Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Which were not convincing or supported by sources as I recall.



I'm talking about a formal post-mortem examination Jon. The one you told me that there are "strict guidelines" for. And you can forget who the PM is carried out for. I'm only interested in what the examination actually consisted of. The notes of Dr Bond under the heading "Postmortem Examination" read remarkably like a formal post-mortem examination to me. How do they read to you?

And if Dr Bond conducted a formal post-mortem examination on the Friday, why would Dr Phillips repeat that same examination on the Saturday?

It surely makes no sense. I could understand it if the first PM was being challenged or someone wanted a second opinion or something like that. But simply repeating two identical PMs on two consecutive days is very odd.

Now you have confused me.

How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881112.html

[David Orsam]

From what you've laid out it can be accepted that Dr. Bond was involved in an examination on Friday, and appeared at the Coroner's PM on Saturday.

I wasn't even aware that either of those facts were ever in doubt (nor that I've done anything to place Bond at the Saturday PM).

That, provisionally established, how does this impact the role of Dr. Phillips, and the sequence of events as attributed to him on Friday?

Given that the above two facts you mention have always been known and agreed by both of us, I refer you to all the previous 200 posts or so that I have made on this subject.

[David Orsam]

Now you have confused me.

How have I managed to do that?

How does this report figure into your view of events?

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case.
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881112.html

Doesn't it support what I've been saying all along? Namely that the "first examination", i.e. the one on Friday between 2pm and 4pm, was a preliminary examination only (as per the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes) whereas the examination on Saturday morning was a proper post-mortem examination (as per the last four pages of Dr Bond's notes).

[Wickerman]

How have I managed to do that?

Doesn't it support what I've been saying all along? Namely that the "first examination", i.e. the one on Friday between 2pm and 4pm, was a preliminary examination only (as per the first three pages of Dr Bond's notes) whereas the examination on Saturday morning was a proper post-mortem examination (as per the last four pages of Dr Bond's notes).

It does, but this (below) suits my interpretation, from the same newspaper (Times), on Saturday.

"Dr Phillips, on his arrival, carefully examined the body of the dead woman, and later on made a second examination in company with Dr Bond, from Westminster, Dr Gordon Brown, from the City, Dr Duke from Spitalfields, and Dr Phillip's assistant......
As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881110.html

So the article I posted to you is only comparing two similar types of examinations, not suggesting they were of a different nature. Friday's took 2 hrs, Saturday's 2.5 hrs., but the same paper identifies both examinations as the same type.

This is why I feel the role of Dr Phillips has not changed from the position I offered at the beginning of our debate.
Phillips and Bond had different responsibilities in this case and that is reflected in the terminology.

The testimony of Phillips at the inquest is quite consistent with the article above, him only describing a visual examination on entering the room.
You have adjusted what was commonly assumed to be the role of Dr. Bond, but not affected the role of Dr. Phillips. Which is still of value because this issue has never been explored to the best of my knowledge, at any time. It's just a shame few others were inclined to offer an opinion in this debate.

The preliminary exam. as identified in the press is still the one which took place prior to the admission of the photographer, and a P.M. followed at 2 pm that same day.
For Bond this P.M. was merely an examination in his notes due to his responsibilities being of a less complex nature when compared to Phillips.

[David Orsam]

Believe it or not, Jon, I have known exactly what your argument is the whole time - the article in the Times of 10 November was the first thing you drew to my attention - and I have always said it is possible but by no means an established fact.

My interpretation of the Times article of Monday 12 November is that it is actually correcting what it said on the Saturday. Far from a post-mortem examination "of the most exhaustive character" having taken place in the room on the Friday, the newspaper has now been informed that it had been only a "cursory" examination; the exhaustive post-mortem, it now realises, occurred on the Saturday morning.

As for no-one else participating in this debate, I suspect there might have been more involvement if the medical examinations had been the actual topic of this thread. Perhaps it should return now to the subject of double throat cuts.

[Pierre]

Believe it or not, Jon, I have known exactly what your argument is the whole time - the article in the Times of 10 November was the first thing you drew to my attention - and I have always said it is possible but by no means an established fact.

My interpretation of the Times article of Monday 12 November is that it is actually correcting what it said on the Saturday. Far from a post-mortem examination "of the most exhaustive character" having taken place in the room on the Friday, the newspaper has now been informed that it had been only a "cursory" examination; the exhaustive post-mortem, it now realises, occurred on the Saturday morning.

As for no-one else participating in this debate, I suspect there might have been more involvement if the medical examinations had been the actual topic of this thread. Perhaps it should return now to the subject of double throat cuts.

That would be nice.

Pierre

[PaulB]

According to what Paul Begg suggests that is the case, and he is never wrong

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can understand why it may appear to you that I am never wrong, Trevor, but there have been two or three times when my omnipotence has slipped just slightly. I am sometime misquoted too. I'm not saying that I have been misquoted in this instance, of course, although I think it entirely possible that if you take the trouble to check back you'll see I suggested Dr. Bond's notes were written down by his assistant, Dr. Hebbert.

[PaulB]

Thats what I always understood. This is a bit unsettling having Trevor speak in favour of an opinion by Paul....

It unsettled you! Do you have any idea what it did to me! I nearly had to go lie down to recover, but then I realised he was attributing to me something I didn't say. Never mind.

[Wickerman]

It unsettled you! Do you have any idea what it did to me! I nearly had to go lie down to recover, but then I realised he was attributing to me something I didn't say. Never mind.

True to form though - "T'was ever thus"

[Wickerman]

On the subject of "Double cuts to the throat", the lacerations to Kelly's throat seem to obscure any attempt, at least by Bond, to provide a meaningful description. Though he is able to make the point that evidence exists of "two deep cuts".

"The neck was cut through the skin & other tissues right down to the vertebrae the 5th & 6th being deeply notched."

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/pm-kelly.html

Which raises the question if this is purely coincidental, one cut extending across two vertebrae, or two separate cuts, - an indication the same hand was at work?

[The Rookie Detective]

"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. "

Jon reading this again I think we need to be carefully how we interpret it.
If just accepted as it appears it could suggest one cut which encircled the neck and continued on to a second cut. That is a very difficulty feat to achieve.

Still searching for that source.

Steve

This could then perhaps indicate that Chapman's killer intended to decapitate her?

I have perceived it as just one deep cut that encircled the throat and came back around to make it appear as 2 separate cuts.

The idea of intended decapitation may imply that the killer strangled Chapman first; by incapacitating her and compressing the left carotid artery with her own neckerchief.

Once she has fallen unconscious, she then falls against the fence and he waits a few moments just watching her as her BP drops.

Once she is unconscious he THEN begins cutting.


Is there evidence to suggest that Jack didn't use his knife until AFTER he had strangled his victims and/or ensured they were unconscious first?

What I also find remarkable is that considering Stride only received one cut; like Chapman, she also appears to have been nearly decapitated.

There is also a potential line of thinking to suggest the same occurred with MJK.


Perhaps Nichols was a botched attempt?

Let's also consider that Nichols MAY have been the first victim; or certainly the first whereby he has sliced/cut the throat. Tabram being stabbed as opposed to cut.


Thinking outside the box here a little...

Has there ever been a consideration whereby the Ripper had a customised weapon that he crafted himself in a workshop that featured 2 separate blades?
One shorter to stab, grip and hook, and the other to slice, cut deep and sever. (Like a knife and folk action)

Something to keep in a black bag?

Something "the ladies don't like very much"


Just some random thoughts of course



RD

[kjab3112]

Hi RD

The evidence for rendering unconscious (by strangulation or otherwise) are the lack of blood to the front of the clothing, the height of the blood spatter at scene (Chapman) and absence of defence wounds before MJK. Whether this is strangulation is less clear cut as there is no evidence of damage to the hyoid bone as would be expected with manual strangulation, but the finger marks to the face, swelling of the tongue fit and if the objective was unconsciousness rather than death from the strangulation, this could occur through relatively low pressure to both carotids/jugulars for 5-10 seconds.

As for the double cuts, having seen a video of religious slaughter, I’m torn between Jack hitting the larynx due to different anatomy and a more practiced first cut to one side followed by double cut to make it easier to control direction an quantity of blood spatter. Obviously this creates a duality as to the level of skill as the first would be a relative amateur who had killed some livestock, the second a much more skilled individual.

Paul

[Geddy2112]

This could then perhaps indicate that Chapman's killer intended to decapitate her?

Maybe he was trying to decapitate her to form a 'torso' type killing..

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD

The evidence for rendering unconscious (by strangulation or otherwise) are the lack of blood to the front of the clothing, the height of the blood spatter at scene (Chapman) and absence of defence wounds before MJK. Whether this is strangulation is less clear cut as there is no evidence of damage to the hyoid bone as would be expected with manual strangulation, but the finger marks to the face, swelling of the tongue fit and if the objective was unconsciousness rather than death from the strangulation, this could occur through relatively low pressure to both carotids/jugulars for 5-10 seconds.

As for the double cuts, having seen a video of religious slaughter, I’m torn between Jack hitting the larynx due to different anatomy and a more practiced first cut to one side followed by double cut to make it easier to control direction an quantity of blood spatter. Obviously this creates a duality as to the level of skill as the first would be a relative amateur who had killed some livestock, the second a much more skilled individual.

Paul

Excellent post Paul

I have come to favour the idea that Jack saw his victims as nothing more than pigs/livestock.
There's an argument to suggest that he even tried to make Eddowes look like a pig when he cut her.
On that basis I believe Jack was exceptionally skilled with a knife, but lacked surgical precision or clinical anatomical knowledge.
His anatomical knowledge would therefore be based on practical trial and error.
Let's not forget also; the animal most humanlike in terms of its organs...is a pig.

There's also an element of how a pig is perceived by the Jewish faith.
If he was a Jewish, then a pig is NOT kosher, and therefore deemed by some as sacred and off-menu.

And so when we consider that Eddowes, Stride amd McKenzie at least worked for the Jews; does that coincidence with the way in which Jack chose to cut them?

It not just cutting; it's the way in which those cuts were made.


You mention religious slaughter; I think that's closer to the mark than we perhaps realise.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD

The evidence for rendering unconscious (by strangulation or otherwise) are the lack of blood to the front of the clothing, the height of the blood spatter at scene (Chapman) and absence of defence wounds before MJK. Whether this is strangulation is less clear cut as there is no evidence of damage to the hyoid bone as would be expected with manual strangulation, but the finger marks to the face, swelling of the tongue fit and if the objective was unconsciousness rather than death from the strangulation, this could occur through relatively low pressure to both carotids/jugulars for 5-10 seconds.

As for the double cuts, having seen a video of religious slaughter, I’m torn between Jack hitting the larynx due to different anatomy and a more practiced first cut to one side followed by double cut to make it easier to control direction an quantity of blood spatter. Obviously this creates a duality as to the level of skill as the first would be a relative amateur who had killed some livestock, the second a much more skilled individual.

Paul

Excellent post Paul

I have come to favour the idea that Jack saw his victims as nothing more than pigs/livestock.
There's an argument to suggest that he even tried to make Eddowes look like a pig when he cut her.
On that basis I believe Jack was exceptionally skilled with a knife, but lacked surgical precision or clinical anatomical knowledge.
His anatomical knowledge would therefore be based on practical trial and error.
Let's not forget also; the animal most humanlike in terms of its organs...is a pig.

There's also an element of how a pig is perceived by the Jewish faith.
If he was a Jewish, then a pig is NOT kosher, and therefore deemed by some as sacred and off-menu.

And so when we consider that Eddowes, Stride amd McKenzie at least worked for the Jews; does that coincidence with the way in which Jack chose to cut them?

It not just cutting; it's the way in which those cuts were made.


You mention religious slaughter; I think that's closer to the mark than we perhaps realise.



RD