Could he have taken her blood?

[Sam Flynn]

But it was not just the belly wall that was cut, was it? All the vital organs of the abdomen had been attacked and damaged

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!

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: But that's a cavity, Fish, not loose tissue. I'm pretty certain that Llewellyn would have said that the blood collected "in the abdominal cavity" if that's indeed where it was.

He did - in other articles.

Besides, I can't see how the majority of spilled blood could have drained into the cuts to Polly's abdomen - which, let's not forget, didn't exactly lay her open as happened in later murders.

There were a number of cuts, small and large - ergo, the abdomen was opened up. We also have it on record that Llewellyn said that all of the vital organs in the abdominal cavity had been very seriously (lethally) damaged, and so we can safely rely on a large number of arteries and veins having been severed. So even if Nichols was not "laid open" as in the other murders (and letīs face it, we know little about how open she was laid), we still have:
- a number of larger or smaller cuts to the abdomen.
- severed vessels inside the abdomen.
-An abdominal cavity that could accomodate the blood leaking out from these vessels.

Furthermore, she was so small-framed that any cuts to her (thinnish) belly wall wouldn't have lost much blood anyway. Certainly not the sort of blood flow that might be expected to wet the the pavement. "Ooze" at best.

But it was not just the belly wall that was cut, was it? All the vital organs of the abdomen had been attacked and damaged, and they would have produced a lot of blood. For all we know, the main artery of the body may have been severed. Such things bleed, you know. A lot! One minute or so and the body is drained.
Besides - if the blood did not go into the loose tissues arising from the cutting of the abdomen - there where DID it go??? Litres of it????

Anyhow, let's leave it at that for now. I've stated my side of the argument, and you yours. On to more fruitful things, me old mucker

Yes, letīs!

[Sam Flynn]

[B]But the blood could and would not have collected anywhere in the body. There was only one place where the major part of the blood could go, and that was into the abdominal cavity.

But that's a cavity, Fish, not loose tissue. I'm pretty certain that Llewellyn would have said that the blood collected "in the abdominal cavity" if that's indeed where it was. But he isn't recorded to have said anything remotely similar, and no summarising reporter would have conceived of using "loose tissues" as a synonym for a body cavity.

Besides, I can't see how the majority of spilled blood could have drained into the cuts to Polly's abdomen - which, let's not forget, didn't exactly lay her open as happened in later murders. Furthermore, she was so small-framed that any cuts to her (thinnish) belly wall wouldn't have lost much blood anyway. Certainly not the sort of blood flow that might be expected to wet the the pavement. "Ooze" at best.

Anyhow, let's leave it at that for now. I've stated my side of the argument, and you yours. On to more fruitful things, me old mucker

[Pcdunn]

The ecchymosis noted on her neck could be the result of bruising consistent with the use of a cord, but as the lacerations across her throat are not sufficiently detailed then some of the cuts cannot be ruled out as a cause.
Though I think more likely the former than the latter.

Thank you, Wickerman. I surely hope MJK was dead when the killer started dissecting her.

[Wickerman]

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

The ecchymosis noted on her neck could be the result of bruising consistent with the use of a cord, but as the lacerations across her throat are not sufficiently detailed then some of the cuts cannot be ruled out as a cause.
Though I think more likely the former than the latter.

[Pcdunn]

I wouldn't call anything The Ripper or The Torso Killer did tame.

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?

[John Wheat]

it seems almost tame compared to more modern killers.

I wouldn't call anything The Ripper or The Torso Killer did tame.

[Pcdunn]

You should ask Errata about those details, Rosella. She has a fascinating thread somewhere about the psychology of Jack as the various insane suspects (primarily Kosminski, I think), and compares JtR and Gein, among other 20th century serialists.
I do know that Gein flayed his victims, and that a book about his crimes inspired Hitchcock to make "Psycho".

Both Jack and the Torso Killer (if they were killed) seemed to have been into strange stuff, if they were stabbing, hacking, ripping, and dismembering just "for jolly", but it seems almost tame compared to more modern killers.

[Rosella]

I suppose the torso killer could have been into eccentric interior decoration like Ed Gein. Didn't that individual have skulls on his bedposts and a skin from a human face as a lampshade?

As far as Jack is concerned I believe he may well have eaten what he wanted (the piece of kidney and the heart) and perhaps kept the uterus as a souvenir until it rotted and he had to throw it out.

[Sam Flynn]

was he building Worzel Gummidge?

That's a straw-man argument if ever I saw one

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

[Barnaby]

The original poster's idea is awesome. Loved it. Way out of the box, explains the differences with the Torso killings, and it would make an excellent piece of fiction. Of course I don't believe it, but what a story. A real Dr. Frankenstein.

Somebody else mentioned this but it is worth a repeat. I wouldn't take the blood first. That seems odd.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: The neck, for one - but we shouldn't rush to assume that "loose tissue" meant "cut tissue", because Llewellyn might have meant something specific (such as areolar connective tissue) if "loose tissue" was used in a technical sense. As I've told you before, there is loose tissue all over the body.

But the blood could and would not have collected anywhere in the body. There was only one place where the major part of the blood could go, and that was into the abdominal cavity.
Who are you trying to fool, Gareth? Yourself? You are way too clever for that.

If by "loose tissue" he actually meant "cut tissue", then the neck had been pretty well cut, hadn't it? So he could have meant that.

No, he could not. We are speaking about the major part of the blood that had left the vessels, and that means we are speaking litres of blood. They-will-not-collect-in-a-cut-neck. No, nope, njet, nein, nä, non. Never. And you know what? You know that just as well as I do.

Given the paucity of evidence, we just don't know either way.

Yes, we do. A paucity of evidence can only exist when there are alternative explanations. When they are not around - and they are not - then there is no paucity of evidence.

We certainly know that "loose tissues of the abdomen" was not written down in any records we have, so we can't attribute those words to Llewellyn... or even the journalist who wrote it up.

Nor do we have to. It grieves me not. It is you who are deeply frustrated, not I.

You are not agreeing with me, because (a) there is plenty that remains controversial about Llewellyn; and (b) that was not my point anyway, as was quite obvious from what I posted.

I donīt think a living soul is agreeing with you, Gareth.

I know quite well that Llewellyn was not quoted to have said "the loose tissues of the abdomen".

But equally, you know quite well that is what he meant. Where else would two, three litres go? Into the nostrils?

There is no issue. It is settled. Goodnight to you.

[Sam Flynn]

The only frustration I perceive is in your posts, where you try to conjure up a magic (unnamed) alternative to the abdomen as the place the blood went.

The neck, for one - but we shouldn't rush to assume that "loose tissue" meant "cut tissue", because Llewellyn might have meant something specific (such as areolar connective tissue) if "loose tissue" was used in a technical sense. As I've told you before, there is loose tissue all over the body.

If by "loose tissue" he actually meant "cut tissue", then the neck had been pretty well cut, hadn't it? So he could have meant that. Given the paucity of evidence, we just don't know either way. We certainly know that "loose tissues of the abdomen" was not written down in any records we have, so we can't attribute those words to Llewellyn... or even the journalist who wrote it up.

In conclusion, I agree with you: there is nothing at all controversial about what Llewellyn said

You are not agreeing with me, because (a) there is plenty that remains controversial about Llewellyn; and (b) that was not my point anyway, as was quite obvious from what I posted.

[Fisherman]

Nowhere is it recorded that Llewellyn referred to the "loose tissues of the abdomen", Fish, so you can't attribute this to him. The newspaper précis shows that he referred only to "loose tissues" (which can be found all over the body) and not "loose tissues of the abdomen" specifically.

Frustrating, perhaps, but that's all the evidence we've got on this point and we must stick to it. We can theorise on the basis of the evidence, of course, but that's not the same as attributing an opinion to a witness that's not actually on record.

I honestly can't see what's controversial about this, and I'll say no more on the matter.

I donīt find it frustrating at all. The only frustration I perceive is in your posts, where you try to conjure up a magic (unnamed) alternative to the abdomen as the place the blood went. With no luck at all, I may add.

You understandably leave my questions about where you yourself think the blood went, if it did not go into the abdomen, unanswered. I predicted it, and I am anything but surprised.

In conclusion, I agree with you: there is nothing at all controversial about what Llewellyn said, and just as little about what he meant.