Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Fisherman]

http://imgur.com/8993gT2

This is how I am suggesting Nichols´ wounds may have looked:

A: The long cut from pubes to ribs, said by sources to have been along the center of the body
B: The three or four cuts running downwards on the right side of the abdomen
C: The two incised wounds, one on each side as is said in the reports, reported to be remarkable for their lenght and depth, just as the centre cut.
D: The cut running from pubes, veering into the groin and then proceeding up over the left hip, being situated "two or three inches" from the left side
E: A large flap of flesh formed by the cuts as described. It can easily be turned over from the body´s left to right and will then give the impression to be "sliced off".

Of course, there can be variants of the pattern, but this is a sketch that answers very well to all the reports.

[Abby Normal]

http://imgur.com/8993gT2

This is how I am suggesting Nichols´ wounds may have looked:

A: The long cut from pubes to ribs, said by sources to have been along the center of the body
B: The three or four cuts running downwards on the right side of the abdomen
C: The two incised wounds, one on each side as is said in the reports, reported to be remarkable for their lenght and depth, just as the centre cut.
D: The cut running from pubes, veering into the groin and then proceeding up over the left hip, being situated "two or three inches" from the left side
E: A large flap of flesh formed by the cuts as described. It can easily be turned over from the body´s left to right and will then give the impression to be "sliced off".

Of course, there can be variants of the pattern, but this is a sketch that answers very well to all the reports.

interesting fish-Thanks!
I thought there was a sketch I saw somewhere of her wounds drawn by one of the police or medicos at the time. It depicted a large Jagged wound from chest to pubes with a few other smaller cuts-am I mistaken?

[Joshua Rogan]

interesting fish-Thanks!
I thought there was a sketch I saw somewhere of her wounds drawn by one of the police or medicos at the time. It depicted a large Jagged wound from chest to pubes with a few other smaller cuts-am I mistaken?

Are you thinking of Foster's mortuary sketch of Eddowes, Abby?

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=8

If there was a similar contemporary sketch of Nichols this thread would be redundant.

[Fisherman]

interesting fish-Thanks!
I thought there was a sketch I saw somewhere of her wounds drawn by one of the police or medicos at the time. It depicted a large Jagged wound from chest to pubes with a few other smaller cuts-am I mistaken?

I don´t think there is any contemporary sketch of the damage done to Nichols´ abdomen, Abby - I can´t recall such a beast, anyways.

[Fisherman]

Are you thinking of Foster's mortuary sketch of Eddowes, Abby?

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=8

If there was a similar contemporary sketch of Nichols this thread would be redundant.

Note how there are cuts here too on Eddowes that seem to veer off from the vagina into the groins on the respective sides! If one was to take away the whole of the abdominal wall, these two cuts form a good start, just like the cut trough Nichols´ left groin.

[Abby Normal]

Are you thinking of Foster's mortuary sketch of Eddowes, Abby?

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=8

If there was a similar contemporary sketch of Nichols this thread would be redundant.

Thanks-your right. that's the one I'm thinking of!

[Joshua Rogan]

Note how there are cuts here too on Eddowes that seem to veer off from the vagina into the groins on the respective sides! If one was to take away the whole of the abdominal wall, these two cuts form a good start, just like the cut trough Nichols´ left groin.

Yes, Fish, that similarity struck me too. Thanks for the illustration by the way, I was hoping someone would try one.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the People report;
"In the lower part of the body the wounds were of a still more frightful character. The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open to the breast, causing almost complete disembowelment. Again the knife had been thrust into the body under each breast, and drawn down to the thighs in a zig-zag fashion. A more terrible scene than that disclosed by the mutilated remains, as they lay upon the mortuary slab, could never have been witnessed. "

To me, along with other accounts, this seems to indicate that the "incised wounds" mentioned elsewhere (C on your diagram) ran downwards, rather than horizontally. I think at least one of them joined up with the long central cut at the groin, which would have formed a triangular "flap" and which is what I suspect Spratling described.

[Fisherman]

Yes, Fish, that similarity struck me too. Thanks for the illustration by the way, I was hoping someone would try one.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the People report;
"In the lower part of the body the wounds were of a still more frightful character. The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open to the breast, causing almost complete disembowelment. Again the knife had been thrust into the body under each breast, and drawn down to the thighs in a zig-zag fashion. A more terrible scene than that disclosed by the mutilated remains, as they lay upon the mortuary slab, could never have been witnessed. "

To me, along with other accounts, this seems to indicate that the "incised wounds" mentioned elsewhere (C on your diagram) ran downwards, rather than horizontally. I think at least one of them joined up with the long central cut at the groin, which would have formed a triangular "flap" and which is what I suspect Spratling described.

I played with the idea myself, but ultimately abandoned it for a number of reasons. It was said that "The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice", but your take on things would mean that there should have been four, not two cuts, and that three of them should have reached up to the ribcage, more or less.
I believe the cuts "under each breast" were the centre one and the one along the left side of the body - they ended up at the thighs, as described.

Also, if your idea is the correct one, there would seemingly be two cuts that commenced at the lower abdomen and went upwards, and two that commenced under the breasts and went downwards, which sounds a tad strange to my ears. Not by any means impossible, but nevertheless strange.

There is also the Times to consider, saying that "There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards."

Here, I think that "running across" is in contrast to "running downwards", and that the wounds running across sideways would have been the C wounds.

Like I said in my earlier post, the full pattern will be hard to establish, but I think we have come a long way to solve the overall matter!

[Elamarna]

Yes, Fish, that similarity struck me too. Thanks for the illustration by the way, I was hoping someone would try one.

I'm surprised nobody has commented on the People report;
"In the lower part of the body the wounds were of a still more frightful character. The knife had been thrust into the lowest point of the body, and the woman deliberately ripped open to the breast, causing almost complete disembowelment. Again the knife had been thrust into the body under each breast, and drawn down to the thighs in a zig-zag fashion. A more terrible scene than that disclosed by the mutilated remains, as they lay upon the mortuary slab, could never have been witnessed. "

To me, along with other accounts, this seems to indicate that the "incised wounds" mentioned elsewhere (C on your diagram) ran downwards, rather than horizontally. I think at least one of them joined up with the long central cut at the groin, which would have formed a triangular "flap" and which is what I suspect Spratling described.

Yes the Eddowes situation is something I had commented on over the last couple of days it is possible that we have a flap there.

My only issue on Nichols is that I am not convinced the flap was created. I have no doubt it was intended.
The reports in the morning advertiser are not direct quotes of Spratling and the only comment we really have from him is the flesh was turning back on itself, which is certainly open to debate on its meaning. We have at least 2 possible explanations.

The issue with the People report is that it gives the impression of one central cut and if a knife is thrust below each breast is that not two more cuts.
While I have no issue with that as such, because we still have little ldea of the reality of the cuts, I do wonder how many of these reports are based on journalists intepretation of Spratling and Llewellyn And are any based on first hand observations.

A few do appear to be such as the one in the star which describes two cuts may have been however the report in the East London Observer of 1st September certainly appears to be a first hand report.

So I wonder how much is exaggeration and misinterpretation And how much is based on fact. We must be very careful before we start accept something as being factually accurate.


Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

Christer i would really urge caution here.

The reports are all over the place.

I would only place importance to those that quote Spratling or Llewellyn or those which may be eye witness descriptions by the journalists themselves.

Reading through most of the reports which Joshua posted and which I looked at last year there is no clear consensus but it seems clear many reports are interpreting what Spratling and Llewellyn said and not reporting the words actually used.

A good example is the "sliced off" comment. There is no actual atributation as to who this comes from or when it is said. It does not appear to be a direct quote of anyone.



A brief comment on the issue of lower being open and upper not.

This can be explained away by simple anatomy: the upper part of the abdomen contains the liver and stomach, organs that are basically held in place by supporting tissue and unlikely to pop out of a cut. The lower portion contains the intestines which are known to be capable of popping out if a wound is serve enough.

That of course does not mean that is true; however it is valid from a scientific position and may be the actual picture.

It seems strange that we are disagreeing with each other when we both believe the end objective was the same, to open up the abdomen.

An interesting idea in your diagram by the way, I have no basic problem with the positions but may disagree as to how complete some of these were.

One final point; if he had completed the cutting of the flap that suggests a different timing to me than the simple single main cut and various minor cuts.

I would suggest it possible doubles the length of the attack from 1 to 2 minutes to 3 to 4.
Certainly more than 2 I would estimate.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes the Eddowes situation is something I had commented on over the last couple of days it is possible that we have a flap there.

My only issue on Nichols is that I am not convinced the flap was created. I have no doubt it was intended.
The reports in the morning advertiser are not direct quotes of Spratling and the only comment we really have from him is the flesh was turning back on itself, which is certainly open to debate on its meaning. We have at least 2 possible explanations.

The issue with the People report is that it gives the impression of one central cut and if a knife is thrust below each breast is that not two more cuts.
While I have no issue with that as such, because we still have little ldea of the reality of the cuts, I do wonder how many of these reports are based on journalists intepretation of Spratling and Llewellyn And are any based on first hand observations.

A few do appear to be such as the one in the star which describes two cuts may have been however the report in the East London Observer of 1st September certainly appears to be a first hand report.

So I wonder how much is exaggeration and misinterpretation And how much is based on fact. We must be very careful before we start accept something as being factually accurate.


Steve

I wouldn´t worry too much about that, Steve. There can never be any factual accuracy in a case like this, where there is no contemporary illustration.
What I set out to do, and what I feel is accomplished, was to show how the collected reports seem to point to the lower abdomen of Nichols having a "window" into the abdominal cavity opened up.

It´s not as if I can prove it conclusively - but I do feel that since it is in line with what happened to Chapman and Kelly and what may well have been intended for Eddowes, it is as close as we can get to a consistent series of evisceration crimes where there was an intent to "lift the lid" off the abdomen, so to speak.
And although it is not a definitively proven thing, consistency is never a bad thing to point to.

Me, I am thrilled by how it is consistent with my take on what the killer did, but that´s another story...

[Elamarna]

http://imgur.com/8993gT2

This is how I am suggesting Nichols´ wounds may have looked:

A: The long cut from pubes to ribs, said by sources to have been along the center of the body
B: The three or four cuts running downwards on the right side of the abdomen
C: The two incised wounds, one on each side as is said in the reports, reported to be remarkable for their lenght and depth, just as the centre cut.
D: The cut running from pubes, veering into the groin and then proceeding up over the left hip, being situated "two or three inches" from the left side
E: A large flap of flesh formed by the cuts as described. It can easily be turned over from the body´s left to right and will then give the impression to be "sliced off".

Of course, there can be variants of the pattern, but this is a sketch that answers very well to all the reports.

Christer on your point C .
Llewellyn's actually words in the Pall Mall Gazette 1st September are:

"The abdomenial wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted"

At the inquest he says only"
"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

Could you point me in the direction of which reports say that the included cuts were long and deep.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Christer i would really urge caution here.

The reports are all over the place.

Actually, they are not. As you can see for yourself, it is perfectly possible to cater to all the report writers in one single sketch.
If the reports had been all over the place, that would have been impossible.

I would only place importance to those that quote Spratling or Llewellyn or those which may be eye witness descriptions by the journalists themselves.

All the material can be made to work together, so I see no need to ditch any of it.

Reading through most of the reports which Joshua posted and which I looked at last year there is no clear consensus but it seems clear many reports are interpreting what Spratling and Llewellyn said and not reporting the words actually used.

And still it works together, Steve.

A good example is the "sliced off" comment. There is no actual atributation as to who this comes from or when it is said. It does not appear to be a direct quote of anyone.

I don´t think that a paper would invent a "sliced off" part, and I see n o reason why it could not point to the kind of damage I tried to depict. As I keep saying, there is an expression like "partly sliced off", so that has to be weighed in - plus the report could point to a part that SEEMED sliced off.
I will not reiterate this any more, since I think I have said it enough many times to be heard.


A brief comment on the issue of lower being open and upper not.

This can be explained away by simple anatomy: the upper part of the abdomen contains the liver and stomach, organs that are basically held in place by supporting tissue and unlikely to pop out of a cut. The lower portion contains the intestines which are known to be capable of popping out if a wound is serve enough.

That of course does not mean that is true; however it is valid from a scientific position and may be the actual picture.

It seems strange that we are disagreeing with each other when we both believe the end objective was the same, to open up the abdomen.

An interesting idea in your diagram by the way, I have no basic problem with the positions but may disagree as to how complete some of these were.

One final point; if he had completed the cutting of the flap that suggests a different timing to me than the simple single main cut and various minor cuts.

I would suggest it possible doubles the length of the attack from 1 to 2 minutes to 3 to 4.
Certainly more than 2 I would estimate.

I have never cut flaps from a dead womans belly, so I´m at a loss to establish how much time that would take. Any which way, I think that the abdominal wounds came first, so there is a large time potential to work with.

As for what you say about the intestines, I´m sure that may be correct - but as I am equally certain that the Evening News spoke of flesh turned over from left to right, I need no further explanation. When the abdominal flesh is turned over, it WILL expose the underlying intestines, which is pretty much what was said happened. And with the Morning Advertiser adding that there was a "sliced off" part, I think I have a very firm ground to stand on when I say that there seems to have been an intent to remove the abdominal wall (or at least part/s of it) from Nichols too.

[Fisherman]

Christer on your point C .
Llewellyn's actually words in the Pall Mall Gazette 1st September are:

"The abdomenial wounds are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted"

At the inquest he says only"
"There were several incisions running across the abdomen"

Could you point me in the direction of which reports say that the included cuts were long and deep.

Steve

The major cut was a very deep one, Llewellyn says as much. Add to this what Joshua posted:

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.(Illustrated Police News, Sept 8)

... and we are home and dry. "We" that is - not necessarily you.

[Elamarna]

I wouldn´t worry too much about that, Steve. There can never be any factual accuracy in a case like this, where there is no contemporary illustration.
What I set out to do, and what I feel is accomplished, was to show how the collected reports seem to point to the lower abdomen of Nichols having a "window" into the abdominal cavity opened up.

It´s not as if I can prove it conclusively - but I do feel that since it is in line with what happened to Chapman and Kelly and what may well have been intended for Eddowes, it is as close as we can get to a consistent series of evisceration crimes where there was an intent to "lift the lid" off the abdomen, so to speak.
And although it is not a definitively proven thing, consistency is never a bad thing to point to.

Me, I am thrilled by how it is consistent with my take on what the killer did, but that´s another story...

The preparation to open up Nichols become clear to me some months ago. Indeed I did I at least one post or it may have been a pm that I could see links that clearly pointed at the other Ripper murders and maybe in the case of Mackenzie too, although the lesser extent of the wounds makes it more problematical.

Generally here we are in broad agreement about intent, it only regarding how completed it was we differ. I just feel you are pushing it too far, when the intentvis clear and all that is really needed.

Stvee

We of course do not agree on the link to the Torso series