Dr Rees Llewellyn

[Fisherman]

Defying the law of gravity at the same time.

Yes, an odd accomplishment!

The driveway into Browns was slanting towards the street ( take a look here: http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...?album=1&pos=9 ) and any liquid flowing freely would end up in the gutter - where Llewellyn incidentally found what seems to have answered to a a wineglass and a half volumewise.

The rest of the blood that was found, was found in her clothing.
How did it get there? Did it run down from her neck into the gutter, flow west and then climb the driveway again, seeping into her ulster?

If the blood from her neck came in contact with the ulster, then capillary power would perhaps make it soak into the upper parts of the ulster to some degree. But there was blood underneath her legs too, Jon. Where did that come from? The cut in the neck?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Yes, an odd accomplishment!

Not odd at all, if familiar with the crime scene and physics ;-)

The driveway into Browns was slanting towards the street

Ermm yes.

and any liquid flowing freely would end up in the gutter

No. Any blood from the left side of her neck would run downwards underneath Nichols body. Her back to be precise.

- where Llewellyn incidentally found what seems to have answered to a a wineglass and a half volumewise.

Yes, not much really was there ?
Where was the rest ?

If the blood from her neck came in contact with the ulster, then capillary power would perhaps make it soak into the upper parts of the ulster to some degree. .

There was a lot of blood under back as Neil got it all over hands when he lifter her onto the ambulance.

But there was blood underneath her legs too, Jon. Where did that come from?.

Yes, most likely the neck.
From where do you think it came from ?
The blood would pool in the abdomen, how would it escape ?

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

Not odd at all, if familiar with the crime scene and physics ;-)

Then you need to know these factors.

Ermm yes.

Ah - so you DO know the factors..

No. Any blood from the left side of her neck would run downwards underneath Nichols body. Her back to be precise.

Was the ground she was lying on level or slanting? Correct, it was slanting. What happens to liquid poured onto a slanting surface? Correct, it runs towards the part closest to the centre of the Earth. What would that have meant in the case of the driveway into Browns? Correct, it would have meant that the blood would run towards the gutter. Would the blood escape the neck from the left or the right side of Nichols neck, given that she was lying on a slanting surface? Correct, it would predominantly leave the neck from the right hand side, and it would run towards the gutter.
What makes you think that it would run westwards, over a surface that tilted down to the north?

Next: lay yourself down on the floor, Jon. What happens under the neck? Exactly - an arch is formed. Even if blood was running down her neck on her left hand side too, it would have an arch to pass under on itīs journey towards the gutter.

Yes, not much really was there ?
Where was the rest ?

The rest was in three places: In her ulster, in her abdominal cavity and under her legs. Please note that as she was cut in the stomach, the clothing will have been positioned in another way than they were when she was tended to by the police. The killer most probably lifted the clothes up over her chest and face as he cut the stomach, and then he replaced them over her as Paul arrived. Paul then dragged them as far down over her as he could before he left. That may well have helped to some extent dragging the ulster down into the blood pooling under her abdomen.

There was a lot of blood under back as Neil got it all over hands when he lifter her onto the ambulance.

Iīm not sure Neil was the one lifting her onto the ambulance. I think Thain is the one who says he had his hands bloodied from lifting her, and I believe Mizen assisted.
But I donīt see what problems you have with this? If the blood ran down from the abdomen, it could also be soaked up by the ulster. It is a lot more credible even, since it would have to pass the ulster on itīs way towards the gutter. The same does not apply for the blood from the cut throat.

Yes, most likely the neck.
From where do you think it came from ?
The blood would pool in the abdomen, how would it escape ?

She was not opened up like a can of beans, Jon. There were several cuts, and one or more of them may have been positioned so as to allow for the blood to float down her side. Plus she was on a sloping plane.

You also need to consider that the abdominal wall is a convex shape in most cases. Once you open it up, it collapses to some degree and allows for blood escaping. And if these wounds were inflicted first, blood pressure will have played a role too.

I think Wynne Baxter is once again taking on too much of the medicos part here, just as he did when he misinterpreted Phillips and dissed the medico on account of the Chapman T O D.

In this case he takes it upon himself to diss Llewellyn, and states that there would have been no need to add the "desperate" wounds to the throat at a later stage - but that is overruled if my scenario applies. Then there was a VERY good reason to add the throatcuts.

Baxter also says that very little blood had escaped from the abdomen, but that would have been supported by sheer guesswork that the blood in the ulster came from the neck.

More from Baxter - he says that "there was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying". This is patently wrong, since we have it from Thain that "on the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter.", plus "There was also blood on the ground where the deceased's legs had been."

You can call Baxter a lot of things, but correct and reliable are not two of them.

Llewellyn is very clear in saying that "there was very little blood round the neck". If all the blood had left her that way, then we would have had a large pool of blood underneath the neck - and the ulster would not have sucked that up and cleaned the flagstones in the process. The very small amounts of blood under her neck bears witness to the fact that the blood coming from those wounds only trickled out very slowly - NOT consistent with having the throat cut while there is blood pressure inside it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Would the blood escape the neck from the left or the right side of Nichols neck,

Most of the blood escaped from the left side of her neck and ran under her, soaking the back of her ulster.

given that she was lying on a slanting Surface? Correct, it would leave the neck from the right hand side,

Some would escape from the right side as all major vessels on both sides were severed. But most of it ran from where the throat cut began(on the left side) and under her.
If it ran from her right side how did it end up underneath her ?
Anything from the right side would run unhindered towards the gutter.

What makes you think that it would run westwards, over a surface that tilted down to the north?

I never said it would run westwards ?

Next: lay yourself down on the floor, Jon. What happens under the neck? Exactly - an arch is formed. Even if blood was running down her neck on her left hand side too, it would have an arch to pass under on itīs journey towards the gutter.?

In Nichols case there was a pool of blood under neck.

Iīm not sure Neil was the one lifting her onto the ambulance. .?

Neil was one of the police who lifter her on the ambulance. But it may have been Thain who noted the blood soaked into the back of her ulster.

But I donīt see what problems you have with this? If the blood ran down from the abdomen, it could also be soaked up by the ulster.

How would the blood from the abdomen escape from the body ?

She was not opened up like a can of beans, Jon. There were several cuts, and one or more of them may have been positioned so as to allow for the blood to float down her side. Plus she was on a sloping plane..

She wasn`t a plank of wood, Christer.
besides, if she had her throat cut first, as it appears, then there would not be much blood, if any, escaping from the abdominal wounds (otherwise , in your scenario the killer would have been covered in blood (which does not fit with Cross putting his hand on Paul)

Then there was a VERY good reason to add the throatcuts...

This is Mr Lucky`s theory isn`t it ?

"There was also blood on the ground where the deceased's legs had been."[/I]...

From the stabs to the privates.

Llewellyn is very clear in saying that "there was very little blood round the neck".

Literally meaning there was very little blood on the neck.

If all the blood had left her that way, then we would have had a large pool of blood underneath the neck -

Don`t know if it was large, but there was a pool of blood where her neck was lying.

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: Hi Christer

Most of the blood escaped from the left side of her neck and ran under her, soaking the back of her ulster.

But where do you get that from? Where does it say that the blood left her neck from the side closest to the top of the slanting area? It makes no sense at all.
Do you have any record to go on, or are you just guessing?

Some would escape from the right side as all major vessels on both sides were severed. But most of it ran from where the throat cut began(on the left side) and under her.
If it ran from her right side how did it end up underneath her ?
Anything from the right side would run unhindered towards the gutter.

Yes it would. And it did. And much or most of the blood underneath came from the abdominal wounds if you ask me.

Even if we were to accept that much of the blood left her neck from the wound in her left side - as you propose - where would it go? Hereīs what llewellyn says:
On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed.

So clearly, these wounds are both wounds to the neck. Now, letīs imagine that Nichols is on her back, and the blood runs, like you suggest, down the left hand side of the neck. Where does it strive? It strives towards the ground. It will leave the wound predominantly from the lowest part of the wound, and from there, it will drip onto the ground. And from there, it will run through the arch formed by the neck, and down into the gutter.

The only way it could end up in the ulster is if the collar of the ulster is situated so the blood drops or runs directly into it, and from there soaks into the fabric. But if it did it would not spread all the way through the fabric, down to the legs!

The suggestion seemingly made at the inquest is that the blood ran down to the ground, and then it ran in under her and then it was soaked into the ulster. But that would predispose that the blood ran contrary to the laws of gravity! Just like you say, any blood that is not hindered would have gone for the gutter, pronto.

So what you are envisaging here is that a tiny amount of the blood ran to the right side of her neck, in spite of it being placed closer to the middle of the Earth, whereas a lot of blood ran down her left side of the neck, and then that blood ran westwards, defying the laws of gravity, and was soaked up by her ulster to a degree of soaking it totally down to the waist...?

It adds up extremely poorly.

I never said it would run westwards ?

It would have to, in order to arrive under the ulster.

In Nichols case there was a pool of blood under neck.

A very small such, yes. Look at the Eddowes drawings - thatīs what happens when you open up the arteries in the neck with pressure in them. Oh, and another thing - Eddowes had her neck cut in the same manner as Nichols, and her head was tilted to the left - but the pool to the right of her neck is just as large. Why is that, if you are correct in saying that the blood will leave the neck to a much larger degree from the left side with damage like that?

What the Eddowes sketch shows us is that with a neck that is cut very deeply, blood will leave the neck on both sides in equal amounts, provided that the body is lying on a level surface. The blood will well up in the wound, and run out on both sides. And keep in mind that Eddowes was more deeply cut on the left side than on the right one!

Neil was one of the police who lifter her on the ambulance. But it may have been Thain who noted the blood soaked into the back of her ulster.

It was, actually.

How would the blood from the abdomen escape from the body ?

Through the wounds inflicted - how else? They were extensive!

She wasn`t a plank of wood, Christer.
besides, if she had her throat cut first, as it appears, then there would not be much blood, if any, escaping from the abdominal wounds (otherwise , in your scenario the killer would have been covered in blood (which does not fit with Cross putting his hand on Paul)

Why would he be covered in blood? How would that work? Do people who stab other people in the gut get covered in blood? I donīt think so. The one item we can bank on having gotten blood on it was the knife, the rest is a lot more uncertain.

If the neck was cut first, why is there only a tiny amount of blood under her neck? Why no larger pool, why no bloodspurt? Are we to believe that the blood trickled out slowly and on the left side only, that it did not run towards the gutter but was instead caught by the ulster and that it soaked the ulster all the way down to the waist with that trickle?

Put a jacket on the ground, add a sticky, thick liquid to one side of it, and feed it slowly with the liquid. Then see how long it takes for the jacket to get soaked through! My guess is that it will never happen - the part close to the liquid will get soaked, but then the rest will run away alongside a slanting surface - as per Buckīs Row.

This is Mr Lucky`s theory isn`t it ?

Good heavens, no! Mr Lucky thinks that Paul left alone, and THEN Lechmere added the Cuts. In my version they are added before Paul arrives. Save up on the smoke and mirrors, please!

From the stabs to the privates.

Why did that blood emigrate to the area under her legs? Why did it not stay under her buttocks?

Literally meaning there was very little blood on the neck.

Mmm. And under it.

Don`t know if it was large, but there was a pool of blood where her neck was lying.

It wasnīt large. It was very small. Hereīs the Pall Mall Gazette from the 1:st of September. Itīs very useful and instructive in many ways, quoting Llewellyn ad verbatim. I highlight a few passages:

" There was a very small pool of blood on the pathway, not more than half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way in which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was at least probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row. At half past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds. I have seen many horrible cases, but never such a brutal affair as this. From the nature of the cuts on the throat it is probable that they were inflicted with the left hand. There is a mark at the point of the jaw on the right side of the deceased's face as though made by a person's thumb, and a similar bruise on the left side as if the woman's head had been pushed back and her throat then cut. There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to the centre of the throat, and another cut apparently starting from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebra, which is also slightly injured. The abdominal wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. One cut extends from the base of the abdomen to the breast bone. Deceased's clothes were loose, and the wounds could have been inflicted while she was dressed."

So letīs see what Llewellyn is saying! He says that there was very little blood under the neck - he would have expected a lot more. So he drew the conclusion that the body had been brought from elsewhere - otherwise the neck wounds would have produced a lot more blood on the ground.

Then he was shown the abdominal wounds, and suddenly he realized that this was from where much blood left the body, neatly explaining why so little had trickled out from the neck. So he changed his view in favour of the abdominal wounds as what had killed her.
He also says that the abdominal wounds (plural!) were extraordinary for their length and severity - in other words the notion that there was just the one very long and dep gash whereas the rest were smallish ones is not true. She had a number of horrific wounds to her abdomen.

That would be from where a significant amount of blood left the body.

No matter if we were to accept that all blood in a stomach that is deeply slashed in different directions and opened up totally, will nevertheless refrain from leaving the body, all os it seeping into the abdominal cavity, it still applies that there was far too little blood underneath the neck to allow for the killer having begun his onslaught by cutting it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

But where do you get that from? Where does it say that the blood left her neck from the side closest to the top of the slanting area? It makes no sense at all.
Do you have any record to go on, or are you just guessing?

Deduced not guessed.
1) The cut commenced on the left side so that is where most of the blood would escape.
2) This is why there was blood under her back- blood from the cut on the left side of the neck.

Even if we were to accept that much of the blood left her neck from the wound in her left side - as you propose - where would it go?

Under her back

. And from there, it will run through the arch formed by the neck, and down into the gutter.?

What if there wasn`t an arch, perhaps her head was tilted, what about her hair and collars. Whichever way, the blood appears to have run under her back, soaked in by the ulster.

The suggestion seemingly made at the inquest is that the blood ran down to the ground, and then it ran in under her and then it was soaked into the ulster. .?

Yes

But that would predispose that the blood ran contrary to the laws of gravity!
..?

Obviously not.

Just like you say, any blood that is not hindered would have gone for the gutter, pronto..?

And it did.

So what you are envisaging here is that a tiny amount of the blood ran to the right side of her neck, in spite of it being placed closer to the middle of the Earth, whereas a lot of blood ran down her left side of the neck, and then that blood ran westwards, defying the laws of gravity,

Obviously the laws of gravity suggest that Nichols was in a position for this to happen. If her hair, collars, shoulders and the run of the flag stones were in the way of the blood travelling down the slope.

and was soaked up by her ulster to a degree of soaking it totally down to the waist...?

Apparently

Look at the Eddowes drawings. Why is that, if you are correct in saying that the blood will leave the neck to a much larger degree from the left side with damage like that?

Well, we have the clotted pool on the left side of her neck, and the fluid blood on the right side of her neck.
This is because most of the blood escaped from the left side first and clotted, whereas the fluid blood on the rights side has seeped out of the wound a few moments later.
The clotted pool on Eddowes right would be what seeped into Nichols ulster.

Why would he be covered in blood? How would that work?

Well, in my instance most of the blood would have drained out of the neck and only cuffs would have been at risk of being blood stained.
In your instance, he was slashing away before he cut the throat, hence more blood was likely to have transferred to the killer.

If the neck was cut first, why is there only a tiny amount of blood under her neck?

The majority of the blood has run underneath her body as she was on a slope.

Why no larger pool, why no blood spurt?

There was no larger pool because she was on a slope and it ran down into the back of her ulster.

Blood spurt ? Well, Thain noticed blood on the gate so perhaps there was some arterial spray, and like many of the Whitechapel victims she appears to have been tipped slightly when the cut was made.

Are we to believe that the blood trickled out slowly and on the left side only, that it did not run towards the gutter but was instead caught by the ulster and that it soaked the ulster all the way down to the waist with that trickle?

No, I said the majority of blood would escape from the left side (where the wound commenced) but yes to the rest of the above..

This is Mr Lucky`s theory isn`t it ?
Good heavens, no! Mr Lucky thinks that Paul left alone, and THEN Lechmere added the Cuts. In my version they are added before Paul arrives.

Ah well, the facts serve Mr Lucky`s theory better !!
Why didn`t Paul and Cross step in blood, or get blood on their hands ?
Why did Paul think he detected movement ?
Because Cross had not yet served the coup de grace when Paul assisted !!

From the stabs to the privates.
Why did that blood emigrate to the area under her legs? Why did it not stay under her buttocks?

Yes, blood will always move in a westerly direction.

Literally meaning there was very little blood on the neck.
Mmm. And under it.

Llewellyn was noting the lack of blood on the neck, and on the front of the clothes showed that she was lying down when cut.

So letīs see what Llewellyn is saying! He says that there was very little blood under the neck - he would have expected a lot more. So he drew the conclusion that the body had been brought from elsewhere - otherwise the neck wounds would have produced a lot more blood on the ground.

He obviously hadn`t figured that most of the blood has seeped into the ulster (not forgetting Thain`s blood stains on the gate)

Then he was shown the abdominal wounds, and suddenly he realized that this was from where much blood left the body, neatly explaining why so little had trickled out from the neck. So he changed his view in favour of the abdominal wounds as what had killed her..

He also thought she had been killed by a left hand person who stood behind whilst she was standing.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi gents,

Ok....there is a need to take a hard look at the blood quantity here, because as Jon pointed out, we do not have a great deal of evidence that there was much blood spilled from Polly at all. Its hard to quantify what her clothing soaked up, but we do know that no spurts were noticed and no large pool of blood was found around her...yet the doctor insisted she was indeed killed on that same spot. Hardly any blood on the front of her even with the throat cuts and the abdomen cuts.

What does that tell us?

It tells us, if the murder location was indeed that spot, that her heart rate was greatly reduced if not stopped before most of the cutting took place. Its easy to tell by the evidence that she was choked, even if most of the evidence of that is lost due to the neck wounds.

From Rees;

"Five teeth were missing, and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb.(Remember the sleeper hold) There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood was found on the breast, either of the body or the clothes. There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. the injuries were form left to right and might have been done by a left handed person. All the injuries had been caused by the same instrument."

It seems to me that Polly may have been choked, or held in a sleeper hold, until her heart stopped beating, or the rate was so low as to prevent much spillage even when major arteries were accessed.

As I said before, Polly had more blood left in her body when discovered than any other Canonical, which could be attributed to her being found just after the acts had taken place.


Cheers

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

Deduced not guessed.

Hmmm ...


1) The cut commenced on the left side so that is where most of the blood would escape.

Then why did this not apply in the Eddowes case, in spite of the circumstances being better there for the blood leaving mostly from the left side?

Under her back

Why would it go there instead of running towards the gutter?

What if there wasn`t an arch, perhaps her head was tilted, what about her hair and collars. Whichever way, the blood appears to have run under her back, soaked in by the ulster.

Try and lie down in any way you like without an arch being created. Make the best effort you can, lying on your back, to press your neck to the ground. It will not work, itīs physically impossibe.

The arch may have been filled out by the ulster collar, though, in which case the blood could have seeped into it. But it would not go all the way down to her waist, soaking the ulster. Try what I said, put a jacket on the floor and see how a fluid like blood will seep in; very slowly and not all the way. Especially not if you are lying on a tilting surface!

Yes

Obviously not.

Iīm sorry, but it WOULD defy gravity since she was lying along the pavement.

And it did.

Yes - so there was way too little of it to make me - and Llewellyn - think that the neck was cut first.

Apparently

That "apparently" only works with just the one wound, Jon. After that, when we add the abdominal wounds, it is no longer apparent. Itīs a guess - or, ehrm, deduction - that defies gravity.

Well, we have the clotted pool on the left side of her neck, and the fluid blood on the right side of her neck.
This is because most of the blood escaped from the left side first and clotted, whereas the fluid blood on the rights side has seeped out of the wound a few moments later.

Aha. So the blood first exited her on her left side, and then it magically changed sides and started exiting her from the right side instead...? Why did this very odd thing happen, Jon?

Have you considered the possibility that the clotted blood may have been the result of the wind coming in from that side, cooling the fluid more rapidly there?

Well, in my instance most of the blood would have drained out of the neck and only cuffs would have been at risk of being blood stained.
In your instance, he was slashing away before he cut the throat, hence more blood was likely to have transferred to the killer.

But that would depend on how he did the slashing, Jon. Are you expecting him to have dipped his hands into the abdomen? Otherwise, why would he be covered in blood?
This is all down to interpretation, and we will interpret it differently.

The majority of the blood has run underneath her body as she was on a slope.

Yep, that is a clear possibility - if it came from abdominal wounds leaking blood down on her left side. In such a case, there would be no arch to let the blood through, and it would soak her all the way down to the waste. SO you have a good point!

There was no larger pool because she was on a slope and it ran down into the back of her ulster.

... and because there was no bloodspurting, indicating that she was already dead with a heart that had stopped beating as he cut the neck. You should not forget that detail!

Blood spurt ? Well, Thain noticed blood on the gate so perhaps there was some arterial spray, and like many of the Whitechapel victims she appears to have been tipped slightly when the cut was made.

Could you provide the source for Thains noticing blood on the gates? I do not remember ever having seen that. And if there was blood on the gates, how is it that there was none between the gates and the pool under her neck...? It would not have been any blood spurt at any rate. But Iīd like to see the quotation.

Why didn`t Paul and Cross step in blood, or get blood on their hands ?

Because the blood was sealed under the clothes and it had not yet formed a sizeable pool under her neck since she had been very recently cut there.

Why did Paul think he detected movement ?

Either some air left the lungs as he pressed his hand against the chest - which can happen a long time after death, or he was wrong, or Lechmere stirred the body.

Because Cross had not yet served the coup de grace when Paul assisted !!

Two exclamation marks? Doesnīt help, Iīm afraid. The two left together, end of story.

Yes, blood will always move in a westerly direction.

In some theories, apparently!

Llewellyn was noting the lack of blood on the neck, and on the front of the clothes showed that she was lying down when cut.

Plus he noted that there was too little blood under her neck for her to have been cut where she lay - unless there was no pressure in the veins and the blood had Another outlet...

He obviously hadn`t figured that most of the blood has seeped into the ulster (not forgetting Thain`s blood stains on the gate)

He knew at the inquest, and he apparently stayed by his conviction - much to Baxterīs dismay.

He also thought she had been killed by a left hand person who stood behind whilst she was standing.

It is no proven thing that she was killed by a righthanded man, Jon. It is the more common suggestion. And does he say that she was cut standing or that she was grabbed in that way? I canīt recall that either, so you will have to help out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards:

It seems to me that Polly may have been choked, or held in a sleeper hold, until her heart stopped beating, or the rate was so low as to prevent much spillage even when major arteries were accessed.

Then the killer would need to wait for five minutes or so before the heart stopped beating.

As I said before, Polly had more blood left in her body when discovered than any other Canonical, which could be attributed to her being found just after the acts had taken place.

And who does that point towards?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hi Christer

Could you provide the source for Thains noticing blood on the gates?

The Pall Mall Gazette (London, England), Tuesday, September 18, 1888
"There was much blood against the gate, and some was running down the pavement"


And does he say that she was cut standing or that she was grabbed in that way? I canīt recall that either, so you will have to help out.

I was wrong on this one. Misread it. Damned shapnel.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, September 2, 1888
"He does not believe that the woman was seized from behind and her throat cut"

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Could you provide the source for Thains noticing blood on the gates?

The Pall Mall Gazette (London, England), Tuesday, September 18, 1888
"There was much blood against the gate, and some was running down the pavement"


And does he say that she was cut standing or that she was grabbed in that way? I canīt recall that either, so you will have to help out.

I was wrong on this one. Misread it. Damned shapnel.

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper (London, England), Sunday, September 2, 1888
"He does not believe that the woman was seized from behind and her throat cut"

I think it amounts to two wrongs and no right, Iīm afraid. There is nothing speaking of any bloodstains on the gates here, is there? "There was much blood against the gate" will mean that there was a large quantity of blood on the ground in the general direction of the gate. Hereīs the Morning Advertisers take on the exact same thing:
The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter.
I think you will find that this is the version that presents the truth. It is in line with all other versions. The Pall Mall Gazette is not.

But letīs leave it for now, before it gets silly. I think we could perhaps agree that out of the four throat-cut murders with opened-up stomachs, the Nichols deed is the only one where the abdominal cuts may have preceded the cuts to the throat. In that sense, it ties in with my suggestions.

In no other of these cases could the cut(s) to the throat have come after the eviscerations.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

I think it amounts to two wrongs and no right, Iīm afraid. There is nothing speaking of any bloodstains on the gates here, is there? "There was much blood against the gate" will mean that there was a large quantity of blood on the ground in the general direction of the gate. Hereīs the Morning Advertisers take on the exact same thing:
The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter.
I think you will find that this is the version that presents the truth. It is in line with all other versions. The Pall Mall Gazette is not.

I don`t think so, at all. Have you looked at the article to which I referred ?
But yes, let`s leave it.

[Fisherman]

I don`t think so, at all. Have you looked at the article to which I referred ?
But yes, let`s leave it.

Yes, I have read the article - and a few more articles, like for example these:

The Echo: There was a large quantity of congealed blood on the pavement, near the woman's neck.

The Evening Standard: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter.

The Illustrated Police News: In the gutter there was a large quantity of blood which had run off the pavement.

The St James Gazette: He saw a quantity of blood all congealed.

The Times: On the spot where the deceased had been lying was a mass of congealed blood. He should say it was about 6 in. in diameter, and had run towards the gutter.

These articles all reflect the exact same matter as the one you pointed to in the Pall Mall Gazette. This is shown by the full quotation you kindly provided:
"There was much blood against the gate, and some was running down the pavement."

We here take part of the fact that what Thain said, he coupled to stating that the blood had been floating down the pavement, towards the gutter. This fixes the quotation as the one I previously posted another version of, as per The Morning Advertiser. In it, it is clear that Thain answered a question from the coroner:
The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness: There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter.

So here it is again - there was a large quantitiy of blood on the ground where she had lain, and that is the blood the Pall Mall Gazette speaks of too. Notice how it is said that there was "much blood" against the gate, and not the odd spot of blood as you seemingly believed it was all about from the outset.

So we may have the Pall Mall Gazette picking up on something all the other papers missed out on - while it seems the Pall Mall Gazette text has the exact same element added that of speaking about how the blood went down the pavement to the gutter.
Or we may have to recognize that the Pall Mall Gazette simply worded itself differently than all the other papers that reported on the exact same matter, thus not being very clear.

The litmus paper in this case is to look at what was generally said about where there was blood. So we have to listen to the much appraised coroner, Wynne Baxter, who said:
There was not a trace of blood anywhere, except at the spot where her neck was lying.

Baxter was not a very thorough man always. But I think we can bank on him having mentioned if the gate had had a large quantity of congealed (!) blood on it.

Now is a good time to leave it, Jon, when we have all the cards on the table. If you wish to add to it, please do so. Otherwise, I think we need to settle for the obvious thing that "against" often means "in close vicinity" to.
To bolster this, I searched the net for two seconds, finding this:
The terrace against the house is a lawn, with two stone benches standing against the wall between the house and the stable block.

Is the terrace - which is a lawn - spread over the house wall? Are the stone benches erected on the wall?
Or are the terrace and the benches in close vicinity of and leading the eye to the house wall?

I really donīt think there is much more to say on the topic, so Iīm out, Jon.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Michael W Richards:

It seems to me that Polly may have been choked, or held in a sleeper hold, until her heart stopped beating, or the rate was so low as to prevent much spillage even when major arteries were accessed.

Then the killer would need to wait for five minutes or so before the heart stopped beating. As I said before, Polly had more blood left in her body when discovered than any other Canonical, which could be attributed to her being found just after the acts had taken place.

And who does that point towards?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I don't think that any significant time need elapse to stop her heart, if she was subdued in a particular manner. As I posted, the heart gets signals from the brain when oxygen is cut off, and the message is either to slow or stop the heart beat. If she had her throat cut before anything, yes, her heart would beat until the volume of blood that has escaped is reduced to very minimal amounts, but if she was put into a sleeper hold by someone who knew how to do that, her heart may stop beating within a minute.

There needs to be some explanation for the lack of blood evidence Fish, the only viable one is that her heart wasn't pumping blood when the cuts were made. The blood spilled is leaked from the arteries and the abdominal wounds, not from a "pumped" spray.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: Hi Fisherman,

I don't think that any significant time need elapse to stop her heart, if she was subdued in a particular manner. As I posted, the heart gets signals from the brain when oxygen is cut off, and the message is either to slow or stop the heart beat.

Yes, I know that, and I donīt doubt it - what I am saying is that the time lapse will normally be significant. There has been scientific work carried out on hanged criminals, for example, showing that their hearts have gone on beating for VERY long periods of time in many cases.

If she had her throat cut before anything, yes, her heart would beat until the volume of blood that has escaped is reduced to very minimal amounts, but if she was put into a sleeper hold by someone who knew how to do that, her heart may stop beating within a minute.

... but probably not. As I wrote before, four to six minutes is seemingly what to expect. And as I also wrote: look at people who are saved from having fallen into swimming pools; in that case, we are speaking of a total lack of oxygen, so the brain should say "stop it" to the heart very quickly if we go on your line of reasoning.
Apparently, though, this is not what happens - instead the heart beats for many minutes!

I am also having trouble envisaging a killer that keeps his grip on his victimīs necks for a minute or much more - I think he was a very speedy customer, strangling into unconsciousness before he started cutting. And THAT is a much quicker affair!

There needs to be some explanation for the lack of blood evidence Fish, the only viable one is that her heart wasn't pumping blood when the cuts were made. The blood spilled is leaked from the arteries and the abdominal wounds, not from a "pumped" spray.

In that case, we have to make a difference between the abdominal wounds and the neck; in the neck, we have main arteries with high pressure. But in the stomach, he would not have come in contact with such vessels in the same manner. If we cut ourselves in our fingers, we donīt produce a blood-spurt, do we? Same thing with the stomach - there is pressure in the bloodvessels there too, but it is by far and away not as powerful as that in the main arteries!

So there is the evidence, Michael. There was never any lack of blood - Thain said that his opinion was that the blood underneath Nichols was plentyful. But if the killer had cut the main arteries in the neck with Nichols being still alive and with a pumping heart, we would have seen arterial blood shooting out. So that only leaves us with two possibilities:

Either the killer succeeded to stop Nichols heart by way of strangling - in which case we would still not be able to say whether the neck cuts or the abdominal cuts came first - or he began with the abdominal cuts and stopped her heart that way, without any arterial spray being given away.

When guessing, we need to take into account that a heart will normally go on beating for a good number of minutes even if it is deprived of oxygen.

To me, it leans towards Llewellyn being right.