Could he have taken her blood?

[caz]

He did explicitely NOT say that nearly all the blood had left the arteries and veins and most of the remaining blood eventually ended up in the loose tissues.
He said that nearly all of the blood had left the arterie and veins and (that blood) had to a large extent ended up in the loose tissues.

I will try once more, Fishy, then I think I'll have to give up.

Llewellyn observed during his post-mortem exam that the veins and arteries were nearly empty of blood. With me so far?

He could not observe (or measure) the blood that had left the body externally at the crime scene. This blood could therefore form no part of his post-mortem observations. It was gone. Still with me?

He could only observe blood that had remained within the corpse, and saw that this blood had to a large extent collected in the soft tissues, having left the veins and arteries internally.

To sum up then, three distinct areas of blood to account for: 1) x amount shed at the scene; 2) y amount left in the corpse; and 3) y divided between veins/arteries and the soft tissues, with most of y [NOT most of x + y] having now left the former and observable in the latter.

This is NOT the same as saying that most of the 10 pints originally in her veins and arteries [x + y] were still in the body and now observable in the soft tissues. This might have been so, but it's not what Llewellyn was saying.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=caz;350293]

Why would Gareth be taken aback by that, whether he believed most of the blood from the veins had ended up inside or outside the body?

Because he thought that a large part of the blood never left the veins, Caz.

But does Llewellyn explain anywhere that his reference to blood in 'the loose tissues' was actually, and exclusively, a reference to blood in the 'abdominal cavity'? I think it's you who needs to convince me and Gareth that this was the case.

Iīm fine with you supplying a list over which other areas of loose tissues it could have been Llewellyn spoke of.

All I am saying is that since the veins and arteries were virtually empty of blood when Llewellyn did his post mortem exam, and most of the blood left in the body by that time had collected in the loose tissues, there must remain a question mark over the proportion of blood that had left the body at the scene and was therefore not accounted for in Llewellyn's observations.

Llewellyns own question mark seems to have been put behind the sentence "Why so little blood around the neck". And that was a good question. As youn know - from the other site - Jason Payne-James asserts us that the kind of damage done to Nichols would mean that if the neck was cut first and while she was alive, then the blood would have exited through the neck vessels in a minute ony.
So it was a very fair question Llewellyn would have asked!

You keep assuming that the reference to 'a large extent' meant 'most' of the blood she would have had to begin with was now in the abdominal cavity, but it ain't necessarily so, and it seems to me he was merely saying that most of the remaining blood was now in the loose tissues, as would be expected.

He did explicitely NOT say that nearly all the blood had left the arteries and veins and most of the remaining blood eventually ended up in the loose tissues.
He said that nearly all of the blood had left the arterie and veins and (that blood) had to a large extent ended up in the loose tissues.


Speak for yourself! Or perhaps you were.

Actually no.

I'm sure I've told you before that Fishypoo, Fishykins, Fishy etc are terms of endearment, to show you I mean no ill will. I can't believe you really think I do it to try and 'diminish' you - as if I could, even if I wanted to. I have called my daughter Carlypoo and Carlykins for as long as I can remember, and I can assure you it's always meant with great tenderness and affection, as you would realise if we were to meet over a drink one day.

To think that I am the chosen one (I donīt see you getting friendly with other posters in this manner).
Iīm very nearly blushing here!!

Toots I like. Ratbag would be okay too. Lassie I'm not so sure about.

Toots it is, then!

[caz]

Lost in Translation

caz:

Llewellyn didn't apparently try...

How is that apparent to you? I think that we must accept that Llewellyn did everything in his power to establish what had happened. And in order to do that, he would have taken a long, hard look at the ulster, trying to make it fit with the rest he saw.

Again, Fish, you have problems with the use of 'apparently' here to mean 'there is no evidence that [Llewellyn tried...]', rather than 'it is clear to me [he didn't try...]'.

There really is no evidence that Llewellyn examined Nichols's clothing to estimate how much of her blood had soaked into it. He may have done, but he says nothing about it.

Llewellyn's observation, by the time of the post mortem exam, that 'nearly' all the blood had drained out of the veins and arteries, is not exactly a surprise, is it?

You know, I cannot even remember ever having suggested it was. Did I? Others, though, would have been slightly taken aback with the information , like perhaps Gareth, who suggests that the major part of the blood in the veins would have stayed inside the body.
But me, I am anything but surprised!

Please try to read and understand what has actually been written, both then and now. Llewellyn observed that the veins and arteries were nearly empty of blood when he examined the corpse. Why would Gareth be taken aback by that, whether he believed most of the blood from the veins had ended up inside or outside the body?

Neither is his observation that the blood that was present (minus what was washed away at the scene and the unknown quantity absorbed into the clothing) had now collected 'to a large extent' in the corpse's loose tissues. Where else would it have ended up?

If you agree that Llewellyn was speaking of the loose tissues in the abdominal cavity, then I am as certain as you are that this is exactly what happened, and what Llewellyn described. Convince Gareth instead!

But does Llewellyn explain anywhere that his reference to blood in 'the loose tissues' was actually, and exclusively, a reference to blood in the 'abdominal cavity'? I think it's you who needs to convince me and Gareth that this was the case.

Without knowing the absorbency of Nichols's 'large, heavy cloak', you are only guessing how 'saturated' it would have looked or felt in the darkness as a result of a serious throat wound bleeding an unknown quantity of blood into it.

To be more correct, we are BOTH guessing. You are guessing that the ulster contained more than two litres of blood, possibly three (correct me if I am wrong), and I am guessing that the fact Llewellyn said that the veins and the arteries were emptied, and that this blood ended up in the loose tissues to a large part means that there was nowhere even near a litre of blood in the ulster.

Yes I will correct you here. The point is I am NOT guessing one way or the other and I thought I made that fairly clear. Where did I claim superior knowledge of how absorbent the heavy cloak was, let alone how much blood would have come from the first throat wound, whether it was inflicted before or after the abdominal cuts? All I am saying is that since the veins and arteries were virtually empty of blood when Llewellyn did his post mortem exam, and most of the blood left in the body by that time had collected in the loose tissues, there must remain a question mark over the proportion of blood that had left the body at the scene and was therefore not accounted for in Llewellyn's observations. You keep assuming that the reference to 'a large extent' meant 'most' of the blood she would have had to begin with was now in the abdominal cavity, but it ain't necessarily so, and it seems to me he was merely saying that most of the remaining blood was now in the loose tissues, as would be expected.

I think the major reason that it is not universally regarded as resolved lies in an inability to read and understand the material...

Speak for yourself! Or perhaps you were.

(The "Toots" thing is in response to your rather unsubtle "Fishypoo/Fishykins" effort to try and diminish me in this discussion. Could work, perhaps, as long as the counterpart is not scrutinized. I chose between Toots and Lassie, but I find Toots sounds less burdoned with thoughtfullness.)

I'm sure I've told you before that Fishypoo, Fishykins, Fishy etc are terms of endearment, to show you I mean no ill will. I can't believe you really think I do it to try and 'diminish' you - as if I could, even if I wanted to. I have called my daughter Carlypoo and Carlykins for as long as I can remember, and I can assure you it's always meant with great tenderness and affection, as you would realise if we were to meet over a drink one day.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Toots I like. Ratbag would be okay too. Lassie I'm not so sure about.

[Fisherman]

caz:

Llewellyn didn't apparently try...

How is that apparent to you? I think that we must accept that Llewellyn did everything in his power to establish what had happened. And in order to do that, he would have taken a long, hard look at the ulster, trying to make it fit with the rest he saw.

So I disagree very much here - too much effort has sadly been put into trying to make the Victorian medicos look like incompetent idiots, so letīs not add to that.

Llewellyn's observation, by the time of the post mortem exam, that 'nearly' all the blood had drained out of the veins and arteries, is not exactly a surprise, is it?

You know, I cannot even remember ever having suggested it was. Did I? Others, though, would have been slightly taken aback with the information , like perhaps Gareth, who suggests that the major part of the blood in the veins would have stayed inside the body.
But me, I am anything but surprised!

Neither is his observation that the blood that was present (minus what was washed away at the scene and the unknown quantity absorbed into the clothing) had now collected 'to a large extent' in the corpse's loose tissues. Where else would it have ended up?

If you agree that Llewellyn was speaking of the loose tissues in the abdominal cavity, then I am as certain as you are that this is exactly what happened, and what Llewellyn described. Convince Gareth instead!

The reason I was told never to use a towel on a badly bleeding wound was that the material acts like a sponge, and instead of helping to stop the flow, it keeps absorbing more and more of the red stuff.

To a degree, yes. Then the cloth would get saturated. And you would of course press the towel against the wound! No such thing happened here.

The blood from the wounds to the neck trickled down into a pool under Nichols. The gaping gash was fully visible to Neil as he shone his light on the body. There was no cloth covering it. So either the ulster had been moved away from the wound by Paul, after first having absorbed blood, or the blood flowed in two places from the neck wounds, both into the ulster collar and down into the pool. It is fully possible.
The more important thing to remember is that if Nichols had her neck cut first and while alive, then the blood would have left the body through those cuts very quickly. The idea that all the arteries would contract and that the veins would give up only a smallish portion of blood is not viable.

It's why we use them to dry ourselves, or mop up spills, and the thicker and heavier the towel the more liquid it can absorb yet still look and feel relatively dry after use.

True enough - but that is if the liquid is still. Try the same thing on a running water tap and see what happens! There are TWO, not one, determining factors in the game, Caz:
1. The quality and thickness of the cloth and how it is applied, and
2. The amount of blood flowing out of the wound.

Without knowing the absorbency of Nichols's 'large, heavy cloak', you are only guessing how 'saturated' it would have looked or felt in the darkness as a result of a serious throat wound bleeding an unknown quantity of blood into it.

To be more correct, we are BOTH guessing. You are guessing that the ulster contained more than two litres of blood, possibly three (correct me if I am wrong), and I am guessing that the fact Llewellyn said that the veins and the arteries were emptied, and that this blood ended up in the loose tissues to a large part means that there was nowhere even near a litre of blood in the ulster.

Your ever longer commentaries based on limited, contradictory and often second-hand reports won't resolve this issue, I'm afraid.

I disagree - I think the major reason that it is not universally regarded as resolved lies in an inability to read and understand the material, combined with a lack of understanding what happens when a neck of a living victim is severed. Plus a few more bits and bobs. Alternatively, we are not speaking as much of an inability as of a wish not to concede the obvious.

"It is not certain that the loose tissues were in the abdominal cavity."

"A severed neck can bleed very sparsely."

"A piece of cloth can totally suck up a torrent of blood, even if the cut person is lying on a sloping surface."

These sort of things, you know, Toots.

(The "Toots" thing is in response to your rather unsubtle "Fishypoo/Fishykins" effort to try and diminish me in this discussion. Could work, perhaps, as long as the counterpart is not scrutinized. I chose between Toots and Lassie, but I find Toots sounds less burdoned with thoughtfullness.)

[caz]

As an alternative, would it be possible that her murderer had some way to catch the blood? He was skilled enough to avoid arterial spray at the scene, but the blood would have gone somewhere nevertheless. What about a pail, or an especially large canteen?

We know that the killer collected other tissues from both this and other victims. Might he not have wanted blood on this particular night?

Hi DD,

I have no problem with the clothing having possibly absorbed more blood than was appreciated at the time.

However, your basic idea is not original, nor is it entirely outlandish. In late September, the 'Dear Boss' author claimed to have saved some of the red stuff in a ginger beer bottle from the last job (presumably Chapman) and practised writing with it, 'but it went thick like glue', so he used red ink instead.

I have always allowed for the possibility that the killer wrote this letter, since there is no proof that he didn't, and it wouldn't make any difference to me whether any blood could have been taken from a murder scene or not. If a hoaxer could think up an additional gory detail like this with no trouble at all, there is no reason why the killer could not have done the same. He was under no more obligation to tell the truth than a hoaxer, which is often forgotten by those who argue against any of the ripper communications being authentic.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In the Echo of the 3:rd, it says that:
For some reason the police have abandoned the theory that the deceased was murdered in a house and carried to the spot. They now believe she was killed at the place where she was discovered by the constable. The blood from the wounds was, it is thought, absorbed by the woman's ulster and long dress, and would thus account for such a small quantity being noticed underneath the body.

That more or less fits my take on it, Fishypoo.

How do we measure the quantity of blood in an ulster? Answer: We can not.

Precisely, Fishykins. And Llewellyn didn't apparently try, nor did he experiment with blood-filled balloons and the equivalent of Nichols's large, heavy cloak before the first blood loss.

Llewellyn's observation, by the time of the post mortem exam, that 'nearly' all the blood had drained out of the veins and arteries, is not exactly a surprise, is it? Neither is his observation that the blood that was present (minus what was washed away at the scene and the unknown quantity absorbed into the clothing) had now collected 'to a large extent' in the corpse's loose tissues. Where else would it have ended up?

The reason I was told never to use a towel on a badly bleeding wound was that the material acts like a sponge, and instead of helping to stop the flow, it keeps absorbing more and more of the red stuff. It's why we use them to dry ourselves, or mop up spills, and the thicker and heavier the towel the more liquid it can absorb yet still look and feel relatively dry after use. Without knowing the absorbency of Nichols's 'large, heavy cloak', you are only guessing how 'saturated' it would have looked or felt in the darkness as a result of a serious throat wound bleeding an unknown quantity of blood into it.

Your ever longer commentaries based on limited, contradictory and often second-hand reports won't resolve this issue, I'm afraid.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

That's my take too, Jon.

Elsewhere, Fisherman quoted the following passage from The Echo of Sept 1st:

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.

I believe a trick was missed here, as surely more blood than was visible (let alone measurable) at the scene would have been absorbed into that 'large heavy cloak', which Lechmere mistook for a tarpaulin. Llewellyn didn't even notice any of the abdominal wounds at the scene, and would hardly have carried out his subsequent post mortem exam through a blood-soaked cloak.

Love,

Caz
X

I think, Caz, that Llewellyn and his assistant formed the idea that Nichols was killed elsewhere as a direct result of what they thought to be a scarcity of blood on the murder spot.

If they had been able to satisfy themselves that the blood on the murder spot dovetalied with her having been killed there, they would never have made the suggesiton that she was not.

On the surface of things, there could not have been any other reason for this assumption on behalf of Llewellyn and his assistant - the scarcity of blood and that only was what prompted them.

This means that we have a question to answer:

Did Llewellyn and his assistant - who assumed that Nichols had been carried from the unidientified murder spot to the position outside Browns in her cloak - completely forget that whatever blood there was inside Nichols could have leaked into the ulster?

I am going to make a suggestion: If the ulster had been completely drenched with blood, then Llewellyn and his assistant would have had a plausible explanation as to where the blood had gone. They would therefore not assume that she had been killed elsewhere than in Bucks Row.

If - on the other hand - the ulster had comparatively LITTLE blood in it, then they would assume that the blood that MUST have escaped the body as a result of the very serious damage done to it, was not to be found at the murder spot, and they would go for a guess that Nichols had not been killed where she was found.

So what is said about the ulster? Interestingly, the verdicts differ. Some say areas of it it were saturated with blood, but it does not take much blood to saturate confined areas like the ones spoken of.

Some say that the hair was matted with blood, and the neck area of the garments were drenched.

Some say that there was very little blood by the neck area of the ulster.

In the Echo of the 3:rd, it says that:
For some reason the police have abandoned the theory that the deceased was murdered in a house and carried to the spot. They now believe she was killed at the place where she was discovered by the constable. The blood from the wounds was, it is thought, absorbed by the woman's ulster and long dress, and would thus account for such a small quantity being noticed underneath the body.

How do we measure the quantity of blood in an ulster? Answer: We can not. However, there were other indications that Nichols was not killed elsewhere - there was not a speck of blood implicating that she would have been transported to where she lay. And there would have been, if she HAD been moved there.

So the police were compelled to change their mind, and accept that Nichols was killed at the spot. And as there was no blood undernetah her, other than that smallish pool under the neck, the assumption was made that the ulster had absorbed the blood.

But place a blood-filled balloon on a gently sloping surface, throw a piece of thick cloth over it and then plunge a knife into the balloon and see what happens. Does the cloth absorb all the blood, or does most of it run off?

Llewellyn provided the last little piece that was needed for a full understanding of what had taken place: The blood had indeed drained out of the veins and arteries to a nigh on complete extent. That means that Nichols spilled three or four litres of blood on that morning. And a large part of that blood was "collected in the loose tissues".

Do we need to ask ourselves where these loos tissues were situated? No, we donīt because Llewellyn had already expressed a belief that the blood from the abdominal cutting had ended up inside the abdominal cavity.

So thereīs your answer: A significant amount of blood, that nobody was ever able to measure, was soaked into the ulster. Some of it would have come from the neck wounds, but quite likely not very much - the blood from the neck instead trickled into a small pool under Nichols, indicating that there was never much of a flow from the neck. Further emphasis is placed on this by the absense of any gush of blood that had painted itself on the pavement surface.
Part of the blood in the ulster must have come by way of the abdominal cuttings. There were seven cuts over a large surface, some of them north to south, some east to west. Unless a miracle happened, they would have been in contact with the garments to a degree and the blood would -also to a degree - have ended up in the ulster. The ulster was wet at the waist, and many of the abdominal damages would have been in that general area.

But the ulster would not have been the vessel that held most of the blood - Nicholsī abdomen would have played that particular role. It is worded like this by Llewellyn at the inquest:
There were two cuts in the throat, one four inches long and the other eight, and both reaching to the vertebrae, which had also been penetrated. The wounds must have been inflicted with a strong bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. It appeared to have been held in the left hand of the person who had used it. No blood at all was found on the front of the woman's clothes. The body was fairly well nourished and there was no smell of alcohol in the stomach. On the abdomen were some seven cuts and stabs, which the witness described in detail. Nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues. The deceased's wound were sufficient to cause instantaneous death.

Note how Llewellyn initially speaks of the cuts to the neck, and adds that no blood was to be seen on the front of the clothes on Nichols. I think that Llewellyn pointed to how there WOULD have been, if the neck had been cut first and while she was alive.

Llewellyn then leaves the neck cuts, and moves on to the abdomen, first speaking about the lack of any alcohol smell and also of how Nicholsī body was fairly well nourished (meaning that four litres of blood is more credible than three).

Then he specifically speaks of - and describes in detail - the seven cuts to the abdomen that had been inflicted, and in direct relation to this information, he says that "nearly all the blood had been drained out of the arteries and veins, and collected to a large extent in the loose tissues.

Here, he is speaking specifically of the abdomen, and he tells us that THIS was where the bloodloss was really dramatic. He also makes account for where the blood went, and he adds that the damage done to the area was sufficient to cause instantaneous death.

He does not spell every single thing out, so if we want to, we can assume that Llewellyn spoke of loose tissue areas on wildly different parts on Nicholsī body instead of the abdomen. For example. There is always room for "inventive thinking" in the Ripper case.

But overall, there can be very little room for speculating. Nichols had her abdomen cut seven times. The damage done there was enough to kill, not least since the killer had seemingly targetted all the vital organs as he cut away at her. Those organs could only be organs that were reached through the wounds to the abdomen. And the blood from this carnage ended up mainly in the abdominal cavity.

[GUT]

Depends what side of the political divide one sits, I suppose. Could be Maggie Thatcher or Yvette Cooper.

Hope this helps.

Love,

Caz
X

Most polies dont have one heart let alone two.

[caz]

The blood soaked into her clothing, that's all there is to it.
The only mystery is why anyone chooses to invent theories to argue otherwise.

That's my take too, Jon.

Elsewhere, Fisherman quoted the following passage from The Echo of Sept 1st:

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.

I believe a trick was missed here, as surely more blood than was visible (let alone measurable) at the scene would have been absorbed into that 'large heavy cloak', which Lechmere mistook for a tarpaulin. Llewellyn didn't even notice any of the abdominal wounds at the scene, and would hardly have carried out his subsequent post mortem exam through a blood-soaked cloak.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The idea of building a homunculus from missing parts is a great one, but I'm not sure how practical it would have been, even using black magic. I agree with others that the blood would be the last thing to take, as it would go 'thick like glue' in a couple of days. Also, I'm not sure what plans the killer would have been working from...as far as I can tell, any creature built from the missing torso and ripper body parts would have three uteri and four thighs but only one pelvis, one kidney (or even half) but nowhere to put it, three arms, two hearts and four heads. Maybe they were spares, though, or interchangeable....was he building Worzel Gummidge?

Depends what side of the political divide one sits, I suppose. Could be Maggie Thatcher or Yvette Cooper.

Hope this helps.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Wheat]

Well with Torso it depends in the state they were in when hacked up.

Okay then the whole affair of dumping body parts that have been hacked off in various locations is pretty brutal by any standards.

[GUT]

Well the actual murders the C5 with the possible exception of Liz Stride and the Torso Murders are pretty brutal even by todays standards.

Well with Torso it depends in the state they were in when hacked up.

[Pcdunn]

Well the actual murders the C5 with the possible exception of Liz Stride and the Torso Murders are pretty brutal even by todays standards.

Agreed.

[John Wheat]

Not by Victorian standards, certainly, to look at the worldwide fascination with the contemporary news reports, both at time and still today.

As far as we know, the Ripper didn't torture his victims-- does anyone know if MJK had been strangled first, like the others?

Well the actual murders the C5 with the possible exception of Liz Stride and the Torso Murders are pretty brutal even by todays standards.

[Fisherman]

No, the source, as I recall it, says "he attacked all the vital parts". That's it; there's no mention anywhere of the killer attacking "all the vital organs of the abdomen" at all. Stop making things up, puh-lease! Or at least, please desist from presenting conjecture as if they were "fact".

Happy to discuss with you on another thread, because I won't reply on this one. I only did so in this case because you came back with that mind-boggling assertion.

Sorry for all the "attacks and damage" I've inflicted on this thread. God knows I had my reasons!

... and I only respond because you say I "make things up", Gareth. Hereīs the quote:

The murderer must have had some rough anatomical knowledge, for he seemed to have attacked all the vital parts.

The killer attacked two (2) areas on the body. The neck and the abdomen. In doing so, he attacked "all the vital parts".

Where do YOU think these vital parts were situated?

My take on things is that these vital parts were attacked as a direct result of the killerīs onslaught on the abdomen. Actually, I cannot see any other explanation. Actually, there can BE no other explanation.

If we cannot have a more intelligible discussion than one based on idle quibble, then we are - once again - only wasting time. Sorry.

Oh, and goodnight. Again.