Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Elamarna]

And still, the blood had to go SOMEWHERE.

Maybe it emigrated to the Ivory Coast?

By the way, Helson said it for him, after having heard his view:

"Dr Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity"

It neednīt be harder than that.

You are ignoring what is being said. No one is despairing blood in the abdomenial cavity, the question is how much and where does it end up.

Llewellyn says abdomen first, one assumes because he believed there was insufficient for throat first.

However he clearly says the blood had collected in the loose tissues. On the face of it that reads as inside or adsorbed by.
If it is just inside the cavity even if trapped somehow by the loose tissues there is no need to mention them specifically.

Of course there is a good counter argument that the throat is cut first and that there's sufficient blood to allow for this, but Llewellyn missed it partly due to the lighting when he arrived.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: You are ignoring what is being said. No one is despairing blood in the abdomenial cavity, the question is how much and where does it end up.

I am not ignoring what is being said. I am disagreeing with you about it. Thatīs another matter.
The absolute majority of the blood ended up in the abdominal cavity. That is all we need to know. And it is in line with the scarcity of blood at the neck and in the clothes.

Llewellyn says abdomen first, one assumes because he believed there was insufficient for throat first.

I would advice to look at it the other way around - because there was a lot of blood in the abdominal cavity, whereas there was only little by the neck.

However he clearly says the blood had collected in the loose tissues. On the face of it that reads as inside or adsorbed by.
If it is just inside the cavity even if trapped somehow by the loose tissues there is no need to mention them specifically.

Of course there is a good counter argument that the throat is cut first and that there's sufficient blood to allow for this, but Llewellyn missed it partly due to the lighting when he arrived.

Llewellyn never says anything at all about there being sufficient blood by the neck to allow for the neck having been cut first. He says the abdomen was cut first, and the blood from the wounds went into the abdominal cavity. Personally, I donīt think the counterargument has anything at all going for it.

[Joshua Rogan]

Llewellyn never says anything at all about there being sufficient blood by the neck to allow for the neck having been cut first. He says the abdomen was cut first, and the blood from the wounds went into the abdominal cavity. Personally, I donīt think the counterargument has anything at all going for it.

There's a bit more to the quote you posted earlier (#135)....

Daily News 3rd Sept
"Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut."

[Fisherman]

There's a bit more to the quote you posted earlier (#135)....

Daily News 3rd Sept
"Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut."

Yes, this has been discussed in depth before - very clearly, Helson expresses a view Llewellyn did not agree with; the doctor thought the abdominal wounds came first. He said so before the inquest, and Baxter confirmed that this was his take as he summed the inquest up. What business Helson had denying it, I donīt know.

Helson apparently preferred if the other way around, and tried to use the ulster as the probable vessel for holding most of the blood. But the upper part of an ulster will not hold litres of blood, and there was very little blood around the neck.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, this has been discussed in depth before - very clearly, Helson expresses a view Llewellyn did not agree with; the doctor thought the abdominal wounds came first. He said so before the inquest, and Baxter confirmed that this was his take as he summed the inquest up. What business Helson had denying it, I donīt know.

Helson apparently preferred if the other way around, and tried to use the ulster as the probable vessel for holding most of the blood. But the upper part of an ulster will not hold litres of blood, and there was very little blood around the neck.

I'm not sure that it's very clear at all from the article who it is that holds the opinion that the throats wounds came first. It could apply to Llewellyn or Helson, but from the way it's written I would say the former. Other reports say Llewellyn thought the throat was cut first, such as the Echo 1st Sept;

"Dr. Ralph Llewellyn made a post mortem examination of the body this morning, the injuries are even more extensive than he at first supposed. It is his impression that she was not murdered at the spot where her body was found, but that her throat was cut, the dreadful abdominal injuries then inflicted, and that the body was then carried, enveloped in her large, heavy cloak, and thrown outside the gateway at Essex Wharf. Mr. Seccombe, Dr. Llewellyn's assistant, is of the same opinions, especially, he says, as there was comparatively little blood where the deceased lay."

It's true that Wynn Baxter does say that "Llewellyn seemed inclined to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first" in his summing up, but then goes on to suggest this opinion is wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, this has been discussed in depth before - very clearly, Helson expresses a view Llewellyn did not agree with; the doctor thought the abdominal wounds came first. He said so before the inquest, and Baxter confirmed that this was his take as he summed the inquest up. What business Helson had denying it, I donīt know.

Helson apparently preferred if the other way around, and tried to use the ulster as the probable vessel for holding most of the blood. But the upper part of an ulster will not hold litres of blood, and there was very little blood around the neck.

hey fish
I believe you have indicated in the past that you think her neck was cut after the abdominal wounds-why do you think that again?

[Fisherman]

hey fish
I believe you have indicated in the past that you think her neck was cut after the abdominal wounds-why do you think that again?

Because Llewellyn suggested this, strengthening the suggestion by pointing out that the bulk of the blood ended up in Nicholsī abdominal cavity. Also, if the neck came first, there would have been a gush of blood, which was never there. Even if she was strangled to death first, there is some remaining pressure in the vessels anyway for some time afterwards.
And there was only very little blood up at the neck.

[John G]

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

Hi Steve,

But Tom doesn't suggest there was any attempt to remove the abdominal wall in sections. In fact, he argues that we cannot assume there was even an intention to remove the uterus. Of course, any poster pursuing there own agenda, intent on demonstrating that there was a ritualistic element to these mutilation would assume such a thing despite the absence of evidence.

[Fisherman]

Hi Steve,

But Tom doesn't suggest there was any attempt to remove the abdominal wall in sections. In fact, he argues that we cannot assume there was even an intention to remove the uterus. Of course, any poster pursuing there own agenda, intent on demonstrating that there was a ritualistic element to these mutilation would assume such a thing despite the absence of evidence.

Dear me. You ARE bitter, are you not?

Try and grasp this:

There is no absense of evidence. There is clear evidence that the killer followed a specific agenda - evidence, not proof, mind you. You are not aware of it since you have not seen and recognized it.
That does not mean it does not exist. It only means that you are in the dark about it.

[Michael W Richards]

Because Llewellyn suggested this, strengthening the suggestion by pointing out that the bulk of the blood ended up in Nicholsī abdominal cavity. Also, if the neck came first, there would have been a gush of blood, which was never there. Even if she was strangled to death first, there is some remaining pressure in the vessels anyway for some time afterwards.
And there was only very little blood up at the neck.

There is no logical explanation for the abdominal wounds coming before the neck wounds. There is ample evidence however that she was strangled, or garroted, and that in and of itself could have compressed the arteries that fed the neck vessels, and therefore the flow of blood, or spray, could have been minimized.

Strangling her to unconsciousness and maintaining that pressure while cutting the throat makes some sense and addresses your concerns, trying to explain how an unconscious woman wouldn't wake to abdominal cuts makes much less sense. The good doctor was incorrect Fish.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

But Tom doesn't suggest there was any attempt to remove the abdominal wall in sections. In fact, he argues that we cannot assume there was even an intention to remove the uterus. Of course, any poster pursuing there own agenda, intent on demonstrating that there was a ritualistic element to these mutilation would assume such a thing despite the absence of evidence.

John
Spot on,
Tom offers a "flap", to me that is normal if one intends to open the abdomen.
He does not suggest the idea was to cut it away from body however.
The fact that such did happened in the Chapman case I personally view as just something which occurred in the particular instance, there could be several practicle reasons for such to have happened. I see no prior intent or ritual in the cutting of such.

The very fact that this possible flap was not actually removed with Nichols does to me argue against any ritual of flap removal being involved in the murders.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Michael W Richards: There is no logical explanation for the abdominal wounds coming before the neck wounds. There is ample evidence however that she was strangled, or garroted, and that in and of itself could have compressed the arteries that fed the neck vessels, and therefore the flow of blood, or spray, could have been minimized.

No. I asked Jason Payne-James specifically about this, and he said that given that all the large vessels were severed, there would be no brakes on the bloodflow. (He did not word himself exactly like that, but it was the message nevertheless).

Strangling her to unconsciousness and maintaining that pressure while cutting the throat makes some sense and addresses your concerns, trying to explain how an unconscious woman wouldn't wake to abdominal cuts makes much less sense. The good doctor was incorrect Fish.

The strangling could have stopped the heart, Michael. The fewest are awakened from such a state. If Llewellyn said that then abdominal cuts came first, I fail to see who is better cut out to decide against it today, without having seen the body and done the post-mortem.
There is too much dissing of medicos going on out here, if I may say so.

[Fisherman]

John
Spot on,
Tom offers a "flap", to me that is normal if one intends to open the abdomen.
He does not suggest the idea was to cut it away from body however.
The fact that such did happened in the Chapman case I personally view as just something which occurred in the particular instance, there could be several practicle reasons for such to have happened. I see no prior intent or ritual in the cutting of such.

The very fact that this possible flap was not actually removed with Nichols does to me argue against any ritual of flap removal being involved in the murders.


Steve

Thatīs cohesive: Chapman lost her abdominal wall in flaps, Kelly lost her abdominal wall in flaps (you seemingly forgot her...?), Nichols had a flap cut out, but it seems the killer was disturbed, Eddowes has the lower half of her adomen encircled by cuts - and that of course argues AGAINST a will on the killers behalf to cut away the abdomens in flaps. Extremely logical! "Spot on" indeed!!

[John G]

Dear me. You ARE bitter, are you not?

Try and grasp this:

There is no absense of evidence. There is clear evidence that the killer followed a specific agenda - evidence, not proof, mind you. You are not aware of it since you have not seen and recognized it.
That does not mean it does not exist. It only means that you are in the dark about it.

No, what I object to is when a poster, pursing a particular agenda, tries to promote evidence, which is circumstantial at best, as representing virtual proof. For instance, you have argued that you don't believe there is proof that Lechmere murdered Nichols, but that's not the impression you give in your posts. In respect of Nichols, Llewellyn in my view was a sloppy doctor and the medical "evidence", such as it is, is so incomplete, that you could seek to rely on it to argue for almost any theory however extreme. Thus, you could argue that the perpetrator interned to remove the uterus. Conversely, you could argue he didn't intend to remove the uterus. You could argue the wounds were representative of ritualistic behaviour. Equally you could argue the wounds did not represent ritualistic behaviour.

Frankly, in this regard what exactly sets you apart from Trevor Marriott, Patricia Cornwall, Bruce Robinson...?

[John G]

John
Spot on,
Tom offers a "flap", to me that is normal if one intends to open the abdomen.
He does not suggest the idea was to cut it away from body however.
The fact that such did happened in the Chapman case I personally view as just something which occurred in the particular instance, there could be several practicle reasons for such to have happened. I see no prior intent or ritual in the cutting of such.

The very fact that this possible flap was not actually removed with Nichols does to me argue against any ritual of flap removal being involved in the murders.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Thanks for a typically excellent and well-reasoned reply. Of course, some posters see the word "flap" and immediately jump up and down shouting "eureka"at the top of their voice!