Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;411729][QUOTE=Elamarna;411725]

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 didn´t, 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?

That does not work in this case.

What you actually said which I was responding to was included in my post.
It was therefore clear just what you had said.
What was said was basically you think there was I good case for something and I said I did not agree. That was very clear and there was no attempt to misrepresent you at all.


Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;411732][QUOTE=Fisherman;411729]

That does not work in this case.

What you actually said which I was responding to was included in my post.
It was therefore clear just what you had said.
What was said was basically you think there was I good case for something and I said I did not agree. That was very clear and there was no attempt to misrepresent you at all.


Steve

Yes - what was said was that I think that there is a good case for Nichols and Eddowes being on their way to having flaps removed.

A good case. Not a proven one.

What you wrote was "Your opinion that the other two are on the way. I disagree."

What you state here is that my opinion is that Nichols and Eddowes ARE on their way. But what I said is that a good case can be made for it. Meaning that they MAY well be on their way, not that they ARE on their way. Saying that they are on their way would be excluding other explanations to the appearances of their bodies.

If you cannot see the difference between something being a fact or being something that can be proposed on sound grounds, then you should not have this discussion at all.

In one of your posts, you point out that I "do not set the agenda". But why would I, when you have apparently taken it upon yourself to do it for me? Last time this happened, you said that you would quote me directly to avoid misunderstandings. But did you? No. You voiced something I never said as if it came from me.

If you are having problems understanding what I dislike here, there is little I can do to help you out, unless this post does the trick. I am not saying that you made an "attempt to mislead", since that would be a conscious act. It seems you simply cannot tell the difference between fact and suggestion in this case, and much as it is regrettable, such a thing is not an act of wilful misleading.

Now, if we can move on to more interesting matters, I for one would be grateful.

[Elamarna]

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.

To me they are facts. You view it different I am not surprised.

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.

Sorry we disagree on what his role was. His performance was significantly different from the other medics in the other cases.

And of course actually you nor I have any idea or what he was thinking or planning at the murder site.

All we can know is what was and was not done.

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.

The only reason he could have for suggesting the body was moved was he did not see the amount of blood he expected.

Did he see the pool by the neck? One assumes so

The pool Thain describes is however under the back and be claims the clothing is blooded under her back. Is that the same pool?
The general view appears to be yes, however Neil says he sees the pool by the neck , while Thain says the pool under her is only seen once she is loaded into the ambalance.
So there must be some question on that.
There is obviously no other search of the area to look for blood until it gets light and any blood is washed away without being recorded.
His assertion that blood collected in the loose tissue appears to me to indicate that he had problems in accounting for the blood in this area too.

I don´t 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.

The coroner's problem seemed to be that the clothing was removed by untrained persons with no supervision; I find the suggest the Doctor was not expected to touch the clothing truly mind boggling.

Your view of what a doctor could and should have been expected to do onsite is very different to mine and more importantly different from how medics behaved at the other sites.

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.

The point is we have no overall picture of the blood pattern.
No one is asking for modern day forensics, just something in common with the other site's

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.

Agreed

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,

In your view, my reading is different

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.

He really says that? Of course he does not that is an extrapolation of his comment.
A comment to which no detail is ever added or recorded.


As a medical report it is next to useless and again far less than given in the other cases.

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.

That is not how I read it. The mention of the loose tissue suggests just the opposite to me, . It's how one reads it and if one reads with an open mind.

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.

And of course that is the issue. We are working to fit a theory.
If the killer is interrupted it is while he is working on the abdomen. That is what the evidence suggests.
And there is some evidence that no interruption took place at all. This also needs to be assesed.
Of course that does not fit the theory.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;411733][QUOTE=Elamarna;411732]

Yes - what was said was that I think that there is a good case for Nichols and Eddowes being on their way to having flaps removed.

A good case. Not a proven one.

What you wrote was "Your opinion that the other two are on the way. I disagree."

What you state here is that my opinion is that Nichols and Eddowes ARE on their way. But what I said is that a good case can be made for it. Meaning that they MAY well be on their way, not that they ARE on their way. Saying that they are on their way would be excluding other explanations to the appearances of their bodies.

If you cannot see the difference between something being a fact or being something that can be proposed on sound grounds, then you should not have this discussion at all.

In one of your posts, you point out that I "do not set the agenda". But why would I, when you have apparently taken it upon yourself to do it for me? Last time this happened, you said that you would quote me directly to avoid misunderstandings. But did you? No. You voiced something I never said as if it came from me.

If you are having problems understanding what I dislike here, there is little I can do to help you out, unless this post does the trick. I am not saying that you made an "attempt to mislead", since that would be a conscious act. It seems you simply cannot tell the difference between fact and suggestion in this case, and much as it is regrettable, such a thing is not an act of wilful misleading.

Now, if we can move on to more interesting matters, I for one would be grateful.

Come on what you said is quoted in full directly above my comment.

It was clear I disagreed with your suggestion. Nothing was presented as a fact.
If I had not included the full text above my comment you may have a point, However such was 1 line above.

If you can only argue semantics the case is over and done.

Steve

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;411736][QUOTE=Fisherman;411733]

Come on what you said is quoted in full directly above my comment.

It was clear I disagreed with your suggestion. Nothing was presented as a fact.
If I had not included the full text above my comment you may have a point, However such was 1 line above.

If you can only argue semantics the case is over and done.

Steve

A case can be made for the case being over and done.

The case is over and done.

Those two wordings are the exact same with the exact same meaning according to you.

Now the case is over and done.

[Fisherman]

To me they are facts. You view it different I am not surprised.







Sorry we disagree on what his role was. His performance was significantly different from the other medics in the other cases.

And of course actually you nor I have any idea or what he was thinking or planning at the murder site.

All we can know is what was and was not done.





The only reason he could have for suggesting the body was moved was he did not see the amount of blood he expected.

Did he see the pool by the neck? One assumes so

The pool Thain describes is however under the back and be claims the clothing is blooded under her back. Is that the same pool?
The general view appears to be yes, however Neil says he sees the pool by the neck , while Thain says the pool under her is only seen once she is loaded into the ambalance.
So there must be some question on that.
There is obviously no other search of the area to look for blood until it gets light and any blood is washed away without being recorded.
His assertion that blood collected in the loose tissue appears to me to indicate that he had problems in accounting for the blood in this area too.



The coroner's problem seemed to be that the clothing was removed by untrained persons with no supervision; I find the suggest the Doctor was not expected to touch the clothing truly mind boggling.

Your view of what a doctor could and should have been expected to do onsite is very different to mine and more importantly different from how medics behaved at the other sites.



The point is we have no overall picture of the blood pattern.
No one is asking for modern day forensics, just something in common with the other site's


Agreed



In your view, my reading is different



He really says that? Of course he does not that is an extrapolation of his comment.
A comment to which no detail is ever added or recorded.


As a medical report it is next to useless and again far less than given in the other cases.



That is not how I read it. The mention of the loose tissue suggests just the opposite to me, . It's how one reads it and if one reads with an open mind.






And of course that is the issue. We are working to fit a theory.
If the killer is interrupted it is while he is working on the abdomen. That is what the evidence suggests.
And there is some evidence that no interruption took place at all. This also needs to be assesed.
Of course that does not fit the theory.


Steve

Nope - too much useless quibbling to call for an answer. Sorry, Steve.

[Elamarna]

Nope - too much useless quibbling to call for an answer. Sorry, Steve.

And why am I not surprised in the slightest.
No response to to serious questions and points.
So be it



Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;411739][QUOTE=Elamarna;411736]

A case can be made for the case being over and done.

The case is over and done.

Those two wordings are the exact same with the exact same meaning according to you.

Now the case is over and done.

NO real response just playing with words.

STEVE

[Fisherman]

And why am I not surprised in the slightest.
No response to to serious questions and points.
So be it

Steve

I think you may be grossly overstating your case, Steve. Your post was a number of "I disagree" remarks and another of the old "you only say so to fit your theory" remarks.

That´s hardly what I call serious questions and points, to be frank.

The one half interesting point you made was about Thain and a supposed collection of blood under the body. And I have already clearly stated that there was a pool under her neck and a small amount of blood just about where her legs were. There was no other blood, and I have pointed that out a number of times.
From the Morning Advertiser:
The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness (Thain): There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter. When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood.

The "large clot" near the wall, running into the gutter was the pool under her neck. As for the blood down at her waist, the clothing was not bloodied there. Helson, from the inquest:

"He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts." (Daily Telegraph)
"There was blood in the hair and about the collars of the dress and ulster, but none at the back of the skirts." (East London Observer)
"The back of the bodice of the dress was saturated with blood near the neck." (The Echo)
"The back of the upper part of the dress near the neck had absorbed a great deal of blood; and the upper part of the ulster was also saturated. The hair was clotted with blood." (Evening News)

So Thain apparently got it wrong. When the clothing was checked for blood, it was noted that the collar parts of the ulster and the dress had blood in them, while the rest of the garments apparently had not.

That´s as serious as that post of yours got.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;411744][QUOTE=Fisherman;411739]

NO real response just playing with words.

STEVE

WTF? I am showing you that the two statements "a case can be made for" and "is" are materially different. That´s no playing with words - but you seem VERY reluctant to admit it!

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;411747][QUOTE=Elamarna;411744]

WTF? I am showing you that the two statements "a case can be made for" and "is" are materially different. That´s no playing with words - but you seem VERY reluctant to admit it!

Personally I find WTF completely unacceptable as a response.

The person reluctant to admit anything is not I.

The text I responded too was included in the post you objected to.
It was clear for all to see what you had said and to see my response..
You were quoted in full and accurately.

These attempted semantics arguments will achieve nothing.
I am really not sure why they continue.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

Personally I find WTF completely unacceptable as a response.

Personally, I find being forced to use it by your wriggling unacceptable. But there you are.

[Elamarna]

I think you may be grossly overstating your case, Steve. Your post was a number of "I disagree" remarks and another of the old "you only say so to fit your theory" remarks.

That´s hardly what I call serious questions and points, to be frank.

The one half interesting point you made was about Thain and a supposed collection of blood under the body. And I have already clearly stated that there was a pool under her neck and a small amount of blood just about where her legs were. There was no other blood, and I have pointed that out a number of times.

I do love your certainty that you are correct.

From the Morning Advertiser:
The Coroner: Was there a very large quantity on the flags? -- Witness (Thain): There was a large clot near the wall, and blood was running into the gutter. When I picked deceased up, her back, as far as the waist, was covered with blood.

The "large clot" near the wall, running into the gutter was the pool under her neck. As for the blood down at her waist, the clothing was not bloodied there. Helson, from the inquest:

"He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts." (Daily Telegraph)
"There was blood in the hair and about the collars of the dress and ulster, but none at the back of the skirts." (East London Observer)
"The back of the bodice of the dress was saturated with blood near the neck." (The Echo)
"The back of the upper part of the dress near the neck had absorbed a great deal of blood; and the upper part of the ulster was also saturated. The hair was clotted with blood." (Evening News)

So Thain apparently got it wrong. When the clothing was checked for blood, it was noted that the collar parts of the ulster and the dress had blood in them, while the rest of the garments apparently had not.

That´s as serious as that post of yours got.

Ok lets look at that, much of what you quote says no blood on the skirts, however that is not what I suggested, nor consistent with what Thain described.

A look at the press articles in detail gives slightly a different story:
Firstly as reported on this site from the inquest:

“He noticed blood on the hair, and on the collars of the dress and ulster, but not on the back of the skirts. There were no cuts in the clothes, and no indications of any struggle having taken place. The only suspicious mark discovered in the neighbourhood of Buck's-row was in Broad-street, where there was a stain which might have been blood.”




ECHO 3RD


INSPECTOR HELSON,
Of the J Division, said he received information of the murder at 6.45 Friday morning. He went to the mortuary between eight and nine o'clock. All the clothing, except the bonnet, was then on the deceased. Witness was present when the clothing was removed from the body. The stays were fairly tight on the body. There was no blood on the seat of the ulster or petticoats. The back of the bodice of the dress was saturated with blood near the neck. There was a discoloration as of a bruise, under the jawbone.

Manchester guard 4th

“Inspector Helson, J division, gave a description of the deceased's clothing. The back of the bodice of the dress, he said, had absorbed a large quantity of blood, but there was none upon the petticoats. There was no evidence of the body having been washed, and there were no cuts in the clothing. It would have been possible to inflict the wounds while the clothing was on, and without cutting it.”


Star 3rd

INSPECTOR HELSTON
“said he received information of the murder at a quarter to seven. He went to the Bethnal-green station, learned the particulars, and went to the mortuary. He saw the body with all the clothing on, and was present when the clothes were removed. The bodice of the dress was buttoned down to the middle. The stays were fastened up. They were fairly tight, but they were rather short. No blood had soaked through the petticoats or the lower part of the ulster, but the back of the bodice had absorbed a good deal which had apparently come from the neck, and so had the corresponding part of the ulster.”


And just to be fair, we have another report first published in the East London Observer of Sept. 1st, 1888, it provides some further information


“Contrary to anticipation, beyond the flannel petticoat, and with the exception of a few bloodstains on the cloak, the other clothing was scarcely marked. The petticoat, however, was completely saturated with blood, and altogether presented a sickening spectacle.”

This last report is contrary to all the preceding ones, claiming the lower clothing is marked and the upper is not.
It seems clear from the majority above that the the clothing on the back of her upper body had absorbed a good deal of blood. The problem we have is the descriptions are imprecise and we cannot know for sure the area affected.
However as it stands it does not discount Thain’s report.

I notice you are quick to say he is wrong but happy to accept a statement from Mizen, which in all probability was impossible for him to have seen, or at least to be interpreted the way that some do.

The way you rush over the issue of what Llywellyn is actually saying when he talks of the “loose tissues” is very revealing.

He is recorded as saying:

“nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins and collected to a large extent in the loose tissue”

The blood vessels are surrounded by loose tissue, he appears to be saying the blood as collected in that surrounding tissue.
If he were talking about the skin, he would be talking about a bruise or a series of bruises, not blood pooling in the abdominal cavity.

And of course it is not a serious issue that you ignore the response to your suggest that the coroner would have been unhappy for Llewellyn to examine the clothing.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Elamarna:

Personally I find WTF completely unacceptable as a response.

Personally, I find being forced to use it by your wriggling unacceptable. But there you are.

So the abused is at fault, I see.

The post you objected to, did it quote your statement in full? I think it did
Did it quote your statement accurately? Considering I used the site quote facility I think it did.

Your views were and are clear.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

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 Llewellyn´s change of mind about the murder spot on the 1:st.

Any luck finding that source for Llewellyn saying the abdomen was cut first? I'm sure he must have hinted it at some point, or why would Baxter have thought he did? But aside from that mention in the summing up, I've not been able to find a report of the doctor stating any such thing.