Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Sam

The thing that grabbed my attention (for the first time, I must admit) was the description I posted to start this thread, in which it's said that there were no wounds until just above the lower abdomen. I'd put that, perhaps, at the level of the navel, but surely not any higher.

It was end of those downward cuts that started almost at the lower abdomen that may have been visible (if there was enough light) before Cross and Paul pulled Nichols skirt down to her knees. ie. the killer had not purposely covered her.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Jon.

The thing that grabbed my attention (for the first time, I must admit) was the description I posted to start this thread, in which it's said that there were no wounds until just above the lower abdomen. I'd put that, perhaps, at the level of the navel, but surely not any higher.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Sam

Thanks for starting the thread (just seen it !!) and the useful illustration.



For comparison, I`ve attached the illustration by Jane Coram (found here).

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4996&page=4

For anyone interested in further reading on the subject, Tom has a good crack at Nichols wounds here:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-old-wounds.html

[Lechmere]

I think the wounds where in general higher up.

[Mr Lucky]

I notice no-one has mentioned Spratling's observations.

I didn't mention Spratling, but I did actually used him as my source. (couple post before yours )

The point to remember about those notes is that they were taken from the Friday morning examination before the PM, when Nichols was still dressed. Llewellyn himself said after the PM that the injuries were much worse than he first believed.

[Mr Lucky]

I thought they were dramatic enough, Mr L. Don't forget that they'd have been gaping open .

O.k., I wonder what others think

Still, keep working on those ideas. We have such a paucity of clear details about Nichols that I welcome your thoughts on the matter

I think some of the paucity is actually down to an expectation that the abdominal wounds on Nichols should fit with those on Chapman and reinforce the notion that the Chapman murder was simply the Nichols killing carried on to its final conclusions - without the killer being interrupted. There are several press accounts of journalist who saw the body but they are often not trusted as they just don't fit with this preconceived profile.

[Wickerman]

I notice no-one has mentioned Spratling's observations. These are how he described the abdominal wounds, from his report:

"....the abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, and two small stabs on private parts, apparently done with a strong bladed knife"
Ultimate, 2000, Hardback, pp 22-23.

P.S.
We must be careful when reading "left" and "right". A doctor will always use the body as the prime reference, that means "on the left", when spoken by a doctor mean the left side of the body, not as you look at the body, which would then be on your right.
This rule cannot be so certain when we read police or newspaper reports.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm still testing out ideas on this one, but I think the wounds were far more dramatic than you've got them here - 'The most brutal affair I've ever seen' said Dr Llewellyn.

I thought they were dramatic enough, Mr L. Don't forget that they'd have been gaping open - I've just drawn some 2D lines - and that Nichols was actually rather petite. On such a body as hers those 2D lines, rendered in 3D, would have been quite horrific. I've no doubt that Llewellyn had never seen such brutality before, but he wouldn't be the first to think that in this ghastly series of murders. And they got much, much worse.

Still, keep working on those ideas. We have such a paucity of clear details about Nichols that I welcome your thoughts on the matter.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Sam

I'm still testing out ideas on this one, but I think the wounds were far more dramatic than you've got them here - 'The most brutal affair I've ever seen' said Dr Llewellyn

The last time I looked at the sources I came to the conclusion that the main wounds together might look loosely like a 'Z' but turned through 45 degrees and with out the arms necessarily meeting - 'along bottom of ribs' was one gash, another (Main gash) down the middle(ish) from sternum to pubes area , another that went from the central area to 'under the pelvis', plus other minor cuts.

[Sam Flynn]

I know, I know...

Before anyone points it out, I now realise - after slaving over that diagram for all of four minutes - that I've got the left and right mixed up!
I'm sure you get the gist, anyway. You can always mentally rotate the image, if you like

[Sam Flynn]

Taken over from another thread.

arrows showing the downward cuts that started on the lower abdomen. These are the ones that may have been slightly visible.

Trouble is, Jon, what we have of Llewellyn's evidence isn't particularly clear, so why not discuss that very point?

Starting almost at the lower abdomen, he seems to say that the wounds from the left hand side ran across the abdomen, one of which was deep and jagged. On the right hand side (and, note, seemingly on the right hand side only) the knife moved exclusively downwards.

No record survives as to how long all these cuts were, indeed all we seem to know is that the jagged cut 2" or 3" from the left side was the worst, but one possible reconstruction is as follows, with Llewellyn's description summarised on the diagram:



NB: I've no idea what the "several incisions" looked like, or how many they were. All I know is that they were moving "across" the abdomen, and I've drawn four of them.

I don't claim this is accurate, but it's pretty much how I've always interpreted the reports of Llewellyn's description of the wounds. If anyone has any alternative suggestions, let's hear them!