Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

[Geddy2112]

Morning, hope you are all well.

Lot's of posts recently on Facebook regarding the 'hiding' of the wounds and possible reasons for. We have had they were, they were not pulled down. We have had Jack reached under them to perform the job and they simply fell back down. All very interesting. However a few points if Lechmere was the killer. Important to bear in mind Christer believes the abdominal wounds came first so let's go with that.

1) Lechmere has strangled Polly and goes to work on the abdominal wounds, he hears Paul and realises he is close by, pulls down the skirts to hide his handy work. No time to cut throat. Remember the abdominal work was the main focus here.

2) Lechmere has strangled Polly and goes to work on the abdominal wounds, he hears Paul and realises he is close by, pulls down the skirts to hide his handy work. THEN realises he has time to cut her throat twice, but not finish the abdominal work which is generally agreed the main purpose in the killings.

Hope you grasp what I'm saying but it seems for Lechmere to be the killer and do the abdominal work before the throat and be pulling down the skirts either is unlikely or impractical. Remember it's safe to assume in my opinion, Jack was either disturbed by Lechmere or Paul depending on who we view as the killer. Jack's main goal was the abdominal mutilations and since these are less than the other victims we assume he was disturbed and had not finished. If this is the case how can we safely go with point two? We know point one did not happen.

So can we assume, if we are to believe the abdominal wounds came before the throat as per Christer's beliefs that either the wounds were not covered by Jack or Lechmere was not the killer? I can't see how ALL of Christer's beliefs can be true here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Remind me why he thinks that the abdominal wounds came first? I’ve heard so much nonsense it’s impossible to remember it all. (I’m assuming that he believes that it supports his theory in some way?)

[FrankO]

Remind me why he thinks that the abdominal wounds came first? I’ve heard so much nonsense it’s impossible to remember it all. (I’m assuming that he believes that it supports his theory in some way?)

I think it was doctor Llewellyn who suggested that the abdominal wounds came first, because there was so relatively little blood around her body. I don't remember if he changed his view later on, but I think he at one time suggested it.

[FrankO]

Hi Geddy,

Here are some of my thoughts. Thoughts I've shared with Christer on multiple occasions.

If we’d assume for a moment that Christer’s correct, then we’d get the following sequence:

1. Lechmere strangles Nichols into unconsciousness & lowers her on her back
2. He moves up her skirts as much out of the way as he can
3. He cuts between the stays, making 2 large cuts
4. He hears Paul, assesses the situation and concludes he’s going to stay put & decides what he has to do before he’s ready for Paul
5. He cuts the throat not once but twice, puts away his knife, covers the throat wound, then covers the abdominal wounds but only just and then moves away from the body to take up his position in the middle of the road
6. Then he waits for Paul to appear from the gloom

Of course, there are questions attached to some of these points.

For instance, as to point number 2: according to Lechmere, it seemed that Paul wasn’t able to pull the dress further than where they ended up after he’d finished: a little above her knees. If her dress was actually just covering the abdominal wounds/the groin area, then Paul had pulled the dress down only some 20 cm/8 inches, probably even somewhat less. So, if the dress actually had got so stuck that Paul couldn’t pull it down any further than he did, then maybe it also got so stuck that it couldn’t be pulled up so much.

Also, the fact that Paul seems to have put his hand on Nichols’s breast while pulling down the dress might suggest that the hem of the dress was lying on the chest. This, in turn, would beg the question: if so, then is it likely at all that Lechmere/her killer actually covered the abdominal wounds?

As to numbers 4, 5 & 6 two questions come to mind.

One would be: at what point would he have heard Paul? From Neil’s testimony we know that it was possible to hear someone pass in Brady Street from the crime spot, so if Lechmere the killer would have listened, he would have been able to hear Paul enter Buck’s Row. And he would still have had a minute at the very least before Paul would arrive where Lechmere was. Then, he still had to see Nichols and if he would, he would still have to walk over to examine her a bit before he could have raised any alarm. So, Lechmere either must not have listened until he felt forced to stay & wait for Paul or he just decided to stay & wait anyway, even though he would have known he could have gotten away before any alarm would be raised. Christer would play his general psychopath card here.

Question number two would be: how long would the assessing, deciding to stay & what to do and then do it have taken? Even if we’d leave out the assessing & deciding and concentrate on what he needed to have done before Paul saw him, then we’d still be looking at something like 15 to 20 seconds. Why cut her throat twice and loose precious time? Why waste this time sticking around to begin with? And, we’d have to assume that Lechmere knew that Paul wouldn’t be able to see or hear him before he actually saw him. Otherwise, it would make no sense & would be useless for Lechmere to do it all & wait for Paul. So, could he have known and, if so, how? Of course, he also could just have gambled and thought: if it turns out that he’s seen too much, then I’ll kill him. I’m sure Christer would play his psychopath card here, too.

The best,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

Remind me why he thinks that the abdominal wounds came first? I’ve heard so much nonsense it’s impossible to remember it all. (I’m assuming that he believes that it supports his theory in some way?)

If I remember correctly it's because he believes what the coroner states as ToD and the coroner also states the abdominal injuries came first in respect to Llewellyn's' testimony...

'Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death;'

[Geddy2112]

Hi FrankO,

[QUOTE=FrankO;n834723]Hi Geddy,

Here are some of my thoughts. Thoughts I've shared with Christer on multiple occasions.

If we’d assume for a moment that Christer’s correct, then we’d get the following sequence:

1. Lechmere strangles Nichols into unconsciousness & lowers her on her back
2. He moves up her skirts as much out of the way as he can
3. He cuts between the stays, making 2 large cuts
4. He hears Paul, assesses the situation and concludes he’s going to stay put & decides what he has to do before he’s ready for Paul
5. He cuts the throat not once but twice, puts away his knife, covers the throat wound, then covers the abdominal wounds but only just and then moves away from the body to take up his position in the middle of the road
6. Then he waits for Paul to appear from the gloom

Of course, there are questions attached to some of these points./[quote]

That is a much better way of what I was trying to get it. However it makes no sense, especially if, as we are led to believe the fumbling around in the lower regions was the main reason for the killings. Why cut the throat at all if we are to believe the lower cuts were the main objection, especially if he was disturbed which again we can assume he was because he did not 'finish' the job so to speak.

[FONT=Calibri]
[FONT=Verdana]Question number two would be: how long would the assessing, deciding to stay & what to do and then do it have taken? Even if we’d leave out the assessing & deciding and concentrate on what he needed to have done before Paul saw him, then we’d still be looking at something like 15 to 20 seconds. Why cut her throat twice and lose precious time? Why waste this time sticking around to begin with? And, we’d have to assume that Lechmere knew that Paul wouldn’t be able to see or hear him before he actually saw him. Otherwise, it would make no sense & would be useless for Lechmere to do it all & wait for Paul. So, could he have known and, if so, how? Of course, he also could just have gambled and thought: if it turns out that he’s seen too much, then I’ll kill him. I’m sure Christer would play his psychopath card here, too.

Again we are very tight for time here. Even with the faked 'time gap' in play we have little time to do the deed and decided what to do, even if you are a cool, calm psychopath to which there is no evidence too. Unless you can turn it on and off like a tap. If things panned out like you suggest above it makes it even less likely than it did before that Charles was the killer.
That seems to be a common problem with the theory, if the theory had been put out there 'as is' and left alone it might have made more sense, however the neigh on constant defending of it for over 10 years has given the none believers even more ammo to contradict it. The more they post (Christer and Ed) the more they discredit the theory as they are becoming more and more desperate for it to be accepted. The HoL videos are a prime example, it's got to the point now of bagels, tigers, discrediting other people's views and tenuous links to other crimes like Nichola Bulley etc. It's a joke.

[GBinOz]

I think it was doctor Llewellyn who suggested that the abdominal wounds came first, because there was so relatively little blood around her body. I don't remember if he changed his view later on, but I think he at one time suggested it.

Hi Frank,

From Baxter's summary at Nichols Inquest as reported by The Daily Telegraph:

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.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Originally posted by FrankO:

Here are some of my thoughts. Thoughts I've shared with Christer on multiple occasions.

If we’d assume for a moment that Christer’s correct, then we’d get the following sequence:

1. Lechmere strangles Nichols into unconsciousness & lowers her on her back
2. He moves up her skirts as much out of the way as he can
3. He cuts between the stays, making 2 large cuts
4. He hears Paul, assesses the situation and concludes he’s going to stay put & decides what he has to do before he’s ready for Paul
5. He cuts the throat not once but twice, puts away his knife, covers the throat wound, then covers the abdominal wounds but only just and then moves away from the body to take up his position in the middle of the road
6. Then he waits for Paul to appear from the gloom

[/QUOTE]

Hi Frank,

It has long been a source of some wonderment to me as to how neither men noticed the cut throat, particularly when Paul put his ear next to her head to see if she was breathing. I seem to recall that I read one account of Paul saying that he moved off first and then discovered Cross had followed him, but I can't seem to relocate that report. Had that been the case I would replace your points 5 and 6 with:
5. The two men look at the body and Paul thinks he detects breathing. Paul moves off saying he will sent the first policeman he sees. Cross cannot risk the possibility that Polly is still alive, quickly cuts her throat and then follows and catches up with Paul.

This would explain why Paul didn't see the cut throat or a blood pool around the neck, and would fit the doctor's hypothesis. However, it is a big leap based only on my memory of an article citing the possibility of Paul leaving slightly ahead of Cross.

Cheers, George

P.S. I seem to have been typing whilst others were posting.

[Geddy2112]

This would explain why Paul didn't see the cut throat or a blood pool around the neck, and would fit the doctor's hypothesis. However, it is a big leap based only on my memory of an article citing the possibility of Paul leaving slightly ahead of Cross.

Or it was not cut and PC Neil did it once Cross and Paul had left to get Mizen... ooooooooooo cat amongst the pigeons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Frank,

From Baxter's summary at Nichols Inquest as reported by The Daily Telegraph:

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.

Best regards, George

George, I can’t see why Baxter would be of the impression that this was Llewellyn’s opinion can you? Why did he come to this conclusion from this?:

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said: On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. I am quite certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make another examination. About an hour later I was sent for by the Inspector to see the injuries he had discovered on the body. I went, and saw that the abdomen was cut very extensively. I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

From Baxter's summary at Nichols Inquest as reported by The Daily Telegraph:

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.

Best regards, George

Thanks, George. It's a bit odd that what Baxter suggested in his summing up isn't reflected in Llewellyn's inquest testimony, though, and that, outside of the inquest, he appears to have stated once or twice that he thought that the throat was cut first.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

George, I can’t see why Baxter would be of the impression that this was Llewellyn’s opinion can you? Why did he come to this conclusion from this?

Indeed, Mike. The thing stated at the inquest by Llewellyn that seems closest to how Baxter sums up is this:

"Nearly all the blood had drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues. The deceased's wounds were sufficient to cause instantaneous death." (from the Daily News of 3 Sept., East London Observer of 8 Sept. & Woodford Times of 7 Sept.)

However, the Daily News of 3 September also contained this snippet:
"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."

And the Morning Advertiser of 1 September read:
"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."

Cheers,
Frank

[Fiver]

Lot's of posts recently on Facebook regarding the 'hiding' of the wounds and possible reasons for.

In spite of fanciful Lechmerian claims.

* The neck wounds were not hidden.

* The abdominal wounds were not hidden by the killer.

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach." - Robert Paul

"While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement." - Robert Paul

"When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down." - Charles Cross

"Her legs were apart and her clothes turned up to her knees." - PC Neil

"P.C. 97J, Neil, reports at 3.45. on 31st inst. he found the dead body of a woman lying on her back with her clothes a little above her knees, with her throat cut from ear to ear on a yard crossing at Bucks Row, Whitechapel." - Inspector Spratling

[rjpalmer]

Indeed, Mike. The thing stated at the inquest by Llewellyn that seems closest to how Baxter sums up is this:

"Nearly all the blood had drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues. The deceased's wounds were sufficient to cause instantaneous death." (from the Daily News of 3 Sept., East London Observer of 8 Sept. & Woodford Times of 7 Sept.)

However, the Daily News of 3 September also contained this snippet:
"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."

And the Morning Advertiser of 1 September read:
"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."

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

Even so, I don't think there can be any doubt that Llewellyn believed the abdominal wounds came first because Inspector Abberline mentions Llewellyn's conclusions in his report of 19 September 1888 (MEPO 3/140 ff. 242-256).

"Dr. Llewellyn who afterwards made a more minute examination and found that the wounds in the abdomen were in themselves sufficient to cause instant death, and he expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed, Mike. The thing stated at the inquest by Llewellyn that seems closest to how Baxter sums up is this:

"Nearly all the blood had drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues. The deceased's wounds were sufficient to cause instantaneous death." (from the Daily News of 3 Sept., East London Observer of 8 Sept. & Woodford Times of 7 Sept.)

However, the Daily News of 3 September also contained this snippet:
"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."

And the Morning Advertiser of 1 September read:
"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."

Cheers,
Frank

Thanks Frank. The fact that he said “ Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first“ appears to back up that this was an error of interpretation.

Thats said….ive just read Roger’s post so maybe not.