Polly's Wounds: What were they like?

[Michael W Richards]

"your "seams" are connecting nothing but whole cloth"

Nicely put, Michael

Thanks for noticing Sam, I was proud of that one.

[Sam Flynn]

"your "seams" are connecting nothing but whole cloth"

Nicely put, Michael

[Michael W Richards]

I see that much of what youre selling rests on similar acts done within the confines of the physical evidence Fisherman,... and your "seams" are connecting nothing but whole cloth. There are keys within the physical evidence, sure, 1 of them is how much different private disarticulating is from public murder and mutilation. What many of the storylines attempt to do is string a suspicion along a line and see what is attracted to it. What was done physically to the women in terms of cutting could have been done by many people of the period, the area teemed with slaughterhouse men, butchers, hunters...gatherers, cattle boat men, ..etc. Having a knife and using it wasn't an exclusive right of Jacks, that he did it to people was. I would agree that we can group some victims by one man, and beyond Polly and Annie Im still feeling unsure about the footing. For mainly this reason...she wasnt cut with specific focus...Annie was, she wasn't cut with any precision...Annie was, and there are actions taken that suggest he took time to do things that we cannot say Annies killer seemed interested in doing. Interestingly, Kates murder may have been the swiftest disemboweling of the series, which may account for the sloppiness, and it may account for the lack of any "flaps", ..so was it done rapidly to make sure he was out of there before the next pc pass, or does he just work that quickly anyway, perhaps from some time in a slaughterhouse, and is blissfully unaware how dangerous a position he was in.


In the vernacular of construction, I think Kates killer is the general labor, and Annies killer does finishing work.

[Fisherman]

I never suggested that Annies killer went on to kill anyone else Trevor. The only other victim I might add with the first 2 is Kate, and thats with pretty tenuous linkage. Since I believe a good candidate exists for the first 2, someone who was institutionalized before the Double Event, I lean towards a new killer both attempting to mimic earlier events and to use the corpse to send a message, marking her face to indicate she was a snitch. I believe the actions taken in the first 2 cases indicate a preoccupation with mutilation of the abdomen, and I also believe that it was female organs that were sought, in Pollys case just a premature street killer that couldn't wait for a better spot. I think they were killed so the abdominal cutting could take place, and if he could have managed with them alive and still squirming I don't think he would have necessarily killed them first.

It wasn't about the murder. In Liz Strides case, and in Marys case, it certainly was.

And as always, when killers cut away the abdominal wall in large flaps, they WILL be different men. Chapmans killer, Kellys killer and Liz Jacksons killer just happened to do that, and all by sheer coincidence, whaddayaknow!

We see it here, in three separate cases, committed by different men, and then we don't see it again until perhaps in the Dahmer case a hundred years on and more.

One of the rarest and weirdest inclusions ever in a murder - and we had THREE such killers at work in less than a year in London...!?

Michael, Michael... its all coming apart badly at the seams, isn't it?

[Michael W Richards]

Well if everyone is suggesting that the killer who killed Chapman and Eddowes and removed organs from them, and then went onto kill Kelly, but didnt take any organs from her, that weakens the original suggestion that the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes but didnt take any of Kellys organs, that strengthens the belief that the killer didnt take any organs from any victims. Its not rocket science !!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I never suggested that Annies killer went on to kill anyone else Trevor. The only other victim I might add with the first 2 is Kate, and thats with pretty tenuous linkage. Since I believe a good candidate exists for the first 2, someone who was institutionalized before the Double Event, I lean towards a new killer both attempting to mimic earlier events and to use the corpse to send a message, marking her face to indicate she was a snitch. I believe the actions taken in the first 2 cases indicate a preoccupation with mutilation of the abdomen, and I also believe that it was female organs that were sought, in Pollys case just a premature street killer that couldn't wait for a better spot. I think they were killed so the abdominal cutting could take place, and if he could have managed with them alive and still squirming I don't think he would have necessarily killed them first.

It wasn't about the murder. In Liz Strides case, and in Marys case, it certainly was.

[Sam Flynn]

Thats your opinion, modern day medical experts, and those from Victorian days do not seem to concur with you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I said was objectively true.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wouldn't dignify it with the title "medical procedure", and it was largely cabbage-cutting in both cases anyway.

Why would an eviscerating serial killer be content with only one?

Thats your opinion, modern day medical experts, and those from Victorian days do not seem to concur with you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

No, and we have to ask if it was the same killer he must have been damm good in 1888 to be able to remove the uterus from both victims using two different medical procedures

I wouldn't dignify it with the title "medical procedure", and it was largely cabbage-cutting in both cases anyway.

why on earth would a killer want to take a uterus from Eddowes when he supposedly had taken one from Chapman?

Why would an eviscerating serial killer be content with only one?

[Fisherman]

The obvious conclusion in the Kelly murder must be that the killer prioritized the cutting and the removing of the organs over bringing them along with himself. Once we realize that, we can move on to trying to understand what predisposition of the mind may result in that kind of behavior.

[Trevor Marriott]

...but wasn't the case with Eddowes.

No, and we have to ask if it was the same killer he must have been damm good in 1888 to be able to remove the uterus from both victims using two different medical procedures, and why on earth would a killer want to take a uterus from Eddowes when he supposedly had taken one from Chapman?

After all with Kelly he could have taken the whole body away in bits could he not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I can honestly say I would struggle even in daylight to effect such a removal of a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached as was the case with Chapman

...but wasn't the case with Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Like I said, Trevor - the uterus is in the pelvis at the other end of the vagina, where it's always been. Cutting it out is not drastically different from cutting a head of cabbage from its stem, albeit a cabbage-stalk is tougher to cut through.

I now know where it is, you know where it is, but as I said 130 years ago I bet we would not have had a clue, and even now I will be totally honest with you, with all the time I have spent on this issue, all the medical people I have spoken to, and all the post mortems I have attended, I can honestly say I would struggle even in daylight to effect such a removal of a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached as was the case with Chapman let alone in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen with no surgical gloves to grip organs with, and tryig to remove organs with a long bladed knife in such a confined space.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

But 130 years ago would you have known what it looks like, where it is located

Like I said, Trevor - the uterus is in the pelvis at the other end of the vagina, where it's always been. Cutting it out is not drastically different from cutting a head of cabbage from its stem, albeit a cabbage-stalk is tougher to cut through.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's in the pelvis, at the other end of the vagina, just like it is in every other mammal.

But 130 years ago would you have known what it looks like, where it is located, and how to remove it, the answer is no, unless you were in the medical profession, and if you were going to take a body part would you have chosen a uterus, again I would suggest not.

I will give you credit for trying to smooth over the cracks that there are in the killer removing the organs theory, but the facts against that are there to speak for themselves.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Staying with Chapman, I also have to question as to how many people from the butchery trade would know about a uterus in a female

It's in the pelvis, at the other end of the vagina, just like it is in every other mammal.