The Double Event

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Christer,

That does not automatically mean a flap, just that the skin had stretched, allowing the intestines to show. There is nothing in Spratling's statement or indeed his written report which suggest a flap as you see it.
I can understand why you wish to read it like that, but feel you are going one step too far.

"The skin has stretched"? Good one, Steve! Stretched and turned over from left to right...? Sorry, but the MUCH more likely explanation is a flap.

Take my word for it Fish. Wounds like that will twist and stretch. However we are unlikely to agree given the evidence we have

Indeed while there is evidence to suggest two major cuts and the various smaller cuts, I do not see an description of the connecting lower cut Robert suggested, it may be there but its not mentioned from what I can see.

Which is why it has not been noticed before. Ask yourself why the killer would cut horisontally at all, Steve.

I don't need to. It part of the procedure he used.

However as I have argued before given that it is a common tecnique there is nothing
to link such cuts to other so called flaps in the torso murders. Flaps is a no medical term and can mean anything to different people

However I have little doubt that he did intend to connect the two and open the abdomen up and fully disembowel her, however he was disturbed


Yes the minor cuts are very telling indeed.

I should say so!

No need, but it is far easier, and its the method I would use.

Perhaps so - but you are no serialist, I take it? So what we need to do is to look at what THEY do, not what you would do, Steve.

It's still the easiest method if you want to open up the abdomen.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Tom, as ever, raises some very good points.

Hi Sam, I can see the reasoning but there is something that makes this murder much different than subsequent murders.. possibly using a pen knife to make the wounds.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer,

That does not automatically mean a flap, just that the skin had stretched, allowing the intestines to show. There is nothing in Spratling's statement or indeed his written report which suggest a flap as you see it.
I can understand why you wish to read it like that, but feel you are going one step too far.

"The skin has stretched"? Good one, Steve! Stretched and turned over from left to right...? Sorry, but the MUCH more likely explanation is a flap.

Indeed while there is evidence to suggest two major cuts and the various smaller cuts, I do not see an description of the connecting lower cut Robert suggested, it may be there but its not mentioned from what I can see.

Which is why it has not been noticed before. Ask yourself why the killer would cut horisontally at all, Steve.

However I have little doubt that he did intend to connect the two and open the abdomen up and fully disembowel her, however he was disturbed..

Yes the minor cuts are very telling indeed.

I should say so!

No need, but it is far easier, and its the method I would use.

Perhaps so - but you are no serialist, I take it? So what we need to do is to look at what THEY do, not what you would do, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Bingo, Robert! You are making a very sound observation, and one that I have made myself. And there is a little something that goes to strengthen the suggestion quite a lot. Itīs in the Evening News of the 3:rd of September, itīs from the inquest and we are listening to Spratling:

"He did not at that time notice the abdominal wounds, but subsequently when the body was placed on the floor of the mortuary he took a more accurate description of the undergarments, and they discovered the injuries on the lower part of the body. The flesh was turned over from left to right and the intestines exposed."

There we are! "The flesh was turned over from left to right". Now, how could such a thing come about? And what was it that was turned over?

The question answers itself - a flap of the abdominal wall was what was turned over from left to right, meaning that at least one (and quite possibly two) of the horisontal cuts reached into the large vertical cut, so that the flesh of the abdomen could be turned over like the leaf in a book, exposing the underlying intestines.

Christer,

That does not automatically mean a flap, just that the skin had stretched, allowing the intestines to show. There is nothing in Spratling's statement or indeed his written report which suggest a flap as you see it.
I can understand why you wish to read it like that, but feel you are going one step too far.

Indeed while there is evidence to suggest two major cuts and the various smaller cuts, I do not see an description of the connecting lower cut Robert suggested, it may be there but its not mentioned from what I can see.

However I have little doubt that he did intend to connect the two and open the abdomen up and fully disembowel her, however he was disturbed..

Yes the minor cuts are very telling indeed.

We are creeping closer and closer to understanding what the killer did. And Nichols joins Chapman, Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson in the abdominal flap league.
As always, nota bene that there is absolutely no need to take away the abdominal wall to get at the innards. So the reason for this measure is another one.

No need, but it is far easier, and its the method I would use.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Didn't Spratling make his notes as Dr Llewellyn verbally described the injuries? I may be doing him a disservice, but how many policemen would use the word omentium (and misspell it)?

Joshua,

that is what I have assumed, either he took it down as Llewellyn performed the the work, or it was given as a verbal report to him at the end of the procedure.
Of course it cannot be ruled out that Llewellyn gave him a written report, which maybe itself contained a mistake or just Spratling transcribed it badly..

steve

[Elamarna]

And the latter suggestion brings the favourite of Ripperology on the scene again - the infamous ghost killer, the one nobody saw, nobody heard, and who was prolific in making blood run for the longest time...

He is understandably popular, since he can take on ANY shape, from a tiny, psychotic jew to a giant American quack with a handlebar moustache. Without him, Ripperology as we know it cannot exist.

Fish,

If the killer is not Lechmere, and you have not proved that, far from it I feel; then it must by definition be the "ghost" as you like to call him.
However he is no ghost of course, because there are reports of suspects with all of the other victims; if those sightings are linked to the killer who is to say!

And thus That is why I allow for both options.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

We know that Spratling was at the mortuary that morning, so this is probably either an eyewitness report or based on a report given to him by Lleweylln.

Didn't Spratling make his notes as Dr Llewellyn verbally described the injuries? I may be doing him a disservice, but how many policemen would use the word omentium (and misspell it)?

[Fisherman]

Robert,


I would suggest he was interrupted, the question is of course, by whom?
Those proposing Lechmere as the killer will say Paul, those not will probably say the killer was interrupted by Lechmere himself.


Steve

And the latter suggestion brings the favourite of Ripperology on the scene again - the infamous ghost killer, the one nobody saw, nobody heard, and who was prolific in making blood run for the longest time...

He is understandably popular, since he can take on ANY shape, from a tiny, psychotic jew to a giant American quack with a handlebar moustache. Without him, Ripperology as we know it cannot exist.

[Fisherman]

overall the ,squareness, of ,,the design,, gives me the impression that he was after the same thing as in his murder of annie chapman, beginning to square out her abdomen to cut into chunks. it begged the question: did jack the ripper complete polly nicholl,s murder? i know from hindsight that his ambitions were much greater whenever he assaulted a woman, so the answer (i think) is NO. that would mean that he didn,t complete ,his business, so... he may have been interrupted or the conditions weren,t ideal or...

Bingo, Robert! You are making a very sound observation, and one that I have made myself. And there is a little something that goes to strengthen the suggestion quite a lot. Itīs in the Evening News of the 3:rd of September, itīs from the inquest and we are listening to Spratling:

"He did not at that time notice the abdominal wounds, but subsequently when the body was placed on the floor of the mortuary he took a more accurate description of the undergarments, and they discovered the injuries on the lower part of the body. The flesh was turned over from left to right and the intestines exposed."

There we are! "The flesh was turned over from left to right". Now, how could such a thing come about? And what was it that was turned over?

The question answers itself - a flap of the abdominal wall was what was turned over from left to right, meaning that at least one (and quite possibly two) of the horisontal cuts reached into the large vertical cut, so that the flesh of the abdomen could be turned over like the leaf in a book, exposing the underlying intestines.

We are creeping closer and closer to understanding what the killer did. And Nichols joins Chapman, Kelly and Elizabeth Jackson in the abdominal flap league.
As always, nota bene that there is absolutely no need to take away the abdominal wall to get at the innards. So the reason for this measure is another one.

[Elamarna]

overall the ,squareness, of ,,the design,, gives me the impression that he was after the same thing as in his murder of annie chapman, beginning to square out her abdomen to cut into chunks. it begged the question: did jack the ripper complete polly nicholl,s murder? i know from hindsight that his ambitions were much greater whenever he assaulted a woman, so the answer (i think) is NO. that would mean that he didn,t complete ,his business, so... he may have been interrupted or the conditions weren,t ideal or...

Robert,


I would suggest he was interrupted, the question is of course, by whom?
Those proposing Lechmere as the killer will say Paul, those not will probably say the killer was interrupted by Lechmere himself.


Steve

[Robert St Devil]

overall the ,squareness, of ,,the design,, gives me the impression that he was after the same thing as in his murder of annie chapman, beginning to square out her abdomen to cut into chunks. it begged the question: did jack the ripper complete polly nicholl,s murder? i know from hindsight that his ambitions were much greater whenever he assaulted a woman, so the answer (i think) is NO. that would mean that he didn,t complete ,his business, so... he may have been interrupted or the conditions weren,t ideal or...

[Elamarna]

i don,t see the arrow. i see something more like this: I_/

the left bar being the cut from ribs to lower abdomen on her right side. i think the doctor got this cut correct in the documentary, fisherman. the bottom bar runs across her genitalia from under her right pubis up to the left side of her stomach.
the reference to the cuts on her right side is considering each ,jag, as a separate cut in a series of cuts: VV , not in parallel: IIII

Robert that is more the way I read it if there are two major cuts. That of course is the issue. Is it one badly described or two again poorly described.

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

i don,t see the arrow. i see something more like this: I_/

the left bar being the cut from ribs to lower abdomen on her right side. i think the doctor got this cut correct in the documentary, fisherman. the bottom bar runs across her genitalia from under her right pubis up to the left side of her stomach.
the reference to the cuts on her right side is considering each ,jag, as a separate cut in a series of cuts: VV , not in parallel: IIII

[Elamarna]

hello steve. your posting was threadworthy!

Thank you very much Robert,
That is just a small part of what I have been doing. As you can see from that and the other thread I posted on Paul, I have lots of questions and few answers.
I have to say I am far from convinced that the abdomen cuts as described would cause instantaneous death. And the argument over neck or abdomen first is far from clear.
Others of course take a different view on one or both issues, it's unlikely we will reach a consensus on those items as a group with the evidence being as it is I fear.



Steve

[Robert St Devil]

Jack the Jagger

hello steve. your posting was threadworthy!
... i may be catching up a bit late but me thinks the london vernacular circa 1888 had interchangeable definitions for the words ripped and jagged. at times i see personnel refer to ,jagged cuts, as ripped.
....there were two cuts, and i think joshua may be on to something, but i can,t say for sure bc i haven,t read thru his entire posting yet. dr llewyln uses the words wounds in the plural. He talks about ,one cut, but never the other; only this time he,s reversed the direction - first he says ,downwards, but then he talks about ,base of abdomen to breastbone,.
...central news is an account, not a report. ELO is being macabre, employing terms like sickening spectacle. and the star told the correct number of cuts.
...in sum total it appears that the killer was preparing to chunk her abdomen. He,s cut this U shape into her abdomen with the sidebars being the jagged incisions on her left and right sides of the abdomen. the only cuts missing are: the cut that runs from the top of the left cut to the top of the right cut AND the cuts that portion up her abdomen for removal.
...between spratling and llewyln, this is how i see it happening, and i,ll also have to stand down on my belief that the cuts were haphazard. Jack is standing with Polly facing him. He,s reached up under her skirt with his knife in his (left or right) hand. He either commences his first incision under her right side of the ribcage OR her left side of the stomach. He pulls his blade back without withdrawing it, and incises her body again, running jagged from his first incision, and he repeats this action a few times. both llewyln and spratling are stating that the incisions to her left side ran deeper and pierced the stomach. The cut on her right side is shorter, but the one on her left side is longer because it extends down and across her ,private parts, to under the right side of her pubis.
...where am i at now? he cut her abdomen first; it,s what causes her ,,almost,, instantaneous death, it,s the sickening spectacle of her wounds that primarily bleeds out into her clothing. maybe he cuts her left side first and her struggles run his blade deeper, maybe he cuts down her right side first and makes the longer cut when she is lying on the ground, dunno. WAIT! someone,s coming. can,t finish his work, definitely can,t have this ,,almost dead,, women implicating him SO he cuts her throat, left with barely any blood to flow.
...FOR THE TIME BEING i could see how cross is ,likely suspect, in her murder based on paul,s assertion that she was barely alive when he found her. her unfinished murder could explain why he struck again, a little over a week later; but this time, under more preferable conditions ie. privacy and lighting.