A theory about some injuries!

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

Self-correction: what I say about the cut thumb still stands, but there were abrasions to the back of the right hand. I don't believe Bond would have mistaken abrasions ("scrapes") for cuts, so quite how she sustained that damage to the back of her hand is probably something we'll never know. I somehow doubt they would have been caused by a knife.

Hi Sam
I think she might have awoken when the killer put the sheet over her face and had a brief moment or two to fight back and call out before she was incapacitated.

More than likely the cut to thumb and abrasians to back of hand were defensive IMHO.

slashes on arms were probably post mortem.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by harry

What information exists that there was an interruption?

It's interpretation Harry, like we have with Nichols & Stride. Some think these were interrupted attacks due to possibly unfinished mutilations.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

My suggestion above seems to be borne out by Bond:

"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee."

... which also suggests that the killer didn't stop at the right thigh.

In your previous to the above you seemed to suggest the thigh was stripped before the pelvic area (you said 'precursor'). I just wondered how this quote from Bond seems to bear out your claim?

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

In your previous to the above you seemed to suggest the thigh was stripped before the pelvic area (you said 'precursor').

Precursor in the sense that I envisage him cutting through the thigh-flesh before going on to removing the flesh from her genital area. In the past, I've referred to the removal of the flesh from the thighs and around the genital area as a "saddle" of flesh.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Henry Flower

I've always been of the impression that those are in entirely the wrong position to be defensive wounds. Surely a defensive wound is typically found on a part of the arm or hand that is exposed when the arm is raised into a defensive posture? I've more often seen them on the palms of the hands or the rear of the forearm. These look to me like post-mortem slashes.

I agree, both mutilations on the left arm are in the wrong place to be defensive wounds.

The trouble with thinking about defensive wounds is we only have the "oh, murder". Anyone fighting for their life is going to scream the place down. Especially Mary, who was known to be feisty.

Maybe the point for him isn't the flesh; the point is the knife, the cut. She is incidental. Just a thought.

Yes, it's hard to try rationalize an irrational act.
It's just that if he decides to strip flesh & muscle from the torso and then the upper thighs, why did he stop?
He went further than just removing organs, he continued down both legs, partially, but then stopped.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Harry D

Why wasn't the uterus taken? That's always puzzled me.

Did he grab the wrong organ off the bed, in the dark?

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

Self-correction: what I say about the cut thumb still stands, but there were abrasions to the back of the right hand. I don't believe Bond would have mistaken abrasions ("scrapes") for cuts, so quite how she sustained that damage to the back of her hand is probably something we'll never know. I somehow doubt they would have been caused by a knife.

The cut to the thumb is described as short, and superficial - so it wasn't deep.
This killer was wielding his knife all over the place, if he caught the thumb in his frenzy, we maybe shouldn't be surprised.
As to those abrasions, no idea. Abrasions tend to indicate contact with a hard but rough surface. If these were the result of her fighting back then we should see bruises, not abrasions.

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

The cut to the thumb is described as short, and superficial - so it wasn't deep.
This killer was wielding his knife all over the place, if he caught the thumb in his frenzy, we maybe shouldn't be surprised.

I can't see how a blade could accidentally come into contact with the thumb, which is pretty much tucked away for most of the time. And I don't see him flailing his knife about like a whirling Dervish, either, but that's another matter.

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

It's just that if he decides to strip flesh & muscle from the torso and then the upper thighs, why did he stop?
He went further than just removing organs, he continued down both legs, partially, but then stopped.

Well, he removed the flesh from her chest, but didn't left the upper arms intact. Perhaps what he did with the legs and pelvic area "pleased" him sufficiently that he didn't feel the need to carry on? Alternatively, maybe he became aware that morning was approaching, and that he'd better start making a move.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

Well, he removed the flesh from her chest, but didn't left the upper arms intact.

Exactly, unfinished.

Perhaps what he did with the legs and pelvic area "pleased" him sufficiently that he didn't feel the need to carry on?

Really?

Alternatively, maybe he became aware that morning was approaching, and that he'd better start making a move.

Having to leave due to daylight, footsteps, knocking at the door, voices, all means he was not finished.