So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel?

[Fisherman]

Daily News 3 Sept;
"At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming."

Morning Advertiser 1 Sept
"Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.

[Sam Flynn]

There is the possibility that the killer cut the aorta open,in which case we would have imminent death, more or less.

The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.

[Sam Flynn]

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat..."

This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.

[Fisherman]

This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.

Possible? Yes, very much is possible. But if there was never any doubt about how Llewellyn thought that the neck wounds came first, then why would Baxter, two weeks afterwards, come up with such an idea?

The last stop on a line is normally the one where things have been staightened out, and this is what we are looking at here, I´d say.

Joshua turned his reports around chronologically. On the 1:st, Llewellyn said that the wounds to the neck killed her. At that stage, I believe he had not made his final examination of the body.

On the 3:rd, he had seen the blood in the abdomen and had a change of heart. But Helson - who I think is quoted here - seems disinclined to accept Llewellyn´s altered decision. So if anybody is misunderstanding here, it is him. Baxter quoted Llewellyn as having said that the abdominal wounds were what caused Nichols´ death. Accordingly, since the neck wounds would have killed her if they came first, they must have come second.

Baxter had it correct at the inquest - and he did not like it one bit.

[Fisherman]

The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.

We don´t know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we don´t know that the aorta was left undamaged. The large wound was a very deep one, it was said, and that´s about as far as our knowledge stretches. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as you know.

[Joshua Rogan]

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.

Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.

[Sam Flynn]

We don´t know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we don´t know that the aorta was left undamaged.

The intestines were noted as protruding from the wounds, and I'm sure it would have been noticed if they'd been sliced through in the process of cutting the abdominal aorta. If that vessel had indeed been severed first, then there'd have been copious amounts of blood in the abdominal cavity.

[MrBarnett]

What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?

Baxter was a puffed-up, self-opinionated twerp.

I have to admit to a certain personal bias in the matter, though, because he once insulted several members of my family.

He was presiding over the inquest of a man who had been killed in a drunken brawl in Spitalfields. The victim's wife gave evidence and Baxter saw fit to question whether the couple were legally married. When the grieving widow insisted that they were, Baxter made a sarky remark about supposing it to be a 'Spitalfields marriage'. In fact the couple had been legally married for a decade. But even if they hadn't, how callous to ridicule a recently bereaved woman in that way.

As I say, the death occurred during a drunken brawl. My grandad was involved and admitted that he'd had 11 or 12 pints of beer and that the deceased was even more drunk. The wife, my grandad's cousin Eliza, was in the cells at Commercial Street police station at the time her old man was killed, having been arrested for being involved in an earlier drunken brawl in the Three Cranes in Brick Lane.

Baxter summed up by calling all those involved a 'right crew'.

Andy Griffiths strikes me as a self-effacing, competent policeman with vast experience of murder investigation. I'd take his opinion over Baxter's any day of the week.

Rant over.😉

[Batman]

Wrong on all counts.

Or are you cherrypicking?

You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.

[MrBarnett]

You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.

Is it the case that a coroner can 'overrule' a previous inquest finding? What's your source for that? A ten year old casebook dissertation or a biased Ripper book, perhaps?

I genuinely don't know, but you must do to have stated it as a fact.

[Batman]

Is it the case that a coroner can 'overrule' a previous inquest finding? What's your source for that? A ten year old casebook dissertation or a biased Ripper book, perhaps?

I genuinely don't know, but you must do to have stated it as a fact.

Of course they can. The bodies of his George Chapman's previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902 by order of the coroner.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women and the coroner’s court determined that Maud Marsh had been wilfully murdered by George Chapman.

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

Any presentation of what somebody has said is just that: a presentation of what somebody has said. In that respect, what the papers report is the same, a representation of what was said.
We know that Baxter also tells us that Llewellyn opined that the abdominal wounds killed Nichols, and so there can be no case of the neck wounds having done that - as per Llewellyn/Baxter.


Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.

I would be very happy to see it too, since I believe that Helson muddled things unnecessarily.

[Fisherman]

The intestines were noted as protruding from the wounds, and I'm sure it would have been noticed if they'd been sliced through in the process of cutting the abdominal aorta. If that vessel had indeed been severed first, then there'd have been copious amounts of blood in the abdominal cavity.

Yes, Gareth, I too am sure that it would have been noticed if the intestines were cut through. Doctors don´t miss out on such things. The real problem, though, is that we are not informed about how the abdominal damage looked, do we?

And who says that there was not copious (a maximum of perhaps 3-3,5 litres or thereabouts) amount of blood in the abdominal cavity? Llewellyn gives no measure.

I wonder how this thread turned into a Nichols abdominal wounds thread, by the way. Wasn´t it supposed to be about the geographical implications of the murders?

[Fisherman]

Baxter was a puffed-up, self-opinionated twerp.

I have to admit to a certain personal bias in the matter, though, because he once insulted several members of my family.

He was presiding over the inquest of a man who had been killed in a drunken brawl in Spitalfields. The victim's wife gave evidence and Baxter saw fit to question whether the couple were legally married. When the grieving widow insisted that they were, Baxter made a sarky remark about supposing it to be a 'Spitalfields marriage'. In fact the couple had been legally married for a decade. But even if they hadn't, how callous to ridicule a recently bereaved woman in that way.

As I say, the death occurred during a drunken brawl. My grandad was involved and admitted that he'd had 11 or 12 pints of beer and that the deceased was even more drunk. The wife, my grandad's cousin Eliza, was in the cells at Commercial Street police station at the time her old man was killed, having been arrested for being involved in an earlier drunken brawl in the Three Cranes in Brick Lane.

Baxter summed up by calling all those involved a 'right crew'.

Andy Griffiths strikes me as a self-effacing, competent policeman with vast experience of murder investigation. I'd take his opinion over Baxter's any day of the week.

Rant over.😉

Doesn´t get much more hands on than that, Gary. Fascinating stuff!

[MrBarnett]

Of course they can. The bodies of his George Chapman's previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902 by order of the coroner.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women and the coroner’s court determined that Maud Marsh had been wilfully murdered by George Chapman.

All exhumations, for whatever reason, have to be authorised by a coroner. Were the inquest findings on Bessie and Mary 'overruled'?

The wording of your post is almost identical to that of the Casebook victim profile of Chapman (see below). Is that the latest peer-reviewed account of his life?


The bodies of his two previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women.