Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[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.

[Elamarna]

... but it´s 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

[Elamarna]

... but it´s 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

[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 don´t 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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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 don´t know. You are welcome to try again, if you wish. The drop hollows the stone, or so they say...

[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].

[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

[Fisherman]

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

Please be a bit more careful, Steve. I am not arguing "that the cuts must have been deeper and that major vessels must have been cut." I am arguing that I THINK Llewellyn knew his business, and that it therefore seems to me that the cuts were deep and that the damage done was enough to kill.

It may seem nitpicking to you, but I really do not like having my views altered by other posters, and presented as if they came from me.

As for your misgivings about the blood having flowed into the abdominal cavity, those misgivings are in direct conflict with what the doctor said himself: "Nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues."
The blood that did not end up in the abdominal cavity was the blood found in the pool under the neck - which woud have ended up as Thains´ clot. There was also a quantity of blood in the clothes, but only furthest up, so it would not have been very much.

We have the man who did the autopsy telling us that the blood went into the loose tissues of the abdominal cavity. I am willing to accept that this was so, especially since there is no sound counterbid.

[Elamarna]

Please be a bit more careful, Steve. I am not arguing "that the cuts must have been deeper and that major vessels must have been cut." I am arguing that I THINK Llewellyn knew his business, and that it therefore seems to me that the cuts were deep and that the damage done was enough to kill.

It may seem nitpicking to you, but I really do not like having my views altered by other posters, and presented as if they came from me.

I take your point but that really is not picking I was trying to give Robert a full view of the possibilities if you think that Llewellyn is correct you must also believe that the wounds were deeper than just the omentium; such is unlikely to cause death.

I really don't think it is inconsistent with your posted opinion given that I did qualify it by saying you used Llewellyn' statements.

Next time I will actually quote.

UAs for your misgivings about the blood having flowed into the abdominal cavity, those misgivings are in direct conflict with what the doctor said himself: "Nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues."

Which I believe is simply unrealistic.

The blood that did not end up in the abdominal cavity was the blood found in the pool under the neck - which woud have ended up as Thains´ clot. There was also a quantity of blood in the clothes, but only furthest up, so it would not have been very much.

No there is a pool under her back and a sperate one near to her neck. The one near her neck is running off into the gutter..
Your view of the degree of blood on the clothing is certainly open to debate.

We have the man who did the autopsy telling us that the blood went into the loose tissues of the abdominal cavity. I am willing to accept that this was so, especially since there is no sound counterbid.

It is that statement of Llewellyn which my own background finds very hard to accept..
We do certainly have counter arguments.
We have discussed this many times and do not agree.

Even when trying to give another poster a full picture of the possible depth of the wounds giving both views you still feel a need to push one view.

So be it.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: I take your point but that really is not picking I was trying to give Robert a full view of the possibilities if you think that Llewellyn is correct you must also believe that the wounds were deeper than just the omentium; such is unlikely to cause death.

I really don't think it is inconsistent with your posted opinion given that I did qualify it by saying you used Llewellyn' statements.

Next time I will actually quote.

That would be nice - the problem I have is that I dislike having it stated about me that I would have voiced a total certainty about matters like these. It often ends up in accusations from other posters, led on by somebody having expressed views on my behalf that are not a 100 per cent true. I do think that Llewellyn was correct, and consequentially, I do think the wounds were deep and that vital parts were damaged. But it is a firm belief and not a certainty!

Which I believe is simply unrealistic.

Precisely why?

No there is a pool under her back and a sperate one near to her neck. The one near her neck is running off into the gutter..
Your view of the degree of blood on the clothing is certainly open to debate.

It is stated in a number of sources that the upper parts of the garments only were bloodsoaked. Thain said that when he lifted the body, he got blood on his hands, but he may well have lifted by the shoulders.

There were two places on the ground where there was blood - the pool under her neck, and then there was some blood that was placed where Nichols´ legs had been. The latter contingent is rarely spoken of and sparsely sourced.

It is that statement of Llewellyn which my own background finds very hard to accept..
We do certainly have counter arguments.
We have discussed this many times and do not agree.

Even when trying to give another poster a full picture of the possible depth of the wounds giving both views you still feel a need to push one view.

So be it.

There is no need to doubt Llewellyn that I know of - blood can easily seep into the abdominal cavity if there is damage done there, and the cavity is sizeable enough to hold a lot of blood.

As for me "pushing" views, I would prefer another choice of words on your behalf. But one can only hope for so much, I guess!

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: I take your point but that really is not picking I was trying to give Robert a full view of the possibilities if you think that Llewellyn is correct you must also believe that the wounds were deeper than just the omentium; such is unlikely to cause death.

I really don't think it is inconsistent with your posted opinion given that I did qualify it by saying you used Llewellyn' statements.

Next time I will actually quote.

That would be nice - the problem I have is that I dislike having it stated about me that I would have voiced a total certainty about matters like these. It often ends up in acuusations from other posters, led on by somebody having expreesed views on my behalf that are not a 100 per cent true. I do think that Llewellyn was correct, and consequentially, I do think the wounds were deep and that vital parts were damaged. But it is a firm belief and not a certainty!

Which I believe is simply unrealistic.

Precisely why?

No there is a pool under her back and a sperate one near to her neck. The one near her neck is running off into the gutter..
Your view of the degree of blood on the clothing is certainly open to debate.

It is stated in a number of sources that the uooer parts of the garmens only were bloodsoaked. Thain said that when he lifted the body, he got blood on his hands, but he may well have lifted by the shoulders.

There were two places on the ground where there was blood - the pool under her neck, and then there was some blood that was placed where Nichols´ legs had been. The latter contingent is rarely spoken of and sparsely sourced.

It is that statement of Llewellyn which my own background finds very hard to accept..
We do certainly have counter arguments.
We have discussed this many times and do not agree.

Even when trying to give another poster a full picture of the possible depth of the wounds giving both views you still feel a need to push one view.

So be it.

There is no need to doubt Llewellyn that I know of - blood can easily seep into the abdomonal cavity if there is damage done there, and the cavity is sizeable enough to hold a lot of blood.

As for me "pushing" views, I would prefer another choice of words on your behalf. But one can only hope for so much, I guess!

Christer
I am simply not of the opinion that the amount of blood hinted at. :
"Nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues."
is viable.

Actually you should have a read of Tom's new offering.

He agrees with you on some issues such as the flap however his reasoning for its formation is more compelling to me. It does not involve seperate horizontal cuts at all.
And I am forced to change my view that he had indeed opened the abdomen.

However he also disagrees in other areas. It's an interesting read. And causing me to reassess some of my research.

Steve