Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Fisherman]

They were indeed. Iīd go so far as to say it is a near certainty.

Iīm fine with coffee (if it has some gusto to it), but overall, I was never any really enthusiastic beer drinker. Wine or whisky for me, please! But Iīm picky about the whisky...

[Fisherman]

well one things for sure the abdomen cuts on polly and the others show a clear similarity in the attention to make the cut for the purpose of getting inside the abdomen, and not just for the cut in of itself. also, that when the ripper had enough time, the major cut(s) in Jackson and chapman and Kelly involved removing large flaps of skin. To me post mortem mutilation of women targeting the midsection with the clear intention of getting to the insides is in itself so rare and similar enough for me to point to the same man-all the ensuing similarities/details (such as the flaps of skin removed) are just a bonus.

To think that there were two of these rare monsters lurking about, targeting the same types of victims, in the same city, at the same time is too much of a coincidence to me. Especially at such an early time in the history of the modern serial killer. They were probably the same man.

They were indeed. Iīd go so far as to say it is a near certainty.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Actually we don't know there was more than one major. Neither Llewellyn or Spratling are 100% clear on that, but we can certainly deduce that there were more than one major cut by looking at all the reports. But am just being pedantic.

Steve, I donīt think any of the participants in the drama speaks of any of the cuts as "a major" one. Or? So I donīt see the relevance of the matter.

Actually you don't seem to allow for the arrow as it's described in only one report; but neither would I. Maybe I am reading that report wrong but who knows.

Did Joshua mention any arrowshaped cut in his initial post? Where, if so?

[Elamarna]

A cup of tea, perhaps...?

Coffee in my case or a pint.

[Abby Normal]

well one things for sure the abdomen cuts on polly and the others show a clear similarity in the attention to make the cut for the purpose of getting inside the abdomen, and not just for the cut in of itself. also, that when the ripper had enough time, the major cut(s) in Jackson and chapman and Kelly involved removing large flaps of skin. To me post mortem mutilation of women targeting the midsection with the clear intention of getting to the insides is in itself so rare and similar enough for me to point to the same man-all the ensuing similarities/details (such as the flaps of skin removed) are just a bonus.

To think that there were two of these rare monsters lurking about, targeting the same types of victims, in the same city, at the same time is too much of a coincidence to me. Especially at such an early time in the history of the modern serial killer. They were probably the same man.

[Elamarna]

Actually, since I have a large number of cuts, I can have one, two, three, four or more major cuts. I never said that a certain sum of them were major or minor.

Likewise, even if a report only mentions one cut, we nevertheless know that this is wrong; there were more.

Overall, my sketch does fit the reports well, as I said. I made it a point to secure that.

Actually we don't know there was more than one major. Neither Llewellyn or Spratling are 100% clear on that, but we can certainly deduce that there were more than one major cut by looking at all the reports. But am just being pedantic.

Actually you don't seem to allow for the arrow as it's described in only one report; but neither would I. Maybe I am reading that report wrong but who knows

Steveh

[Fisherman]

And despite Christer saying he can fit all the reports to his actually good diagram; it's not really the case as some reports say two major cuts some hint at 3, many only mention 1 and the one you started with had an arrowshape did it not.
Steve

Actually, since I have a large number of cuts, I can have one, two, three, four or more major cuts. I never said that a certain sum of them were major or minor.

Likewise, even if a report only mentions one cut, we nevertheless know that this is wrong; there were more.

Overall, my sketch does fit the reports well, as I said. I made it a point to secure that.

[Elamarna]

I think these could be two differing interpretations of the same two cuts. Especially if "under" the breasts is interpreted as "in line with" rather than starting directly beneath.

Fair point Joshua and that does highlight the problens we have . It's all down to interpretation of mainly press reports.

No full official post mortem report leaves us like this. Basically trying to.make educated guesses out of the various reports.

And despite Christer saying he can fit all the reports to his actually good diagram; it's not really the case as some reports say two major cuts some hint at 3, many only mention 1 and the one you started with had an arrowshape did it not.

The other one which was posted near to the start as a black and white diagram is also worth looking at. I personally prefer Christer's as it as the second cut more vertical. However either could work.

Steve

[Fisherman]

I think these could be two differing interpretations of the same two cuts. Especially if "under" the breasts is interpreted as "in line with" rather than starting directly beneath.

I guess a fixation with breasts could implement such a line of thought... But the further down the body we go, the less I find the suggestion plausible, I can say that much!

No, seriously, I am not saying that it had to be in any special way, Joshua. I just wanted to point to how I donīt invest much in old school thinking when it comes to Nichols and her wounds. The first posts on this thread used to be perfectly kosher a few years back, but I think they are pretty much scrapped by now!

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

I think these could be two differing interpretations of the same two cuts. Especially if "under" the breasts is interpreted as "in line with" rather than starting directly beneath.

[Fisherman]

However it was that every issue I referred to as nonsense.
You have given your explanation. I find that argument unconvincing. We disagree not for the first and probably not the last time.

However we have agreed on several things on the wounds overall.
The old view is almost certainly wrong.
The killer intended to open her up; and was preparing to do so.

And that the medics estimations for the time taken is generally too high, because they are looking at performing surgery with recovery which is not the situation before them


You are thrilled so am I who could ask for more

Steve

A cup of tea, perhaps...?

[Elamarna]

Yes, I know the reasons yo have given, but since I consider them inadequate and illogical, I was rather hoping that I had missed something a bit juicier.

It seems I didnīt.

As for the motivation part, it is going nowhere. There is a distinctive pattern of a ritualistic character, which is very, very rare (but not unheard of) involved in varying degrees in the murders of both the Ripper and the Torso series. The clearest exponents are Mary Kelly and the 1873 torso case. It goes way beyond coincidence.

And it is very apparent (sorry, I just had to do that... )

So you keep saying Christer.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I did not say I do not wish to mention it, I said I donīwanīt to have to explain it again. That, at least, is what I meant!

However it was that every issue I referred to as nonsense.
You have given your explanation. I find that argument unconvincing. We disagree not for the first and probably not the last time.

However we have agreed on several things on the wounds overall.
The old view is almost certainly wrong.
The killer intended to open her up; and was preparing to do so.

And that the medics estimations for the time taken is generally too high, because they are looking at performing surgery with recovery which is not the situation before them


You are thrilled so am I who could ask for more

Steve

[Fisherman]

No my position has not really moved. I started by believe he intended to open up the abdomen and an still there.

The parts I called nonsense , my view has not changed; however I see little point in arguing when the outcome in the Nichols case ends the same.

As you have said you do not wish to mention sliced off again I will not.

Steve

I did not say I do not wish to mention it, I said I donīwanīt to have to explain it again. That, at least, is what I meant!

[Fisherman]

Christer

I have given that reasoning several times over the last 12 months, mainly in replies to your posts. You are well aware of my reasons and I have no intention of rehashing that all over again.

We disagree. Live with it.
Time will not doubt show which if either of us is correct.( I actually think I ended one of those replies with those very words; Nothing has changed)

You claim you can prove a link by way of motivation, until you do that the debate cannot really progress.

Steve

Yes, I know the reasons yo have given, but since I consider them inadequate and illogical, I was rather hoping that I had missed something a bit juicier.

It seems I didnīt.

As for the motivation part, it is going nowhere. There is a distinctive pattern of a ritualistic character, which is very, very rare (but not unheard of) involved in varying degrees in the murders of both the Ripper and the Torso series. The clearest exponents are Mary Kelly and the 1873 torso case. It goes way beyond coincidence.

And it is very apparent (sorry, I just had to do that... )