Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Elamarna]

You have your take, and you are entitled to it. I believe I am just as entitled to mine. A day or two ago, you proposed that my take was "nonsense" and that my whole intention was to push my theory, or something like that.

Iīm glad that we seem to have moved away from that stance of yours, if nothing else.

No my position has not really moved. I started by believe he intended to open up the abdomen and an still there.

The parts I called nonsense , my view has not changed; however I see little point in arguing when the outcome in the Nichols case ends the same.

As you have said you do not wish to mention sliced off again I will not.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Medicos in general seem to have been inclined to overestimate the cutting timings, on account of thinking too professionally. Just saying.

That is something we do agree on.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Then I will ask you to give your reasons for dismissing the cutting of the abdominal wall from Jackson as being related to the same thing in the Chapman and Kelly cases. Maybe Iīve missed something?

Christer

I have given that reasoning several times over the last 12 months, mainly in replies to your posts. You are well aware of my reasons and I have no intention of rehashing that all over again.

We disagree. Live with it.
Time will not doubt show which if either of us is correct.( I actually think I ended one of those replies with those very words; Nothing has changed)

You claim you can prove a link by way of motivation, until you do that the debate cannot really progress.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Joshua while in general I have issues with estimations by medics in this case, that seems reasonable if a trifle longer than I would plump for, it is certainly more reasonable in my view than the timings suggested by Phillips in the Chapman case.
Steve

Medicos in general seem to have been inclined to overestimate the cutting timings, on account of thinking too professionally. Just saying.

[Elamarna]

From memory, Dr Llewelyn himself estimated 4-5 minutes.

Joshua while in general I have issues with estimations by medics in this case, that seems reasonable if a trifle longer than I would plump for, it is certainly more reasonable in my view than the timings suggested by Phillips in the Chapman case.

It also fits very nicely with research I have been doing, so I am just as thrilled as Christer.

Steve

[Fisherman]

It is certainly not establish. Yes you and some others feel it is there, some of whom I respect very highly, that however does not make it established. If and when you or someone else can show more than a superficial similarity then you may have reached that position. At present it is just opinion.

No I have given far more than half baked reasons for not accepting your suggestion and I stand by those until proved otherwise

Steve

Steve

Then I will ask you to give your reasons for dismissing the cutting of the abdominal wall from Jackson as being related to the same thing in the Chapman and Kelly cases. Maybe Iīve missed something?

[Fisherman]

Christer
One report which does not appear to come from Llewellyn or the good Inspector.

If it is not from them directly just how reliable is it?
Is this report from an eyewitness? Who knows?

I just see the real possability of Hyperbole being used over and over again in these reports.

This is where I urge caution. That's all .

Do we really need to commit ourselves to saying he had completed most of the job, when intent is all that is needed.


Steve

You have your take, and you are entitled to it. I believe I am just as entitled to mine. A day or two ago, you proposed that my take was "nonsense" and that my whole intention was to push my theory, or something like that.

Iīm glad that we seem to have moved away from that stance of yours, if nothing else.

[Elamarna]

I donīt think I am pushing anything, Steve. We have the turning over of the flesh from left to righ on record, and the same goes for the supposedly sliced off part. The idea pushes itself, therefore, plus - as you seem to recognize - it is totally in line with the other sites.

As for us "of course" disagreeing on the link to the torso series, I fear it is already established. Cutting the abdominal walls away from victims ensures that. After that, one may question the link if one has a good reason to do so, but the link itself wonīt go away until we can prove that it must do so. And there are more links, as you know. Many more.

And frankly, I donīt think you have even a half-baked reason to question the flap link. I stand by that.

It is certainly not establish. Yes you and some others feel it is there, some of whom I respect very highly, that however does not make it established. If and when you or someone else can show more than a superficial similarity then you may have reached that position. At present it is just opinion.

No I have given far more than half baked reasons for not accepting your suggestion and I stand by those until proved otherwise

Steve

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

I would suggest it possible doubles the length of the attack from 1 to 2 minutes to 3 to 4.
Certainly more than 2 I would estimate.

From memory, Dr Llewelyn himself estimated 4-5 minutes.

[Elamarna]

The major cut was a very deep one, Llewellyn says as much. Add to this what Joshua posted:

The abdominal wall, the whole length of the body, had been cut open, and on either side were two incised wounds almost as severe as the centre one. This reached from the lower part of the abdomen to the breast-bone.(Illustrated Police News, Sept 8)

... and we are home and dry. "We" that is - not necessarily you.

Christer
One report which does not appear to come from Llewellyn or the good Inspector.

If it is not from them directly just how reliable is it?
Is this report from an eyewitness? Who knows?

I just see the real possability of Hyperbole being used over and over again in these reports.

This is where I urge caution. That's all .

Do we really need to commit ourselves to saying he had completed most of the job, when intent is all that is needed.


Steve

[Fisherman]

The preparation to open up Nichols become clear to me some months ago. Indeed I did I at least one post or it may have been a pm that I could see links that clearly pointed at the other Ripper murders and maybe in the case of Mackenzie too, although the lesser extent of the wounds makes it more problematical.

Generally here we are in broad agreement about intent, it only regarding how completed it was we differ. I just feel you are pushing it too far, when the intentvis clear and all that is really needed.

Stvee

We of course do not agree on the link to the Torso series

I donīt think I am pushing anything, Steve. We have the turning over of the flesh from left to righ on record, and the same goes for the supposedly sliced off part. The idea pushes itself, therefore, plus - as you seem to recognize - it is totally in line with the other sites.

As for us "of course" disagreeing on the link to the torso series, I fear it is already established. Cutting the abdominal walls away from victims ensures that. After that, one may question the link if one has a good reason to do so, but the link itself wonīt go away until we can prove that it must do so. And there are more links, as you know. Many more.

And frankly, I donīt think you have even a half-baked reason to question the flap link. I stand by that.

[Elamarna]

I wouldnīt worry too much about that, Steve. There can never be any factual accuracy in a case like this, where there is no contemporary illustration.
What I set out to do, and what I feel is accomplished, was to show how the collected reports seem to point to the lower abdomen of Nichols having a "window" into the abdominal cavity opened up.

Itīs not as if I can prove it conclusively - but I do feel that since it is in line with what happened to Chapman and Kelly and what may well have been intended for Eddowes, it is as close as we can get to a consistent series of evisceration crimes where there was an intent to "lift the lid" off the abdomen, so to speak.
And although it is not a definitively proven thing, consistency is never a bad thing to point to.

Me, I am thrilled by how it is consistent with my take on what the killer did, but thatīs another story...

The preparation to open up Nichols become clear to me some months ago. Indeed I did I at least one post or it may have been a pm that I could see links that clearly pointed at the other Ripper murders and maybe in the case of Mackenzie too, although the lesser extent of the wounds makes it more problematical.

Generally here we are in broad agreement about intent, it only regarding how completed it was we differ. I just feel you are pushing it too far, when the intentvis clear and all that is really needed.

Stvee

We of course do not agree on the link to the Torso series

[Fisherman]

Christer on your point C .
Llewellyn's actually words in the Pall Mall Gazette 1st September are:

"The abdomenial wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted"

At the inquest he says only"
"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

Could you point me in the direction of which reports say that the included cuts were long and deep.

Steve

The major cut was a very deep one, Llewellyn says as much. Add to this what Joshua posted:

The abdominal wall, the whole length of the body, had been cut open, and on either side were two incised wounds almost as severe as the centre one. This reached from the lower part of the abdomen to the breast-bone.(Illustrated Police News, Sept 8)

... and we are home and dry. "We" that is - not necessarily you.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer i would really urge caution here.

The reports are all over the place.

Actually, they are not. As you can see for yourself, it is perfectly possible to cater to all the report writers in one single sketch.
If the reports had been all over the place, that would have been impossible.

I would only place importance to those that quote Spratling or Llewellyn or those which may be eye witness descriptions by the journalists themselves.

All the material can be made to work together, so I see no need to ditch any of it.

Reading through most of the reports which Joshua posted and which I looked at last year there is no clear consensus but it seems clear many reports are interpreting what Spratling and Llewellyn said and not reporting the words actually used.

And still it works together, Steve.

A good example is the "sliced off" comment. There is no actual atributation as to who this comes from or when it is said. It does not appear to be a direct quote of anyone.

I donīt think that a paper would invent a "sliced off" part, and I see n o reason why it could not point to the kind of damage I tried to depict. As I keep saying, there is an expression like "partly sliced off", so that has to be weighed in - plus the report could point to a part that SEEMED sliced off.
I will not reiterate this any more, since I think I have said it enough many times to be heard.


A brief comment on the issue of lower being open and upper not.

This can be explained away by simple anatomy: the upper part of the abdomen contains the liver and stomach, organs that are basically held in place by supporting tissue and unlikely to pop out of a cut. The lower portion contains the intestines which are known to be capable of popping out if a wound is serve enough.

That of course does not mean that is true; however it is valid from a scientific position and may be the actual picture.

It seems strange that we are disagreeing with each other when we both believe the end objective was the same, to open up the abdomen.

An interesting idea in your diagram by the way, I have no basic problem with the positions but may disagree as to how complete some of these were.

One final point; if he had completed the cutting of the flap that suggests a different timing to me than the simple single main cut and various minor cuts.

I would suggest it possible doubles the length of the attack from 1 to 2 minutes to 3 to 4.
Certainly more than 2 I would estimate.

I have never cut flaps from a dead womans belly, so Iīm at a loss to establish how much time that would take. Any which way, I think that the abdominal wounds came first, so there is a large time potential to work with.

As for what you say about the intestines, Iīm sure that may be correct - but as I am equally certain that the Evening News spoke of flesh turned over from left to right, I need no further explanation. When the abdominal flesh is turned over, it WILL expose the underlying intestines, which is pretty much what was said happened. And with the Morning Advertiser adding that there was a "sliced off" part, I think I have a very firm ground to stand on when I say that there seems to have been an intent to remove the abdominal wall (or at least part/s of it) from Nichols too.

[Elamarna]

http://imgur.com/8993gT2

This is how I am suggesting Nicholsī wounds may have looked:

A: The long cut from pubes to ribs, said by sources to have been along the center of the body
B: The three or four cuts running downwards on the right side of the abdomen
C: The two incised wounds, one on each side as is said in the reports, reported to be remarkable for their lenght and depth, just as the centre cut.
D: The cut running from pubes, veering into the groin and then proceeding up over the left hip, being situated "two or three inches" from the left side
E: A large flap of flesh formed by the cuts as described. It can easily be turned over from the bodyīs left to right and will then give the impression to be "sliced off".

Of course, there can be variants of the pattern, but this is a sketch that answers very well to all the reports.

Christer on your point C .
Llewellyn's actually words in the Pall Mall Gazette 1st September are:

"The abdomenial wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted"

At the inquest he says only"
"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

Could you point me in the direction of which reports say that the included cuts were long and deep.


Steve