Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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]

[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.

[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)

[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

[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

[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!

[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.

[Elamarna]

I thought it might be useful to collect all the newspaper accounts which shed some light on the extent and details of Polly Nichols abdominal wounds. I'm sure I've missed some, but here are a few to be going on with....

IPN 8th Sept
It was then discovered that in addition to the gash in her throat, which had nearly severed the head from the body, 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.

The Times inquest report
There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. 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.

Atchison Daily Globe 3rd Sept
Her head was nearly severed from her body, which was literally cut to pieces, one gash reaching from the pelvis to the breast bone.

Daily News 1st Sept
the lower part of the woman's body was found to have been horrible mutilated by three or four deep gashes.

Dr. Llewellyn yesterday made the following statement:- I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning by Police constable Thane (sic), who said a woman had been murdered. I went to the place at once, and found deceased lying on the ground in front of the stableyard door. She was lying on her back with her legs out straight, as though she had been laid down. Police constable Neil told me that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. On feeling the extremities of the body, I found that they were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired. There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row. At the time I had no idea of the fearful abdominal wounds which had been inflicted upon the body. At half past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds. I have seen many horrible cases, but never such a brutal affair as this. From the nature of the cuts on the throat it is probable that they were inflicted with the left hand. There is mark at the point of the jaw on the right side of the deceased's face as though made by a person's thumb, and a similar bruise on the left side, as if the woman's head had been pushed back and her throat then cut. There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to the centre of the throat, and another cut apparently starting from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebrae, which is also slightly injured. The abdominal wound are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. Deceased's clothes were loose, and the wounds could have been inflicted while she was dressed." The inquest will be held by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for the district, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel, at one o'clock today.

Daily Telegraph 3rd Sept
Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said: On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. I am quite certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make another examination. About an hour later I was sent for by the Inspector to see the injuries he had discovered on the body. I went, and saw that the abdomen was cut very extensively. I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.

East London Advertiser 1st Sept
CNA report: 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.

East London Observer 1st Sept
Contrary to anticipation, beyond the flannel petticoat, and with the exception of a few bloodstains on the cloak, the other clothing was scarcely marked. The petticoat, however, was completely saturated with blood, and altogether presented a sickening spectacle. Entering the deadhouse, with its rows of black coffins, the keeper turned to the one immediately to the right of the door, and lying parallel with the wall. Opening the lid, he exposed the face of the poor victim. The features were apparently those of a woman of about thirty or thirty-five years, whose hair was still dark. The features were small and delicate, the cheek-bones high, the eyes grey, and the partly opened mouth disclosed a set of teeth which were a little discoloured. The expression on the face was a deeply painful one, and was evidently the result of an agonizing death. The gash across the neck was situated very slightly above the breastbone; it was at least six inches in length, over an inch in width, and was clean cut. The hands were still tightly clenched. The lower portion of the body, however, presented the most sickening spectacle of all. Commencing from the lower portion of the abdomen, a terrible gash extended nearly as far as the diaphragm - a gash from which the bowels protruded. There were no rings upon the fingers, and no distinguishing marks either about the face or the body.

Evening News 1st Sept
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.

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.

Lloyds Weekly 2nd Sept
A murder excelling in atrocity any that has disgraced even the East-end was discovered on Friday in a street off Whitechapel-road. Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. The wound extended nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. The body was warm when discovered.
The brutality of the murder is beyond conception and beyond description. The throat was cut in two gashes, the instrument having been a sharp one, but used in a most ferocious and reckless way. There was a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it was accompanied by another one which reached around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. The ghastliness of this cut, however, paled into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. 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 upwards twice. It was early evident that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck's-row, about midway down its length. Buck's-row is a short street occupied half by factories and half by dwellings. Halfway down the street is the house of Mrs. Green. Next to it is a large stable-yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found. Constable Neill, who was the first policeman to see the body, immediately after woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any unusual noise. Neither Mrs. Green, her son, or her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that the night was unusually quiet.

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
He made a hasty examination, and then discovered that besides the gash across the throat the woman had terrible wounds in the abdomen, from which the intestines were protruding. The police ambulance from the Bethnal green station having arrived, the body was removed there. 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.

Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae. He had called the attention of the police to the smallness of the quantity of blood on the spot where he saw the body, and yet the gashes in the abdomen laid the body right open. The weapon used could scarcely have been a sailor's jack knife; it was probably a pointed weapon with a stout back, such as a cork cutter's or shoemaker's knife. In Dr. Llewellyn's opinion it was not an exceptionally long bladed weapon. He does not believe that the woman was seized from behind, and that her throat was then cut; but thinks that a hand was held across her mouth, and the knife then used, possibly by a left handed man, as the bruising on the face of the deceased is such as would result from the mouth being covered, though with the right hand. He made a second examination of the body in the mortuary, and on that based his conclusion, but will make no formal post mortem examination until he receives the coroner's orders.

Morning Advertiser 24th Sept
Dr. Llewellyn stated, in reply to a juror, that no part of the body was missing.

People 2nd Sept
At the mortuary the clothes were taken from the body and revealed gaping wounds, which had been inflicted in a perfectly fiendish manner, and apparently with a large knife, such as butchers use. It must have had a keen edge. Apparently in the first instance the knife had been thrust into her neck behind the left ear, and a horrible wound inflicted. Then, thrust in, in a similar position behind the right ear, it was wrenched round with such force as to approach as to decapitation as was possible. 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. Whether the wounds in the body were caused before the throat was cut or not is impossible at present to say; but any one of the wounds was of such a desperate character that is must of itself ultimately have proved fatal.

Star 31st Aug
The brutality of the murder is beyond conception and beyond description. The throat is cut in two gashes, the instrument having been a sharp one, but used in a most ferocious and reckless way. There is a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it is accompanied by another one which reaches around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. THE GHASTLINESS OF THIS CUT, however, pales into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. 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. The first cut veered to the right, slitting up the groin, and passing over the left hip, but the second cut went straight upward, along the centre of the body, and, reaching to the breast-bone. Such horrible work could only be THE DEED OF A MANIAC.

Great work Joshua. Thank you.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks for that, Joshua!

"One part of the person had been sliced off"...! Sounds to me like the flap Spratling is describing in the Evening News - a flap turned over from left to right.

And Llewellyns words come into a different light: The gashes in the abdomen laid the body right open.

We are on the right track here, I have little doubt about that. And Nichols ties in with Chapman, Kelly and Jackson more with every passing minute.

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 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.

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


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.


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 the "flesh" which may just mean the skin.

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

Steve

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Joshua!

"One part of the person had been sliced off"...! Sounds to me like the flap Spratling is describing in the Evening News - a flap turned over from left to right.

And Llewellyns words come into a different light: The gashes in the abdomen laid the body right open.

We are on the right track here, I have little doubt about that. And Nichols ties in with Chapman, Kelly and Jackson more with every passing minute.

[Joshua Rogan]

I thought it might be useful to collect all the newspaper accounts which shed some light on the extent and details of Polly Nichols abdominal wounds. I'm sure I've missed some, but here are a few to be going on with....

IPN 8th Sept
It was then discovered that in addition to the gash in her throat, which had nearly severed the head from the body, 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.

The Times inquest report
There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. 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.

Atchison Daily Globe 3rd Sept
Her head was nearly severed from her body, which was literally cut to pieces, one gash reaching from the pelvis to the breast bone.

Daily News 1st Sept
the lower part of the woman's body was found to have been horrible mutilated by three or four deep gashes.

Dr. Llewellyn yesterday made the following statement:- I was called to Buck's row about five minutes to four this morning by Police constable Thane (sic), who said a woman had been murdered. I went to the place at once, and found deceased lying on the ground in front of the stableyard door. She was lying on her back with her legs out straight, as though she had been laid down. Police constable Neil told me that the body had not been touched. The throat was cut from ear to ear, and the woman was quite dead. On feeling the extremities of the body, I found that they were still warm, showing that death had not long ensued. A crowd was now gathering, and as it was undesirable to make a further examination in the street, I ordered the removal of the body to the mortuary, telling the police to send for me again if anything of importance transpired. There was a very small pool of blood in the pathway which had trickled from the wound in the throat, not more than would fill two wine glasses, or half a pint at the outside. This fact, and the way which the deceased was lying, made me think at the time that it was probable that the murder was committed elsewhere, and the body conveyed to Buck's row. At the time I had no idea of the fearful abdominal wounds which had been inflicted upon the body. At half past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds. I have seen many horrible cases, but never such a brutal affair as this. From the nature of the cuts on the throat it is probable that they were inflicted with the left hand. There is mark at the point of the jaw on the right side of the deceased's face as though made by a person's thumb, and a similar bruise on the left side, as if the woman's head had been pushed back and her throat then cut. There is a gash under the left ear reaching nearly to the centre of the throat, and another cut apparently starting from the right ear. The neck is severed back to the vertebrae, which is also slightly injured. The abdominal wound are extraordinary for their length and the severity with which they have been inflicted. Deceased's clothes were loose, and the wounds could have been inflicted while she was dressed." The inquest will be held by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner for the district, at the Working Lads' Institute, Whitechapel, at one o'clock today.

Daily Telegraph 3rd Sept
Henry Llewellyn, surgeon, said: On Friday morning I was called to Buck's-row about four o'clock. The constable told me what I was wanted for. On reaching Buck's-row I found the deceased woman lying flat on her back in the pathway, her legs extended. I found she was dead, and that she had severe injuries to her throat. Her hands and wrists were cold, but the body and lower extremities were warm. I examined her chest and felt the heart. It was dark at the time. I believe she had not been dead more than half-an-hour. I am quite certain that the injuries to her neck were not self-inflicted. There was very little blood round the neck. There were no marks of any struggle or of blood, as if the body had been dragged. I told the police to take her to the mortuary, and I would make another examination. About an hour later I was sent for by the Inspector to see the injuries he had discovered on the body. I went, and saw that the abdomen was cut very extensively. I have this morning made a post-mortem examination of the body. I found it to be that of a female about forty or forty-five years. Five of the teeth are missing, and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long and running from a point immediately below the ear. An inch below on the same side, and commencing about an inch in front of it, was a circular incision terminating at a point about three inches below the right jaw. This incision completely severs all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision is about eight inches long. These cuts must have been caused with a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. No blood at all was found on the breast either of the body or clothes. There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person. All the injuries had been done by the same instrument.

East London Advertiser 1st Sept
CNA report: 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.

East London Observer 1st Sept
Contrary to anticipation, beyond the flannel petticoat, and with the exception of a few bloodstains on the cloak, the other clothing was scarcely marked. The petticoat, however, was completely saturated with blood, and altogether presented a sickening spectacle. Entering the deadhouse, with its rows of black coffins, the keeper turned to the one immediately to the right of the door, and lying parallel with the wall. Opening the lid, he exposed the face of the poor victim. The features were apparently those of a woman of about thirty or thirty-five years, whose hair was still dark. The features were small and delicate, the cheek-bones high, the eyes grey, and the partly opened mouth disclosed a set of teeth which were a little discoloured. The expression on the face was a deeply painful one, and was evidently the result of an agonizing death. The gash across the neck was situated very slightly above the breastbone; it was at least six inches in length, over an inch in width, and was clean cut. The hands were still tightly clenched. The lower portion of the body, however, presented the most sickening spectacle of all. Commencing from the lower portion of the abdomen, a terrible gash extended nearly as far as the diaphragm - a gash from which the bowels protruded. There were no rings upon the fingers, and no distinguishing marks either about the face or the body.

Evening News 1st Sept
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.

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.

Lloyds Weekly 2nd Sept
A murder excelling in atrocity any that has disgraced even the East-end was discovered on Friday in a street off Whitechapel-road. Between three and four in the morning the body of a murdered woman was found lying in the gutter in Buck's-row. It presented a horrible spectacle. The throat had been cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done tracing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open with the bowels protruding. The wound extended nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. The body was warm when discovered.
The brutality of the murder is beyond conception and beyond description. The throat was cut in two gashes, the instrument having been a sharp one, but used in a most ferocious and reckless way. There was a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it was accompanied by another one which reached around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. The ghastliness of this cut, however, paled into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. 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 upwards twice. It was early evident that the murder was committed some distance from the place where the body was found. This was in Buck's-row, about midway down its length. Buck's-row is a short street occupied half by factories and half by dwellings. Halfway down the street is the house of Mrs. Green. Next to it is a large stable-yard, whose wide closed gateway is next to the house. In front of this gateway the woman was found. Constable Neill, who was the first policeman to see the body, immediately after woke the Green family, and asked them if they had heard any unusual noise. Neither Mrs. Green, her son, or her daughter, all of whom were sleeping within a few feet of where the body lay, had heard any outcry. All agreed that the night was unusually quiet.

Morning Advertiser 1st Sept
He made a hasty examination, and then discovered that besides the gash across the throat the woman had terrible wounds in the abdomen, from which the intestines were protruding. The police ambulance from the Bethnal green station having arrived, the body was removed there. 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.

Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae. He had called the attention of the police to the smallness of the quantity of blood on the spot where he saw the body, and yet the gashes in the abdomen laid the body right open. The weapon used could scarcely have been a sailor's jack knife; it was probably a pointed weapon with a stout back, such as a cork cutter's or shoemaker's knife. In Dr. Llewellyn's opinion it was not an exceptionally long bladed weapon. He does not believe that the woman was seized from behind, and that her throat was then cut; but thinks that a hand was held across her mouth, and the knife then used, possibly by a left handed man, as the bruising on the face of the deceased is such as would result from the mouth being covered, though with the right hand. He made a second examination of the body in the mortuary, and on that based his conclusion, but will make no formal post mortem examination until he receives the coroner's orders.

Morning Advertiser 24th Sept
Dr. Llewellyn stated, in reply to a juror, that no part of the body was missing.

People 2nd Sept
At the mortuary the clothes were taken from the body and revealed gaping wounds, which had been inflicted in a perfectly fiendish manner, and apparently with a large knife, such as butchers use. It must have had a keen edge. Apparently in the first instance the knife had been thrust into her neck behind the left ear, and a horrible wound inflicted. Then, thrust in, in a similar position behind the right ear, it was wrenched round with such force as to approach as to decapitation as was possible. 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. Whether the wounds in the body were caused before the throat was cut or not is impossible at present to say; but any one of the wounds was of such a desperate character that is must of itself ultimately have proved fatal.

Star 31st Aug
The brutality of the murder is beyond conception and beyond description. The throat is cut in two gashes, the instrument having been a sharp one, but used in a most ferocious and reckless way. There is a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it is accompanied by another one which reaches around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body. THE GHASTLINESS OF THIS CUT, however, pales into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. 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. The first cut veered to the right, slitting up the groin, and passing over the left hip, but the second cut went straight upward, along the centre of the body, and, reaching to the breast-bone. Such horrible work could only be THE DEED OF A MANIAC.