Tweet
Hello all,
It seems that not many people want to factor in that facial mutilations very often are associated with murders where a personal connection between victim and killer exists, certainly I would think a potentially relevant issue with a murder being committed in the victims home, and in bed.
The only issue I have with 'Face first" with either facially mutilated victim, is that they would have to be unconscious for there to be no sounds at all coming from them in reaction. So I believe the throats were the first order of business on 4 of them, 3 using a "choke then cut when unconscious and lying on their backs" technique, 1 was possibly cut while standing upright or falling, possibly while being choked with her scarf, no reason to suspect she was not likely still conscious,... and the last one showed evidence of defensive wounds, which means she was still awake and alive when he had started with his knife.
I think what the above means is that in the two cases of facial wounds, only the 2nd victim was likely conscious when the killer first uses his knife, and so in the 5th murder, the victim could well have received some facial wounds first, before even the throat is cut, and while conscious. I believe cutting a face post mortem may indicate a different style or type of killer, versus one who cuts the face while the victim is still alive.... indicating perhaps some passion and aggression, personal emotions....which are not so obviously present in the other kills, or even with the other facial mutilation victim.
I think that means is that although 2 victims show facial wounds, they are not inflicted in the same way, or perhaps even during the same point in the sequence of the attack.
Best regards all.
It seems that not many people want to factor in that facial mutilations very often are associated with murders where a personal connection between victim and killer exists, certainly I would think a potentially relevant issue with a murder being committed in the victims home, and in bed.
The only issue I have with 'Face first" with either facially mutilated victim, is that they would have to be unconscious for there to be no sounds at all coming from them in reaction. So I believe the throats were the first order of business on 4 of them, 3 using a "choke then cut when unconscious and lying on their backs" technique, 1 was possibly cut while standing upright or falling, possibly while being choked with her scarf, no reason to suspect she was not likely still conscious,... and the last one showed evidence of defensive wounds, which means she was still awake and alive when he had started with his knife.
I think what the above means is that in the two cases of facial wounds, only the 2nd victim was likely conscious when the killer first uses his knife, and so in the 5th murder, the victim could well have received some facial wounds first, before even the throat is cut, and while conscious. I believe cutting a face post mortem may indicate a different style or type of killer, versus one who cuts the face while the victim is still alive.... indicating perhaps some passion and aggression, personal emotions....which are not so obviously present in the other kills, or even with the other facial mutilation victim.
I think that means is that although 2 victims show facial wounds, they are not inflicted in the same way, or perhaps even during the same point in the sequence of the attack.
Best regards all.
Comment