Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Elamarna]

i imagined i read somewhere that polly was found deceased with her eyes open. if that is fact, would any or all of these manners of death cause this effect:

1. asphyxiation
2. decapitation
3. abdominal punctures

...
the doctor describes her abdominal wounds without ever giving a diagnostic impression that Jack jammed the knife into her belly to its hilt. instead, he remarks that one of the cuts extends into her stomach and cuts thru her omentum. how deep were the cuts?

[this suggestion may reaffirm a consensus, that he was preparing to portion and remove her flesh].

Robert

That is a point of debate. However we know that at least one penetrated the abdomenial wall and cut the omentium in several places. The fact it did not clean cut the omentium in one single cut suggests that the killer was not cutting at a consistent depth.

If he cut deeper we cannot be sure. Christer argues that the cuts must have been deeper and that major vessels must have been cut. He supports this byLlewellyn 's statement that the killer attacked the vital areas and that the abdomen wounds were the cause of death.
However there is no detail on this at all and it seems possible that he reached this conclusion because he could see little blood from the neck wound.

Llewellyn further suggested that the tissues around the intestines absorbed much of the blood from the abdomenial wounds.

I would however point out that such suggests he found little blood or clots in the cavity and this suggestion of Llewellyn is to me unconvincing.

In addition he did not appear to allow for the blood soaked into her clothing or more importantly the clot Thain descriptions under Nichols body.

End of day the cuts were in some cased deep. How deep is unclear.

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

i imagined i read somewhere that polly was found deceased with her eyes open. if that is fact, would any or all of these manners of death cause this effect:

1. asphyxiation
2. decapitation
3. abdominal punctures

...
the doctor describes her abdominal wounds without ever giving a diagnostic impression that Jack jammed the knife into her belly to its hilt. instead, he remarks that one of the cuts extends into her stomach and cuts thru her omentum. how deep were the cuts?

[this suggestion may reaffirm a consensus, that he was preparing to portion and remove her flesh].

[Fisherman]

No one wound each side is the report both you and Joshua used for different placements.
My initial point was that your diagram did not allow for all possible wounds. Now while I prefer your version that does not mean Joshua's was wrong .

However you seem to not understand what I mean so let's leave it as you say.

Steve

Eh - both Joshua and I placed the wounds on the left and right side, respectively. Joshua, however, placed his wounds vertically and I did it horisontally.

Maybe you have not managed to make yourself clear enough for me to understand, I donīt know. You are welcome to try again, if you wish. The drop hollows the stone, or so they say...

[Elamarna]

I cannot see what it is you say I am "questioning"? That the two wounds may have been on the same side of the center cut? Is that it? And even if not all reports said that the cuts were to the left and to the right, why would we surmise that the reports that do not mention it would therefore oppose it?

Obviously, if one report says that there was one wound and another that there were two, I cannot make a sketch that follows both ideas. But in this case, I find that a fair representation can be made that does take the overall reporting in, and it seems you agree that this was what I did, so maybe we should just leave it there...?

No one wound each side is the report both you and Joshua used for different placements.
My initial point was that your diagram did not allow for all possible wounds. Now while I prefer your version that does not mean Joshua's was wrong .

However you seem to not understand what I mean so let's leave it as you say.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Only in some reports. However that would hold true for the idea Joshua suggested as all as your diagram. I really fail to see why you question that; especially when I say I tend to agree with your diagram.

Steve

I cannot see what it is you say I am "questioning"? That the two wounds may have been on the same side of the center cut? Is that it? And even if not all reports said that the cuts were to the left and to the right, why would we surmise that the reports that do not mention it would therefore oppose it?

Obviously, if one report says that there was one wound and another that there were two, I cannot make a sketch that follows both ideas. But in this case, I find that a fair representation can be made that does take the overall reporting in, and it seems you agree that this was what I did, so maybe we should just leave it there...?

[Elamarna]

It was said that there was one wound to the left and one to the right, Steve. I think that must rule the day.

Only in some reports. However that would hold true for the idea Joshua suggested as all as your diagram. I really fail to see why you question that; especially when I say I tend to agree with your diagram.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I tend to agree. However my point was that the placement was your idea for the two wounds either side of the vertical one. There is nothing to say who's view was right so it did not allow for all wounds. However I see nothing wrong with your diagram it is perfectly viable

Steve

It was said that there was one wound to the left and one to the right, Steve. I think that must rule the day.

[Fisherman]

Eddowes was killed with neither the time, nor anywhere near as much seclusion as in the case of Mary Kelly, yet the Mitre Square murder was comparatively meticulous compared to the diabolical hack-fest perpetretated at Miller's Court.

I'm not saying Eddowes' mutilation was "meticulous" by any sensible definition of the word, just that it was "neater" than that suffered by Mary Kelly, where - comparatively - the killer had all the time in the world, and a significantly higher degree of privacy than that which prevailed at Mitre Square, Hanbury Street or Bucks Row. Yet, in each case, whether indoor or outdoor, whether pressed for time or not, we get a butcher's shambles of carnage and crudity.

There was no practised hand at work in the "Canonical 4" mutilation murders of 1888, at least there is no evidence of one; either that, or the killer did a superb job of masking his expertise with incompetence.

You are avoiding my question about the Texas Eyeball killer. It would be nice if you gave an answer to that.

I donīt think that the Eddowes murder was in any way more "meticulous" than the Millers Court murder. If there had been more time for the killer in Mitre Square, we may well have ended up with the same type of scenario. Both women were slashed about the face - but there was more time in Millers Court. Both women had their abdomens cut open, but there was more time in Millers Court, so there was more extensive organ removal.

You have always believed - and claimed - that there was no practised hand in the C4 evisceration murders, and that they were all sloppy, haphazard deeds.

Many have disagreed over the years - Dr Phillips was one of them, and so was Dr Brown. And they disagreed only as regards the cutting work.

I disagree too. What the killer did was in no way haphazard, it followed an agenda, which is why there are so many likenesses inbetween the deeds. We can now see that Nichols seems to have suffered the same kind of wounds to the abdomonal wall as Chapman and Kelly did, for example.

This killer knew what he came for, and he was a lot more strict in his approach to his cutting work than I think you have understood, Gareth. I used to be impressed with what I always thought was a no-nonsense take on the murders, but I have come to realize that I apparently missed out badly for the longest time: There was a very practised hand at work in the Ripper murders, as well as in the Torso murders, the second set of murders by the same hand, the way I see it.

Which brings us back to Albright and the Eyeball killing. Do you have an answer to offer?

[Elamarna]

... but itīs Saturday afternoon now.

What I mean is that I fail to see why I should account in my sketch on Nichols for wounds described by Joshua as arrowshaped on Eddowes!

Almost forgot my main issue in the end was you saying the report was about Eddowes.
That must have been a Friday night thing.

STEVE

[Elamarna]

... but itīs Saturday afternoon now.

What I mean is that I fail to see why I should account in my sketch on Nichols for wounds described by Joshua as arrowshaped on Eddowes!

I tend to agree. However my point was that the placement was your idea for the two wounds either side of the vertical one. There is nothing to say who's view was right so it did not allow for all wounds. However I see nothing wrong with your diagram it is perfectly viable

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Try to look at it like this:

A killer has time and seclusion to take away part of a victim, he has the implements and the light needed - and he does it meticulously.

Eddowes was killed with neither the time, nor anywhere near as much seclusion as in the case of Mary Kelly, yet the Mitre Square murder was comparatively meticulous compared to the diabolical hack-fest perpetretated at Miller's Court.

I'm not saying Eddowes' mutilation was "meticulous" by any sensible definition of the word, just that it was "neater" than that suffered by Mary Kelly, where - comparatively - the killer had all the time in the world, and a significantly higher degree of privacy than that which prevailed at Mitre Square, Hanbury Street or Bucks Row. Yet, in each case, whether indoor or outdoor, whether pressed for time or not, we get a butcher's shambles of carnage and crudity.

There was no practised hand at work in the "Canonical 4" mutilation murders of 1888, at least there is no evidence of one; either that, or the killer did a superb job of masking his expertise with incompetence.

[Fisherman]

If I may offer an answer Fish, I would say that a killer who in his first, consecutive kills, mutilates the abdomen of the victim after killing them, I would also expect him to do so in subsequent kills. That premise is satisfactory to me, and one of the reasons my Canonical Group is 40-60% smaller than many other peoples.

If his aim was to mutilate the abdomen, I couldnīt agree more.

But I donīt think that mutilating the abdomen was the one and only thing that got this killer ticking. It seemingly belonged to his aims, but I donīt think it was any necessity as such.

[Michael W Richards]

Try to look at it like this:

A killer has time and seclusion to take away part of a victim, he has the implements and the light needed - and he does it meticulously.

The next time the same killer strikes, he does not have the same seclusion and time, he does not have all the implements he wants and he has not as good light - but he nevertheless feels the exact same relentless urge to take away that part.

What will he do, Gareth? Abort, because he does not think he will make a neat enough job? Or do it anyway, since the taking away of the part is more important than how carefully he does it?

When the detail we look at is very, very rare, then the execution is not as important as the overall deed. If Charles Albright was given a chance to extract the eyes of a victim using a eight-inch nail instead of a scalpel, would he do it, or would he abort?

And once the victim was found - would the police say "Nah, this is not the Texas Eyeball killer - he used a less functional implement" or would the say "The killer took her eyes - itīs the Texas Eyeball killer, alright"?

Which is your best guess?

If I may offer an answer Fish, I would say that a killer who in his first, consecutive kills, mutilates the abdomen of the victim after killing them, I would also expect him to do so in subsequent kills. That premise is satisfactory to me, and one of the reasons my Canonical Group is 40-60% smaller than many other peoples.

[Fisherman]

Hello Fish,

I agree. And even if we could discern what constitutes "angry" slashing as opposed to "non-angry" slashing we still would have no way of discerning whether that anger was actually directed toward the victim or whether it originated from some other source.

c.d.

True enough, C.D.

[Fisherman]

i thought I had guessed your meaning from your use of the word "apparent" in the post I quoted. "A parent" referring to JTR's mother, given the age of most victims.

I surmise from your answer that I was, as usual, wrong. My apologies, sir.

Come on now - "apparent" and " a parent"?

I was never that clever.