A theory about some injuries!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

After about eight-nine years, I will start a thread on these forums.

How plausible or not you find these explanations about Mary's injuries:

1. The mutilation of the face: possibly her eyes were open after the throat was cut. Why? Well, The Yorkshire Ripper said he was even more enraged after a similar thing.

2. The badly cut right thigh: possibly Mary kicked him to the balls before a cut to the throat. This is based on the reaction mentioned on nr 1.

3. Based on the photo and the reports, Mary possibly had defensive wounds on her arms and fingers.

All right, all views for and against are welcome!

All the best
Jukka

[Wickerman]

If I'm not mistaken, the idea that the cuts to the arms and thumb were defensive wounds is a modern suggestion based on the photograph.
As I've mentioned on another thread, deep flesh wounds will bleed if the victim is alive.
The photograph does not show extensive bleeding from those arm wounds. The blood seems to be contained at the wound itself, and not running all over the forearm. They could be post-mortem wounds.

What purpose would a killer have to start denuding flesh from bone, then leave it and move on to some other mutilation?

It's my view that what we see is an unfinished crime scene, he left the room before he could finish whatever he had in mind.
It's an interrupted crime scene again.

[harry]

What information exists that there was an interruption?

[Sam Flynn]

What purpose would a killer have to start denuding flesh from bone, then leave it and move on to some other mutilation?

For the sheer hell of it?

Alternatively, the removal of the thigh flesh might have been a precursor to the de-fleshing of the lower pelvic/perineal area, including the external genitalia.

[Sam Flynn]

My suggestion above seems to be borne out by Bond:

"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee."

... which also suggests that the killer didn't stop at the right thigh.

[Henry Flower]

If I'm not mistaken, the idea that the cuts to the arms and thumb were defensive wounds is a modern suggestion based on the photograph.

I've always been of the impression that those are in entirely the wrong position to be defensive wounds. Surely a defensive wound is typically found on a part of the arm or hand that is exposed when the arm is raised into a defensive posture? I've more often seen them on the palms of the hands or the rear of the forearm. These look to me like post-mortem slashes.

What purpose would a killer have to start denuding flesh from bone, then leave it and move on to some other mutilation?

Maybe the point for him isn't the flesh; the point is the knife, the cut. She is incidental. Just a thought.

[Harry D]

Why wasn't the uterus taken? That's always puzzled me.

[Sam Flynn]

Surely a defensive wound is typically found on a part of the arm or hand that is exposed when the arm is raised into a defensive posture? I've more often seen them on the palms of the hands or the rear of the forearm.

The cut on the right thumb and the wounds to the back of the right hand could have resulted from her trying to fend off a knife. I can't see any reason why the killer would deliberately nick the thumb and inflict a few cuts to the back of one hand.

"The right thumb showed a small superficial incision about 1 in long, with extravasation of blood in the skin & there were several abrasions on the back of the hand moreover showing the same condition."

Might not the extravasation of blood into the skin indicate that these specific wounds were inflicted whilst there was sufficient pressure to force the blood into the subcutaneous tissues?

[Sam Flynn]

Why wasn't the uterus taken? That's always puzzled me.

It might be useful to consider why the uterus was taken in the previous murders. I'd suggest that it wasn't so much because the killer had a "thing" for uteri, because he also removed two bladders, don't forget. The fact that he took these might simply have been because they were the only easily-reached, and "portable", organs within his grasp once he'd shifted the abdominal viscera out of the way. The fact that he also once managed to grab a kidney might have been down to the same reason.

The fact that he didn't take Kelly's uterus could simply have been because there was a more challenging "prize" on offer in the privacy of Miller's Court. As it turned out, of course, he did remove Kelly's uterus and placed it under her head; perhaps that was enough of a thrill for him in its own right, to say nothing of the other organs he removed and displaced.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't see any reason why the killer would deliberately nick the thumb and inflict a few cuts to the back of one hand.

Self-correction: what I say about the cut thumb still stands, but there were abrasions to the back of the right hand. I don't believe Bond would have mistaken abrasions ("scrapes") for cuts, so quite how she sustained that damage to the back of her hand is probably something we'll never know. I somehow doubt they would have been caused by a knife.

[Abby Normal]

Self-correction: what I say about the cut thumb still stands, but there were abrasions to the back of the right hand. I don't believe Bond would have mistaken abrasions ("scrapes") for cuts, so quite how she sustained that damage to the back of her hand is probably something we'll never know. I somehow doubt they would have been caused by a knife.

Hi Sam
I think she might have awoken when the killer put the sheet over her face and had a brief moment or two to fight back and call out before she was incapacitated.

More than likely the cut to thumb and abrasians to back of hand were defensive IMHO.

slashes on arms were probably post mortem.

[Wickerman]

What information exists that there was an interruption?

It's interpretation Harry, like we have with Nichols & Stride. Some think these were interrupted attacks due to possibly unfinished mutilations.

[Wickerman]

My suggestion above seems to be borne out by Bond:

"The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone, the flap of skin, including the external organs of generation & part of the right buttock. The left thigh was stripped of skin, fascia & muscles as far as the knee."

... which also suggests that the killer didn't stop at the right thigh.

In your previous to the above you seemed to suggest the thigh was stripped before the pelvic area (you said 'precursor'). I just wondered how this quote from Bond seems to bear out your claim?

[Sam Flynn]

In your previous to the above you seemed to suggest the thigh was stripped before the pelvic area (you said 'precursor').

Precursor in the sense that I envisage him cutting through the thigh-flesh before going on to removing the flesh from her genital area. In the past, I've referred to the removal of the flesh from the thighs and around the genital area as a "saddle" of flesh.

[Wickerman]

I've always been of the impression that those are in entirely the wrong position to be defensive wounds. Surely a defensive wound is typically found on a part of the arm or hand that is exposed when the arm is raised into a defensive posture? I've more often seen them on the palms of the hands or the rear of the forearm. These look to me like post-mortem slashes.

I agree, both mutilations on the left arm are in the wrong place to be defensive wounds.

The trouble with thinking about defensive wounds is we only have the "oh, murder". Anyone fighting for their life is going to scream the place down. Especially Mary, who was known to be feisty.

Maybe the point for him isn't the flesh; the point is the knife, the cut. She is incidental. Just a thought.

Yes, it's hard to try rationalize an irrational act.
It's just that if he decides to strip flesh & muscle from the torso and then the upper thighs, why did he stop?
He went further than just removing organs, he continued down both legs, partially, but then stopped.