Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Ok as tedious as this is I have to comment

Yes we have ties to Chapman and Kelly, but not in my view Jackson. The pieces of tissue are very different animals.

We do not know this at all, Steve. They may have been quite similar to the Ripper flaps in many respects - and the more important matter is that there WERE flaps removed to open up the abdominal cavity in each case.

We have Llewellyn himself saying no portion of the body was missing and yet you prefer to take a comment by a paper which does not appear to be quoting Llewellyn or indeed Spratling; But the views of who knows who.
The same report goes on to claim ANY of the abdomen wounds could have killed her.
This is obviously untrue, some of the cuts are called minor and do not penetrate to the abdomenial wall let along passed it.

I don´t think any of the parts was missing. I think they were all there - but that a flap had been cut from the abdominal wall, so as to fold over and end up with the underside up. That is the part spoken of, to my mind.
Maybe any of the abdominal wounds COULD have killed Nichols, by the way - how do we know that it wasn´t so.

When looking at reports one needs to read all and then judge how accurate the whole maybe.

Which is what I have done.

While I have concerns with guess work and estimations from 19th century medic I have none with basic factual reporting. There are no reports of any cut tissues being found, and Llewellyn says nothing was missing. That seems clear.

There were lots of cut tissues, and no part was missing, so Llewellyn is on the money, by the looks of things.

To go back to this folding back you suggest, it's just not physically possible with out two horizontal cuts bisecting a vertical one.
Your previous response on another thread to this point did not even begin to explain How this was possible.
And of course Spratlings comments reported in the Evening News do not say that the abdomen wall was folded back do they?

He says "turned over". That works like the leaf of a book. The addition from the Morning Advertiser tells me that we may have a flap that was clearly enough cut to do this.

He says the "flesh" which may just mean the skin.

In which case he would probably have said "the skin" - he knew the difference. And turning the skin over would not expose the bowels - which was what happened.

What we do see from Joshua,s work is a probability that there was more than a single vertical cut.

We see a bit more than so, Steve.

[Fisherman]

Let´s take a further look at this, and we will understand more. The whole excerpt from the Morning Advertiser about the wounds goes like this:

A further examination revealed the horrible nature of the crime, for the lower parts of the woman's body were found to be laid open, some sharp cutting instrument having been used, and three or four separate gashes inflicted. One part of the person had been sliced off, and from the vagina to the breast bone the knife had ripped the poor creature right up. There were other gashes, right and left, dividing the stomach and its coatings to the intestines. Any one of the wounds was sufficient to cause death, apart from the gashes across the throat.

Now, look at how it is said that there is a cut from the vagina to the breast bone - but that only the "lower parts" of the woman´s body were found to be "laid open"!
That, I suggest, owes to how there was a window into the lower abdomen due to the flesh that had been turned over from left to right! Further up, the wound was not opening up that window into Nichols´ body. There, it was not "laid open".

This is also the probable explanation to the old misconception that there were no wounds until at the lower abdomen - that was where the significant wounds were, where the opened-up window into the abdomen was situated.

To think that this has been missed for all those years!

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Ok as tedious as this is I have to comment
Yes we have ties to Chapman and Kelly, but not in my view Jackson. The pieces of tissue are very different animals.
We do not know this at all, Steve. They may have been quite similar to the Ripper flaps in many respects - and the more important matter is that there WERE flaps removed to open up the abdominal cavity in each case.

We will have to disagree on that I am afraid Christer.

We have Llewellyn himself saying no portion of the body was missing and yet you prefer to take a comment by a paper which does not appear to be quoting Llewellyn or indeed Spratling; But the views of who knows who.
The same report goes on to claim ANY of the abdomen wounds could have killed her.
This is obviously untrue, some of the cuts are called minor and do not penetrate to the abdomenial wall let along passed it.

I don´t think any of the parts was missing. I think they were all there - but that a flap had been cut from the abdominal wall, so as to fold over and end up with the underside up. That is the part spoken of, to my mind.

The wording in the Morning Advertiser was clearly “sliced off”. That means removed from the whole, There are no reports of any tissue or body parts being found.
Llewellyn is recalled to the inquest on the 17th of September and specifically comments that no parts were missing. This may well be in response to rumors that something was missing.
It therefore follows that if no extra body parts are found and none are missing, NOTHING has been “sliced off”.
That is what the evidence, such as it is says.

Maybe any of the abdominal wounds COULD have killed Nichols, by the way - how do we know that it wasn´t so.

Yes some of them may have been able to if major organs or blood vessels had been cut, however we do not know if any were so the point is mute, but possible.
However the wording used is “ANY” meaning even the minor ones which do not go very deep or cut major bleed vessels. Such a report is obviously incorrect and the report is exaggerating.

When looking at reports one needs to read all and then judge how accurate the whole maybe.
Which is what I have done.
While I have concerns with guess work and estimations from 19th century medic I have none with basic factual reporting. There are no reports of any cut tissues being found, and Llewellyn says nothing was missing. That seems clear.
There were lots of cut tissues, and no part was missing, so Llewellyn is on the money, by the looks of things.

Agreed, so the Morning Advertiser is incorrect when it says “sliced off” there can be no other conclusion but that.

To go back to this folding back you suggest, it's just not physically possible with out two horizontal cuts bisecting a vertical one.
Your previous response on another thread to this point did not even begin to explain How this was possible.
And of course Spratlings comments reported in the Evening News do not say that the abdomen wall was folded back do they?

He says "turned over". That works like the leaf of a book. The addition from the Morning Advertiser tells me that we may have a flap that was clearly enough cut to do this.

The report says nothing about a flap and does not describe one, it says “sliced off”. That is not the same as cutting. It means removed, if it is still attached to the body, which a flap would be, it is not “sliced off” and Llewellyn says nothing was removed.

He says the "flesh" which may just mean the skin.

In which case he would probably have said "the skin" - he knew the difference. And turning the skin over would not expose the bowels - which was what happened.

Why would you think that, he uses the correct name for the covering of the organs in his report does he not? Why should he not then mention the Abdomen wall if he Means that?
We of course know that the Abdomen wall was cut and that the intestines were protruding, which is very feasible if the body had been moved, which it had. The skin being partial retracted either by the killer or by nature would expose these, no need to have it folding back like the “leaves of a book”.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Let´s take a further look at this, and we will understand more. The whole excerpt from the Morning Advertiser about the wounds goes like this:

A further examination revealed the horrible nature of the crime, for the lower parts of the woman's body were found to be laid open, some sharp cutting instrument having been used, and three or four separate gashes inflicted. One part of the person had been sliced off, and from the vagina to the breast bone the knife had ripped the poor creature right up. There were other gashes, right and left, dividing the stomach and its coatings to the intestines. Any one of the wounds was sufficient to cause death, apart from the gashes across the throat.

Now, look at how it is said that there is a cut from the vagina to the breast bone - but that only the "lower parts" of the woman´s body were found to be "laid open"!
That, I suggest, owes to how there was a window into the lower abdomen due to the flesh that had been turned over from left to right! Further up, the wound was not opening up that window into Nichols´ body. There, it was not "laid open".

This is also the probable explanation to the old misconception that there were no wounds until at the lower abdomen - that was where the significant wounds were, where the opened-up window into the abdomen was situated.

To think that this has been missed for all those years!

Christer
It is clear this report is not accurate given it says even a minor wound could have killed her; which is not so.
"Sliced off" means cut from the whole; not a cut which forms a flap.
Sorry you are letting yourself get carried here.

We have missed nothing all these years, at least nothing from that report.

Steve

[jerryd]

I've always had this picture of Polly's wounds in my mind. Thanks to whoever owns this website.

http://thepublici.blogspot.com/2016_03_27_archive.html (see about half way down the page "Bloody Jack, Chapter 10)

[Fisherman]

I've always had this picture of Polly's wounds in my mind. Thanks to whoever owns this website.

http://thepublici.blogspot.com/2016_03_27_archive.html (see about half way down the page "Bloody Jack, Chapter 10)

There is no part of the abdominal wall there that would turn over as per the Evening News, Jerry. Therefore, I don´t think it is 100 per cent correct. To place the wounds correct on a sketch is impossible, of course- the information is not enough for it.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: We will have to disagree on that I am afraid Christer.

Which part of it?

The wording in the Morning Advertiser was clearly “sliced off”. That means removed from the whole, There are no reports of any tissue or body parts being found.

If the abdominal wall was turned over completely, it will have seemed sliced off and lying on it´s back, so to speak.

Llewellyn is recalled to the inquest on the 17th of September and specifically comments that no parts were missing. This may well be in response to rumors that something was missing.

Come on - you KNOW what it is in response to.

It therefore follows that if no extra body parts are found and none are missing, NOTHING has been “sliced off”.
That is what the evidence, such as it is says.

See the above.


Yes some of them may have been able to if major organs or blood vessels had been cut, however we do not know if any were so the point is mute, but possible.
However the wording used is “ANY” meaning even the minor ones which do not go very deep or cut major bleed vessels. Such a report is obviously incorrect and the report is exaggerating.

Do we know that there WERE cuts that did not go very deep and did not cut major vessels?

Agreed, so the Morning Advertiser is incorrect when it says “sliced off” there can be no other conclusion but that.

I believe they are wrong factually - but that what was on display gave the impression of being sliced off. Please also note that we somethimes use the expression "completely sliced off" - that is because things can also be PARTLY sliced off. Let´s not forget that!

The report says nothing about a flap and does not describe one, it says “sliced off”. That is not the same as cutting. It means removed, if it is still attached to the body, which a flap would be, it is not “sliced off” and Llewellyn says nothing was removed.

See the above.


Why would you think that, he uses the correct name for the covering of the organs in his report does he not? Why should he not then mention the Abdomen wall if he Means that?
We of course know that the Abdomen wall was cut and that the intestines were protruding, which is very feasible if the body had been moved, which it had. The skin being partial retracted either by the killer or by nature would expose these, no need to have it folding back like the “leaves of a book”.

But Spratling is not speking of partially retracted skin, is he? He says that the flesh was turned over from left to right, exposing the bowels. If it had been the skin only that was turned over, the bowels would not be exposed.
It´s awfully simple, really.
Steve[/QUOTE]

[jerryd]

There is no part of the abdominal wall there that would turn over as per the Evening News, Jerry. Therefore, I don´t think it is 100 per cent correct. To place the wounds correct on a sketch is impossible, of course- the information is not enough for it.

Evening News 3rd Sept
He did not at that time notice the abdominal wounds, but subsequently when the body was placed on the floor of the mortuary he took a more accurate description of the undergarments, and they discovered the injuries on the lower part of the body. The flesh was turned over from left to right and the intestines exposed. He covered up the woman and sent for Dr. Llewellyn. There were no blood marks between the groin and the knees, except, perhaps, very slight ones. He did not feel very well at the time and the sight "turned him up," so that he did not make a very precise examination.


Hi Christer,

I'm not sure how much value that particular news report holds. Spratling states he did not notice the wounds until she was laid out at the mortuary, as I have highlighted above. He (Spratling) even admitted his examination of the abdomen not very precise. The flesh may have been peeled over by an examination of the body by Dr. Lewellyn.

[Elamarna]

The wording in the Morning Advertiser was clearly “sliced off”. That means removed from the whole, There are no reports of any tissue or body parts being found.

If the abdominal wall was turned over completely, it will have seemed sliced off and lying on it´s back, so to speak.

Sorry that is nonsense. It says sliced off. Nothing is, so the hypothesis fails.

Llewellyn is recalled to the inquest on the 17th of September and specifically comments that no parts were missing. This may well be in response to rumors that something was missing.

Come on - you KNOW what it is in response to.

It matters not why we think he is recalled. He says nothing is missing for something to be sliced off it must be cut away.

It therefore follows that if no extra body parts are found and none are missing, NOTHING has been “sliced off”.
That is what the evidence, such as it is says.

See the above.

I have read it and I disagree with you completely.

yes some of them may have been able to if major organs or blood vessels had been cut, however we do not know if any were so the point is mute, but possible.
However the wording used is “ANY” meaning even the minor ones which do not go very deep or cut major bleed vessels. Such a report is obviously incorrect and the report is exaggerating.

Do we know that there WERE cuts that did not go very deep and did not cut major vessels?

So are you now about to argue that all the cuts penetrated the body wall and the adomenal wall?

Agreed, so the Morning Advertiser is incorrect when it says “sliced off” there can be no other conclusion but that.

I believe they are wrong factually - but that what was on display gave the impression of being sliced off. Please also note that we somethimes use the expression "completely sliced off" - that is because things can also be PARTLY sliced off. Let´s not forget that!
[

No Christer, if it partial it not sliced off. That is the point. It says sliced off.
Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
The argument fails completely.
Actual if one reads the report in full, it come across as poor reporting of what was said by Spratling. Nowhere is there the impression That this is a first hand report of someone who saw the body.

The report says nothing about a flap and does not describe one, it says “sliced off”. That is not the same as cutting. It means removed, if it is still attached to the body, which a flap would be, it is not “sliced off” and Llewellyn says nothing was removed.

See the above.

Once again I see great flaws in the hypothesis such that it cannot hope to stand.

Why would you think that, he uses the correct name for the covering of the organs in his report does he not? Why should he not then mention the Abdomen wall if he Means that?
We of course know that the Abdomen wall was cut and that the intestines were protruding, which is very feasible if the body had been moved, which it had. The skin being partial retracted either by the killer or by nature would expose these, no need to have it folding back like the “leaves of a book”.
[/
But Spratling is not speking of partially retracted skin, is he? He says that the flesh was turned over from left to right, exposing the bowels. If it had been the skin only that was turned over, the bowels would not be exposed.
It´s awfully simple, really.
Steve

Sorry they would.
The bowels have popped out from the gash to the abdomenial wall. That being now incomplete cannot prevent the bowels from appearing.
It is very simple yes. Unfortunately it seems you do not wish to understand and are intent on going down another one of you blind alleys.

You refuse to accept any explanation other than one which fits your thinking.
No problem, it does however make meaningful debate difficult.

I missed the first question as I am working on my phone and it got lost but to answer you.
I do not believe the flap was removed in the Jackson case to allow access to the abdomen.


Steve

[John G]

Sorry that is nonsense. It says sliced off. Nothing is, so the hypothesis fails.




It matters not why we think he is recalled. He says nothing is missing for something to be sliced off it must be cut away.



I have read it and I disagree with you completely.




So are you now about to argue that all the cuts penetrated the body wall and the adomenal wall?




No Christer, if it partial it not sliced off. That is the point. It says sliced off.
Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
The argument fails completely.
Actual if one reads the report in full, it come across as poor reporting of what was said by Spratling. Nowhere is there the impression That this is a first hand report of someone who saw the body.



Once again I see great flaws in the hypothesis such that it cannot hope to stand.




Sorry they would.
The bowels have popped out from the gash to the abdomenial wall. That being now incomplete cannot prevent the bowels from appearing.
It is very simple yes. Unfortunately it seems you do not wish to understand and are intent on going down another one of you blind alleys.

You refuse to accept any explanation other than one which fits your thinking.
No problem, it does however make meaningful debate difficult.

I missed the first question as I am working on my phone and it got lost but to answer you.
I do not believe the flap was removed in the Jackson case to allow access to the abdomen.


Steve

A brilliant post, Steve. And what you have highlighted is what regrettably happens when an erstwhile excellent poster fixates on a particular suspect: objectivity goes completely out of the window. Just as when Christer tried to argue that MJK had been expertly mutilated!

[Elamarna]

I've always had this picture of Polly's wounds in my mind. Thanks to whoever owns this website.

http://thepublici.blogspot.com/2016_03_27_archive.html (see about half way down the page "Bloody Jack, Chapter 10)

Jerry

Personally I would place the near horizontal one on the left of her body more vertical. However the text we base it on is far from clear and I can happily accept that version.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Sorry that is nonsense. It says sliced off. Nothing is, so the hypothesis fails.

It does nothing of the sort. It remains a very clear possibility, totally in line with the other victims.

It matters not why we think he is recalled. He says nothing is missing for something to be sliced off it must be cut away.

Or SEEM sliced off.

I have read it and I disagree with you completely.

That has happened before. You even managed to doubt that the Goulston Street rag was a piece of Eddowes´ apron, so I am not amazed...

So are you now about to argue that all the cuts penetrated the body wall and the adomenal wall?

Why would I? I am arguing that we may need to be cautious about proclaiming that some wounds were not deep and serious enough to kill.

No Christer, if it partial it not sliced off. That is the point. It says sliced off.
Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it.

Human nature is like that. I will check Google, and we will see if "partially sliced off" appears.. There we go: 1650 results. I agree that sliced off is sliced off. But the reality of things is that we do express ourselves like that: "half blind, for example...

Actual if one reads the report in full, it come across as poor reporting of what was said by Spratling. Nowhere is there the impression That this is a first hand report of someone who saw the body.

It´s Spratling. He saw the body. What you feel about the grammar and semantics is your prerogative. You are trying to have your cake and eat mine, apparently.

Once again I see great flaws in the hypothesis such that it cannot hope to stand.

It already stands. You´ll see.

Sorry they would.
The bowels have popped out from the gash to the abdomenial wall. That being now incomplete cannot prevent the bowels from appearing.

That would be due to the cleaved flesh, not to retracted skin.

It is very simple yes. Unfortunately it seems you do not wish to understand and are intent on going down another one of you blind alleys.

It is the same alley as always, further supported by added evidence.

You refuse to accept any explanation other than one which fits your thinking.
No problem, it does however make meaningful debate difficult.

No, I do not "refuse" anything. I could say that YOU refuse to consider my thinking, Steve. I keep an open mind, but I think I am on the right track here. And that you are on the same track as always, the "that cannot be proven" track, a VERY easy track to follow.

I missed the first question as I am working on my phone and it got lost but to answer you.
I do not believe the flap was removed in the Jackson case to allow access to the abdomen.

But instead to...? To begin with, the removal of the abdominal walls was not primarily about allowing access to the abdomen in ANY of the cases, I keep telling you that. That access was there once you had cut from sternum to pubes.
If you think that the abdominal wall was removed from Jackson for dismemberment purposes, you are proposing a very odd thing. Which dismemberment killer has ever done such a thing? Dismemberment is normally about getting rid of a corpse. For your information, this was NOT so with the torso killer, not at all. But if you think it was about ridding himself of the corpses, then why in the whole wide world would he take away the abdominal wall BEFORE sawing the torso in three?
Let´s hear a really good explanation to that one, Steve!

[Fisherman]

A brilliant post, Steve. And what you have highlighted is what regrettably happens when an erstwhile excellent poster fixates on a particular suspect: objectivity goes completely out of the window. Just as when Christer tried to argue that MJK had been expertly mutilated!

Christer actually only argued that Kellys kidneys were extracted from the front, and that the same thing had had Brown say that this was a skilled thing to do. So I would simply love it if you could refrain from misleading about me having called the mutilations of Kelly expertly done on the whole.
Is that too much to ask?

[Robert St Devil]

Llewellyn is recalled to the inquest on the 17th of September and specifically comments that no parts were missing. This may well be in response to rumors that something was missing.

Come on - you KNOW what it is in response to.

just for us having troubles keeping up, now we are talking about dr llewellyn,s reappearance at the 17 Sep inquest occurring because, in the fortnight since the previous inquest, Annie Chapman has been murdered with her organs removed. i read it that squeamish dr llewellyn went back to take a second look to make sure none of polly,s viscera had been taken.
that action might suggest that polly,s wounds were nearing similarity to annie chapman,s wounds, with her innards being more exposed than believed.
that... or, if the wounds are considered from the traditional belief, the doctor would be left to assume that the killer jammed his hand into the cut on her right, and snatched and grabbed whatever he could hold. and, to complete the autopsy, the doctor would need to complete the dissection to account for her own organs.

[Fisherman]

Of course, there is also the East London Advertiser that lends weight to what I am saying:

"... besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open, with the bowels protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife."

Nota bene that once again, it is said that the LOWER part of the abdomen is "completely ripped open", with the bowels protruding. But lo and behold, the wound as such also "extends nearly to her breast".
So why is it that not ALL of the abdomen is "ripped open"? Well, the explanation lies in how the lower abdomen offers a window into the innards, on account of the "turned over flesh", the part that gave the impression of being "sliced off". The whole of the abdomen is ripped, but only the lower abdomen is ripped open.

Look at how the Evening News struggled to word it:
"... the lower part of the abdomen had been ripped up, and the bowels were protruding. The abdominal wall, the whole length of the body, had been cut open, and on either side were two incised wounds, almost as severe as the centre one. This reached from the lower part of the abdomen to the breast bone."

So FIRST they say that the "lower part of the abdomen had been ripped up, and the bowels protruding", and THEN they seem to change their bid by suddenly saying in the next sentence that "the whole length" of the abdominal wall had on fact been cut open.
It all seems very contradictory until we realize that they are reporting the same thing as the Morning Advertiser and the East London Advertiser - that the lower part of the abdomen was the part that suffered the worst damage, having a window opened up trough which the bowles protruded, while the upper part of the abdomen only revealed one of the cuts from the lower abdomen continuing all the way up to the breast, but NOT ripping the body open like a window.

The old enigmas are solved, more or less. Suddenly it all makes sense, and not only that - we can clearly see that what happened to Nichols is totally in line with what happened to Chapman a stiff week later. This is by far the likeliest and most logical interpretation of the wounds to Nichols body so far, and I am quite content to work from the presumption that it is spot on.