Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 54 minutes ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 20 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - by Trevor Marriott 2 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (47 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (34 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (17 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (3 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (1 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: The Christie Case - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Lechmere/Cross, Charles

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #661  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:57 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Daily News 3 Sept;
"At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming."

Morning Advertiser 1 Sept
"Dr. Llewellyn, who was formerly a house surgeon of the London Hospital, has given his opinion as to the manner in which the murder was committed. He said that the woman was killed by the cuts on the throat - there are two, and the throat is divided back to the vertebrae."
Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat, or how it comes about that there was so little bleeding from the several arteries, that the clothing on the upper surface was not stained, and, indeed, very much less bleeding from the abdomen than from the neck. Surely it may well be that, as in the case of Chapman, the dreadful wounds to the throat were inflicted first and the others afterwards."

So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-19-2018 at 04:01 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 11-19-2018, 03:59 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There is the possibility that the killer cut the aorta open,in which case we would have imminent death, more or less.
The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:13 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat..."
This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:24 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.
Possible? Yes, very much is possible. But if there was never any doubt about how Llewellyn thought that the neck wounds came first, then why would Baxter, two weeks afterwards, come up with such an idea?

The last stop on a line is normally the one where things have been staightened out, and this is what we are looking at here, I´d say.

Joshua turned his reports around chronologically. On the 1:st, Llewellyn said that the wounds to the neck killed her. At that stage, I believe he had not made his final examination of the body.

On the 3:rd, he had seen the blood in the abdomen and had a change of heart. But Helson - who I think is quoted here - seems disinclined to accept Llewellyn´s altered decision. So if anybody is misunderstanding here, it is him. Baxter quoted Llewellyn as having said that the abdominal wounds were what caused Nichols´ death. Accordingly, since the neck wounds would have killed her if they came first, they must have come second.

Baxter had it correct at the inquest - and he did not like it one bit.

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-19-2018 at 04:30 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 11-19-2018, 04:26 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.
We don´t know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we don´t know that the aorta was left undamaged. The large wound was a very deep one, it was said, and that´s about as far as our knowledge stretches. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as you know.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:00 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,895
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:
Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

Quote:
So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.
Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:01 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
We don´t know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we don´t know that the aorta was left undamaged.
The intestines were noted as protruding from the wounds, and I'm sure it would have been noticed if they'd been sliced through in the process of cutting the abdominal aorta. If that vessel had indeed been severed first, then there'd have been copious amounts of blood in the abdominal cavity.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:17 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry D View Post
What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?
Baxter was a puffed-up, self-opinionated twerp.

I have to admit to a certain personal bias in the matter, though, because he once insulted several members of my family.

He was presiding over the inquest of a man who had been killed in a drunken brawl in Spitalfields. The victim's wife gave evidence and Baxter saw fit to question whether the couple were legally married. When the grieving widow insisted that they were, Baxter made a sarky remark about supposing it to be a 'Spitalfields marriage'. In fact the couple had been legally married for a decade. But even if they hadn't, how callous to ridicule a recently bereaved woman in that way.

As I say, the death occurred during a drunken brawl. My grandad was involved and admitted that he'd had 11 or 12 pints of beer and that the deceased was even more drunk. The wife, my grandad's cousin Eliza, was in the cells at Commercial Street police station at the time her old man was killed, having been arrested for being involved in an earlier drunken brawl in the Three Cranes in Brick Lane.

Baxter summed up by calling all those involved a 'right crew'.

Andy Griffiths strikes me as a self-effacing, competent policeman with vast experience of murder investigation. I'd take his opinion over Baxter's any day of the week.

Rant over.😉
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:18 AM
Batman Batman is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Wrong on all counts.

Or are you cherrypicking?
You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 11-19-2018, 05:31 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,337
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.
Is it the case that a coroner can 'overrule' a previous inquest finding? What's your source for that? A ten year old casebook dissertation or a biased Ripper book, perhaps?

I genuinely don't know, but you must do to have stated it as a fact.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.