Mary Ann Nichols

[paul emmett]

Ya gotta ask Rees Ralph about the 4-5 minutes. But remember he never even gave Jack's time in the 220.

[Blackkat]

Hmm - Well what if it was plural - killer(s) - could they later have changed up a bit during the next murders so that it wouldn't appear like two?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hmm - Well what if it was plural - killer(s) - could they later have changed up a bit during the next murders so that it wouldn't appear like two?

It's not impossible that it was two killers working in tandem. Not impossible at all. I'm not saying I support that conclusion but I don't rule it out. Consider:

* Dr. Killeen's belief that two weapons were used in the murder of Tabram.
* Harriett Lilley hearing two people whispering over Nichols' corpse.
* Schwartz's testimony of two men he felt (but wasn't sure) were known to each other.
* The man near Mitre Square who asked James Blenkinsop if he'd seen a couple come through right before the murder of Eddowes.
* A man standing just outside Millers Court and staring up the court, possibly keeping look out.
* Alice Mackenzie (or was it Coles?) seen talking with two men, ala Pipeman and BS Man, prior to her murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jon Guy]

* Alice Mackenzie (or was it Coles?) seen talking with two men, ala Pipeman and BS Man, prior to her murder.

Rose Mylett was seen arguing with two sailors, is that who you meant ?

[Tom_Wescott]

Rose Mylett was seen arguing with two sailors, is that who you meant ?

Not sure. Only working from vague memory here, but it could be. Thanks Jon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

Hmm - Well what if it was plural - killer(s) - could they later have changed up a bit during the next murders so that it wouldn't appear like two?

Hi, Blackkat.

Tom has already provided a good list. I'd just like to add one thing that I noticed this week rereading the Nichols material. It's the cotroversy over the weapon used. In a 9/1 TIMES article Llewellyn says, "it was not an espescially long-bladed weapon." In his inquest deposition, he says, on two occassions, "long-bladed knife, modreately sharp." Sugden tries to resolve this issue by saying that the inquest quote, also reported(later) in the TIMES is an error. But the DAILY TELEGRAPH said "long-bladed" too.

I have no easy solution, and I would like to hear what others think, but for me the differences in the "knives" was enhanced by the differences in the wounds. Deep neck and vertical cuts; superficial horizontal and vaginal cuts.

So, despite the fact that Llewellyn does say one weapon was used, all this just seemed to tie in with Tabram, Lilley and your question.

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

Be careful there. Llewellyn changed his mind about a lot of things, including which hand the killer used and whether or not he gutted her or cut her throat first. However, at no point did anyone in authority suggest that two different weapons were used on Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

I know all of that is true, Tom. But I still struggle to understand Llewellyn's inconsistency with the knife. I think with the left-handed and gutted first, just like with not seeing her abdominal wounds, he screwed up and went back to cover his "tracks." So she did have abdomnal wounds, the killer was not necessarily left-handed, and the neck wounds were first. But which knife was it?

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

It could be as simple a matter as that he was misquoted by the Times.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

But, Tom, that's what I referred to above. The DAILY TELEGRAPH has the same "long-bladed" quote as the TIMES.

And upon reflection, Llewellyn's incompetence that you documented above only makes me doubt his assertion of one weapon.
Paul

[Tom_Wescott]

Paul,

You're working backwards, my friend. It doesn't work to say 'Llewellyn said there was only one weapon used, but he was incompetent, so there must have been more than one weapon used.' There's nothing in the documentation to suggest two weapons were used on Nichols.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

Paul,

You're working backwards, my friend. It doesn't work to say 'Llewellyn said there was only one weapon used, but he was incompetent, so there must have been more than one weapon used.' There's nothing in the documentation to suggest two weapons were used on Nichols.

Hi, Tom.

I'm not saying, "he was incompetent, SO there must have been two weapons"; I'm saying he was incompitent, so I mistrust what he says. And to add to our earlier list, I mistrust him when he says, killer grabbed her chin with his right hand and slit her throat with his left. I mistrust him when he says Polly was killed somewhere else and dumped at Buck's Row. I still mistrust him when he says, "no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen." To say nothing of his neck wounds done LAST faux pas. I, in short, mistrust him! SO when I see the suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier, I'm not just gonna roll over cause Llewellyn disagrees. And it was Llewellyn's call, right? Just like it was only Killeen who said there were two weapons used on Tabram.


That said, I have a question about the knife. In his short knife mode, Llewellyn says it could have been a shoemaker's knife. When it came to Chapman, Phillips said directly that here, a cobbler's knife would be too short. What are the differences in the wounds that could elicit such divergent assertions? I just don't know.

Have a good day.

[Tom_Wescott]

SO when I see the suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier, I'm not just gonna roll over cause Llewellyn disagrees.

What suggestion of two weapons in the Nichols case? And with whom did Llewellyn disagree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[paul emmett]

What suggestion of two weapons in the Nichols case? And with whom did Llewellyn disagree?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Originally Posted by paul emmett
SO when I see the suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier, I'm not just gonna roll over cause Llewellyn disagrees.




Hi, Tom. This happens a lot with us, so I guess I just need to be more precise. The top here is your last post, which, in turn, quoted my comments which follow, starting with "SO when. . .. " And I thought this sentence, the very sentence of mine you quoted, answers both the questions you asked. Namely: "What suggestion of two weapons in the Nichols case?"--- "The suggestions of two weapons that I discussed earlier." "With whom did Llewellyn disagree?"---Me.

The suggestions of two weapons that I had mentioned were the two different types of wounds, and Llewellyn's own confusion over long or short. Now I'd like to add Phillip's dismissal of a cobbler's knife in the Chapman case--where at least the neck wounds are similar to Nichols's.

Paul

[Tom_Wescott]

Perhaps I'm partly guilty for this, but we should be careful about painting Llewellyn as a complete moron. A horrible profiler, yes, but he was a man of much medical experience. He gave an initial opinion about the knife used (shorter) and later, following more thorough examinations of the wounds, he decided it was a long blade. This final conclusion is the one we should accept as best representing his professional opinion and shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he was "confused". His differing comments certainly do not suggest that more than one weapon was used.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott