Polly's Skirts - Lechmere The Killer.

[FrankO]

… Unless the first cut was made in order to bleed out his victiim. And the second cut was made to complete the task

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.

[Robert St Devil]

It would make even less sense to cut the throat twice. Why waste precious seconds?

… Unless the first cut was made in order to bleed out his victiim. And the second cut was made to complete the task

[FrankO]

That is entirely my point, especially if he then covers the wounds and then cuts her throat because he knows Robert Paul is approaching. It makes absolutely no sense but that is what Christer proposes.

It would make even less sense to cut the throat twice. Why waste precious seconds?

[Geddy2112]

The abdominal wounds done first just doesn’t ring true.

That is entirely my point, especially if he then covers the wounds and then cuts her throat because he knows Robert Paul is approaching. It makes absolutely no sense but that is what Christer proposes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For me, it is non-sensical for the abdominal wounds to be caused first. Strangulation to unconsciousness would take seconds (the lack of defence wounds to the hands would suggest this is first), the lack of bruising to the head and lack of blood to front or back would suggest victim was laid down before cuts started. If we assume that these two parts are established fact, there would be unlikely time to move to the abdomen before consciousness starts to recover (about 30 seconds), let alone sufficient blood loss prior to the terminal LOC required for the lack of defence wounds. Whereas severance of both carotids would maintain unconsciousness and could be undertaken as soon as the victim was supine.

Paul

This is what I was thinking Paul and, unlike yourself, I have no medical knowledge. It just makes more sense. He’s just strangled her but could he have been certain that she wasn’t simply unconscious in those circumstances? Cutting her throat seems the obvious next move…ensure that she was dead. If the killers ultimate aim was mutilation or the removal of body parts (if the latter then I’d suggest that interruption was likely) and he’d just achieved that then the throat cutting would appear pointless.

The abdominal wounds done first just doesn’t ring true.

[FrankO]

A final question to you and anyone…can you see anything in the inquest statement from Llewellyn from which someone might interpret that the abdominal injuries occurred first?

Hi Mike,

I already tried to answer this question to you in post #12. It's the first quote there.

"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.)

This taken together with the fact that, according to Llewellyn, there was relatively little blood on the pavement, might suggest that the abdominal wounds were inflicted first. I'm not convinced that this view is the correct one, as, according to Thain, there was also a lot of blood soaked up by the back of Nichols's dress, down to her waist. And there was also blood on the ground where the deceased's legs had lain.

Cheers,
Frank

PS Oops, I now see that Roger & Robert had already answered...

[kjab3112]

For me, it is non-sensical for the abdominal wounds to be caused first. Strangulation to unconsciousness would take seconds (the lack of defence wounds to the hands would suggest this is first), the lack of bruising to the head and lack of blood to front or back would suggest victim was laid down before cuts started. If we assume that these two parts are established fact, there would be unlikely time to move to the abdomen before consciousness starts to recover (about 30 seconds), let alone sufficient blood loss prior to the terminal LOC required for the lack of defence wounds. Whereas severance of both carotids would maintain unconsciousness and could be undertaken as soon as the victim was supine.

Paul

[A P Tomlinson]

I think at some point Llewellyn suggests the notion that she has been dragged?
Obviously depending which direction that was would make a difference. But if she were dragged even a couple of yards by her feet that would cause the skirts to bunch up higher up and get trapped by her body... maybe?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,




The route is similar only in that both would go along Bucks Row.

The young girl who claimed to hear a disturbance lived some distance north , along Brady Street.
The possible locations are shown on the attached map.
The route used by Paul and Lechmere is in blue.
They would never be as far north as the reported incident.


Steve

Hi Steve


Thankyou so much for clarifying that for me.


This clearly shows that IF the young girl AND her mother heard a woman calling for help around the time of the murder of Nichols, and the woman was heard to collide/make contact with the shutters of the shop downstairs to the family residence, then there's a real possibility that the initial assault on Nichols was carried out somewhere North/East/West of the possible locations you have highlighted as being the place where the girl heard the commotion outside.

What it does is then greatly reduces the chances of Lechmere having been the killer; because as you highlight, his path would cross SOUTH of where the girl claimed to have heard the woman cry out for help.

It means that Nichols may have been initially attacked in the northern section of Brady Street and then fled south and then turned right and went west along Bucks Row...but Lechmere would have been walking East to West ACROSS the junction and then into Bucks Row; ergo, Lechmere wasn't in the northern section of Brady Street at any point.

Surely this reduces his chances of having been the Ripper?


From your maps I can see a disused Jewish Cemetery...good for carrying out business in the dark.

But there's also an alleyway called "Thomas Passage" that appears to run east from Brady Street and passes a public house on the northern corner.

Is this pub a place where Nichols could have initially encountered the Ripper?

Well...here's a new hypothesis..


Nichols and the Ripper leave the public house and walk along Thomas passage heading west towards Brady at...but as they walk into the alleyway he suddenly becomes aggressive and tries to strangle Nichols.
BUt she manages to escape and begins calling for help as she flees along Thomas Passage and turns left to walk towards the shop.
The little girl hears Nichols calling for help as she falls into the shutters; she's already intoxicated and she has already been partially strangled.
She hears the Ripper following her and she flees south, but instead of her keep going to reach Whitechapel road in front of her, she makes a grave error and turns right into Bucks Row.

The killer then follows her and eventually catches up with her. He grabs her and strangles her. She passes out and he then cuts her throat as her blood pressure drops. He then mutilates her and the rest is history...


RD

[Robert St Devil]

At the very least, he is floating the idea that the abdominal wounds are what killed her.

To append on your thought, rj, Dr. Llewelyn made a statement [on|prior to] September 1st:

Pall Mall Gazette, September 1, 1888
There was a very small pool of blood on the pathway, which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than half a pint at the outside.


I’m as baffled as anyone why Baxter came to the conclusion that Llewelyn believed her abdomen was cut first WHEN everything Llewelyn said IS to the contrary; still… baxter did make that conclusion.

so yes it could be as you say, that baxter was deriving his own conclusions, from all the blood that had drained into the abdominal cavity AND from the very small pool which trickled from her throat.

[rjpalmer]

A final question to you and anyone…can you see anything in the inquest statement from Llewellyn from which someone might interpret that the abdominal injuries occurred first?

Hi Herlock.

I don't recall Llewellyn directly addressing which wounds were inflicted first in any of the published depositions, but I think the closest he comes is in the Daily News version (September 3rd):



"The deceased's [abdominal] wounds were sufficient to cause instantaneous death."

This --at least in part--- mirrors what Abberline would later write in his 19th September report.

He also describes the abdominal cuts as "draining" the body of blood, which ended up in the loose tissues of the abdominal cavity.

True, we don't see Llewellyn explicitly stating that the abdominal wounds came first, but it would be somewhat strange for him to stress that they alone could have caused instantaneous death if he was certain the cuts to the throat were first and fatal.

At the very least, he is floating the idea that the abdominal wounds are what killed her.

[Elamarna]

Hi RD,

The route she took based on the girl witness and her mother was similar to the route that both Paul and Lechmere would have taken.

The route is similar only in that both would go along Bucks Row.

The young girl who claimed to hear a disturbance lived some distance north , along Brady Street.
The possible locations are shown on the attached map.
The route used by Paul and Lechmere is in blue.
They would never be as far north as the reported incident.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

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."

I’m finding it difficult to completely let this one go Roger. Dogs and bones and all that. If Llewellyn had expressed the opinion (on the 19th or before) that the abdominal wounds came first then why didn’t he specifically say this at the inquest days later? I find it strange that nothing in the Doctor’s inquest statement could have led Baxter to believe that he meant that the abdominal injuries came first. Could Baxter have read Abberline’s report? But if he had then why (after reading that unequivocal statement from Abberline, apparently relating what Llewellyn had told him) did Baxter say: “Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first.” So why only ‘ seems to inline…’?

A final question to you and anyone…can you see anything in the inquest statement from Llewellyn from which someone might interpret that the abdominal injuries occurred first?

[Geddy2112]

In other words, the young girl who claimed to have heard a woman cry out for help around the time of the murder, had a step dad called Charles Cross

Another one, no wonder if he was the killer he used the name Cross, it's like Smith nowadays.

[The Rookie Detective]

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;'

But if the abdominal wounds occured first, then that may support the idea that she had been placed there from elsewhere.

There were 2 witnesses; a mother and daughter; the latter describing hearing a woman calling out for help and colliding with the shutters of the their shop front downstairs, before the woman is heard moving away and towards Bucks Row where she is later found.

This evidence has always been dismissed for whatever reason but it supports the idea that Nichols was initially attacked further East in the adjacent road and then instead of continuing south into Whitechapel Road, chose to turn right and head West along Bucks Row to where she succumbed to her killer.


The route she took based on the girl witness and her mother was similar to the route that both Paul and Lechmere would have taken.


It was also reported that around midnight just a few hours before Nichols was found, another woman just a few doors from the murder site was attacked in her house by her husband who used a knife on her. She was taken to hospital and her fate is unknown.

That may have been a faux report however as I can find no other documentation to verify the newspaper reports.

Bucks Row at the time wasn't considered as bad as somewhere like Berner Street and so the killer's choice of location for the Nichols murder is interesting when compared to the locations of all the other murders.



Interestingly the mother of the young girl who heard a woman call out for help was married to a man named...

Charles Cross

In other words, the young girl who claimed to have heard a woman cry out for help around the time of the murder, had a step dad called Charles Cross

How bizarre


Coincidences


Got to love them



RD