Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Trevor Marriott]

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 !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Fisherman]

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!

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

[Trevor Marriott]

Just a follow up.

Comparing Nichols to Eddowes, it seems clear from the onsite sketches in Mitre Square that the skin and tissues of Eddowes had been reflected back, as I supposed to allow access to the abdomenial cavity.
That is the tissues were folded back to form what some call a "flap". However this was not removed and left in place.
This to me indicates that there was no need to remove such due to possible to space issues as may have been the case with Chapman. It also differs from Kelly and suggests there was no overall plan to remove this portions of tissue.

Anyone who had cut up at least an animal in the past would know that this method of reflecting skin and tissue was the most efficient way to gain access to the abdomenial cavity and the organs it contained.


Steve
.

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. Modern medical men state that it is having the knowledge to locate the organs, not specifically the time it would take to remove them that is important. I do not buy into the butcher theory at all.

It is likely that her throat was cut first, wounds to the abdomen would not have likely killed her instantly and she might have then struggled or even screamed out loud.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

[Elamarna]

So do I think he opted for abdomen first; however I think he was unsure and wrong.

Steve

Just a follow up.

Comparing Nichols to Eddowes, it seems clear from the onsite sketches in Mitre Square that the skin and tissues of Eddowes had been reflected back, as I supposed to allow access to the abdomenial cavity.
That is the tissues were folded back to form what some call a "flap". However this was not removed and left in place.
This to me indicates that there was no need to remove such due to possible to space issues as may have been the case with Chapman. It also differs from Kelly and suggests there was no overall plan to remove this portions of tissue.

Anyone who had cut up at least an animal in the past would know that this method of reflecting skin and tissue was the most efficient way to gain access to the abdomenial cavity and the organs it contained.


Steve
.

[Elamarna]

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

So do I think he opted for abdomen first; however I think he was unsure and wrong.

Steve