Double throat cuts

[Elamarna]

That`s interesting, do you have a source for this ?

Hi Jon

I will need to go and search. It something read ages back. Along the lines of the head only just hanging on.
Interesting how we all read same things and get different pictures.

See if I can find it later.

Steve

[John G]

Thanks Steve



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.



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?



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.

Excellent point about ritual, Joshua. And I must admit it's a word I've occasionally used myself in similar circumstances! I think it also illustrates that great caution is required when attempting to link crimes by apparent "similarities" that, in reality, may have different explanations.

[Jon Guy]

That as always been my reading of the accounts Jon

steve

That`s interesting, do you have a source for this ?

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

Is this referring to the Chapman throat cut ?

That as always been my reading of the accounts Jon

steve

[Joshua Rogan]

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...

Hi Robert, interesting idea. It seems to me that if this was the purpose then a more central cut would have the best chance of accomplishing this, rather than a cut on one side only.

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?

I believe Davis, the man who discovered Annie's body was reported as saying this;
"So deep, in fact, was the gash, that the murderer, evidently thinking he had severed the head from the body, had tied a handkerchief round it."
But I think this was just where her own neckerchief had slipped into the gaping wound.
Stride's throat was cut along the lower border of her scarf, nicking the fabric but not getting any blood on it.

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.

But if he had already attacked the throat, why only do half a job and have to cut it completely later? I think it was Phillips who said Stride's cut could have been done in two seconds...that seems like a good investment of time for a killer to make sure his victim was dead, before embarking on more prolonged mutilations.

[Jon Guy]

it appears there was still some flesh(small amount) uncut at the back.


Steve

Hi Steve

Is this referring to the Chapman throat cut ?

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve


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.

yes reminds me of time team, anything you can't explain is ritual.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve



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.



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?



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.

it appears there was still some flesh(small amount) uncut at the back.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

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

Yes there were knife marks on the vertebrae, but that is not how the doctor described the neck wound.

[jerryd]

With McKenzie one of the cuts was obstructed by the jawbone. If it were the first, a second cut may have been needed to complete the job. Her head was turned sharply to the right, which may indicate the killer turned her head to avoid the jawbone on the second attempt.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.