Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Eddowes is left as the only single cut. Why?

I think if you read over Dr Brown's observation of the neck wound to Eddowes you might see that he is not describing any cuts, or the number of cuts, but the appearance of the wound(s) in general.

As Jon G, previously noted, in part:
"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 and about 2 ½ inches below behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear"

But then Brown said:
"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 cord All the deep structures were severed to the bone The knife marking intervertebral cartilages

First he described a superficial cut, then he details a deep cut to the spine - two cuts.
Brown is really just describing the appearance of the wound, not suggesting how many cuts there were. but, as a superficial cut does not reach the spine then we can see there must have been more than one application of the knife.

[kjab3112]

I read that description as being the same cut, but only on the left side does it penetrate through the sternocleidomastoid muscle and hence cut the left (probable common) carotid and internal jugular vein before cutting down to the vertebra. After cutting through the larynx the cut is more superficial on the right (although may just have got caught in the muscle and maybe a further sign of interruption).

But this is my opinion

[Wickerman]

Can anyone suggest why there were two cuts to Polly's neck? Were they just random slashes, or was there a purpose behind them?

If you follow the Mylett case, where the victim was thought to have been strangled by use of a cord. Dr. Brownfield offered a reason for the throats being cut in previous cases.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881224.html

".....if the other victims had been first strangled would there not be postmortem indications?" - "If he cut the throat along the line of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation." "

[kjab3112]

The protruding tongues certainly imply potential strangulation, but not definite. Steve (Elmarna) previously asked whether the decapitation could have hidden the cuts, the couple I've looked at would again be a possibility (although until each ripper/ripper-type cut and each torso decapitation is assessed I'm not willing to go further, sorry).

I do remember a previous discussion about the use of a garrotte which I suggest could potentially occlude the carotid arteries to render the victim unconscious as the first element of the killers attack.

Regards

Paul

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

If you're talking about Eddowes, this seems to go against all the evidence.

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.

Are you suggesting that Jack managed to hold a hand over the mouth of a struggling Kate, slash her cheeks and face, slice her nose off, nick her eyelids and stab her in the mouth multiple times and eventually cut her throat to the bone, all without a) making any noise, b) getting any blood on her dress or the ground, or c) cutting his own fingers off?

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

This I can agree with. But we know that there was some spray in two cases, at least.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think if you read over Dr Brown's observation of the neck wound to Eddowes you might see that he is not describing any cuts, or the number of cuts, but the appearance of the wound(s) in general.

As Jon G, previously noted, in part:
"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 and about 2 ½ inches below behind the left ear and extended across the throat to about 3 inches below the lobe of the right ear"

But then Brown said:
"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 cord All the deep structures were severed to the bone The knife marking intervertebral cartilages

First he described a superficial cut, then he details a deep cut to the spine - two cuts.
Brown is really just describing the appearance of the wound, not suggesting how many cuts there were. but, as a superficial cut does not reach the spine then we can see there must have been more than one application of the knife.

Hi Jon.
You may be right about the throat wound being formed by more than one cut, but not necessarily. The superficial start is well behind the ear, I think if you drew a line (or a knife) between that and the partially severed vessels on the right, it would most likely touch the spine.
Also, varying the angle and pressure of a single slice could produce the same effect, I think.

[Joshua Rogan]

If you follow the Mylett case, where the victim was thought to have been strangled by use of a cord. Dr. Brownfield offered a reason for the throats being cut in previous cases.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881224.html

".....if the other victims had been first strangled would there not be postmortem indications?" - "If he cut the throat along the line of the cord he would obliterate the traces of partial strangulation." "

That would make some sense if they were all cut once, but doesn't work for double cuts...unless they were garotted twice too?

[Joshua Rogan]

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

I don't know Pierre. If there's a good reason for a double cut technique I'm hoping someone will mention it.

[Elamarna]

I don't know Pierre. If there's a good reason for a double cut technique I'm hoping someone will mention it.

Joshua

I can see 3 reasons to cut twice.

1. He cuts twice because it's ritual, however it's not done in Stride and maybe not in Eddowes.

2. Its done to ensure he gets all the vessels on either side of neck. But that does not work with Mackenzie.

3. He cuts twice when he makes a mistake.

Maybe a mixture of 2&3?

Steve

[c.d.]

I would add another possibility. It was done without even realizing it or thinking about it.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Steve

1. He cuts twice because it's ritual, however it's not done in Stride and maybe not in Eddowes.

That sounds like a standard archeologosts explanation for something they can't explain - Must have been for ritual purposes! Still, it can't be dismissed, although I'd personally expect a ritual to be performed in the same.way each time.

2. Its done to ensure he gets all the vessels on either side of neck. But that does not work with Mackenzie.

Maybe. But if you've already cut one side, why start again at almost the same point, why not just cut the other side? Or if the long cut came first, why add the shorter cut?

3. He cuts twice when he makes a mistake.

Maybe a mixture of 2&3?

This seems the most likely of the three - as Frank Herbert said, accident and error are the most persistent principles in the universe.
I did like Paul's suggestion that the first cut hit cartilage so he moved down slightly to avoid it on the second go. That would work for Nichol's injuries, I think.
But I've always read Chapman's neck wound as going entirely round the neck and back past where it started.

[Joshua Rogan]

I would add another possibility. It was done without even realizing it or thinking about it.

c.d.

A stab in the dark?

[c.d.]

A stab in the dark?

Good one. But seriously, when the adrenaline is cranked up that high who knows what might happen.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

That would make some sense if they were all cut once, but doesn't work for double cuts...unless they were garotted twice too?

- The use of a cord/garrote renders them unconscious.
- The first cut is short, it released the blood from the artery and kills them.
- The second cut seems to encircle the neck more than the first (as Brownfield suggested) to destroy evidence of the cord.

[Robert St Devil]

That would make some sense if they were all cut once, but doesn't work for double cuts...unless they were garotted twice too?

apologies, havent read the full thread joshua and wickerman. another of my what ifs but what if...

the purpose of the higher, shorter cut is to sever the vocal cards or tongue. touch the spot on your neck and decide if there is anything behind there worth cutting from the pov of...

could be he got a tight garrote of a neckerchief around her neck and cut her chords so she reeeally couldnt scream, her blood flowing into the neckerchief; altho i cant arrive at a conclusive sequence of events there
is it the stride or chapman case where the neckerchief looks like it was pulled or sucked into the cut?

the lower, deeper cut... hm, always seemed like a finishing cut to me. as in, polly nicholls. he garrotes and knifes her throat high leaving her speechless and dying, mutilates her abdomen, gets interrupted, so he cuts her throat again to finish the deed.