| Author |
Message |
    
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 427
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 6:04 pm: |       |
Polly was described by Emily Holland as being very clean. The Doctor at the post-mortem commented on the cleanliness of her thighs. Why would the Doctor make such a comment and is it a clue? Could Jack have cleaned her thighs? I found these to be interesting comments.
Mikey |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 99
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 11:02 pm: | |
Hi Mikey,
I believe that the doctors and others stated something positive about the victims out of respect.
At Chapman's inquest doctor Phillips statedThe front teeth were perfect, so far as the first molar, top and bottom, and very fine teeth they were.
The Times 14 September 1888
Nina |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 6:26 am: | |
Hi Mikey
I don't supposed Jack had time to worry about thigh cleaning?
Hi Nina,
how odd a comment, I wonder if you have spotted an emerging theme!?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1439
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 7:55 am: | |
I think the answer may be a little simpler, if a little distasteful.
The comment about the cleanliness of the thighs - which seems superficially to be an odd comment - may well be the doctor's oblique, Victorian way of saying that the killer had not had sexual relations with Nichols. In the days before widespread, reliable contraception an obvious occupation hazard for those engaged in prostitution was unwanted preganancy. One way of avoiding this was to engage in intercrural intercourse, which would explain the doctor's comment as implying that there was no evidence of intercourse.
In this respect it is worth remembering that Donston, in his letter pointing the finger of suspicion at Morgan Davies, stated (wrongly as far as we know) that the Kelly post mortem included evidence of anal intercourse, another technique prostitutes may have used to avoid preganancy.
Chris |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 429
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
All,
Thanks for the responses. Chris, that makes sense. I need to remember to keep it simple.
Mikey |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:24 pm: | |
Chris,
I agree with you that anal intercourse was most likely used by many prostitutes of the time. But, I still can't see why Dr. Llewellyn would be so unspecific by stating the cleanliness of her thighs. The other doctors were much clearer in their descriptions.
Dr. Brown at Eddowes inquest stated: "There was no indication of connexion."
Dr. Phillips report of McKenzies postmortem: "No sign of coitus"
Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion Evans
Nina
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 280
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 2:36 pm: | |
Sometimes the simplest answer is the best answer and I would suggest that is so in this case.
I suspect we often fail to appreciate just how different life was in the late 19th C, especially in places like the East End. No central heating, no indoor plumbing and darn few of the other amenities we take for granted. Women like Polly Nicholls carried their few possessions with them and wore all the clothes they owned. And thus encumbered they would have to answer calls to nature when and where they could. Not to put to fine a point on it, the lower torsos and inner thighs of most of the unfortunates Dr. Llewellyn had occasion to examine were doubtless quite gamey.
On the other hand, there is the statement of her acquaintance, Ellen Holland, that Polly was "a very clean woman" and it is quite likely that despite her circumstances Polly remained fastidious about her personal hygiene. Cleanliness may be next to godliness, but it was also next to impossible for most of Polly's class at the time. So, Llewellyn's remark may not have been code words at all, but simply an expression of surprise that Polly had battled the odds to keep herself bathed and otherwise cleansed.
Don. |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 430
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Don,
Another good possibility.
Mikey |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:33 pm: | |
Another thought I had on reading this is that when people are violently attacked they frequently lose control of their bowels and bladder.[Likewise those who actually carry out the violent attack or the criminal side of the event-so the ripper may for example have lost bowel control and the half apron that had belonged to Kate Eddowes later found covered in blood and faeces may in fact have been HIS blood from a cut to himself during the murder and a rushed and clumsy attempt to clean himself of the smell and mess before venturing further along the streets of Spitalfields.
So something medically important might have been learnt by the doctor of the swiftness of the attack on Polly Nichols giving her no time to lose control of either bowel or bladder. |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 5:08 pm: | |
Hi Mikey-So good to see you back!
Nats |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 283
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Natalie,
Good point and one to be considered as well. But in either case, I don't think the doctor's words were a code for no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.
Don. |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1440
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 7:01 pm: | |
Mikey
Can you tell me where the comment about Polly's thighs comes from? I looked on this site at
http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html
and can see no mention of it in Llewellyn's testimony
Thanks
Chris |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1441
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 7:07 pm: | |
I knew there was a comment lurking about at the back of my mind linking thighs and the absence of sex. Gordon Brown in his report on Eddowes said:
"No blood on the skin of the abdomen or secretion of any kind on the thighs."
I think that's what I was thinking of
Chris |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 432
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 8:56 pm: | |
Chris,
http://casebook.org/victims/polly.html It's in the section headed "Features"
Mikey
|
Howard Brown
Detective Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 81
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:00 pm: | |
Chris:...On page 53 of The Ultimate, there is a mention of "the clothing on the upper surface was not stained and the legs not soiled...".
From what can be ascertained,this is in reference to the puzzling absence of blood,not semen,in the leg area and "upper" clothing of Mrs. Nichols.... No mention of thighs,from what I can see....and this is from the actual transcripts of the Inquest,22 September,at the Working Lads Institute.
Suerte....
(Message edited by howard on October 13, 2004) |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 433
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 9:05 pm: | |
Nats,
So good to be back! My health is now 100% improved.
Mikey |
Matt
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:20 am: | |
Someone registered will probably get in before me and say this but, I think you are being a little naive, the reference to clean thighs, is actually a reference to the lack of seamen and the signs of rape and not to the actual cleanliness of her legs. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 290
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 26, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
Natalie,
You may have been on to something. Last night I was reading the memoirs of Sir Sydney Smith (Scotland's premier forensic pathologist of the first half of the previous century) and came across the following: The victim of manual strangulation frequently urinates just before death, . . .
Perhaps what surprised Llewllyn was that Polly showed signs of having been strangled, but without any evidence of having voided her bladder.
Don. |
Nina Thomas
Detective Sergeant
Username: Nina
Post Number: 102
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 1:07 am: | |
Don,
Polly’s body was stripped and washed by attendants at the workhouse mortuary before Dr. Llewellyn arrived to perform his post-mortem. Wouldn't her thighs have been clean?
He didn't check her thighs at Bucks Row it was too dark.
Nina |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
Don, when you say:
"Perhaps what surprised Llewllyn was that Polly showed signs of having been strangled, but without any evidence of having voided her bladder."
Are you under the impression that strangulation was considered by Llewellyn?, I thought the strangling issue first arose via Dr Phillips with the murder of Chapman.
Have you found something to suggest strangling was considered in the Nichols murder?
Thanks, Jon |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 292
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Jon,
Not at all. What we were faced with was the remark by Llewellyn about the cleanliness of Polly's thighs. Several posters thought it was a code phrase for no sign of recent sexual intercourse while my reaction was that it actually referred to good personal hygiene (supported by a statement from Ellen Holland) in an area where that was not easy or common. Natalie then weighed in with the fact that murder victims sometimes lose control of their bladder or bowels.
Then a couple of nights ago I read the memoirs I mentioned, saw the statement about manual strangulation, and because it seemed a propos I posted the statement. I have no reason to suppose Llewellyn suspected strangulation but only threw out the possibilty as an explanation.
In the meantime, Nina has mentioned the mixup about the cleaning of the body in the morgue. Since the pair of attendants seem to have been prime dolts one is left to wonder just how competently they cleaned the body. But, if they were reasonably assiduous, they may well have washed away blood, semen or urine.
And, if that is true, then we are left having to assume that Llewellyn was indeed referring to actual hygiene. That is, a quick morgue sponge bath would not disguise the fact that under difficult conditions Polly had striven to preserve bodily cleanliness.
Don. |
