Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[GUT]

Sorry wrong thread somehow.

[Fisherman]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebr

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 Llewellynīs change of mind about the murder spot on the 1:st.

[Fisherman]

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 didnīt, your version - which I think is wrong - would prevail.

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.

Your opinion that the other two are on the way.

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!

[Sam Flynn]

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebr

And there Dr Llewellyn fell down and died, unable to complete his final word.

(Only kidding, Joshua )

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, this has been discussed in depth before - very clearly, Helson expresses a view Llewellyn did not agree with; the doctor thought the abdominal wounds came first. He said so before the inquest, and Baxter confirmed that this was his take as he summed the inquest up. What business Helson had denying it, I donīt know.

Helson apparently preferred if the other way around, and tried to use the ulster as the probable vessel for holding most of the blood. But the upper part of an ulster will not hold litres of blood, and there was very little blood around the neck.

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebr

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Yes it is very logical. Unlike so much which is posted.

Actually, it is illogical.

Not to me and possibly many others

To open the abdomenial cavity to allow access. It is both common practicle and gives by far the best space to work in and view what one is doing, to open the abdomen wall as flaps as you like to term them.

Please donīt start about "common practice" again. We are NOT speaking about medicos and anatomists, we are speaking about killers. If you can prove that it is common practice within that clientele, you have a point. If not, you hae no point whatsoever.
And I donīt "like to" use the term flaps - I use the term that was used back then, and I try to avoid using ten terms for one phenomenon.

When are you going to realise you do not say what is relavent or viable and you do not set the agenda Fish.

Chapman has flaps cut yes. And I now have a reason for such. Nothing to do with ritual; pure practicalities.
Kelly is cut to bits and to suggest that flaps have any special meaning in that case is unprovable.

Your "logic" again. Chapmans belly was cut into four flaps, Kellyīs was cut into three flaps. Thatīs how "cut to pieces" it was. It is a perfect parallel, no matter what you may think about it.

Given you do not know my reasoning on Chapman how can you argue against it.

I say it is not a parallel no matter what You think!

In Eddowes he could cut a flap away but does not.

We donīt know if time and circumstances allowed for it.

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.

In Nichols he does not.

Same thing here.

Really? I am doubting that more and more. After all it just one more cut and he has time to make two neck cuts after the abdomenial ones or so Llewellyn suggests

Even if one includes Kelly that's only 50%; statistically it proves nothing.
Saying it does however does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.

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.

Your opinion that the other two are on the way. I disagree.
50% of a four subject group do not show a particular trait, it's not significant.

[B][B]Does the ritualistic thinking I speak of predispose a cut away

I will need to reread what you have said before.

However Christer have nearly completed my project, I will be posting soon. Now that should be fun.

Why?

You will have to wait a little longer.

Goodnight


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Yes it is very logical. Unlike so much which is posted.

Actually, it is illogical.

To open the abdomenial cavity to allow access. It is both common practicle and gives by far the best space to work in and view what one is doing, to open the abdomen wall as flaps as you like to term them.

Please donīt start about "common practice" again. We are NOT speaking about medicos and anatomists, we are speaking about killers. If you can prove that it is common practice within that clientele, you have a point. If not, you hae no point whatsoever.
And I donīt "like to" use the term flaps - I use the term that was used back then, and I try to avoid using ten terms for one phenomenon.

Chapman has flaps cut yes. And I now have a reason for such. Nothing to do with ritual; pure practicalities.
Kelly is cut to bits and to suggest that flaps have any special meaning in that case is unprovable.

Your "logic" again. Chapmans belly was cut into four flaps, Kellyīs was cut into three flaps. Thatīs how "cut to pieces" it was. It is a perfect parallel, no matter what you may think about it.

In Eddowes he could cut a flap away but does not.

We donīt know if time and circumstances allowed for it.

In Nichols he does not.

Same thing here.

Even if one includes Kelly that's only 50%; statistically it proves nothing.
Saying it does however does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.

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.
Does the ritualistic thinking I speak of predispose a cut away abdominal wall? No.

However Christer have nearly completed my project, I will be posting soon. Now that should be fun.

Why?

[Fisherman]

Except Eddowes didn't have her abdominal wall cut away in flaps/sections, even though her killer apparently had a "will" to do so!

All we can say is that it seems he MAY have had such a will. Letīs not turn appearances into facts.

[Fisherman]

John G:

...you have argued that you don't believe there is proof that Lechmere murdered Nichols, but that's not the impression you give in your posts.

I can only do so much for you, John. If you donīt respect what I tell you, then thatīs not my fault.

Frankly, in this regard what exactly sets you apart from Trevor Marriott, Patricia Cornwall, Bruce Robinson...?

Bruce Robinson is richer than I am, Patricia Cornwell is a woman and Trevor Marriott makes funnier mistakes than I do.
Plus, of course, they are all wrong (Ugh!)

[Elamarna]

Thatīs cohesive: Chapman lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Kelly lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Nichols had a flap cut out, but it seems the killer was disturbed, Eddowes has the lower half of her adomen encircled by cuts - and that of course argues AGAINST a will on the killers behalf to cut away the abdomens in flaps. Extremely logical!

Yes it is very logical. Unlike so much which is posted.

To open the abdomenial cavity to allow access. It is both common practicle and gives by far the best space to work in and view what one is doing, to open the abdomen wall as flaps as you like to term them.
Chapman has flaps cut yes. And I now have a reason for such. Nothing to do with ritual; pure practicalities.
Kelly is cut to bits and to suggest that flaps have any special meaning in that case is unprovable.

In Eddowes he could cut a flap away but does not.
In Nichols he does not.

Even if one includes Kelly that's only 50%; statistically it proves nothing.
Saying it does however does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it.

However Christer have nearly completed my project, I will be posting soon. Now that should be fun.

Steve

[John G]

Thatīs cohesive: Chapman lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Kelly lost her abdominal wall in flaps (you seemingly forgot her...?), Nichols had a flap cut out, but it seems the killer was disturbed, Eddowes has the lower half of her adomen encircled by cuts - and that of course argues AGAINST a will on the killers behalf to cut away the abdomens in flaps. Extremely logical! "Spot on" indeed!!

Except Eddowes didn't have her abdominal wall cut away in flaps/sections, even though her killer apparently had a "will" to do so!

[John G]

John
Spot on,
Tom offers a "flap", to me that is normal if one intends to open the abdomen.
He does not suggest the idea was to cut it away from body however.
The fact that such did happened in the Chapman case I personally view as just something which occurred in the particular instance, there could be several practicle reasons for such to have happened. I see no prior intent or ritual in the cutting of such.

The very fact that this possible flap was not actually removed with Nichols does to me argue against any ritual of flap removal being involved in the murders.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks for a typically excellent and well-reasoned reply. Of course, some posters see the word "flap" and immediately jump up and down shouting "eureka"at the top of their voice!

[John G]

Dear me. You ARE bitter, are you not?

Try and grasp this:

There is no absense of evidence. There is clear evidence that the killer followed a specific agenda - evidence, not proof, mind you. You are not aware of it since you have not seen and recognized it.
That does not mean it does not exist. It only means that you are in the dark about it.

No, what I object to is when a poster, pursing a particular agenda, tries to promote evidence, which is circumstantial at best, as representing virtual proof. For instance, you have argued that you don't believe there is proof that Lechmere murdered Nichols, but that's not the impression you give in your posts. In respect of Nichols, Llewellyn in my view was a sloppy doctor and the medical "evidence", such as it is, is so incomplete, that you could seek to rely on it to argue for almost any theory however extreme. Thus, you could argue that the perpetrator interned to remove the uterus. Conversely, you could argue he didn't intend to remove the uterus. You could argue the wounds were representative of ritualistic behaviour. Equally you could argue the wounds did not represent ritualistic behaviour.

Frankly, in this regard what exactly sets you apart from Trevor Marriott, Patricia Cornwall, Bruce Robinson...?

[Fisherman]

John
Spot on,
Tom offers a "flap", to me that is normal if one intends to open the abdomen.
He does not suggest the idea was to cut it away from body however.
The fact that such did happened in the Chapman case I personally view as just something which occurred in the particular instance, there could be several practicle reasons for such to have happened. I see no prior intent or ritual in the cutting of such.

The very fact that this possible flap was not actually removed with Nichols does to me argue against any ritual of flap removal being involved in the murders.


Steve

Thatīs cohesive: Chapman lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Kelly lost her abdominal wall in flaps (you seemingly forgot her...?), Nichols had a flap cut out, but it seems the killer was disturbed, Eddowes has the lower half of her adomen encircled by cuts - and that of course argues AGAINST a will on the killers behalf to cut away the abdomens in flaps. Extremely logical! "Spot on" indeed!!

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: There is no logical explanation for the abdominal wounds coming before the neck wounds. There is ample evidence however that she was strangled, or garroted, and that in and of itself could have compressed the arteries that fed the neck vessels, and therefore the flow of blood, or spray, could have been minimized.

No. I asked Jason Payne-James specifically about this, and he said that given that all the large vessels were severed, there would be no brakes on the bloodflow. (He did not word himself exactly like that, but it was the message nevertheless).

Strangling her to unconsciousness and maintaining that pressure while cutting the throat makes some sense and addresses your concerns, trying to explain how an unconscious woman wouldn't wake to abdominal cuts makes much less sense. The good doctor was incorrect Fish.

The strangling could have stopped the heart, Michael. The fewest are awakened from such a state. If Llewellyn said that then abdominal cuts came first, I fail to see who is better cut out to decide against it today, without having seen the body and done the post-mortem.
There is too much dissing of medicos going on out here, if I may say so.