, a series of stabs like wounds , linked by Rips, very probably done without ever removing the knife, but not continuous smooth cutting.

I suspect the differences between the cuts to Annie and Catherine are problely due in part to space the killer had to work in, and natural variation of someone not skilled with a knife.

Steve

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have mentioned how the descriptions of the wounds to Nichols, (and it matter not they are to the abdomen) were misinterpreted for many years, because we had no actual sketch of the wounds.

What you're suggesting is a circular argument, Steve, i.e. because the abdomen wounds were misinterpreted then we can apply the same argument to the throat wounds. And, I'm not talking of Polly, I haven't mentioned her.

It's not reasonable justification for suggesting the throat wounds of Annie, Liz, and Catherine, have been misinterpreted.

You need to demonstrate how and why the throat wounds have been misinterpreted in relation to Annie. Liz and Catherine, given that's what I've been discussing.

You have Dr Brown's and Dr Phillips' throat wound notes at your disposal; in what way am I misinterpreting them?

You view the wounds of Eddowes and Chapman being distinctly different, you arrive at this conclusion by your interpretation of the words used.

Jagged may mean a blunt knife

We have a clue. There were jagged wounds on all of the victims except Liz. There were various clean wounds also. That should tell us that the various jagged wounds were not the result of a blunt or sharp knife, but rather how the knife was used to make those cuts/lacerations. In the event you're suggesting that the jagged wounds were the result of a blunt knife, then why are there various clean and jagged cuts on all of the victims with the exception of Liz? I think it's pretty clear that something else was the factor causing those jagged wounds.

Anyway,

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.

When I say 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, how and why I am misinterpreting the information?

[Aethelwulf]

Perhaps it/I wasn't very clear, but I just posted what I did in support of your view. I think it's an important piece of evidence.

Cheers,
Frank

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.

[FrankO]

I have no problem with that sounds reasonable. Michael is referring to the large deep cuts in the arm - the supposed 'F' if you like.

Perhaps it/I wasn't very clear, but I just posted what I did in support of your view. I think it's an important piece of evidence.

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

I reckon there are two points in this, Steve:

1) It seems you agree that Dr Brown and Dr Phillips did hold the ability to observe and communicate that which they saw. It follows that their description of the wounds was a reflection of the wounds themselves. The only information I have included, relating to the throat wounds, is the communication from the doctors; i.e Dr Brown's as posted above and Dr Phillips'. In terms of the nature of the wounds, I haven't made any assumption on their communication, I've merely taken the information that they stated.

In the event we accept that Dr Brown and Dr Phillips held the ability to observe and communicate, then we must accept that Liz and Catherine had a very similar throat wound and Annie's was very different. This has been the basis for everything I have suggested.

Not sure why this is so hard to follow FM.
It's not about ABILITY , it's about what the statements they made actually said.

I have mentioned how the descriptions of the wounds to Nichols, (and it matter not they are to the abdomen) were misinterpreted for many years, because we had no actual sketch of the wounds.

Without sketches the words are open to different interpretations by different people.
Who is to say which, if any, is correct

2) It seems you have raised another point, that being the language used by the doctors is not necessarily precise. Let's take Dr Brown as an example:

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.

When Dr Brown states: about 6 or 7 inches, how meaningful is the 'about' in relation to comparing the statements of the doctors and understanding that the description they give of Annie's wound is noticeably different to the similar Liz and Catherine wounds? Does the 'about' make any difference to that?

It may do so FM. To say categorically that it does or it does not would be a mistake.

You view the wounds of Eddowes and Chapman being distinctly different, you arrive at this conclusion by your interpretation of the words used.

Jagged may mean a blunt knife, or it may simply be an attempt to convey the edges of the wound were not smooth, while this maybe due to a blunt knife, it's not the only option, please see towards the end of my reply.

It may be an attempt to convey the wound was not straight, that it wiggled so to speak.

Dr Phillips's statement just doesn't make what he meant clear.

It's also of course possible that the same knife was used by the same person , but it had been resharpened.

Of course one might take Phillips statement that there were two distinct clean cuts to the vertebrae argues in favour of a sharp knife anyway.

The most that can be said here is that Dr Brown does not give us exact measurements, but surely we can say that we get a very good idea of the nature of the wound as we do with Dr Phillips?

It would be a relevant point in the event we needed to know for sure whether it was 6 or 7 inches because we were having a discussion that necessitated an exact measurement. We're not having that discussion. We're discussing noticeably different throat wounds that are clear from the doctors' statements, whether or not they mentioned 'about'.

We will fundamentally disagree. But as always that's fine.

If a report is not complete, and only gives a partial story, (and without sketches that is what we have) it is impossible to reach defintive conclusions.

Going back to Chapman, the evidence given at the inquest clearly speaks of two cuts to the vertebrae, Phillips refers to cuts in the plural, but there is no discription of two distinct surface cuts.

It is therefore possible, and been suggested by some, Karyo Magellan in "By Ear and Eyes" for example, that the two wounds could have been very close on the surface, maybe even coinciding, overlapping with each other.
This might easily explain why Phillips called the wound jagged.

Of course without a sketch of the wounds it's all speculation.
And that's my point the reports as they stand do NOT provide sufficient detail to reach defintive conclusions.

I suspect once again we will have to agree to disagree.

Steve

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Wulf,

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

This is what Bond wrote in his post-mortem report and the only wounds he describes in this way. I'm no medical expert, but I know that "with extravasation of blood in the skin" means that these wounds were inflicted before death. Seeing that Bond only describes these wounds in this way, it stands to reason that these were the only wounds inflicted in life (other than the throat wound).

And it would fit with the evidence. The murderer attacked her with his knife, she was just able to raise her hand in defence, she uttered her cry of "murder", he worked her hand out of the way and cut her throat.

All the best,
Frank

I have no problem with that sounds reasonable. Michael is referring to the large deep cuts in the arm - the supposed 'F' if you like.

[FrankO]

Again your overbearing self righteous attitude that means only you can be right. If those were defensive woulds she would have been screaming the place down.

Hi Wulf,

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

This is what Bond wrote in his post-mortem report and the only wounds he describes in this way. I'm no medical expert, but I know that "with extravasation of blood in the skin" means that these wounds were inflicted before death. Seeing that Bond only describes these wounds in this way, it stands to reason that these were the only wounds inflicted in life (other than the throat wound).

And it would fit with the evidence. The murderer attacked her with his knife, she was just able to raise her hand in defence, she uttered her cry of "murder", he worked her hand out of the way and cut her throat.

All the best,
Frank

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not at all FM

If I was not clear I apologise.

My point is that all we have are the written words, and those to a degree are open to interpretation.

In the quotes you provided we see the use of "about" often.
I suggest that such is not the pricise measurements one would have today.

And today we would have photos.
Clearly such was not done in 1888.
However, it appears that sketches were not made by the doctors which would greatly assist in understanding the descriptions given( or at least none survive)

In short a level of detail, that would be expected today is absent.
Such makes accurate assessments very difficult.

Steve

I reckon there are two points in this, Steve:

1) It seems you agree that Dr Brown and Dr Phillips did hold the ability to observe and communicate that which they saw. It follows that their description of the wounds was a reflection of the wounds themselves. The only information I have included, relating to the throat wounds, is the communication from the doctors; i.e Dr Brown's as posted above and Dr Phillips'. In terms of the nature of the wounds, I haven't made any assumption on their communication, I've merely taken the information that they stated.

In the event we accept that Dr Brown and Dr Phillips held the ability to observe and communicate, then we must accept that Liz and Catherine had a very similar throat wound and Annie's was very different. This has been the basis for everything I have suggested.

2) It seems you have raised another point, that being the language used by the doctors is not necessarily precise. Let's take Dr Brown as an example:

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.

When Dr Brown states: about 6 or 7 inches, how meaningful is the 'about' in relation to comparing the statements of the doctors and understanding that the description they give of Annie's wound is noticeably different to the similar Liz and Catherine wounds? Does the 'about' make any difference to that?

The most that can be said here is that Dr Brown does not give us exact measurements, but surely we can say that we get a very good idea of the nature of the wound as we do with Dr Phillips?

It would be a relevant point in the event we needed to know for sure whether it was 6 or 7 inches because we were having a discussion that necessitated an exact measurement. We're not having that discussion. We're discussing noticeably different throat wounds that are clear from the doctors' statements, whether or not they mentioned 'about'.

[Elamarna]

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?

Not at all FM

If I was not clear I apologise.

My point is that all we have are the written words, and those to a degree are open to interpretation.

In the quotes you provided we see the use of "about" often.
I suggest that such is not the pricise measurements one would have today.

And today we would have photos.
Clearly such was not done in 1888.
However, it appears that sketches were not made by the doctors which would greatly assist in understanding the descriptions given( or at least none survive)

In short a level of detail, that would be expected today is absent.
Such makes accurate assessments very difficult.

Steve