Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Double throat cuts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Double throat cuts

    Daily Telegraph 3rd Sept, Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony;

    "On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence."

    Can anyone suggest why there were two cuts to Polly's neck? Were they just random slashes, or was there a purpose behind them? I can only think of one, as follows;
    The shorter cut to the left side came first, with the head turned to the left and the knife under the neck. This would mean that any potential arterial spray would be directed away from the killer and onto the pavement. Once the initial bloodflow had subsided, Jack was then free to make the more substantial cuts to throat and abdomen with much less risk of becoming blood-splattered.

    Does that make sense? Or are there other explanations for the shorter cut?

  • #2
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    Daily Telegraph 3rd Sept, Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony;

    "On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence."

    Can anyone suggest why there were two cuts to Polly's neck? Were they just random slashes, or was there a purpose behind them? I can only think of one, as follows;
    The shorter cut to the left side came first, with the head turned to the left and the knife under the neck. This would mean that any potential arterial spray would be directed away from the killer and onto the pavement. Once the initial bloodflow had subsided, Jack was then free to make the more substantial cuts to throat and abdomen with much less risk of becoming blood-splattered.

    Does that make sense? Or are there other explanations for the shorter cut?
    Not random I think,

    Your suggestion works.

    However the same is seen in Chapman, Kelly and to a lesser degree in Mackenzie.
    Nichols is the only one with two distinctly seperate cuts at the surface.
    It could be that the two cuts are an attempt to ensure all the vessels are cut.
    That might suggest in the Nichols case that for some reason the first cut failed.
    The reason for such could be debated but should surely include:
    He was distracted by something and the knife left the wound. A passing train?
    Nichols moved a little herself, having the same effect.

    In the Chapman and Kelly cases it seems neither cut missed, although it is hard to be sure with Kelly. Mackenzie is either two somewhat incomplete cuts or a copycat , who knows.

    Some may suggest ritual, that however leaves Stride and Eddowes, Stride could be explained away as either he was disturbed as many suspect of it was a different killer.

    Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?


    Anyone else care to join in


    Steve

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?

      Hi Steve

      There could be a tentative first cut on Eddowes:
      "A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear. "

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
        Not random I think,

        Your suggestion works.

        However the same is seen in Chapman, Kelly and to a lesser degree in Mackenzie.
        Nichols is the only one with two distinctly seperate cuts at the surface.
        It could be that the two cuts are an attempt to ensure all the vessels are cut.
        That might suggest in the Nichols case that for some reason the first cut failed.
        The reason for such could be debated but should surely include:
        He was distracted by something and the knife left the wound. A passing train?
        Nichols moved a little herself, having the same effect.

        In the Chapman and Kelly cases it seems neither cut missed, although it is hard to be sure with Kelly. Mackenzie is either two somewhat incomplete cuts or a copycat , who knows.

        Some may suggest ritual, that however leaves Stride and Eddowes, Stride could be explained away as either he was disturbed as many suspect of it was a different killer.

        Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?


        Anyone else care to join in


        Steve
        "The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck'

        That's from Annie Chapmans evidence. 2 distinct cuts.

        "All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages" That's from Kates evidence, although not 2 specific separate cuts made, same deep cutting.

        As you say there is no way to be sure with Mary, though its likely she was the first one who had her throat cut while she could resist.

        Liz is the only simple single cut.

        The nicks to the spine, from my vantage point, could easily have been the result of an overly aggressive approach to ensure swift bleed out.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          Not random I think,

          Your suggestion works.

          However the same is seen in Chapman, Kelly and to a lesser degree in Mackenzie.
          Nichols is the only one with two distinctly seperate cuts at the surface.
          It could be that the two cuts are an attempt to ensure all the vessels are cut.
          That might suggest in the Nichols case that for some reason the first cut failed.
          The reason for such could be debated but should surely include:
          He was distracted by something and the knife left the wound. A passing train?
          Nichols moved a little herself, having the same effect.

          In the Chapman and Kelly cases it seems neither cut missed, although it is hard to be sure with Kelly. Mackenzie is either two somewhat incomplete cuts or a copycat , who knows.

          Some may suggest ritual, that however leaves Stride and Eddowes, Stride could be explained away as either he was disturbed as many suspect of it was a different killer.

          Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?


          Anyone else care to join in


          Steve
          My belief is that the killer was behind her when her throat was cut. He plunged the knife deep into the throat front and centre, and then drew the knife across. The knife was in deep enough to almost sever the head as was described.

          The angle of the facial wounds is also suggestive of that, and perhaps these injuries occurred when she was struggling to avoid having her throat cut.

          It is noticeable that there were no other similar facial wounds to any of the other victims which you might expect to find if they were all killed by the same hand.

          Dr Biggs has stated that there is not always arterial spray in these circumstances.

          The exception being Kelly but her face was mutilated in a different way by what would appear to have been a blunt object.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            "The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck'

            That's from Annie Chapmans evidence. 2 distinct cuts.
            Hi Michael.
            No issue with Two cuts to spine, it is less clear there were two at the surface.
            However if there were they were very close to each other.

            Sorry my wording may not be perfect.

            How about 2 distinct cuts at the surface not directly next to each other or something like that?


            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            "All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages" That's from Kates evidence, although not 2 specific separate cuts made, same deep cutting.
            Again agree.

            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            As you say there is no way to be sure with Mary, though its likely she was the first one who had her throat cut while she could resist.

            Liz is the only simple single cut.

            The nicks to the spine, from my vantage point, could easily have been the result of an overly aggressive approach to ensure swift bleed out.
            Certainly carried out with force.


            Steve

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              My belief is that the killer was behind her when her throat was cut. He plunged the knife deep into the throat front and centre, and then drew the knife across. The knife was in deep enough to almost sever the head as was described.

              The angle of the facial wounds is also suggestive of that, and perhaps these injuries occurred when she was struggling to avoid having her throat cut.

              It is noticeable that there were no other similar facial wounds to any of the other victims which you might expect to find if they were all killed by the same hand.

              Dr Biggs has stated that there is not always arterial spray in these circumstances.

              The exception being Kelly but her face was mutilated in a different way by what would appear to have been a blunt object.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Hi Trevor no issue with most of that at all.

              Only issue I have and it's only minor, what leads you to suggest blunt object on Kelly face?

              Really not being argumentative just wonder what leads there?

              Is it from one of your medical experts?


              Anyway it's not important .

              All the best


              Steve

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                Hi Trevor no issue with most of that at all.

                Only issue I have and it's only minor, what leads you to suggest blunt object on Kelly face?

                Really not being argumentative just wonder what leads there?

                Is it from one of your medical experts?


                Anyway it's not important .

                All the best


                Steve
                Mary had a flap of skin above her eyes cut across, and it hung down over her eyes in the photo. It was said he face was slashed repeatedly, back and forth. No mention of any blunt force trauma.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                  Not random I think,

                  Your suggestion works.

                  However the same is seen in Chapman, Kelly and to a lesser degree in Mackenzie.
                  Nichols is the only one with two distinctly seperate cuts at the surface.
                  It could be that the two cuts are an attempt to ensure all the vessels are cut.
                  That might suggest in the Nichols case that for some reason the first cut failed.
                  The reason for such could be debated but should surely include:
                  He was distracted by something and the knife left the wound. A passing train?
                  Nichols moved a little herself, having the same effect.

                  In the Chapman and Kelly cases it seems neither cut missed, although it is hard to be sure with Kelly. Mackenzie is either two somewhat incomplete cuts or a copycat , who knows.

                  Some may suggest ritual, that however leaves Stride and Eddowes, Stride could be explained away as either he was disturbed as many suspect of it was a different killer.

                  Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?

                  Anyone else care to join in

                  Steve
                  Hi Steve,

                  I wonder if you could please help me.

                  There is a medical phrase from the Chapman inquest: "There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae...".

                  What does "the body" mean?

                  How would you describe the wounds on the throat to someone who is not a medical?

                  Thanks a lot!

                  Pierre

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    [QUOTE=Elamarna;421527]

                    Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?
                    Hi Steve,

                    I didnīt know that.

                    Is that well established?

                    Pierre

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      Daily Telegraph 3rd Sept, Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony;

                      "On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence."

                      Can anyone suggest why there were two cuts to Polly's neck? Were they just random slashes, or was there a purpose behind them? I can only think of one, as follows;
                      The shorter cut to the left side came first, with the head turned to the left and the knife under the neck. This would mean that any potential arterial spray would be directed away from the killer and onto the pavement. Once the initial bloodflow had subsided, Jack was then free to make the more substantial cuts to throat and abdomen with much less risk of becoming blood-splattered.

                      Does that make sense? Or are there other explanations for the shorter cut?
                      Hi,

                      Were double throat cuts unusual or common in murders with such cuts?

                      Pierre

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                        Hi Steve,

                        I wonder if you could please help me.

                        There is a medical phrase from the Chapman inquest: "There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae...".

                        What does "the body" mean?

                        How would you describe the wounds on the throat to someone who is not a medical?

                        Thanks a lot!

                        Pierre
                        Hi Pierre

                        The body is the round bulk of the majority of human vertebrae. It sits in front of the spinal canal (and cord). The spinous process comes out of the back of the vertebra (and can be felt as the sharp bony prominence at the base of the neck. The transverse processes come out at right angles to the spinous process. All of this is then attached to the body by the pedicle on each side. So when the cuts are described as cutting into the vertebrae it is on the front half (and the sides) of that bone.

                        As to the throat wounds, if you feel down the front of the Adam's Apple (larynx), you'll feel an indent, below which is the cricoid bone. The (presumed) first cut I believe hit the body of the tracheal cartilage (big part of the Adam's Apple), hence a second cut lower to go below the larynx and thus prevent screaming for help. I think the rest of the description is self explanatory as long as you remember an inch is 2.5cm approximately.

                        Paul

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
                          Hi Pierre

                          The body is the round bulk of the majority of human vertebrae. It sits in front of the spinal canal (and cord). The spinous process comes out of the back of the vertebra (and can be felt as the sharp bony prominence at the base of the neck. The transverse processes come out at right angles to the spinous process. All of this is then attached to the body by the pedicle on each side. So when the cuts are described as cutting into the vertebrae it is on the front half (and the sides) of that bone.

                          As to the throat wounds, if you feel down the front of the Adam's Apple (larynx), you'll feel an indent, below which is the cricoid bone. The (presumed) first cut I believe hit the body of the tracheal cartilage (big part of the Adam's Apple), hence a second cut lower to go below the larynx and thus prevent screaming for help. I think the rest of the description is self explanatory as long as you remember an inch is 2.5cm approximately.

                          Paul
                          Many thanks Paul!

                          Pierre

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=Pierre;421594]
                            Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



                            Hi Steve,

                            I didnīt know that.

                            Is that well established?

                            Pierre
                            Hi Pierre

                            I had assumed so. However I now need to check on what Jon said above.


                            I see Paul has given a far better answer to your other question than I could


                            Steve

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kjab3112 View Post
                              Hi Pierre

                              The body is the round bulk of the majority of human vertebrae. It sits in front of the spinal canal (and cord). The spinous process comes out of the back of the vertebra (and can be felt as the sharp bony prominence at the base of the neck. The transverse processes come out at right angles to the spinous process. All of this is then attached to the body by the pedicle on each side. So when the cuts are described as cutting into the vertebrae it is on the front half (and the sides) of that bone.

                              As to the throat wounds, if you feel down the front of the Adam's Apple (larynx), you'll feel an indent, below which is the cricoid bone. The (presumed) first cut I believe hit the body of the tracheal cartilage (big part of the Adam's Apple), hence a second cut lower to go below the larynx and thus prevent screaming for help. I think the rest of the description is self explanatory as long as you remember an inch is 2.5cm approximately.

                              Paul
                              Hi Paul.

                              Good idea on the Chapman case. Not something I had considered.

                              Or course such cannot be the case with Nichols, so botched first cut still looks a possibility.

                              In which case the double cuts while not random as such, may not be a significant link between some victims as some researchers have suggested.

                              Steve

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X