Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dr Rees Llewellyn

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I am a bit confused here, and maybe it is just because I have not read deep enough into other of the many sources of information. So I would be grateful if some one here would be so kind as to explain something.

    Is it Dr. Rees Ralph Llewellyn, or Dr. Henry Llewellyn?

    Were there two Dr. Llewellyns associated with the murder investigations?

    Comment


    • #17
      Rhys

      Hello Austin. The former is better. There are about 3 different names for him in the various papers. (And I daresay it was Rhys before it was Rees.)

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #18
        We know from the records that as Llewellyn arrived at the scene in Buckīs Row, he did not notice the wounds to the abdomen. He did, however, see the gashes in the neck, and how deep they went. They would have killed anybody instantly, there can not have been any doubt about that at any stage.

        So as Llewellyn packed his stuff into his bag after having taken his first look at Nichols, he must have been sure that what had killed her was the cut throat.

        Then Spratling finds, in the mortuary, that Nichols has had her stomach ripped open, and Dr Llwellyn is once again called for. He arrives at the mortuary for his second examination somewhere around 5.30.

        So one hour and twenty minutes, roughly, has passed, since Llewellyn first saw the body, and it has been lifted off the pavemnet, it has been wheeled to the mortuary and it has been put on the slab there.

        And now Llewellyn decides that the abdominal wound preceded the cuts to the throat. In a state where the blood levels would have been altered and much if not all of the blood would have coagulated.

        Is there any medically trained person out there who will venture a guess what it could have been that made Llewellyn change his mind - as he must have?

        My own take is that he thought that there had been so little bloood under the neck, and that Llewellyn concluded that this must have own to the cuts to the stomach, that would have killed Nichols. After that, there would not have been any pressure in the veins of the neck, and only a small amount would have seeped out that way, whereas the abdominal cavity would have held the main part of the blood.

        Could it have been anything else that prompted Llewellyns decision? And must he have been wrong?

        The best,
        Fisherman

        Comment


        • #19
          That is my take on it also.
          It is unclear in my opinion whether the stomach wounds came first or not.
          I think Llewellyn was also influenced by the greater quantity of blood that seaped into the clothing under the abdomun.
          It was further confused by the cause of death possibly being strangulation, with the signs of that partially obliterated by the throat wounds.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
            That is my take on it also.
            It is unclear in my opinion whether the stomach wounds came first or not.
            I think Llewellyn was also influenced by the greater quantity of blood that seaped into the clothing under the abdomun.
            It was further confused by the cause of death possibly being strangulation, with the signs of that partially obliterated by the throat wounds.
            Hereīs what Iīm thinking (and of course, I am trying to shoehorn things into Lechmere being the guily party, as always!)

            It is often said that the gap between Tabram and Nichols is hard to bridge, seeing as Tabram was a "frenzied" deed, while the Ripper deeds followed a ready-made pattern: a quick overpowering of the victim, arguably involving partial strangulation - down on the ground the victim goes - zip goes the throat - the bloodspurt is directed away from the perp - and then itīs evisceration time.

            Letīs go with the notion of Tabram being a frenzied deed (which has itīs limitations since it was apparently a very quiet deed too). What does the killer do?
            He overpowers Tabram, and he partially strangles her (her fists were clenched when found). He gets her on the ground, and he goes berserk with a smallish knife. He manages to target all the vital organs, and he adds stabs to the genital area. One of the wounds is a cut to "the lower abdomen" - arguably a euphemism for the genital area. Tabram lives through the ordeal, according to Killeen, but then she is dealt a coup de grace by means of a thrust to the heart.

            Letīs compare to this suggested scenario of Nicholsī death:
            He overpowers Nichols, and he partially strangles her (her tongue was lacerated). He gets her on the ground and he goes berserk with a knife. According to Llewellyn, he targets all the vital organs. He adds stabs to the genital area. He cuts her abdomen open.
            Then he hears another man approaching - Robert Paul. The killer decides to not take the risk that the victim could be alive and able to say something, so he delivers the coup de grace by severing her throat deeply. The first cut does not travel as deep as he wants to, so that he ensures cutting the windpipe and all possibilities to communicate. Therefore he delivers a second, deeper cut.

            As Llewellyns states, the damage done to the abdominal area had already killed the victim, so as the killer cuts the neck, the pressure of the veins has gone. No blood spurts out, it instead slowly trickles out through the severed bloodvessels in the neck.

            As the newcomer arrives, the killer takes him over to the corpse and bluffs him. At this stage, the neck has only been cut for perhaps some twenty-thirty seconds, so the pool of blood forming under her neck is still very small and cannot be seen by Paul from above. The abdomen is covered by the clothing, obscuring the other wounds, and Paul cannot see anything out of the order.

            When Neil arrives to the spot, minutes later, the pool of blood has grown in size and can readily be seen from above.

            This would put the Tabram deed and the Nichols deed very much on par with each other, plus it would explain why Paul could not see any blood at all on the spot. It may also explain how the neck-cutting trademark came about, a trait that was elevated to first priority henceforth since it would ensure silence and death.

            The best,
            Fisherman
            Last edited by Fisherman; 11-06-2014, 06:01 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
              Hereīs what Iīm thinking (and of course, I am trying to shoehorn things into Lechmere being the guily party, as always!)

              It is often said that the gap between Tabram and Nichols is hard to bridge, seeing as Tabram was a "frenzied" deed, while the Ripper deeds followed a ready-made pattern: a quick overpowering of the victim, arguably involving partial strangulation - down on the ground the victim goes - zip goes the throat - the bloodspurt is directed away from the perp - and then itīs evisceration time.

              Letīs go with the notion of Tabram being a frenzied deed (which has itīs limitations since it was apparently a very quiet deed too). What does the killer do?
              He overpowers Tabram, and he partially strangles her (her fists were clenched when found). He gets her on the ground, and he goes berserk with a smallish knife. He manages to target all the vital organs, and he adds stabs to the genital area. One of the wounds is a cut to "the lower abdomen" - arguably a euphemism for the genital area. Tabram lives through the ordeal, according to Killeen, but then she is dealt a coup de grace by means of a thrust to the heart.

              Letīs compare to this suggested scenario of Nicholsī death:
              He overpowers Nichols, and he partially strangles her (her tongue was lacerated). He gets her on the ground and he goes berserk with a knife. According to Llewellyn, he targets all the vital organs. He adds stabs to the genital area. He cuts her abdomen open.
              Then he hears another man approaching - Robert Paul. The killer decides to not take the risk that the victim could be alive and able to say something, so he delivers the coup de grace by severing her throat deeply. The first cut does not travel as deep as he wants to, so that he ensures cutting the windpipe and all possibilities to communicate. Therefore he delivers a second, deeper cut.

              As Llewellyns states, the damage done to the abdominal area had already killed the victim, so as the killer cuts the neck, the pressure of the veins has gone. No blood spurts out, it instead slowly trickles out through the severed bloodvessels in the neck.

              As the newcomer arrives, the killer takes him over to the corpse and bluffs him. At this stage, the neck has only been cut for perhaps some twenty-thirty seconds, so the pool of blood forming under her neck is still very small and cannot be seen by Paul from above. The abdomen is covered by the clothing, obscuring the other wounds, and Paul cannot see anything out of the order.

              When Neil arrives to the spot, minutes later, the pool of blood has grown in size and can readily be seen from above.

              This would put the Tabram deed and the Nichols deed very much on par with each other, plus it would explain why Paul could not see any blood at all on the spot. It may also explain how the neck-cutting trademark came about, a trait that was elevated to first priority henceforth since it would ensure silence and death.

              The best,
              Fisherman
              Hi Fish
              Entirely possible. But I would go with strangulation first on both Tabrams and Nichols to incapacitate first. then the stabbing on Tabram and cut throat on Nichols-I believe they were both near dead or dead when he started with the knife which would explain the lack of a lot of blood-especially for Nichols.

              I think the ripper started his attacks well before Tabram and came to learn that the quickest, most efficient way to silence and incapacitate a victim was to strangle them to death first, then cut.

              I think Millwood and Wilson were possible early attempts when he went first with the knife and realized this didn't work-which is why they survived-because a knife attack first does not kill them nor silence them quick enough and allows for more of a struggle and crying out.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #22
                Abby Normal:
                Entirely possible. But I would go with strangulation first on both Tabrams and Nichols to incapacitate first. then the stabbing on Tabram and cut throat on Nichols-I believe they were both near dead or dead when he started with the knife which would explain the lack of a lot of blood-especially for Nichols.

                I think the ripper started his attacks well before Tabram and came to learn that the quickest, most efficient way to silence and incapacitate a victim was to strangle them to death first, then cut.


                But Tabram was not strangled to death - she lived through the 38 stabs, as per Killeen. And that means that he prioritized the stabbing with the small knife before he dealt the final, killing blow with the stronger weapon.

                Thatīs why I am reasoning that he may have done what Llewellyn thought he did in the Nichols case - started out with the abdominal cutting. And my suspicion is that we may never have seen the cut neck if he had not been disturbed and felt the need to ensure silence and death.

                Note that there was no spurting of blood from the neck in the Nichols case. But in the following one, Chapman, there was. I think it may have taught him to be more cautious the next times, which is why we have no such spurting in the Stride and Eddowes cases.

                In cases of strangulation, the heart can go on pumping for quite some time after the body has gone limp. There would have been every chance for spurting blood in the Nichols case, thus - but there never was any spurting. So I am thinking he may have killed her by means of cutting up her gut and inner organs, before moving on to the neck afterwards.

                The best,
                Fisherman
                Last edited by Fisherman; 11-06-2014, 03:23 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Fisherman
                  It is often said that the gap between Tabram and Nichols is hard to bridge
                  I used to think this until very recently while researching for my new book. I hit on some interesting new things.

                  Yours truly,

                  Tom Wescott

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Always interesting to see how people interpret various bits of data...like the good doctors belief that the abdominal wounds on Polly were made before the throat cuts. When there is ample evidence of choking, as in the case of Polly Nichols, and very little blood found... "No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes", and the woman herself was on the ground when the cuts were made, you have a pretty good explanation for how the victim was forced onto the ground and whether her heart was beating when the abdominal cuts were made.

                    Victim was choked unconscious, lay down on the ground, she had her throat severely cut twice, and then the abdominal cuts were made. Its very probable that her body contained more blood than any other Canonical when discovered as a result. The choking stopped her respiration and shortly thereafter, her heartbeat. Its likely that when he cut her throat the blood pressure within the throat arteries had dropped to almost zero.

                    Thereffore, no spurts of blood around her, and very little loss of blood overall. Its not necessary to drain the body of blood to kill....but its practical to do so if you intend on cutting into it afterward and would like to keep as little blood as possible from getting on your hands or clothing.

                    That's why I believe he cuts Annies throat quicker...likely before she has completely passed out.

                    Cheers
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                      Always interesting to see how people interpret various bits of data...like the good doctors belief that the abdominal wounds on Polly were made before the throat cuts. When there is ample evidence of choking, as in the case of Polly Nichols, and very little blood found... "No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes", and the woman herself was on the ground when the cuts were made, you have a pretty good explanation for how the victim was forced onto the ground and whether her heart was beating when the abdominal cuts were made.

                      Victim was choked unconscious, lay down on the ground, she had her throat severely cut twice, and then the abdominal cuts were made. Its very probable that her body contained more blood than any other Canonical when discovered as a result. The choking stopped her respiration and shortly thereafter, her heartbeat. Its likely that when he cut her throat the blood pressure within the throat arteries had dropped to almost zero.

                      Thereffore, no spurts of blood around her, and very little loss of blood overall. Its not necessary to drain the body of blood to kill....but its practical to do so if you intend on cutting into it afterward and would like to keep as little blood as possible from getting on your hands or clothing.

                      That's why I believe he cuts Annies throat quicker...likely before she has completely passed out.

                      Cheers
                      Hi Michael!

                      Hereīs a snippet about lifesaving:

                      C-CIRCULATION. If the victim is not breathing, start doing CPR. After four to six minutes without oxygen the heart will stop beating. Brain damage is certain after ten minutes, so time is of the essence.

                      Four to six minutes! And there are many more reports out on the net that will tell you that the heart will go on beating for some considerable time after cutting off the air supply.

                      Consider this:

                      Annie Chapman spurted blood onto the fence beside her. She was lying in a large pool of blood, emanating from her neck wounds:
                      There were various other mutilations to the body, but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck. (Phillips).

                      Elizabeth Stride had only one artery cut slightly open, and the blood from it could have been directed down to the ground under her. When Johnston saw her, most of the blood had run away - she was lying with her neck over the rut in the yard, as per Blackwell, and the blood had run away towards the club door.

                      Catherine Eddowes had two very large pools of blood on either side of her neck, that may have concealed the bloodspurt.

                      Mary Kellyīs blood spurted onto the wall at her side. And there was a large pool of blood under the bed:
                      "The bed clothing at the right corner was saturated with blood, and on the floor beneath was a pool of blood covering about two feet square. The wall by the right side of the bed and in a line with the neck was marked by blood which had struck it in a number of separate splashes."

                      But in the Nichols case, there was only a small pool of blood under her neck. No bloodspurt - and her neck was cut off totally, all vessels were cut open.

                      How do you explain that there was no signs of spurting blood at the sides of her neck, Michael? And why was the pool of blood not a large one?

                      Hereīs a rational explanation for you: He partially strangled Nichols, rendering her unconscious, and then lowered her to the ground. At that stage, her heart was beating and the blood pressure was up.

                      He then lifted her clothes and frantically attacked the abdomen, stabbing and tearing and cutting it open. The blood pressure caused the blood to well over the sides of the crater formed, if you will, and it poured down onto the ground, where much of it was soaked up by her ulster.
                      The cuts to the abdomen killed Nichols, as per Llewellyn. Her heart stopped beating.

                      Then Robert Paul came along, and Lechmere (who was the killer and cutter, surprise, surprise) realized that he was in grave danger. He had killed Nichols, but he would not be able to be sure of that in the darkness. She could have been alive - and perhaps alive enough to inform the newcomer who had cut her.

                      In a situation as the one we have proposed, with the killer still around at the murder site, it would have been a priority to ensure that the victim could not give away what had happened, and thus point out the killer.

                      The only way in which Lechmere could be absolutely sure that the victim would not be able to do so, would be to cut her throat. And as he did, there would only be a trickling of blood from the wounds produced, since there was no longer any blood pressure. That would perhaps mean that what blood there was, was hidden under her neck as Paul saw her. But when Neil arrived, it had formed a larger pool, although not as large as in the other cases at all.

                      Of course, since the topic coincidences regularly come up whenever Lechmere is mentioned, one can add one more to the list here:

                      It is a coincidence that this case is the only throat-cutting and stomach-opening case out of four, where the medico suggests that the stomach wounds were inflicted first.

                      And it is equally a coincidence that it is the only case out of these four where the blood evidence is in agreement with a suggestion of the stomach wounds coming first.

                      Or not.

                      The other three had their throats cut first, before evisceration followed. That seemingly speaks of a conformity that would be comfortable and easy to embrace.
                      When the evidence speaks against it, though, together with the examining medico, we should allow for the world to be complicated.

                      The best,
                      Fisherman
                      Last edited by Fisherman; 11-10-2014, 12:56 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I think you need to expand your thinking as it relates to what happens to someone after they have been strangled or had a "sleeper hold" put on them Fisherman.

                        In a sleeper hold "the amount of pressure needed to compress the artery is enough to cause the carotid sinus to kick into overdrive and send the heart a priority message to SLOW DOWN, which is sometimes enough to stop the heart altogether".

                        Does that inhibit brain function to the extent that pain can no longer be felt? Yes. So your theory, and the doctors, about the abdominal injuries occurring before she was technically without a heartbeat is possible. If she was unconscious. However, if you refer to the doctors comments I posted you will note that there was very little blood on her, and very little beside her.

                        So technically, the strangulation could have slowed or stopped her heart to such an extent that her blood pressure, required for the spurt you described, was dramatically reduced, or eliminated. Which would mean that either the abdomen OR the throat could have been cut first.

                        In this case, with such a public venue, would the killer ensure his victim could not call for help before continuing, or would he compulsively cut into the abdomen of a woman who might wake from her unconscious state at any time?

                        Cheers
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
                          I used to think this until very recently while researching for my new book. I hit on some interesting new things.

                          Yours truly,

                          Tom Wescott
                          Give us a clue please?!
                          Regards, Bridewell.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            I think you need to expand your thinking as it relates to what happens to someone after they have been strangled or had a "sleeper hold" put on them Fisherman.

                            In a sleeper hold "the amount of pressure needed to compress the artery is enough to cause the carotid sinus to kick into overdrive and send the heart a priority message to SLOW DOWN, which is sometimes enough to stop the heart altogether".

                            Does that inhibit brain function to the extent that pain can no longer be felt? Yes. So your theory, and the doctors, about the abdominal injuries occurring before she was technically without a heartbeat is possible. If she was unconscious. However, if you refer to the doctors comments I posted you will note that there was very little blood on her, and very little beside her.

                            So technically, the strangulation could have slowed or stopped her heart to such an extent that her blood pressure, required for the spurt you described, was dramatically reduced, or eliminated. Which would mean that either the abdomen OR the throat could have been cut first.

                            In this case, with such a public venue, would the killer ensure his victim could not call for help before continuing, or would he compulsively cut into the abdomen of a woman who might wake from her unconscious state at any time?

                            Cheers
                            First: Have a look at Eddowes, for example. She had her neck cut off - and that produced large amounts of blood, floating out under her neck.
                            Then look at Chapman: Same thing. A lake of blood.

                            Both of these women had their stomachs ripped open, but that did not mean that the bleeding from the throat was any smaller.

                            With Nichols, there was very little blood underneath the neck. You need to explain that. The blood exited her in some manner, and apparently it was not via the neck. It was instead via the abdominal wounds. That blood was sucked up by her ulster, but there was still enough of it to form a pool under her knees!

                            Ask yourself why there is this massive difference, Michael.

                            You say that in a public venue like Buckīs Row, it would have been wiser to begin with the neck. Yes, it would have.
                            But why would we bank on the killer always going along with the best option?

                            There are things like learning curves. I suggest that he learnt this exact thing in Buckīs Row, and after that, he always began with the neck.

                            Now, look in the other direction! What happened in George Yard? That killer strangled or partially strangled Tabram, and then he stabbed her 38 times - WHILE SHE WAS STILL ALIVE! And then, AFTER that, he dealt the coup de grace through her heart.

                            Would he not have been better served, in such a public venue, by beginning with the heart thrust...? Why did he not do just that, then? Perhaps because his focus, intent and wishes were totally fixed on cutting and stabbing into the abdomen?

                            As for when the heart stopped beating, we canīt tell. We CAN tell, however, that the marks on Nichols suggested that pressure of thumbs and/or fingers had been applied. Thus we are seemingly not dealing with your "sleeper hold" - which would in no way ensure that the heart would stop anyway. There have been hangings where the victimsīhearts have beaten for a very long time afterwards, Michael. The heart is a very persistent thing - cut the air supply and it will go on beating for minutes. Thatīs why people are sometimes miraculously saved after having lain twenty minutes on the bottom of a swimming pool - because the heart kept beating and oxygenized the blood with what little oxygen there was. If it had stopped, it would have resulted in brain death in the fewest of minutes.

                            What you are doing, I believe, is to reason that since he cut the other necks first, he would have cut Nichols neck first too. Thatīs a tempting thought, but itīs oversimplifying, Iīm afraid. The evidence is instead in line with Llewellyn being correct. And letīs not forget that Llewellyn had the same idea as you - until he saw the abdominal wounds and changed his mind.
                            He would have had a reason for doing that.

                            The best,
                            Fisherman

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                              With Nichols, there was very little blood underneath the neck. You need to explain that.
                              Hi Christer

                              It had simply run from her neck, underneath her back and soaked into the ulster.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Defying the law of gravity at the same time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X