Throat Cuts

[Wickerman]

There were differences, Jon, but what we're talking about here is not what people think may have happened due to speculative interruption of whatever, but simply the nature of the wound itself.

Right, but your academic sources are not talking about these specific victims, nor these specific wounds, so at some point someone, in this case yourself, must speculate how and why unrelated modern analysis can be securely applied to five century old murder cases which are lacking in medical details.

What we do have at our disposal as a definite piece of medical information, is that Catherine and Liz had a very similar throat wound but Annie's was very much different. That's not speculative; that's the medical evidence we have.

The speculation comes in when it is being applied to century old murder cases.

We also know what modern day pathologists would expect to see when a cut is from behind or in front. That's not speculation, that's decades of study and research.

It becomes speculation when the conclusions were made on modern murder cases, then applied to something else.

Taking those two points together, and not being speculative about other things when really we're building premises based upon premises, then the inference is that regardless of whether or not this was the same murderer, Liz and Catherine had their throats cut with the murderer in the same position; while Annie had her throat cut with the murderer in a different position.

Wasn't it Blackwell who described the scenario as Liz being pulled backwards as the throat was cut?
So, the position of the killer is what, front, side or rear?
If the throat was slashed as the body was falling, it is likely passing through different phases, neither one nor the other.

In the case of Eddowes, Dr Brown was careful to notice the lack of blood on bricks or pavement around, neither down the front of her clothes, nothing on the front of her jacket. It is clear Dr Brown was alluding to the fact she was not upright when her throat was cut - no arterial spray, which means her throat was cut while she was on her back, any arterial spray is directed towards the ground beside the body, being cut from left to right.

[Aethelwulf]

Of course a misrepresentation of what I actually did say, but thats just par for this course. The way people choose to characterize what they say reveals a great deal about their own impressions. You say it makes no big whup, but she had many choices for the words she used on how she remembered that cry, and it appears she was trying to leave an impression that the cry sounded very close to her. That doesnt seem to makes sense if the cry was made from inside a room across the courtyard with a closed door. There must be a reason for why she said that in that way, I guess you just figure none of this really matters anyway. Which is not wholly without merit, but it defeats the notion that some people here come here to try and find the story behind those choices.

One thing that does matter to me is that someone would even suggest that a knife attack on a person who was not already subdued would be noiseless. That seems like...I dont know, clueless?... to me anyway. But have at it, nobody but me apparently has tasked you with having to come up with only reasonable remarks.

Excited about your new book: The World According To Big Mikey R (I'm Always Right You Know)

[Wickerman]

With the OP in mind and that which modern day pathologists expect to see in a cut depending on where the attacker is positioned, then the jagged incision may indicate a cut from in front and the clean incision may indicate a cut from behind.

As far as I can tell, Dr Lewellyn and Dr Brown do not differentiate between the two in their assessment of 'jagged' or 'clean' incision, based on the inquest testimony and post-mortem reports.

On reflection, I thought perhaps I should have asked what you think was the cause of a jagged wound described by Phillips?

I read the link in your initial post again, just to be sure I had not missed anything. I did not see where the authors offer an explanation for a jagged wound. The article seems to suggest cut made from the front are rare. When they are made they are often made by several short but angled cuts.
I hoped to see how they describe a jagged cut, as they do not then perhaps you can tell us what you think Phillips meant by jagged cut?

[Michael W Richards]

'as if at her door' - she didn't look out and see her at her door'. She doesn't know. The court is small, rooms probably had no insulation and there was a broken window. Your're making something of nothing.

You say you take the 'data' seriously yet you have just invented a whole scenario of the milk tray man coming a calling with a gentle knock. As she opens the door of course she says oh murder.

Nice

Of course a misrepresentation of what I actually did say, but thats just par for this course. The way people choose to characterize what they say reveals a great deal about their own impressions. You say it makes no big whup, but she had many choices for the words she used on how she remembered that cry, and it appears she was trying to leave an impression that the cry sounded very close to her. That doesnt seem to makes sense if the cry was made from inside a room across the courtyard with a closed door. There must be a reason for why she said that in that way, I guess you just figure none of this really matters anyway. Which is not wholly without merit, but it defeats the notion that some people here come here to try and find the story behind those choices.

One thing that does matter to me is that someone would even suggest that a knife attack on a person who was not already subdued would be noiseless. That seems like...I dont know, clueless?... to me anyway. But have at it, nobody but me apparently has tasked you with having to come up with only reasonable remarks.

[Aethelwulf]

Remember what I said about looking at all the data to make conclusions? Sarah said "as if at her door". The defensive wounds would have occurred after the initial throat cut, so not screaming, but struggling a bit for sure. Yet no sounds. The actual attack may have been after a short period of time had elapsed, allowing Prater to fall back asleep.

The oh-murder is heard by Prater after her cat seemed disturbed by something and walked across her throat. Is it not reasonable to assume that Mary was answering a soft knock on her window or door...cue Diddles..and as the door is open she moans "oh-murder" as a reaction to someone waking her up and maybe wanting in? It would address the distinct lack of noise immediately after, and she falls back asleep, which would allow for the element of surprise when he does attack. It also fits the likely demeanor of someone who drank far too much and passed out, being woken from that sleep. Another bit of evidence Im using here, which isnt always mentioned, is that there are no recorded incidents of Mary ever bringing a client into that room. Blotchy is the first person mentioned that might fit that profile. And the room didnt show evidence that it had been broken into. That suggests that whomever was in that room, and whomever killed Mary, he was there with her approval.

'as if at her door' - she didn't look out and see her at her door'. She doesn't know. The court is small, rooms probably had no insulation and there was a broken window. Your're making something of nothing.

You say you take the 'data' seriously yet you have just invented a whole scenario of the milk tray man coming a calling with a gentle knock. As she opens the door of course she says oh murder.

Nice

[Michael W Richards]

Time for that cuppa mike

Remember what I said about looking at all the data to make conclusions? Sarah said "as if at her door". The defensive wounds would have occurred after the initial throat cut, so not screaming, but struggling a bit for sure. Yet no sounds. The actual attack may have been after a short period of time had elapsed, allowing Prater to fall back asleep.

The oh-murder is heard by Prater after her cat seemed disturbed by something and walked across her throat. Is it not reasonable to assume that Mary was answering a soft knock on her window or door...cue Diddles..and as the door is open she moans "oh-murder" as a reaction to someone waking her up and maybe wanting in? It would address the distinct lack of noise immediately after, and she falls back asleep, which would allow for the element of surprise when he does attack. It also fits the likely demeanor of someone who drank far too much and passed out, being woken from that sleep. Another bit of evidence Im using here, which isnt always mentioned, is that there are no recorded incidents of Mary ever bringing a client into that room. Blotchy is the first person mentioned that might fit that profile. And the room didnt show evidence that it had been broken into. That suggests that whomever was in that room, and whomever killed Mary, he was there with her approval.

You suggest that the wounds that appear to be defensive were really just for the killers pleasure. How can you be sure he wasnt crying and devastated when he cut her? His illness might have caused him to be a monster in the room despite having strong feelings for Mary. Which might have caused conflicting emotions. He might have blamed her for what he was doing, for all we know.

[Aethelwulf]

Prater heard the cry "as if from the court", and Sarah, "as if at her door".

Prater also said a faint cry. You keep going on about 'the court' - what are the dimensions of the court? Very small. Doubtful it makes any difference.

Hence my post, neither would have said that if it was a cry muffled by a closed door.

Bur prater said faint and the court is tiny so why is it not a loud cry if the door is open. You think Mary was annoyed so she shouts oh murder faintly. You don't half come up with some nonsense.

She has defensive injuries on her left arm, whether you think so has no bearing on it.

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. I think those deep cuts are just for the killer's own pleasure.

Time for that cuppa mike

[Michael W Richards]

I only seem overbearing to those I take to task for making questionable conclusions. Prater heard the cry "as if from the court", and Sarah, "as if at her door". Hence my post, neither would have said that if it was a cry muffled by a closed door. She has defensive injuries on her left arm, whether you think so has no bearing on it. She was facing the wall on her right side when her throat is cut....arterial splashes on that wall confirm that, her left arm must have risen in self defence...which is likely when she got the defensive arm injuries and the forehead slashes. Thats why I pointed out using a right hand with the knife, from behind, would have meant that her head had to be elevated from the pillow or mattress to access her throat. Or that the knife was held commando style, with the blade facing in and towards the killers forearm. It seems more practical to assume that based on that arterial spray, and her position when her throat is cut, a left handed man is more probable.

Making this the only Canonical murder that indicates that the left hand was used.

[Aethelwulf]

Simply pointed out that no noise was heard after "oh-murder", even though the woman upstairs stated she could hear when Mary moved about downstairs and was wide awake.

She could hear Mary moving about doing her normal stuff. Why would the murderer make lots of noise, given what he's doing.

A murder that has slashes indicating resistance had to create some noise.

That's your opinion they are defensive wounds. I don't think they are. If she'd got her arms to resist him she'd have been screaming the place down.

Your satisfied that a violent murder with a defensive

No evidence that was the case though.

I take reality serious

I know. Try that nice sit down and a cuppa and try to relax a bit mike.

The cry came as from the courtyard according to 2 witnesses, so how would they conclude that if it came from behind a closed door in a room?

Was it not faint: 4:00 AM: Elizabeth Prater is awakened by her pet kitten "Diddles" walking on her neck. She hears a faint cry of "Oh, murder!"

And I get mouthed off at for pointing that out.

It's more the way you say it. You have a very overbearing and pompous way of lecturing everyone about how they are wrong and only you can be right.

Above

[Michael W Richards]

I thought of an example which illustrates my issues. Lets say you are out in a field and you find a piece of meteorite. The most reasonable, logical, sensible and practical explanation isnt that it fell out of someones pocket, or that kids were playing catch with it and just left it there when they went home, or that it came up through the soils as a byproduct of natural soil erosion, or that it belonged to a private collection that was stolen and then discarded by the thief. Sure, any one of those is within the realm of possibilities, but none match the simple, logical, reasonable explanation that it is there because it broke off a meteor that entered the atmosphere.

Interpretation of any problem requires analysis of the known data to test the validity of any suggested answer. I test the data. Many just assume its what they want it to be or what someone else tells them. I dont take any statement by any witness at face value. It has to be tested against all the rest of the available data.

[Michael W Richards]

What makes your argument a load of rubbish is that you are talking like you were there and know exactly what happended and can therefore rule out all options that don't fit with your theory. You do this every day on the Stride thread. You take yourself way to seriously mike. Just have a nice cuppa, sit down and look out yon window for a bit. You need to stop being so condescending mike, using phrases like 'want misrepresentation of the facts used here. Like you' just mark you out as someone with a heavy agenda. What am i saying? Cries of murder at a time consistent with the murder. Bloody hell that is controversial.

Simply pointed out that no noise was heard after "oh-murder", even though the woman upstairs stated she could hear when Mary moved about downstairs and was wide awake. A murder that has slashes indicating resistance had to create some noise. Your satisfied that a violent murder with a defensive victim is completely silent, so be it. I take reality serious, and interpretation of data seriously, so thats why I stand opposed to people who simply accept times that cannot be correct and assume that a murder by knife while the victim could resist was most probably completely silent. The cry came as from the courtyard according to 2 witnesses, so how would they conclude that if it came from behind a closed door in a room?

I know, people just want to believe an unripped woman is a Ripper victim because it happened within a month of one that was ripped. They want to believe Mary cried for help as her assailant attacked her with a knife slashing at her and the attack simply continued on from that cry without any sounds being made. They want to believe Senior Investigators knew what they were talking about and were genuine and honest, even though some suggested they knew who the Ripper was, some said they had no idea who was doing this, some say that the suspect could be identified and was institutionalized, some think he fled to the US. Some thought a man in prison at the time was a likely suspect, some said he had skills and knowledge, some said he didnt. Some said years later that they believed a poisoner was the Ripper, some thought a butcher, some thought a teacher. Some think he was seen, some thought they never had a legitimate suspect sighting. These are all from the men closest to these investigations, senior officers for the most part.

How can anybody be completely satisfied with any of this evidence? Beats me. I ve been arguing that many people who say something that is all consistent based on timing shouldnt be discarded because 1 person who makes claims that suggest they were all wrong by 15-20 minutes. All by that same amount of time huh, simply amazing. And I get mouthed off at for pointing that out.

Seem like productive discussions? And Katrup, thanks for pointing out that oh-murder may have been used by some people being assaulted, but it was also used, as I said, commonly, in that area, when no such thing was happening.

[Fleetwood Mac]

All the murders have differences when we get down to details.

Some think he was interrupted with Nichols, so became more violent with Chapman, which may be expressed in his apparent attempt (said by some) to cut off the head.
It could be argued that the rage we see with Eddowes is a result of the same reasoning, he was interrupted with Stride.

There were differences between the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

There were differences, Jon, but what we're talking about here is not what people think may have happened due to speculative interruption of whatever, but simply the nature of the wound itself.

What we do have at our disposal as a definite piece of medical information, is that Catherine and Liz had a very similar throat wound but Annie's was very much different. That's not speculative; that's the medical evidence we have.

We also know what modern day pathologists would expect to see when a cut is from behind or in front. That's not speculation, that's decades of study and research.

Taking those two points together, and not being speculative about other things when really we're building premises based upon premises, then the inference is that regardless of whether or not this was the same murderer, Liz and Catherine had their throats cut with the murderer in the same position; while Annie had her throat cut with the murderer in a different position.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes, stab was a poor choice, it's neither a stab or a slice, something in between.

What I meant was the other examples were long slices around the neck, Nichols had one of each - one four inch long and one eight inch long.
Although the cut on Liz's neck was 6 inch long, it was superficial at both the start & end, the most damage being done to the left side of the neck, superficial on the right. Which suggests the knife was thrust into the neck and pulled out again in a slightly sweeping motion, something between a stab and a slice.

It's definitely not a stab, nor anywhere between a stab or a slice.

It is actually very much in line with the type of clean wound that modern day pathologists would expect to see from a right handed person standing behind a victim. The natural flow of the knife from that position, deepest at the point of incision and tails off on the right hand side (for a right handed person).

Liz and Catherine have a very similar wound. Annie's wound is very different.

Dr Phillips does in fact describe a wound that is more line with the chin being held up with the victim lying on her back, when talking of Annie. Able to lift the head and rotate while the knife is applied with force, which may explain the jagged wound and the fact Annie was cut right around the neck with no discernible difference in pressure.

Liz and Catherine on the other hand, the first post on this thread details that their wounds are pretty much in line with what modern day pathologists would expect to see from a cut with the perpetrator stood behind the victim.

[Wickerman]

Why do we see an entirely different kind of wound with Annie?

Why do we see Liz's and Catherine's wound being very similar, i.e. deepest on the left hand side and tails off at the right hand side, severed on the left hand side but just open or superficial on the right hand side.

Annie's throat wound is entirely different.

The inference is that the position of Jack was similar when cutting Liz and Catherine, but much different when cutting Annie.

All the murders have differences when we get down to details.

Some think he was interrupted with Nichols, so became more violent with Chapman, which may be expressed in his apparent attempt (said by some) to cut off the head.
It could be argued that the rage we see with Eddowes is a result of the same reasoning, he was interrupted with Stride.

There were differences between the Yorkshire Ripper murders.

[Wickerman]

Phillips actually described the wound

"The wound was inflicted by knife across the throat."

He was also asked if there was any indication that a pointed knife (as one would expect with a stab) he replied, no.
The cut was some 6 inches in length, and while it was deeper on one side of the neck, it did go from one jaw to the other.

Not sure saying like a stab is applicable.


Steve

Yes, stab was a poor choice, it's neither a stab or a slice, something in between.

What I meant was the other examples were long slices around the neck, Nichols had one of each - one four inch long and one eight inch long.
Although the cut on Liz's neck was 6 inch long, it was superficial at both the start & end, the most damage being done to the left side of the neck, superficial on the right. Which suggests the knife was thrust into the neck and pulled out again in a slightly sweeping motion, something between a stab and a slice.