Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[John G]

Thatīs cohesive: Chapman lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Kelly lost her abdominal wall in flaps (you seemingly forgot her...?), Nichols had a flap cut out, but it seems the killer was disturbed, Eddowes has the lower half of her adomen encircled by cuts - and that of course argues AGAINST a will on the killers behalf to cut away the abdomens in flaps. Extremely logical! "Spot on" indeed!!

Except Eddowes didn't have her abdominal wall cut away in flaps/sections, even though her killer apparently had a "will" to do so!

[Elamarna]

Thatīs cohesive: Chapman lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Kelly lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Nichols had a flap cut out, but it seems the killer was disturbed, Eddowes has the lower half of her adomen encircled by cuts - and that of course argues AGAINST a will on the killers behalf to cut away the abdomens in flaps. Extremely logical!

Yes it is very logical. Unlike so much which is posted.

To open the abdomenial cavity to allow access. It is both common practicle and gives by far the best space to work in and view what one is doing, to open the abdomen wall as flaps as you like to term them.
Chapman has flaps cut yes. And I now have a reason for such. Nothing to do with ritual; pure practicalities.
Kelly is cut to bits and to suggest that flaps have any special meaning in that case is unprovable.

In Eddowes he could cut a flap away but does not.
In Nichols he does not.

Even if one includes Kelly that's only 50%; statistically it proves nothing.
Saying it does however does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.

However Christer have nearly completed my project, I will be posting soon. Now that should be fun.

Steve

[Fisherman]

John G:

...you have argued that you don't believe there is proof that Lechmere murdered Nichols, but that's not the impression you give in your posts.

I can only do so much for you, John. If you donīt respect what I tell you, then thatīs not my fault.

Frankly, in this regard what exactly sets you apart from Trevor Marriott, Patricia Cornwall, Bruce Robinson...?

Bruce Robinson is richer than I am, Patricia Cornwell is a woman and Trevor Marriott makes funnier mistakes than I do.
Plus, of course, they are all wrong (Ugh!)

[Fisherman]

Except Eddowes didn't have her abdominal wall cut away in flaps/sections, even though her killer apparently had a "will" to do so!

All we can say is that it seems he MAY have had such a will. Letīs not turn appearances into facts.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Yes it is very logical. Unlike so much which is posted.

Actually, it is illogical.

To open the abdomenial cavity to allow access. It is both common practicle and gives by far the best space to work in and view what one is doing, to open the abdomen wall as flaps as you like to term them.

Please donīt start about "common practice" again. We are NOT speaking about medicos and anatomists, we are speaking about killers. If you can prove that it is common practice within that clientele, you have a point. If not, you hae no point whatsoever.
And I donīt "like to" use the term flaps - I use the term that was used back then, and I try to avoid using ten terms for one phenomenon.

Chapman has flaps cut yes. And I now have a reason for such. Nothing to do with ritual; pure practicalities.
Kelly is cut to bits and to suggest that flaps have any special meaning in that case is unprovable.

Your "logic" again. Chapmans belly was cut into four flaps, Kellyīs was cut into three flaps. Thatīs how "cut to pieces" it was. It is a perfect parallel, no matter what you may think about it.

In Eddowes he could cut a flap away but does not.

We donīt know if time and circumstances allowed for it.

In Nichols he does not.

Same thing here.

Even if one includes Kelly that's only 50%; statistically it proves nothing.
Saying it does however does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.

It proves that 50 per cent of the eviscerated C5 victims had their abdominal walls removed, and a good case can be made for the other two being on their way there.
To you: insignificant.
To me: significant.
Does the ritualistic thinking I speak of predispose a cut away abdominal wall? No.

However Christer have nearly completed my project, I will be posting soon. Now that should be fun.

Why?

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Yes it is very logical. Unlike so much which is posted.

Actually, it is illogical.

Not to me and possibly many others

To open the abdomenial cavity to allow access. It is both common practicle and gives by far the best space to work in and view what one is doing, to open the abdomen wall as flaps as you like to term them.

Please donīt start about "common practice" again. We are NOT speaking about medicos and anatomists, we are speaking about killers. If you can prove that it is common practice within that clientele, you have a point. If not, you hae no point whatsoever.
And I donīt "like to" use the term flaps - I use the term that was used back then, and I try to avoid using ten terms for one phenomenon.

When are you going to realise you do not say what is relavent or viable and you do not set the agenda Fish.

Chapman has flaps cut yes. And I now have a reason for such. Nothing to do with ritual; pure practicalities.
Kelly is cut to bits and to suggest that flaps have any special meaning in that case is unprovable.

Your "logic" again. Chapmans belly was cut into four flaps, Kellyīs was cut into three flaps. Thatīs how "cut to pieces" it was. It is a perfect parallel, no matter what you may think about it.

Given you do not know my reasoning on Chapman how can you argue against it.

I say it is not a parallel no matter what You think!

In Eddowes he could cut a flap away but does not.

We donīt know if time and circumstances allowed for it.

There is no reason to assume there was not. There was time to cut and remove and take organs, to cut the face and to take part of the apron. And there is no evidence he was disturbed.

In Nichols he does not.

Same thing here.

Really? I am doubting that more and more. After all it just one more cut and he has time to make two neck cuts after the abdomenial ones or so Llewellyn suggests

Even if one includes Kelly that's only 50%; statistically it proves nothing.
Saying it does however does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.

It proves that 50 per cent of the eviscerated C5 victims had their abdominal walls removed, and a good case can be made for the other two being on their way there.
To you: insignificant.
To me: significant.

Your opinion that the other two are on the way. I disagree.
50% of a four subject group do not show a particular trait, it's not significant.

[B][B]Does the ritualistic thinking I speak of predispose a cut away

I will need to reread what you have said before.

However Christer have nearly completed my project, I will be posting soon. Now that should be fun.

Why?

You will have to wait a little longer.

Goodnight


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, this has been discussed in depth before - very clearly, Helson expresses a view Llewellyn did not agree with; the doctor thought the abdominal wounds came first. He said so before the inquest, and Baxter confirmed that this was his take as he summed the inquest up. What business Helson had denying it, I donīt know.

Helson apparently preferred if the other way around, and tried to use the ulster as the probable vessel for holding most of the blood. But the upper part of an ulster will not hold litres of blood, and there was very little blood around the neck.

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
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 vertebr

[Sam Flynn]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
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 vertebr

And there Dr Llewellyn fell down and died, unable to complete his final word.

(Only kidding, Joshua )

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

When are you going to realise you do not say what is relavent or viable and you do not set the agenda Fish.

We set it together. That is why I voice my take on things. If I didnīt, your version - which I think is wrong - would prevail.

There is no reason to assume there was not. There was time to cut and remove and take organs, to cut the face and to take part of the apron. And there is no evidence he was disturbed.

Just as there is no evidence that he was not, Steve. And nobody is saying that he would have taken the flaps first - his agenda was a broad one.

Your opinion that the other two are on the way.

No, my opinion is that a good case can be made for it. Which was what I said. I must once again ask you to be a bit more careful when "quoting" me!

[Fisherman]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
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 vertebr

Llewellyn did the post-mortem on the 1:st. The Morning Advertiser wrote this article before Llewellyn knew where the blood had gone. The Star - and evening paper as opposed to the Morning Advertiser - reported about the proceedings on the 1:st:

There was no new light thrown on the case this morning. At nine o'clock the body of deceased was removed from the mortuary to an improvised operating room on the premises, and Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post-mortem examination. The object of the examination was to determine if possible, the order in which the various cuts were made. It is evident from the cuts in the throat that the head was bent back by the murderer before the knife was used. Whether the other mutilation took place before or after death remains to be settled, as also the position in which the woman lay when the deed done. There are several questions of this kind which may throw light on the case, notably the small quantity of blood at the place where she was found and the fact that there must have been much of it somewhere else.

So we can see that the Star knew that the order of the cuts was what Llewellyn tried to establish, but they had not gotten his verdict. When it came, it was grounded on the blood in the abdominal cavity. I have seen Llewellyn speaking about this somewhere, but cannot find the source right now.

Any which way, since Llewellyn did not know that the blood was inside the abdominal cavity as the Morning Advertiser published his view, it was a view based on lacking knowledge. The same goes for the Echo report you posted earlier. It is dated the 1:rd, but it quotes Llewellyn as saying that he thinks the body was carried to the spot in the ulster, and that view was one held by the doctor before the blood was accounted for, so the Echo were rehashing old news at this stage. We can see at the end of the Star quote above that the evening papers were not in the know about Llewellynīs change of mind about the murder spot on the 1:st.

[GUT]

Sorry wrong thread somehow.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;411717]Elamarna:

When are you going to realise you do not say what is relavent or viable and you do not set the agenda Fish.

We set it together. That is why I voice my take on things. If I didnīt, your version - which I think is wrong - would prevail.


And once again what you show in that reply is a take that only one view is possibly correct..

There is no reason to assume there was not. There was time to cut and remove and take organs, to cut the face and to take part of the apron. And there is no evidence he was disturbed.

Just as there is no evidence that he was not, Steve. And nobody is saying that he would have taken the flaps first - his agenda was a broad one.

Again we have an unsupported view that you are aware of an agenda.
And I did not say at what stage he may have cut any flaps, so why suggest it was not first 89is somewhat strange. as you say "nobody is saying that he would have taken the flaps first "

Your opinion that the other two are on the way.

[B]No, my opinion is that a good case can be made for it. Which was what I said. I must once again ask you to be a bit more careful when "quoting" me.


I did not directly quote you Christer.as you are obviously aware by the use of "quote" i commented on a view expressed in the post

That comment was:

"It proves that 50 per cent of the eviscerated C5 victims had their abdominal walls removed, and a good case can be made for the other two being on their way there.
To you: insignificant.
To me: significant."

You clearly state "that a good case can be made for the other two". That is an opinion, and of course the full quote is directly abovr my comment in the post and clear for all to see. My post is therefore correct.

I am somewhat at a loss why you feel that is misrepresenting you, anyone reading the post can see exactly what each said.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Llewellyn did the post-mortem on the 1:st. The Morning Advertiser wrote this article before Llewellyn knew where the blood had gone. The Star - and evening paper as opposed to the Morning Advertiser - reported about the proceedings on the 1:st:

There was no new light thrown on the case this morning. At nine o'clock the body of deceased was removed from the mortuary to an improvised operating room on the premises, and Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post-mortem examination. The object of the examination was to determine if possible, the order in which the various cuts were made. It is evident from the cuts in the throat that the head was bent back by the murderer before the knife was used. Whether the other mutilation took place before or after death remains to be settled, as also the position in which the woman lay when the deed done. There are several questions of this kind which may throw light on the case, notably the small quantity of blood at the place where she was found and the fact that there must have been much of it somewhere else.

So we can see that the Star knew that the order of the cuts was what Llewellyn tried to establish, but they had not gotten his verdict. When it came, it was grounded on the blood in the abdominal cavity. I have seen Llewellyn speaking about this somewhere, but cannot find the source right now.

Any which way, since Llewellyn did not know that the blood was inside the abdominal cavity as the Morning Advertiser published his view, it was a view based on lacking knowledge. The same goes for the Echo report you posted earlier. It is dated the 1:rd, but it quotes Llewellyn as saying that he thinks the body was carried to the spot in the ulster, and that view was one held by the doctor before the blood was accounted for, so the Echo were rehashing old news at this stage. We can see at the end of the Star quote above that the evening papers were not in the know about Llewellynīs change of mind about the murder spot on the 1:st.

Christer

Yes the view he took changed not least because of his failings at the murder site.
He failed to notice the abdomenial cuts. He failed to record any serious attempt at the distribution of blood at the site.

And of course by the time Sspratling checks the site himself the blood as been washed away.

Now Llewellyn having initially gone for throat first is concerned by the apparent lack of blood there is no evidence to suggest the body as been moved and so he comes up with the suggestion of abdomen first supplemented by the idea that the blood to a large extent was in the loose tissues, given the amount of blood involved that is to me not convincing.


Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;411725][QUOTE=Fisherman;411717]Elamarna:

When are you going to realise you do not say what is relavent or viable and you do not set the agenda Fish.

We set it together. That is why I voice my take on things. If I didnīt, your version - which I think is wrong - would prevail.


And once again what you show in that reply is a take that only one view is possibly correct..

In some matters, yes - in others not.

There is no reason to assume there was not. There was time to cut and remove and take organs, to cut the face and to take part of the apron. And there is no evidence he was disturbed.

Just as there is no evidence that he was not, Steve. And nobody is saying that he would have taken the flaps first - his agenda was a broad one.

Again we have an unsupported view that you are aware of an agenda.
And I did not say at what stage he may have cut any flaps, so why suggest it was not first 89is somewhat strange. as you say "nobody is saying that he would have taken the flaps first "


Because if he did it first, he would stand a better chance to complete it. I am pointing to how the agenda he worked to (according to me) does not necessarily prioritize the cutting of abdominal flaps.

Your opinion that the other two are on the way.

[B]No, my opinion is that a good case can be made for it. Which was what I said. I must once again ask you to be a bit more careful when "quoting" me.


I did not directly quote you Christer.as you are obviously aware by the use of "quote" i commented on a view expressed in the post

That comment was:

"It proves that 50 per cent of the eviscerated C5 victims had their abdominal walls removed, and a good case can be made for the other two being on their way there.
To you: insignificant.
To me: significant."

You clearly state "that a good case can be made for the other two". That is an opinion, and of course the full quote is directly abovr my comment in the post and clear for all to see. My post is therefore correct.

[B] I am somewhat at a loss why you feel that is misrepresenting you, anyone reading the post can see exactly what each said.

You are claiming on my behalf that I am sure that the other two victims WERE on their way. A fact, as it happens.
But I expressed no fact. I said that a good case could be made for this, not that it was necessarily so.

One of the main criticisms I endure out here is the reoccuring idea that I am too certain about things that I cannot be certain about. When somebody does what you just did, it does not help.

Now, do you understand?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer

Yes the view he took changed not least because of his failings at the murder site.

That is how myths are created - by stating things as facts that cannot be facts.

He failed to notice the abdomenial cuts.

He could not be required to. He was there to see if the woman was dead or alive. he noted that she was dead, and any ensuing investigations on his behalf would be better to carry out in a mortuary. It goes without saying that he took it uopn himself to check the whole body out THERE, and nowhere else.
So he did not "fail" to note the abdominal cuts - he left his investigation to the proper time and place.

He failed to record any serious attempt at the distribution of blood at the site.

I am certain that he saw the pool and that he noticed that there was blood in the hair and the clothing. The exact distribution was primarily a matter for the police. Llewellyn needed to know in order to establish the order in which the cuts came. He knew that there was a small pool of blood under the neck, he knew that there was blood in the hair and in the clothes, he did not know and could not check at the tine if the rest of the blood was in the abdominal cavity, but took precautions to run that check at the post-mortem, which enabled him to make his call about the order of things.
He surmised at the murder site that the cuts to the neck may be the only damage, and that made him think that the body would have been carried to the site, a wise enough reflection. The post-mortem changed it. End of story.
I donīt think that any medico could be demanded to do run a check on the whole body at the site. It would involve tampering woth the clothes, and the coroner made it clear that this was not something he wanted to see.
It seems to me that Llewellyn was very well suited to do his job.

And of course by the time Sspratling checks the site himself the blood as been washed away.

Thain, Mizen, Neil and Green could all clarify how much blood there had been and where. It was common procedure to wash away the blood in those days. It was not a Miami Vice era, Steve.

Now Llewellyn having initially gone for throat first is concerned by the apparent lack of blood there is no evidence to suggest the body as been moved and so he comes up with the suggestion of abdomen first supplemented by the idea that the blood to a large extent was in the loose tissues, given the amount of blood involved that is to me not convincing.


"He comes up with the suggestion..."? How about "He concludes"? Amaziong, is it not, what words can do?
Llewellyn was at a loss to understand where the blood was when he originally saw Nichols, being unaware of the abdominal wounds. He was the recalled to look at Nichols after Spratlings finds, and noted that there was substantial damage done to the abdomen.
Up until this point, the clever thing to believe was that the cuts to the neck were the killing cuts, and that the body had been moved, resulting in very little blood being in place under the neck.
People who have their necks sliced open in rows, are almost always people who are alive when cut. It woud not have dawned on Llewellyn that he was dealing with a case where the victim was first strangled and THEN had her neck cut - if you strangle to death, then you do not need to cut the neck afterwards.
But this was a different type of killer and a different type of murder. Llewellyn was forced by the facts to realize that the killer had indeed strangled first and then moved on to cutting the body. Which meant that Llewellyn needed to try and establish in which order the cuts were delivered. And the signs were clear enough, once it was accepted that Nichols was slain on the spot where she was found:
The lack of blood around the neck and the lack of arterial spray spoke against the neck wounds coming first. Therefore, the abdominal wounds would have preceded the neck cuts. This meant that Llewellyn needed to check where the blood had gone, and he found it in the avdominal cavity, where there was extensive damage - the doctor said that it seemed that the killer had targetted all the vital organs. This means that liver, kidneys, stomach, spleen etcetera had all suffered cuts. And the doctor added that the blood had leaked out of cut arteries and vains in the abdomen, and ended up "in the loose tissues", realistically meaning that the intestines were floating in a sea of blood in the abdomen.

Having seen all of this, Llewellyn had his view clear. Baxter disliked it - he knew that Chapman was killed neck first, and wanted consequence, so he asked why somebody who had cut the abdomen to pieces would add such "desperate" cuts as those to the neck.

And my answer to that is that the killer dealt a coup de grace because he was interrupted and decided to stay put at the spot and bluff it out. A point of comparison is the Tabram murder where Killeed felt that the coup de grace through the heart came last - Tabram lived, he said, through the onslaught of all the other stabs.