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?
"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?
Comment