Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Fisherman]

Yes the Eddowes situation is something I had commented on over the last couple of days it is possible that we have a flap there.

My only issue on Nichols is that I am not convinced the flap was created. I have no doubt it was intended.
The reports in the morning advertiser are not direct quotes of Spratling and the only comment we really have from him is the flesh was turning back on itself, which is certainly open to debate on its meaning. We have at least 2 possible explanations.

The issue with the People report is that it gives the impression of one central cut and if a knife is thrust below each breast is that not two more cuts.
While I have no issue with that as such, because we still have little ldea of the reality of the cuts, I do wonder how many of these reports are based on journalists intepretation of Spratling and Llewellyn And are any based on first hand observations.

A few do appear to be such as the one in the star which describes two cuts may have been however the report in the East London Observer of 1st September certainly appears to be a first hand report.

So I wonder how much is exaggeration and misinterpretation And how much is based on fact. We must be very careful before we start accept something as being factually accurate.


Steve

I wouldn´t 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.

It´s 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 that´s another story...

[Elamarna]

Of course, there is also the East London Advertiser that lends weight to what I am saying:

"... besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife."

Nota bene that once again, it is said that the LOWER part of the abdomen is "completely ripped open", with the bowels protruding. But lo and behold, the wound as such also "extends nearly to her breast".
So why is it that not ALL of the abdomen is "ripped open"? Well, the explanation lies in how the lower abdomen offers a window into the innards, on account of the "turned over flesh", the part that gave the impression of being "sliced off". The whole of the abdomen is ripped, but only the lower abdomen is ripped open.

Look at how the Evening News struggled to word it:
"... the lower part of the abdomen had been ripped up, and the bowels were protruding. 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."

So FIRST they say that the "lower part of the abdomen had been ripped up, and the bowels protruding", and THEN they seem to change their bid by suddenly saying in the next sentence that "the whole length" of the abdominal wall had on fact been cut open.
It all seems very contradictory until we realize that they are reporting the same thing as the Morning Advertiser and the East London Advertiser - that the lower part of the abdomen was the part that suffered the worst damage, having a window opened up trough which the bowles protruded, while the upper part of the abdomen only revealed one of the cuts from the lower abdomen continuing all the way up to the breast, but NOT ripping the body open like a window.

The old enigmas are solved, more or less. Suddenly it all makes sense, and not only that - we can clearly see that what happened to Nichols is totally in line with what happened to Chapman a stiff week later. This is by far the likeliest and most logical interpretation of the wounds to Nichols body so far, and I am quite content to work from the presumption that it is spot on.

Christer i would really urge caution here.

The reports are all over the place.

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

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.

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.



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.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, Fish, that similarity struck me too. Thanks for the illustration by the way, I was hoping someone would try one.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the People report;
"In the lower part of the body the wounds were of a still more frightful character. The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open to the breast, causing almost complete disembowelment. Again the knife had been thrust into the body under each breast, and drawn down to the thighs in a zig-zag fashion. A more terrible scene than that disclosed by the mutilated remains, as they lay upon the mortuary slab, could never have been witnessed. "

To me, along with other accounts, this seems to indicate that the "incised wounds" mentioned elsewhere (C on your diagram) ran downwards, rather than horizontally. I think at least one of them joined up with the long central cut at the groin, which would have formed a triangular "flap" and which is what I suspect Spratling described.

Yes the Eddowes situation is something I had commented on over the last couple of days it is possible that we have a flap there.

My only issue on Nichols is that I am not convinced the flap was created. I have no doubt it was intended.
The reports in the morning advertiser are not direct quotes of Spratling and the only comment we really have from him is the flesh was turning back on itself, which is certainly open to debate on its meaning. We have at least 2 possible explanations.

The issue with the People report is that it gives the impression of one central cut and if a knife is thrust below each breast is that not two more cuts.
While I have no issue with that as such, because we still have little ldea of the reality of the cuts, I do wonder how many of these reports are based on journalists intepretation of Spratling and Llewellyn And are any based on first hand observations.

A few do appear to be such as the one in the star which describes two cuts may have been however the report in the East London Observer of 1st September certainly appears to be a first hand report.

So I wonder how much is exaggeration and misinterpretation And how much is based on fact. We must be very careful before we start accept something as being factually accurate.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes, Fish, that similarity struck me too. Thanks for the illustration by the way, I was hoping someone would try one.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the People report;
"In the lower part of the body the wounds were of a still more frightful character. The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open to the breast, causing almost complete disembowelment. Again the knife had been thrust into the body under each breast, and drawn down to the thighs in a zig-zag fashion. A more terrible scene than that disclosed by the mutilated remains, as they lay upon the mortuary slab, could never have been witnessed. "

To me, along with other accounts, this seems to indicate that the "incised wounds" mentioned elsewhere (C on your diagram) ran downwards, rather than horizontally. I think at least one of them joined up with the long central cut at the groin, which would have formed a triangular "flap" and which is what I suspect Spratling described.

I played with the idea myself, but ultimately abandoned it for a number of reasons. It was said that "The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice", but your take on things would mean that there should have been four, not two cuts, and that three of them should have reached up to the ribcage, more or less.
I believe the cuts "under each breast" were the centre one and the one along the left side of the body - they ended up at the thighs, as described.

Also, if your idea is the correct one, there would seemingly be two cuts that commenced at the lower abdomen and went upwards, and two that commenced under the breasts and went downwards, which sounds a tad strange to my ears. Not by any means impossible, but nevertheless strange.

There is also the Times to consider, saying that "There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards."

Here, I think that "running across" is in contrast to "running downwards", and that the wounds running across sideways would have been the C wounds.

Like I said in my earlier post, the full pattern will be hard to establish, but I think we have come a long way to solve the overall matter!

[Joshua Rogan]

Note how there are cuts here too on Eddowes that seem to veer off from the vagina into the groins on the respective sides! If one was to take away the whole of the abdominal wall, these two cuts form a good start, just like the cut trough Nichols´ left groin.

Yes, Fish, that similarity struck me too. Thanks for the illustration by the way, I was hoping someone would try one.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the People report;
"In the lower part of the body the wounds were of a still more frightful character. The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open to the breast, causing almost complete disembowelment. Again the knife had been thrust into the body under each breast, and drawn down to the thighs in a zig-zag fashion. A more terrible scene than that disclosed by the mutilated remains, as they lay upon the mortuary slab, could never have been witnessed. "

To me, along with other accounts, this seems to indicate that the "incised wounds" mentioned elsewhere (C on your diagram) ran downwards, rather than horizontally. I think at least one of them joined up with the long central cut at the groin, which would have formed a triangular "flap" and which is what I suspect Spratling described.

[Abby Normal]

Are you thinking of Foster's mortuary sketch of Eddowes, Abby?

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=8

If there was a similar contemporary sketch of Nichols this thread would be redundant.

Thanks-your right. that's the one I'm thinking of!

[Fisherman]

Are you thinking of Foster's mortuary sketch of Eddowes, Abby?

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=8

If there was a similar contemporary sketch of Nichols this thread would be redundant.

Note how there are cuts here too on Eddowes that seem to veer off from the vagina into the groins on the respective sides! If one was to take away the whole of the abdominal wall, these two cuts form a good start, just like the cut trough Nichols´ left groin.

[Fisherman]

interesting fish-Thanks!
I thought there was a sketch I saw somewhere of her wounds drawn by one of the police or medicos at the time. It depicted a large Jagged wound from chest to pubes with a few other smaller cuts-am I mistaken?

I don´t think there is any contemporary sketch of the damage done to Nichols´ abdomen, Abby - I can´t recall such a beast, anyways.

[Joshua Rogan]

interesting fish-Thanks!
I thought there was a sketch I saw somewhere of her wounds drawn by one of the police or medicos at the time. It depicted a large Jagged wound from chest to pubes with a few other smaller cuts-am I mistaken?

Are you thinking of Foster's mortuary sketch of Eddowes, Abby?

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=8

If there was a similar contemporary sketch of Nichols this thread would be redundant.

[Abby Normal]

http://imgur.com/8993gT2

This is how I am suggesting Nichols´ 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 body´s 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.

interesting fish-Thanks!
I thought there was a sketch I saw somewhere of her wounds drawn by one of the police or medicos at the time. It depicted a large Jagged wound from chest to pubes with a few other smaller cuts-am I mistaken?

[Fisherman]

http://imgur.com/8993gT2

This is how I am suggesting Nichols´ 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 body´s 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.

[Fisherman]

Of course, there is also the East London Advertiser that lends weight to what I am saying:

"... besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife."

Nota bene that once again, it is said that the LOWER part of the abdomen is "completely ripped open", with the bowels protruding. But lo and behold, the wound as such also "extends nearly to her breast".
So why is it that not ALL of the abdomen is "ripped open"? Well, the explanation lies in how the lower abdomen offers a window into the innards, on account of the "turned over flesh", the part that gave the impression of being "sliced off". The whole of the abdomen is ripped, but only the lower abdomen is ripped open.

Look at how the Evening News struggled to word it:
"... the lower part of the abdomen had been ripped up, and the bowels were protruding. 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."

So FIRST they say that the "lower part of the abdomen had been ripped up, and the bowels protruding", and THEN they seem to change their bid by suddenly saying in the next sentence that "the whole length" of the abdominal wall had on fact been cut open.
It all seems very contradictory until we realize that they are reporting the same thing as the Morning Advertiser and the East London Advertiser - that the lower part of the abdomen was the part that suffered the worst damage, having a window opened up trough which the bowles protruded, while the upper part of the abdomen only revealed one of the cuts from the lower abdomen continuing all the way up to the breast, but NOT ripping the body open like a window.

The old enigmas are solved, more or less. Suddenly it all makes sense, and not only that - we can clearly see that what happened to Nichols is totally in line with what happened to Chapman a stiff week later. This is by far the likeliest and most logical interpretation of the wounds to Nichols body so far, and I am quite content to work from the presumption that it is spot on.

[Robert St Devil]

Llewellyn is recalled to the inquest on the 17th of September and specifically comments that no parts were missing. This may well be in response to rumors that something was missing.

Come on - you KNOW what it is in response to.

just for us having troubles keeping up, now we are talking about dr llewellyn,s reappearance at the 17 Sep inquest occurring because, in the fortnight since the previous inquest, Annie Chapman has been murdered with her organs removed. i read it that squeamish dr llewellyn went back to take a second look to make sure none of polly,s viscera had been taken.
that action might suggest that polly,s wounds were nearing similarity to annie chapman,s wounds, with her innards being more exposed than believed.
that... or, if the wounds are considered from the traditional belief, the doctor would be left to assume that the killer jammed his hand into the cut on her right, and snatched and grabbed whatever he could hold. and, to complete the autopsy, the doctor would need to complete the dissection to account for her own organs.

[Fisherman]

A brilliant post, Steve. And what you have highlighted is what regrettably happens when an erstwhile excellent poster fixates on a particular suspect: objectivity goes completely out of the window. Just as when Christer tried to argue that MJK had been expertly mutilated!

Christer actually only argued that Kellys kidneys were extracted from the front, and that the same thing had had Brown say that this was a skilled thing to do. So I would simply love it if you could refrain from misleading about me having called the mutilations of Kelly expertly done on the whole.
Is that too much to ask?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Sorry that is nonsense. It says sliced off. Nothing is, so the hypothesis fails.

It does nothing of the sort. It remains a very clear possibility, totally in line with the other victims.

It matters not why we think he is recalled. He says nothing is missing for something to be sliced off it must be cut away.

Or SEEM sliced off.

I have read it and I disagree with you completely.

That has happened before. You even managed to doubt that the Goulston Street rag was a piece of Eddowes´ apron, so I am not amazed...

So are you now about to argue that all the cuts penetrated the body wall and the adomenal wall?

Why would I? I am arguing that we may need to be cautious about proclaiming that some wounds were not deep and serious enough to kill.

No Christer, if it partial it not sliced off. That is the point. It says sliced off.
Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Human nature is like that. I will check Google, and we will see if "partially sliced off" appears.. There we go: 1650 results. I agree that sliced off is sliced off. But the reality of things is that we do express ourselves like that: "half blind, for example...

Actual if one reads the report in full, it come across as poor reporting of what was said by Spratling. Nowhere is there the impression That this is a first hand report of someone who saw the body.

It´s Spratling. He saw the body. What you feel about the grammar and semantics is your prerogative. You are trying to have your cake and eat mine, apparently.

Once again I see great flaws in the hypothesis such that it cannot hope to stand.

It already stands. You´ll see.

Sorry they would.
The bowels have popped out from the gash to the abdomenial wall. That being now incomplete cannot prevent the bowels from appearing.

That would be due to the cleaved flesh, not to retracted skin.

It is very simple yes. Unfortunately it seems you do not wish to understand and are intent on going down another one of you blind alleys.

It is the same alley as always, further supported by added evidence.

You refuse to accept any explanation other than one which fits your thinking.
No problem, it does however make meaningful debate difficult.

No, I do not "refuse" anything. I could say that YOU refuse to consider my thinking, Steve. I keep an open mind, but I think I am on the right track here. And that you are on the same track as always, the "that cannot be proven" track, a VERY easy track to follow.

I missed the first question as I am working on my phone and it got lost but to answer you.
I do not believe the flap was removed in the Jackson case to allow access to the abdomen.

But instead to...? To begin with, the removal of the abdominal walls was not primarily about allowing access to the abdomen in ANY of the cases, I keep telling you that. That access was there once you had cut from sternum to pubes.
If you think that the abdominal wall was removed from Jackson for dismemberment purposes, you are proposing a very odd thing. Which dismemberment killer has ever done such a thing? Dismemberment is normally about getting rid of a corpse. For your information, this was NOT so with the torso killer, not at all. But if you think it was about ridding himself of the corpses, then why in the whole wide world would he take away the abdominal wall BEFORE sawing the torso in three?
Let´s hear a really good explanation to that one, Steve!