Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

Llewellyn said what he said. If we chose to differ on the basis that some other conclusion makes more sense, then that contradiction has to be expressed as an in-absentia opinion 130 years after the event in opposition to the observations of the medical professional who examined the body immediately after Polly's life force was extinguished. I generally try to refrain from adjusting evidence on the basis that it doesn't seem to make sense, and try to conceive of a scenario that fits the evidence.

Your new avatar seems to have transmogrified your image from impish scallywag to reflective elder. I rather liked the impish scallywag.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

No need for apologies. As you’ve noted, I’m a reflective elder now, so I can handle it. And it’s not as if you were actually saying something about me, because I did exactly what you wrote: "that contradiction has to be expressed as an in-absentia opinion 130 years after the event in opposition to the observations of the medical professional who examined the body immediately after Polly's life force was extinguished."

I said it was just my view that it wouldn’t make much sense to me if, as is proposed by Christer, Lechmere only cut the throat not just once, but twice as a way to ‘prepare’ Nichols before taking his place in the middle of the street before Paul could see or hear him (something that Lechmere simply couldn’t have known). I clearly didn’t (try to) adjust any evidence (I don’t think I ever do that or try to, as it’s simply impossible).

So, the only thing I wrote that you might want to have a go at is me stating a personal view, based on something that fits or, as in this case, doesn’t fit my sense of logic. Nothing more, nothing less.

As for your observation about my avatar, I’ll take it into consideration.

All the best,
Frank

[Barnaby]

Regardless of what Llewellyn thought, doesn't the Chapman murder a week later suggest that the throat was cut first? It seems odd that the m.o. would change this much between Nichols and Chapman. The order of injury for Nichols is in doubt but for Chapman seems clear given the arterial spray - so shouldn't we assume Jack cut Polly's throat first too?

[GBinOz]

Hello George

While Cross was able to make out a shape on the ground, it was still very dark. Also, it had been raining, so the cobblestones might have been glistening already. So a pool of blood would not stand out.

The doctor remarked “There was very little blood round the neck.” so I don’t think it very problematic that Cross and Paul did not notice it.

If the doctor is correct, and the wounds to the abdomen were inflicted first, either Nichols was already dead when her throat was cut, meaning the throat would bleed much more slowly, or the blood mainly bled into her abdomen.

Like you, I tend to think Jack learned along the way; I believe he incapacitated Nichols and lowered her to the ground, began to cut her abdomen, which could have led to her regaining consciousness and struggling, or groaning or similar, whereupon he cut her throat in order to silence her and kill her, so he could continue with the mutilations uninterrupted.

In his next kills, he knew to start on the throat before mutilating the abdomen.

Hi Kattrup,

It is good to learn that someone else is considering the possibility that that Llewellyn's assessment was viable, and that Jack may have been learning on the job, so to speak. I take your point that the pool of blood was small and may have lacked contrast against wet cobblestones, but surely two long deep cuts to the throat would contrast sufficiently against white skin to be noticed at such a short distance? JMO.

Cheers, George

[Kattrup]

What doesn't make sense to me is that there was sufficient light for Cross to see that there was a shape from 4 metres, and that it was a woman from two metres, but Paul couldn't see a pool of blood from a few inches away. The only reason that makes sense to me is the blood wasn't there, and the throat cut occurred after this time, achievable by Paul moving off slightly before Cross, and Cross cutting Poly's throat and quickly catching Paul up so that for all intents and purposes, they left together. This would be consistent with the medical opinion, and with Paul's statement to Lloyd's Weekly.

I don't have a preferred suspect, so I have no horse in this race. I try to fit a hypothesis based on the evidence rather than manipulating the evidence to formulate a hypothesis on the basis of what appears to make sense. This may have been JtR's first kill, and he may have learned from it that strangulation may not be sufficient to prevent the victim from reviving, but that throat cutting achieves that purpose.

Hello George

While Cross was able to make out a shape on the ground, it was still very dark. Also, it had been raining, so the cobblestones might have been glistening already. So a pool of blood would not stand out.

The doctor remarked “There was very little blood round the neck.” so I don’t think it very problematic that Cross and Paul did not notice it.

If the doctor is correct, and the wounds to the abdomen were inflicted first, either Nichols was already dead when her throat was cut, meaning the throat would bleed much more slowly, or the blood mainly bled into her abdomen.

Like you, I tend to think Jack learned along the way; I believe he incapacitated Nichols and lowered her to the ground, began to cut her abdomen, which could have led to her regaining consciousness and struggling, or groaning or similar, whereupon he cut her throat in order to silence her and kill her, so he could continue with the mutilations uninterrupted.

In his next kills, he knew to start on the throat before mutilating the abdomen.

[Lewis C]

This for me is why some many false suspects are thrust into the limelight. In most cases all we have are newspaper reports and they vary wildly. I think there is four or even five versions of that Robert Paul did or didn't do that night. It makes pinning down the truth as far as we can neigh on impossible. I'm not sure Cross cutting her throat after meeting with Paul is a runner, or at least I really hope not.

Hi Geddy,

It seems to me that Cross cutting her throat as Paul was walking away would have been much more risky than just letting her lie and walking away.

[Geddy2112]

The St James Gazette reported Paul as testifying "He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not.". What doesn't make sense to me is that there was sufficient light for Cross to see that there was a shape from 4 metres, and that it was a woman from two metres, but Paul couldn't see a pool of blood from a few inches away. The only reason that makes sense to me is the blood wasn't there, and the throat cut occurred after this time, achievable by Paul moving off slightly before Cross, and Cross cutting Poly's throat and quickly catching Paul up so that for all intents and purposes, they left together. This would be consistent with the medical opinion, and with Paul's statement to Lloyd's Weekly.

This for me is why some many false suspects are thrust into the limelight. In most cases all we have are newspaper reports and they vary wildly. I think there is four or even five versions of that Robert Paul did or didn't do that night. It makes pinning down the truth as far as we can neigh on impossible. I'm not sure Cross cutting her throat after meeting with Paul is a runner, or at least I really hope not.

[GBinOz]

Thing that bother's me, and I've mentioned it in this thread is if CAL was the killer and his sole intention was to mess about in the abdomen then why do that first, then cover her up then cut her throat twice afterwards, all this whilst being disturbed by Paul as per theory. Makes no sense.

Hi Geddy,

The St James Gazette reported Paul as testifying "He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not.". What doesn't make sense to me is that there was sufficient light for Cross to see that there was a shape from 4 metres, and that it was a woman from two metres, but Paul couldn't see a pool of blood from a few inches away. The only reason that makes sense to me is the blood wasn't there, and the throat cut occurred after this time, achievable by Paul moving off slightly before Cross, and Cross cutting Poly's throat and quickly catching Paul up so that for all intents and purposes, they left together. This would be consistent with the medical opinion, and with Paul's statement to Lloyd's Weekly.

I don't have a preferred suspect, so I have no horse in this race. I try to fit a hypothesis based on the evidence rather than manipulating the evidence to formulate a hypothesis on the basis of what appears to make sense. This may have been JtR's first kill, and he may have learned from it that strangulation may not be sufficient to prevent the victim from reviving, but that throat cutting achieves that purpose.

Cheers, George

[Geddy2112]

Hi Frank,

Rereading my previous post to you, I am not happy with the tone it conveyed, somewhat judgemental and condescending. That was not my intention, and I apologise for not expressing myself in a more friendly tone.

Best regards, George

Hehe, seemed okay to me.

Thing that bother's me, and I've mentioned it in this thread is if CAL was the killer and his sole intention was to mess about in the abdomen then why do that first, then cover her up then cut her throat twice afterwards, all this whilst being disturbed by Paul as per theory. Makes no sense.

[GBinOz]

Hi Frank,

Rereading my previous post to you, I am not happy with the tone it conveyed, somewhat judgemental and condescending. That was not my intention, and I apologise for not expressing myself in a more friendly tone.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

If the throat was cut before the abdominal wounds, then, yes, it would make sense. If, however, it was done after the abdominal wounds and because Paul was approaching, then not so much. But, that's just my view.

Hi Frank,

Llewellyn said what he said. If we chose to differ on the basis that some other conclusion makes more sense, then that contradiction has to be expressed as an in-absentia opinion 130 years after the event in opposition to the observations of the medical professional who examined the body immediately after Polly's life force was extinguished. I generally try to refrain from adjusting evidence on the basis that it doesn't seem to make sense, and try to conceive of a scenario that fits the evidence.

Your new avatar seems to have transmogrified your image from impish scallywag to reflective elder. I rather liked the impish scallywag.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

JtR's first act would be to thoroughly incapacitate the victim so that they couldn't scream;
his 2nd act would be some act that insures he doesn't get a lot of blood on himself when mutilating the victim.

Cutting the throat first would be achieve both ends ... with little blood coming out of the abdomen region on to him.
Whoever JtR was, Lech /Paul /Lewis Carrol, that's how they would proceed.

Not certain what advantage there could possibly be in a Lechmerite positing that Lech cut the torso first.

Hi Newbie,

It is not a "Lechmerite" positing that the abdominal cuts were made first, it was Dr Llewellyn who examined the body 130 years ago. You are disputing the doctor who actually did the post mortem.

Cheers, George

Edit: Or are you posing a rhetorical question rather than disputing the opinion. Apologies if this is the case.

[Newbie]

So does it seem if the abdominal wounds came first as far as the cutting was concerned and Jack's motive was opening up the abdomen as much as possible then in short the rest of the events, if Lechmere was the killer seems erm off somewhat. To me it makes no sense if his prime objective was to open her up then to waste time cutting throats and pulling down skirts to hide the cuts seems odd. In fact I'll stick my neck out and suggest it did not happen that way.

So for me if Lechmere was the killer I can't see the abdominal cuts coming first. I would ask Christer but I really do not want over 500 words of twisted waffle to explain and answer a simple question.

JtR's first act would be to thoroughly incapacitate the victim so that they couldn't scream;
his 2nd act would be some act that insures he doesn't get a lot of blood on himself when mutilating the victim.

Cutting the throat first would be achieve both ends ... with little blood coming out of the abdomen region on to him.
Whoever JtR was, Lech /Paul /Lewis Carrol, that's how they would proceed.

Not certain what advantage there could possibly be in a Lechmerite positing that Lech cut the torso first.

[FrankO]

That is the point I'm trying to make, Christer who believes Lechmere is the killer thinks Polly's abdomen was cut first. But to then cover the wounds and then cut the throat twice makes absolutely no sense if he was disturbed and his main motive for the kill was opening up her abdomen.

Agreed all around, Geddy.

[Geddy2112]

If the throat was cut before the abdominal wounds, then, yes, it would make sense. If, however, it was done after the abdominal wounds and because Paul was approaching, then not so much. But, that's just my view.

That is the point I'm trying to make, Christer who believes Lechmere is the killer thinks Polly's abdomen was cut first. But to then cover the wounds and then cut the throat twice makes absolutely no sense if he was disturbed and his main motive for the kill was opening up her abdomen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If it wasn’t for Abberline saying: “ …he expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut,” I’d be suggesting that both Abberline and Baxter had misinterpreted what Llewellyn had said. Part of me is still wondering if Abberline heard him say that the abdominal wounds were enough to kill her and assumed that’s it’s what he was suggesting and wrote it as such. Perhaps I’m just projecting my own sense of disbelief that the killer would have gone - strangulation, then down to the abdomen then back to the throat with the knife?