Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Elamarna]

I can't find the report now, but I'm sure one newspaper said Llewellyn didn't want to do any further examination on the street due to the gathering crowd, or words to that effect.

That's possible of course and I find that far more plausible than the view of a coroner which had not yet been said.

And while one has sympathy for what was a very extrodinary situation for Dr Llewellyn the fact that there was just a cursiory examination of the body and scene puts us where we are today.

Obviously the Police and Doctors improved recording after Nichols; or Dr L and or those officers on the scene did not perform well.

Steve

[Fisherman]

But if all we have is the coroner's words, how can it be obvious? We have earlier reports from 1st Sept that he believed the throats was cut first, confirmed by his assistant who was at the Post Mortem, and the report from 3rd (after he gave evidence) saying he maintained this view. Doesn't this suggest that Baxter may have misunderstood the doctor's remarks?

As I said, before Llewellyn took a look into the abdominal cavity and found the blood there, he oped for the neck cuts coming first, apparently. And the articles you refer to are written before Llewellyn divulged his new insights.

Could Baxter have misunderstood? Well, out here it is suggested that Mizen misunderstood what Lechmere told him, opting for mistakenly hearing that another PC was in place up at Bucks Row, so a misunderstanding can always be suggested.

In this case, my personal view is that since Baxter himself was very much against the suggestion of the abdomen coming first, he would have made very sure that Llewellyn championed this view before commenting on it the way he did. He was clearly disappointed with it.

So, as usual, no absolute certainty can be reached, but my own contention is that Llewellyn opted for abdomen first.

I´m taking a Casebook break for some time now, but wanted to answer your question before it.

PS. I recognize what you say about Llewellyn not wanting to go ahead with any further examination due to the gathering crowd.

[Elamarna]

But if all we have is the coroner's words, how can it be obvious? We have earlier reports from 1st Sept that he believed the throats was cut first, confirmed by his assistant who was at the Post Mortem, and the report from 3rd (after he gave evidence) saying he maintained this view. Doesn't this suggest that Baxter may have misunderstood the doctor's remarks?

Good question Joshua.

We have Helston saying that Llewellyn seemed to have satisfied himself, but that wording itself hints that the good Doctor was only satisfied and not 100% convinced.

As I said in my last post I have no idea if Llewellyn was a good or bad doctor, however this was different to most if not all of the cases he was involved in, I get the feeling, and it's only a feeling, that he was both out of his comfort zone and his depth.

The main problem I feel was that much of the evidence, was simply washed away, and this gave Llewellyn considerable problems.

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

i took away the impression that dr. llewellyn did a quick examination on buck,s row, determined her dead and was intent on examining her injuries further at the mortuary. at the inquest, the coroner said that he didnt care that the clothes were removed, it was the inspector who was livid.

the crowd has swelled from 2 to 12, so maybe, joshua... i think i read in ELO or Lloyds Sept 1 that the doctor was still waiting on the go-ahead from the coroner to perform a formal examination.

[Joshua Rogan]

Nope - I´ve gone over a lengthy thread over on JTR, and I can´t find it. The one thing that seems obvioius to me is that Llewellyn made his mind up as a result of finding the bllod inthe abdominal cavity.

But if all we have is the coroner's words, how can it be obvious? We have earlier reports from 1st Sept that he believed the throats was cut first, confirmed by his assistant who was at the Post Mortem, and the report from 3rd (after he gave evidence) saying he maintained this view. Doesn't this suggest that Baxter may have misunderstood the doctor's remarks?

[Joshua Rogan]

I can't find the report now, but I'm sure one newspaper said Llewellyn didn't want to do any further examination on the street due to the gathering crowd, or words to that effect.

[Elamarna]

And just for you Christer, just so some do not think your reply is somehow definitive and authoritative.

I´ll make an exception for you, so that you don´t make people come away with the inpression that I am avoiding your questions, Steve. Just for you!

1. The blood would have collected - as I have said umpteen times - between the intestines and the back of the abdominal wall. Therefore the intestines would have been swimming, to an extent, in blood. And the intestines are referred to as loose tissues, medically.
Problem solved.

Certainly not.
That is not what Llewellyn says, if he ment what you propose there was no need to mention the "loose tissues". I belive my intreptation is what he is describing, you believe yours.


2. The coroner objected to the clothes being removed by the workhouse inmates, because he felt that vital imformation could be gained from the state of the clothing. Since Nichols was dead, there was nothing Llewellyn could do for her in terms of lifesaving measures. If this had been so, he would have been dutybound to do what he could to save her, regardless if it meant tampering with the clothing.
Nichols being dead, however, chaged all that. There was now no direct need for Llewellyn to remove any of the clothing at the murder site. This would be done in full light at the morgue, meaning that much more care could be taken to observe things. In that regard, I think Llewellyns chosen path of action served the overall purposes best.
If he had known that there was extensive damage to the abdomen, then removing the garments could have been a justified measure. But to find out that there WAS damage to the abdomen, he needed to take the clothes off first. So what we would have would be a catch 22 situation.

my response was to

"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."

That gave the impression that Llewellyn would not proceed or was unlikely to check the clothing because of a view the Coroner had not yet expressed.

However you have now clarified the postition.
I still I have to say see it as a bit of a cop out, there was after all no need for Llewellyn to actually remove her clothing, there was blood on the ground between her legs and this should have been checked, it seems it was not.

The woman was dead, she had had her neck cut, and there was no immediate reason to suspect that she had suffered any further damage. Therefore, Llewellyn acted the way he should. Consequentially, there was not a iot of criticism against the doctor at the inquest. It is only latter day Ripperologists who have declared him stupid, clumsy and incompetent.

I would suggest he was neither. Problem solved.

I have no idea if he was a good or incompetent doctor and I suggest neither does anyone.
However on this occasion his performance did not match that of other medics during the C5 murders

Happy, Steve? If you are, then I would very much like to retract from the discussion, hopefully without you hinting at me fleeing it.

Do as you choose, time will judge which view is nearer the truth; not you or I



Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer,
An interesting reply.



So no response to the suggestion of blood entering into surrounding tissues.
And no defence of the suggestion Llewellyn may not have examined her clothing because the Coroner would not be happy.

Oh well so be it

Steve

I´ll make an exception for you, so that you don´t make people come away with the inpression that I am avoiding your questions, Steve. Just for you!

1. The blood would have collected - as I have said umpteen times - between the intestines and the back of the abdominal wall. Therefore the intestines would have been swimming, to an extent, in blood. And the intestines are referred to as loose tissues, medically.
Problem solved.

2. The coroner objected to the clothes being removed by the workhouse inmates, because he felt that vital imformation could be gained from the state of the clothing. Since Nichols was dead, there was nothing Llewellyn could do for her in terms of lifesaving measures. If this had been so, he would have been dutybound to do what he could to save her, regardless if it meant tampering with the clothing.
Nichols being dead, however, chaged all that. There was now no direct need for Llewellyn to remove any of the clothing at the murder site. This would be done in full light at the morgue, meaning that much more care could be taken to observe things. In that regard, I think Llewellyns chosen path of action served the overall purposes best.
If he had known that there was extensive damage to the abdomen, then removing the garments could have been a justified measure. But to find out that there WAS damage to the abdomen, he needed to take the clothes off first. So what we would have would be a catch 22 situation.
The woman was dead, she had had her neck cut, and there was no immediate reason to suspect that she had suffered any further damage. Therefore, Llewellyn acted the way he should. Consequentially, there was not a iot of criticism against the doctor at the inquest. It is only latter day Ripperologists who have declared him stupid, clumsy and incompetent.

I would suggest he was neither. Problem solved.

Happy, Steve? If you are, then I would very much like to retract from the discussion, hopefully without you hinting at me fleeing it.

[Elamarna]

Christer,
An interesting reply.

I will try and make one last effort on the errand of my opinion about the cuts to Eddowes´ and Nichols´ abdomens.

On that errand, you wrote about "Your opinion that the other two are on the way. I disagree."

I remarked that this was not an opinion that I had voiced - I had instead said that a good case could be made for it.

Now, a good case can also be made for Stride not being a victim of the Ripper. I do not agree - I think she was - but a good case can nevertheless be made for an exclusion.

So, you see, saying that a good case can be made for something is not the same as saying that you think it is a correct case.

This is what I have been trying for half a dozen posts to get across to you. So far, I have failed. Let´s see if the penny drops this time.

Read my lips: I have NOT said that Eddowes and Nichols WERE on their way - I have said that a good case can be made for it.


Yes and the response was that I did not agree a good case could be made.
It has been made abundantly clear what was said by whom.
And you have repeated that above, so let me be clear.
You stated was there was a good case for flaps being begun with an intention to remove in the cases of Nichols and Eddowes, that very statement is an opinion.
I do not believe such to be true and said.

The inability to understand the is truly astonishing and great waste of time has occurred because of this.


Next: The blood on the garments worn by Nichols.

If the whole of the back of the ulster, all the way down to the waist, had been saturated with blood, then there would have been a large impression of blood on the pavement. There was not.


How are you as to make such a categorically statement when we have such limited information from the scene.
Indeed part of that information is the report of Thain. However it appears you are following the process that there was no report of blood under her other than Thain; therefore his report is wrong.

And of course no-one is saying the whole of her Ulster are they, just the upper parts down to around her waist, you really must be more pricise or it can end up misleading.
Such staining is supported by Thain and to a great degree by inspector Helston.
The reports we have of the blood on the ground are very limited
We have a report from Neil which does not talk of blood under her only of a pool he sees when he arrives.
Mizen gives a similar report and Thain.
Because Green removes the blood before Spratling can record it we actual have no official report to base anything on. To then make the above statement is inaccurate. It may well be the true, it may not. So say it is your belief and there will be no misunderstanding .



There was blood up at the collar area, but not further down.

I am afraid that is inconsistent with the reports. They do not on the whole say just the collar area, the Echo say near the neck while the Manchester Guardian and the Star just say the back of the clothing. nor do they give any definition of the size they area they are discussing

The implications of the blood in the garments does not support any suggestion that the larger part of Nichols´ blood was to be found in her clothing. Helson seems to have led on such a suggestion, but it cannot possibly be correct if the description of the staining of the clothes is correct.

No that is an opinion to which of course you are entitled . The majority of the reports on the clothing talk of a large degree blood, others such as I posted give a view of no blood at all on the upper clothing only on the lower; however such reports are in a minority.


The larger part of the blood that escaped via the neck can have been in the clothes, but the larger part of the blood did not escape via the neck.


Again just an opinion, that is what we are trying to debate.
The very fact that you state the majority of the blood did not escape via the neck, demonstrates the degree to which your view is fixed on this; in such cases debate is futile


It would predispose that the blood up at the collars of her garments, in her hair and in the pool under her neck comprised around two liters of blood or more, and the mere suggestion is ridiculous to my ears.

Again just an opinion. The real issue of course is we do not know how much blood was on the pavement; it was not recorded.
Therefore to suggest there must be 2 liters in her clothing is pure guesswork.


Llewellyn said that the bulk of the blood leaked out into the abdomen, and that is the only logical place for the blood to be - after all, it must be somewhere.

Actual he says in collected in the loose tissue in the abdomen, I see that as completely different.
Yes it has to go somewhere, some is still in the body, some is in the abdomen much of that in the loose tissues, some is in her hair and clothing and some was in the street and washed away before it could be recorded in daylight.
We have no idea of how much was in any one area as the report is inadequate.


Now I have grown very tired of the discussions as they have developed out here, and I am going to stay away from them for some time. At the very least it seems that I managed to do what I came for - point out that Nichols had been opened up at the lower abdomen, and that it seems that there was a flap of belly flesh produced by the killers knife.

Once something interesting surfaces, I will take up the thread again and join the discussion.

So no response to the suggestion of blood entering into surrounding tissues.
And no defence of the suggestion Llewellyn may not have examined her clothing because the Coroner would not be happy.

Oh well so be it

Steve

[Fisherman]

I will try and make one last effort on the errand of my opinion about the cuts to Eddowes´ and Nichols´ abdomens.

On that errand, you wrote about "Your opinion that the other two are on the way. I disagree."

I remarked that this was not an opinion that I had voiced - I had instead said that a good case could be made for it.

Now, a good case can also be made for Stride not being a victim of the Ripper. I do not agree - I think she was - but a good case can nevertheless be made for an exclusion.

So, you see, saying that a good case can be made for something is not the same as saying that you think it is a correct case.

This is what I have been trying for half a dozen posts to get across to you. So far, I have failed. Let´s see if the penny drops this time.

Read my lips: I have NOT said that Eddowes and Nichols WERE on their way - I have said that a good case can be made for it.

Next: The blood on the garments worn by Nichols.

If the whole of the back of the ulster, all the way down to the waist, had been saturated with blood, then there would have been a large impression of blood on the pavement. There was not.

There was blood up at the collar area, but not further down.

The implications of the blood in the garments does not support any suggestion that the larger part of Nichols´ blood was to be found in her clothing. Helson seems to have led on such a suggestion, but it cannot possibly be correct if the description of the staining of the clothes is correct.
The larger part of the blood that escaped via the neck can have been in the clothes, but the larger part of the blood did not escape via the neck. It would predispose that the blood up at the collars of her garments, in her hair and in the pool under her neck comprised around two liters of blood or more, and the mere suggestion is ridiculous to my ears.

Llewellyn said that the bulk of the blood leaked out into the abdomen, and that is the only logical place for the blood to be - after all, it must be somewhere.

Now I have grown very tired of the discussions as they have developed out here, and I am going to stay away from them for some time. At the very least it seems that I managed to do what I came for - point out that Nichols had been opened up at the lower abdomen, and that it seems that there was a flap of belly flesh produced by the killers knife.

Once something interesting surfaces, I will take up the thread again and join the discussion.

[Fisherman]

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.

Nope - I´ve gone over a lengthy thread over on JTR, and I can´t find it. The one thing that seems obvioius to me is that Llewellyn made his mind up as a result of finding the bllod inthe abdominal cavity.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.