Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
PC Neil only noticed when he shone his lamp on her.
Regarding the hat, either Cross or Paul moved it, as Neil found it by her left side.
That is a possibility. But we also need to look at the other victims and compare
and in no other case did the killer employ such tactics.
Another thing to consider is that it can be suggested that this killer had some sort of fixation with then abdominal cavity and wanted to cut it open and extract organs. You donīt do that with just the one hand.
In fact, the wounds seem to indicate someone just slashing furiously, the pit of the abdomen been the only surface where the knife could go in deep.
Yes, and that will - if I am guessing right - be quite significant. But if we reason like most people do, we are only faced with a killer who was disturbed and who fled accordingly
It also happened in McKenzie`s case too, which was a lot later in the series.
Is there eveidence that McKenzies`s killer was disturbed ?
But yes, it does look Nichols killer was disturbed (by Cross)
I therefore think that the objective of most cuts was either just to cut into the stomach or to combine that with inflicting lethal damage. My hunch is that the large gash, from the breastbone down, and from where some intestines protruded, was the last inflicted wound.
If there was any desire to take out any innards, then this was the kind of cut he needed to produce in order to reach that goal.
I think that Tabram preceded Nichols, and that it mirrored the Nichols deed to a large extent - first came strangulation, but not until death (Tabrams hands were clenched). Then followed a series of cuts/stabs to the trunk. Then, when the killer was either disturbed or satisfied with what he had achieved, he dealt the coup de grace.
With Tabram, it came in the shape of a stab through the heart, with Nichols he cut the neck.
That is why there was so little blood under the neck. Llewellyn was quite correct in stating, as per Baxter, that the abdominal wounds came first
.
With Tabram, it came in the shape of a stab through the heart, with Nichols he cut the neck.
That is why there was so little blood under the neck. Llewellyn was quite correct in stating, as per Baxter, that the abdominal wounds came first
.
Not here again. Most of the blood from the throat wound soaked into the back of coat. We even have the police involved confirming this.
Many have seen this as impossible, and have argued that Baxter was wrong or misunderstood Llewellyn, who was quoted as having said that the neck would have come first, at least in the initital stages of the investigation. I have now found another source, confirming what Baxter said. It is (slightly ironically for Dr Strange) in the famed 19:th of September report signed by Swanson and Abberline, preceding Baxter by half a week:[/B]
"...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 expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut. The body was not then identified..."
.
"...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 expressed an opinion that they were inflicted before the throat was cut. The body was not then identified..."
.
He even says that at this time "the body was not the identified"
Swanson knew her name on Sept 19th - so why did he write this ?
What does this mean here? It means that the suggestion of the killer lifting the clothes with one hand and cutting with the other becomes a better one. But in the end, since Paul never saw the cuts to the neck - and they had produced a two-inch wide gap, according to the press! - I remain of the meaning that the killer had hidden them. ].
[/B]
Of course it`s your right to surmise that the killer hid Nichols wounds, but we can`t make this one a fact ;-)
True again. What we CAN treat as fact is that the wounds to the abdomen WERE hidden before Paul did any pulling. Whether by accident or by design is another matter. And it is also a fact that the other victimsī damages were anything but hidden!
].
Of course it`s your right to surmise that the killer hid Nichols wounds, but we can`t make this one a fact ;-)
True again. What we CAN treat as fact is that the wounds to the abdomen WERE hidden before Paul did any pulling. Whether by accident or by design is another matter. And it is also a fact that the other victimsī damages were anything but hidden!
].
I agree, the abdominal wounds seem to have been hidden from view by her dress. The neck wounds were hidden by the lack of available light.
This is a big difference to the killer hiding the wounds.
Some accounts say groin, and they then pulled the dress down to her knees.
Yes, the information varies. Which is why neither of us should use any of the extremes.
Yes, the information varies. Which is why neither of us should use any of the extremes.
I think that a salomonical solution tells us that both abdomen and private parts were hidden, and that the clothes covered the first few inches of the thighs. Deal?

You have a deal !! :-)
Let`s finish this one on this positive note (I need to lie down now, and I get to have the last word ... ;-)
Leave a comment: