Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Since there has been some doubt whether Llewellyn really believed that the wounds to the abdomen preceded the cuts to the neck in the Nichols case, I came across this while reading Bagster Phillips´ testimony in the Chapman case:

    "The Foreman: Is there anything to indicate that the crime in the case of the woman Nicholls was perpetrated with the same object as this?
    The Coroner: There is a difference in this respect, at all events, that the medical expert is of opinion that, in the case of Nicholls, the mutilations were made first."


    So there we are, nigh on three weeks gone, and Phillips gives us Llewellyn´s view.
    Erm....isn't that coroner Baxter giving his own version of Llewellyn's view?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      Erm....isn't that coroner Baxter giving his own version of Llewellyn's view?
      Absolutely not. Just because he is referred to as "the Coroner", it may well be that it is nevertheless Phillips.

      Nah, just kidding - my mistake (whopper type). It is Baxter and it is well before he summed up the Nichols murder, saying that Dr Llewellyn seems to incline etc, etc.

      Any which way, we can here see that Lewellyn seems to have kept to his notion throughout, something that Helson was not happy about. It seems there were far-reaching efforts to sway Llewellyn, but he stood his ground.

      Thanks for pointing the blunder out, Joshua!

      Comment


      • I don't see any real obstacles assuming that the mutilations in a few cases were conducted while the victim was semi or fully unconscious. Nobody drops dead by having their throat cut,.. they bleed, lungs gather fluids, brain has oxygen deprivation, blood arterial volume reduces..passes out, dies. The murders outdoors suggest that the killer was cognizant of the urgency required, he didn't have time to wait for death.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          But anyone who cut up animals would probably not know where the organs were located or how to extract them from a human in quick time
          The organs are situated in pretty much the same locations in all mammals. Even if they weren't, once the intestines were heaved out of the way, it wouldn't take long to find them, especially in someone as slight as Catherine Eddowes. The relevant part of her abdomen would have been less than a foot square, so we're hardly dealing with a needle/haystack situation.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman
            And the intestines are referred to as loose tissues, medically
            First I've heard of it - there is such a thing as loose connective tissue (wobbly stuff like fat), but "loose tissue" isn't a term that I recognise. Besides, the intestines are organs​​​​​ and, whilst they may also be referred to as "viscera", I can't imagine that any medical practitioner would refer to them as mere tissues, loose or otherwise.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              First I've heard of it - there is such a thing as loose connective tissue (wobbly stuff like fat), but "loose tissue" isn't a term that I recognise. Besides, the intestines are organs​​​​​ and, whilst they may also be referred to as "viscera", I can't imagine that any medical practitioner would refer to them as mere tissues, loose or otherwise.
              I can only say that it was something I read on the net, but I have no idea what the source was. It is way too long ago. Sorry about that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                The organs are situated in pretty much the same locations in all mammals. Even if they weren't, once the intestines were heaved out of the way, it wouldn't take long to find them, especially in someone as slight as Catherine Eddowes. The relevant part of her abdomen would have been less than a foot square, so we're hardly dealing with a needle/haystack situation.
                Staying with Chapman, I also have to question as to how many people from the butchery trade would know about a uterus in a female, or how it works, let alone be able to find it and remove it along with the fallopian tubes attached, with some precision, and why would someone want to take it ? Doesn't make sense, no plausible explanation, and only adds to my belief the killer did not remove these organs.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  Staying with Chapman, I also have to question as to how many people from the butchery trade would know about a uterus in a female, or how it works, let alone be able to find it and remove it along with the fallopian tubes attached, with some precision, and why would someone want to take it ? Doesn't make sense, no plausible explanation, and only adds to my belief the killer did not remove these organs.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Sean Vincent Gillis wanted to see the femur of his victim. That does not make sense to me. But it did to Gillis. So he cut it into the daylight. Chikatilo wanted a uterus to chew on. That does not make sense to me either, but it made a world of sense to him.

                  Let's admit that serial killers do not define "sense" the way we do.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    Staying with Chapman, I also have to question as to how many people from the butchery trade would know about a uterus in a female, or how it works, let alone be able to find it and remove it along with the fallopian tubes attached, with some precision, and why would someone want to take it ? Doesn't make sense, no plausible explanation, and only adds to my belief the killer did not remove these organs.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    What you or I think about the act is irrelevant Trevor, what a killer, someone who has mental illness, thinks about it is important. The explanation might just be he wanted it. I believe the evidence the women were found already missing these pieces is incontrovertible, but in Marys case her scattered remains were placed into a box and later reassembled. Other than the inventory list of anatomy left around the room, we really only have Bonds word that the heart was the item missing, if any at all.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      What you or I think about the act is irrelevant Trevor, what a killer, someone who has mental illness, thinks about it is important. The explanation might just be he wanted it. I believe the evidence the women were found already missing these pieces is incontrovertible, but in Marys case her scattered remains were placed into a box and later reassembled. Other than the inventory list of anatomy left around the room, we really only have Bonds word that the heart was the item missing, if any at all.
                      Yes but we are talking about events that happened 130 years ago when the majority of people could hardly write, yet alone be proficient or knowledgeable enough to know about a uterus, its workings, or how to remove it or for that matter why they would want to remove it, unless for medical research. If that be the case we get back to the organs being removed at the mortuary.

                      The analagy of comparing and playing modern day serial killers against one 130 years ago doesn't work, modern day serial killers are much more knowledgeable. so many things have changed.

                      I wonder if you surveyed 100 males today and asked where in the female body the uterus is to be found and what it looks like I wonder how many would know?

                      So how many back in 1888 would know where it is located, or have ever heard of it.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        What you or I think about the act is irrelevant Trevor, what a killer, someone who has mental illness, thinks about it is important. The explanation might just be he wanted it. I believe the evidence the women were found already missing these pieces is incontrovertible, but in Marys case her scattered remains were placed into a box and later reassembled. Other than the inventory list of anatomy left around the room, we really only have Bonds word that the heart was the item missing, if any at all.
                        Well if everyone is suggesting that the killer who killed Chapman and Eddowes and removed organs from them, and then went onto kill Kelly, but didnt take any organs from her, that weakens the original suggestion that the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes but didnt take any of Kellys organs, that strengthens the belief that the killer didnt take any organs from any victims. Its not rocket science !!!!!!!!!!

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Staying with Chapman, I also have to question as to how many people from the butchery trade would know about a uterus in a female
                          It's in the pelvis, at the other end of the vagina, just like it is in every other mammal.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            It's in the pelvis, at the other end of the vagina, just like it is in every other mammal.
                            But 130 years ago would you have known what it looks like, where it is located, and how to remove it, the answer is no, unless you were in the medical profession, and if you were going to take a body part would you have chosen a uterus, again I would suggest not.

                            I will give you credit for trying to smooth over the cracks that there are in the killer removing the organs theory, but the facts against that are there to speak for themselves.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              But 130 years ago would you have known what it looks like, where it is located
                              Like I said, Trevor - the uterus is in the pelvis at the other end of the vagina, where it's always been. Cutting it out is not drastically different from cutting a head of cabbage from its stem, albeit a cabbage-stalk is tougher to cut through.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                Like I said, Trevor - the uterus is in the pelvis at the other end of the vagina, where it's always been. Cutting it out is not drastically different from cutting a head of cabbage from its stem, albeit a cabbage-stalk is tougher to cut through.
                                I now know where it is, you know where it is, but as I said 130 years ago I bet we would not have had a clue, and even now I will be totally honest with you, with all the time I have spent on this issue, all the medical people I have spoken to, and all the post mortems I have attended, I can honestly say I would struggle even in daylight to effect such a removal of a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached as was the case with Chapman let alone in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen with no surgical gloves to grip organs with, and tryig to remove organs with a long bladed knife in such a confined space.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X