Surgical knowledge?

[Michael W Richards]

It was dear Lynn

Why twice?
Some sort of sick ritual?
Routine?
What?

Mr Holmes

P.S. Please address your replies to Mr Holmes and not Sherlock because there is a Sherlock on this site and I don't want him replying to posts left for me ok thanks

One presumes Mr Holmes that the killer sought to be sure he had severed both major arteries in the neck because it facilitated a very fast death and a rapid bleed out of the body. Which makes organ extracting and handling far easier.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Im still on this bit about murder interruptus, lets see if I can convince Lynn of the ideas practicality.

If we assume that murder 1 and 2 were committed by the same person, which I do...and all of the Canonical believers also believe,..then either the killer acquired a taste for internal organs within 10 days, or the first kill wasnt representative of the killers ultimate goal.

It appears to me that the murder, the double throat cuts, and the abdominal wounds went very similarly in both murders, but the condition that the women were found in differ.

When Cross and Paul were standing over Polly, Paul remarked that he thought the woman was still breathing..."but it is a little if she is". Her arms above the elbow and her legs were still warm. When Phillips examined Annie at 6:30am, he remarked that "stiffness had commenced" in her limbs. If Polly was still warm, and Annie was stiff, and one assumes, cold,...then they were found within different time frames after the attack. Polly.. almost immediately after hers, Annie...after some time had elapsed.

Based on that, and the fact that Polly has only abdominal cuts but no extractions, one might suspect that the reason her murder was shorter in overall duration to Annies was because the killer was unable to stay the length of time required to facilitate the field surgery goals with Polly.

That shows the interruption idea would have some physical evidence to support it, unlike the Diemshitz suppositions.

I think we can safely suppose that if the same man killed both women and only the second womans murder revealed the killers intentions, abdominal mutilation leading to organ extraction,... then it is logical to suppose that the murder of Polly achieved less than was ultimately desired by the killer. I lean towards an interruption rather than a sudden bout of cold feet, or a desire for organ extraction that suddenly occurs within the killer between those 2 kills.

Best regards all

[Sherlock Holmes]

It was dear Lynn

Why twice?
Some sort of sick ritual?
Routine?
What?

Mr Holmes

P.S. Please address your replies to Mr Holmes and not Sherlock because there is a Sherlock on this site and I don't want him replying to posts left for me ok thanks

[lynn cates]

pattern

Hello Sherlock. Not sure that was addressed to me, but I shall give a response.

Nichols and Chapman both had been strangled (clear signs) and their throats cut twice.

Cheers.
LC

[Sherlock Holmes]

What pattern? If you don't mind my asking

Mr Holmes

[lynn cates]

routine

Hello Errata.

"If we assume that the man who killed Nichols is the same as the man who killed Chapman, then I think we have to assume he used that pattern for a reason. Not necessarily a well thought out one, I don't think it was somehow a clue, or significant to the killer on some psychological level."

I think of it as the way he would normally cut up an animal. We do not normally think about how we pour tea from a pot to a cup, but we usually use the same hand to do it. Just routine.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

The abdominal injuries were not discovered until after the body had arrived in the mortuary building itself, Nichols had been moved on to the ambulance at the scene and then onto the floor/slab (in some sources) or into a shell once inside the mortuary. This movement of the body may have caused the intestines to protrude through the gash in her abdomen.



Not sure I agree with you here, if you mean 'careful' as in 'carefully considered where the cut should go' but I agree the wounds were concentrated on her abdomen. He didn't target the area under the stays, for example, just the area exposed by raising her skirt.

Best Wishes

As for the first part, this is true. But I wouldn't think it would be enough movement to look disemboweled. I mean, I assume one guy grabbed her arms, one her legs, and they just hoisted her into a cart, and got her out of it the same way. That would be compression movements on the area of interest. Not the kind of motion most likely to cause the organs to bloop out (yes, that is totally the medical term. Don't ask me how I know, it's not a fun story), but then again, if say, they dropped her at some point, that would totally do it.

I don't mean careful as in well thought out or considered, though the cuts may have been. I mean careful in that there is a pattern. A sort of symmetry to it. And I also mean that this was not striking out blindly. These aren't long sweeping gashes, the wounds don't wander all over the place, they don't appear to intersect... I mean, if you do you best Psycho impression on a pad of paper with a pen, the marks will be all over. They will cross each other, they will go out of bounds, it will look really random. That's not what this killer did. He did place his cuts. Not with a particular amount of care, I mean he didn't etch the Mona Lisa on her torso or anything, but he was aware of where he was cutting. There are about three vertical cuts on either side, and about four or five horizontal cuts in the center. Thats a pattern. I don't know that it's a meaningful one, or if he was just a bit fussy, but it is a pattern.

Think of it this way. I don't particular put a lot of consideration in how I carve a turkey. But I do it in a pattern, defined by the anatomy of the turkey. I may make a total hash of carving it, making it look shredded, but I still followed the pattern. Cutting the legs off, cutting the wings off, carving into the breast... no matter my skill level, or what kind of day I am having, the end result will always look essentially the same. No arms, no legs, and a semi triangular turkey carcass.

And the reason there is a pattern at all is because I am trying to accomplish something. The pattern I use is the one I know works. If we assume that the man who killed Nichols is the same as the man who killed Chapman, then I think we have to assume he used that pattern for a reason. Not necessarily a well thought out one, I don't think it was somehow a clue, or significant to the killer on some psychological level. But if all he wanted to do was mutilate her, there was no reason to conform to any pattern at all. So he could have been like a kid cutting up a dead frog, where the only purpose is to see what's inside. It could indicate that he made the cuts while in different positions around the body, and he was somewhat limited in his movement in each position. It could mean he was looking for something, and he made multiple types of cuts to try and expose it. He could have been a little compulsive and the idea of random slashes just didn't appeal to him visually. There's a lot of reasons why there would be a pattern that don't require some kind of scientific precision or reason. He was careful only in that he was not out of control. But the pattern is significant. It means something, even if it just means that he learned to not cut from a position where he has to rest his weight on one hand. It wasn't necessarily significant to him, anymore than how I carve a turkey is significant to me. But it reveals something about him, which should make it significant to us.

[lynn cates]

Harrison and Barber

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

I take it you are agreeing about not knowing intentions.

"I am not sure I know what you mean here in general, and what's the significance of the 'different stages of their work'."

There was a Harrison and Barber near each of the first two murder sites. Horses were killed there. At some point, they were disemboweled.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

I hear the train a comin'

Hello Lucky. Thanks. That was about the time the train passed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

parts

Hello Sherlock. Thanks.

"If he did want the organs he (supposedly) removed; for what purpose did he want them?"

Any of several reasons. I personally believe he sold Annie's parts for offal at market.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Now, if one holds that the killer's intention was to do X, and X was not done, then the interruption card may be played. But how do we know about intentions?

Hi again Lynn

I heartily agree

Why cannot one merely observe that the assailant was watching the horse slaughterers at work and they were in different stages of their work?

I not sure I know what you mean here in general, and what's the significance of the 'different stages of their work'

Thanks

[Mr Lucky]

Polly Nichols actually suffered many abdominal cuts. She had what appears to be an abdominal opening vertical cut on one side with some other deep cuts, I think two vertical ripping cuts (stab down and pull) on the other side, and several horizontal cuts of presumably varying depths in the middle.

The placement of these wounds are pretty careful. All concentrated on the lower abdomen, not frenzied (if they were, it would be a bunch of stabs and cuts going all directions, crossing each other, probably pulping the area.)

A constable described her as having been disemboweled. Which implies some specific things. One interpretation we know is not true, because everything was still there. But another interpretation would suggest that her intestines were coming out of her wounds. Which says two things. Firstly, that he in fact accessed the abdominal cavity. So his cuts were deep enough to have done just about anything he wanted. Second, intestines don't just come out. They are held together with a pretty strong membrane, so even with a deep cut, they don't spill out (unless you are still alive and start moving around, and then some might poke through). But she was flat on her back, not moving, and even if the structural integrity of her abdominal walls failed, everything is still attached to everything else. Which means that intestines come out because they are taken out. As in, he had his hands in there. And if he did, I can think of a ton of reasons why, but I don't know which one it was.

Or the constable meant that her abdomen was laid open, and assumed she was disemboweled. But with the cuts alone, the only way he would notice that the abdominal cavity was opened was if one of the cuts was literally on the side, and gravity was causing some stuff to spill through. But the cuts were described as being on the sides of the abdomen, not on her side. So I don't know about that one.

Regardless, I can't swear that Polly Nichols mutilations weren't interrupted, bu he certainly accomplished enough to take an organ if he wanted it. He had enough time.

Hi Errata,

The abdominal injuries were not discovered until after the body had arrived in the mortuary building itself, Nichols had been moved on to the ambulance at the scene and then onto the floor/slab (in some sources) or into a shell once inside the mortuary. This movement of the body may have caused the intestines to protrude through the gash in her abdomen.

The placement of these wounds are pretty careful.

Not sure I agree with you here, if you mean 'careful' as in 'carefully considered where the cut should go' but I agree the wounds were concentrated on her abdomen. He didn't target the area under the stays, for example, just the area exposed by raising her skirt.

Best Wishes

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

I have no desire to move it either. She died around 3.30. End of story.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

That's the beginning of the story, 3.30 is about the earliest possible time of death, if you pick and choose your sources. Fair enough, but it's still only the earliest possible time, not the actual time of death, so it's not the end of the story at all.

Best Wishes

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"he certainly accomplished enough to take an organ if he wanted it. He had enough time."

Well spoke! Interruptions are in place only to get a preconceived result.

Cheers.
LC

That my dear Lynn is assuming he did actually want it (you've already said that). If he did want the organs he (supposedly) removed; for what purpose did he want them?

Mr Holmes

[lynn cates]

time enough

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"he certainly accomplished enough to take an organ if he wanted it. He had enough time."

Well spoke! Interruptions are in place only to get a preconceived result.

Cheers.
LC