|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Wounds on Polly Nichols
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Ripper Victims:
Wounds on Polly Nichols
Author: Jon
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 12:36 pm |        | Jill, your timing is impecable.
Only last week I was exchanging views with Wolf about the severity of the wounds on Mary Nichols body and found several accurate descriptions of the extent of those wounds which are in more detail than those reported by Dr Llewellyn which do not represent the disembowelling reported by Inspr Spratling.
I recall this was an interest for you and has become somewhat of a forte of yours so I had intended to contact you to see if you were interested in reviewing your sketches, which have been posted in various places here on the Casebook Message Boards & also on Casebook Productions website.
Your current sketch is based on the somewhat limited (edited?) version given by the press from Dr Llewellyn's testimony.
However, other press reports are available reporting statements from those present at the deadhouse mortuary where her body was taken, and they give a rather more severe picture of the wounds. The extent of which is easier to accept when the following week they were repeated on Annie Chapman.
According to Coroner Baxter it was at the descretion of the press whether to report the medical evidence 'verbatim' or to edit it for public suitability. Knowing that I think we can understand why Dr Llewellyn's reported statements do not match the reports of others (Inspr Spratling) who were also present with the body on the morning of the murder.
The extent of severe mutilations were also repeated by Ch Inspr Swanson. The reports of both Spratling & Swanson were not for public consumption and are therefore worthy of note.
At least two reports are available here on the press reports boards:
"Commencing from the lower portion of the abdomen, a terrible gash extended nearly as far as the diaphragm, a gash from which the bowels protruded."
East London Observer, 1 Sept. 1888.
"The knife....was jobbed [sic] into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice. The first cut veered to the right, slitting up the groin, and passing over the left hip, but the second cut went straight upward, along the centre of the body, and, reaching to the breastbone."
The Star, Aug. 31st, 1888.
Also refer to the JtR 'Ultimate' pages 22/3 & 28 for reports by Spratling & Swanson.
Thanks, and 'nise to see you back'.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 08:08 pm | | Wow... that is interesting... The cutting immediately calls forth the picture of Eddowes, who was hauled open likewise. At the time of the picture-making, she seemed to have been the only one who had received such a severe bowel cut.
I'll look into it this week.
Nice to be back,
Relieved greets,
Jill |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 08:21 pm | | "Also refer to the JtR 'Ultimate' pages 22/3 & 28 for reports by Spratling & Swanson. "
Where is that? I looked into the newspaper references already.
Also, can I still find your discussion between Wolf and you about this?
Greets,
Jill |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 04 August 2002 - 11:18 pm | | Jill
You will find the exchange here...
http://forum.casebook.org/messages/3842/4106.html?1027672437
The statement by Inspr Spratling goes as follows...
"...upon my arrival (at the mortuary) there and taking a description I found that she had been disembowelled....(description of throat wounds).....the abdomen had been [cut] open from centre of bottom of ribs a[long] right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jag[ged], the omentium, or coating of the stomach, was also cut in several places, and two small stabs on private parts....."
Page 26, also has an extract from the press...
"...conveyed to the Whitechapel Mortuary, where it was found that, besides the wound in her throat, the lower part of her person was completely ripped open. The wound extends nearly to her breast and must have been effected with a large knife".
Swanson included this description in his report of 19th Oct. 1888.
"...throat cut nearly severing head from body, abdomen cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach, there the wound was jagged, the coating of the stomach was cut in several places and two small stabs on the private parts......".
I thought you may be interested in reviewing her sketch.
You apparently do not have a copy of Stewarts excellent 'The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook'.....its a must have.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Monday, 05 August 2002 - 06:42 am | | Nope, I haven't. My year of absence is near its end, but I had to live very careful so not to get into a mess. But I can immediately understand why it's a must have.
Now I have to get my hands on Sugden's as well (lent it out).
Thanks for the link. I'll read it this evening.
Greets,
Jill |
Author: Monty
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 08:09 am | | Hi all,
Whilst I was going through the PRO pack I came across something which was in Abberlines report dated 19/09/88.
Abberline states that once Spratling had found Pollys abdominal wounds he notified Dr Llewellyn who, upon making a more thorough examination, gave his opinion that these injuries were severe enough to ensure instant death. The Dr also believed that these abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut.
I now have a few questions for you budding Docs out there,
How instant would instant death be when you have your gut ripped open ?? Minutes ??? hours ???
and
How (or why) does Llewellyn suppose the abdomen was ripped open before the throat was cut ?? How would he arrive at such a conclusion ?
Baffled Monty
 |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Monday, 02 September 2002 - 02:28 pm | | Monty, the term "instantaneous death" is a bit of a misnomer as death doesn't take place instantaneously but rather very quickly. The wounds suffered by Polly Nichols might take mere seconds or tens of seconds but not minutes, certainly not hours.
Why did Dr Llewellyn theorize that the abdominal injuries had taken place first? I believe that the likeliest answer is that Llewellyn was trying to explain the lack of arterial blood spray. If Nichols had been alive when her throat was cut then there should have been evidence of arterial spray somewhere around the body but there was none. In fact, Dr. Llewellyn stated at the inquest that there was very little bleeding from the neck wounds. Llewellyn seems to have decided that the likeliest answer to this mystery was that the abdominal injuries were inflicted first causing death and thus no arterial spray from the post mortem neck injuries. The Corner, Baxter disagreed with the doctors findings however.
The logical answer to the question, and one that Llewellyn did not theorize or comment on, was the probability that Nichols was first strangled, the bruising to the face and the abraded tongue being evidence of this, before her throat was cut.
Wolf. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 04 September 2002 - 07:48 am | | Wolf,
Many thanks for making that clearer.
Monty
|
Author: Jon
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 01:21 am | | Monty
It might be interesting to consider how extensive the wounds would have to be to "cause instantaneous death", the doctor was not refering to abdominal scratches which have been assumed in general up to now.
I'm sure you have been following the jousting match that Wolf & I have been having on the "Profiling the Ripper" thread. The news reports c/w Spratlings observations certainly give a vivid picture of wounds that would cause "instantaneous death".
But then, as Wolf implies, instantaneous is relative, but the wounds were horrific & extensive.
Regards, Jon
(The point of the discussion, incase it has been lost in the fray, is that there was no progression in the abdominal wounds from Nichols to Eddowes, they were of the same extent and character.) |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Sunday, 08 September 2002 - 03:54 pm | | Hello All,
With regard to the mutilations on Mary Nicholls, Doctor Rees Ralph Llewellyn who had been summoned to the scene by PC Neil, was already aware of the slashes to the abdomen when Inspector Spratling re-called him to the mortuary. I quote from the Times Saturday Sept 1st.
Dr Llewellyn of Whitechapel Road, whose surgery is not more than 300yds from the spot where the woman lay, was aroused, and, at the solicitation of a constable, dressed and went at once to the scene. He inspected the body at the scene where it was found, and pronounced her dead. He made a hasty examination and then discovered that besides the gash across the throat, the woman had terrible slashes to her abdomen......
A. |
Author: alex chisholm
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 10:43 am | | Hi Andy
I think the Times here simply conflates or confuses Llewellyn’s separate examinations.
The Daily Telegraph, 1 Sept. 1888, page 3, reports Llewellyn as saying:
“There were no marks of blood on deceased's thighs, and at the time I had no idea of the fearful abdominal wounds which had been inflicted upon the body. At half-past five I was summoned to the mortuary by the police, and was astonished at finding the other wounds.”
It seems clear from this and various other official and newspaper reports, including coverage of inquest testimony, that abdominal injuries were only found once the body was in the mortuary.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 02:49 pm | | Cheers Alex,
Many thanks for your observation. But it just goes to show how many differing views we get from so-called reliable sources including official police reports.
When you consider that the Times newspaper was on the streets only hours after with reports of the murder of Polly Nicholls, someone must have told them about the mutilations. They could not have got the info from anyone not directly involved on the case.
My money is on the good Doctor.
With so many conflicting comments its no wonder it will never be solved. As I always say "Yer pays yer money and takes yer choice"
A. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 03:56 pm | | Hi, Andy:
I have no doubt that the information came from Llewellyn but I rather agree with Alex that the report in The Times of 1 September appears to condense what the doctor said. In other words, the writer for the The Times makes it seem as if the abdominal wounds were observed by Llewellyn during his hasty examination in Buck's Row, which was not the case. It could be that the newspaperman was himself confused about where the doctor saw the wounds to the abdomen. Certainly, though, Llewellyn's statements as reported by The Daily Telegraph of 1 September make the sequence of events clear.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 08:46 pm | | Andy
Carefull with the assumption that "they could not have", when refering to the Press getting firsthand descriptions of the wounds.
Journalists were present in police stations in an attempt to get to the scene of any incident along with the police themselves.
I'm not saying they were in this instance, but we cannot be sure they were not, they certainly were in later instances.
And, of the several people who were present at the deadhouse where Nichols body was taken, any one of them could have been approached by a member of the press within the hour of the discovery.
The 'Star' of Aug. 31st provides this insight.
"....She was immediately conveyed to the Whitechapel mortuary, when it was found that besides the wound in the throat the lower part of the abdomen was completely ripped open and the bowels were protruding. The wound extends nearly to her breast, and must have been effected with a large knife. As the corpse lies in the mortuary, it presents a ghastly sight. The victim seems to be between 35 and 40 years of age, and measures 5ft. 2in. in height. The hands are bruised,...."
Continuing....
" Writing at half-past eleven a.m., our reporter says:-
The body appeared to be that of a woman of 35. It was 5ft. 3in. in height and fairly plump. The eyes were brown, the hair brown, and the two centre upper front teeth missing, those on either side being widely separated. This peculiarity may serve to identify deceased, of whom at present writing nothing is known. Her clothing consisted of a well-worn brown ulster, a brown linsey skirt, and jacket, a gray linsey petticoat, a flannel petticoat, dark-blue ribbed stockings, braid garters, and side spring shoes. Her bonnet was black and rusty, and faced with black velvet. Her whole outfit was that of a person in poor circumstances, and this appearance was borne out by the mark “LAMBETH WORKHOUSE, P. R.,” which was found on the petticoat bands. The two marks were cut off and sent to the Lambeth institution to discover if possible the identity of deceased. The brutality of the murder is beyond conception and beyond description. The throat is cut in two gashes, the instrument having been a sharp one, but used in a most ferocious and reckless way. There is a gash under the left ear, reaching nearly to the centre of the throat. Along half its length, however, it is accompanied by another one which reaches around under the other ear, making a wide and horrible hole, and nearly severing the head from the body.
THE GHASTLINESS OF THIS CUT,
however, pales into insignificance alongside the other. No murder was ever more ferociously and more brutally done. The knife, which must have been a large and sharp one, was jobbed into the deceased at the lower part of the abdomen, and then drawn upward, not once but twice. The first cut veered to the right, slitting up the groin, and passing over the left hip, but the second cut went straight upward, along the centre of the body, and, reaching to the breast-bone."
The story is presented in such a way as to appear to be firsthand, as if the journalist saw the body himself, and this was before 11:00am on the 31st.
It may be of interest to note that the official inquest had not yet occured, this article was dated Aug. 31st and the inquest was only to commence the following day, Saturday afternoon. Could you envisage Dr Llewellyn giving an interview to the press before the inquest?, I cannot.
The details of the wounds therefore came from eyewitnesses present at the mortuary independent of the inquest testimony.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Monday, 09 September 2002 - 09:18 pm | | Ah...
The 'Star' of Sept 8, 1888 makes some comments with regard to both the murders of Chapman & Nichols. The article is written for the Chapman case, but....
".....The scene of the murder is the house 29, Hanbury-street - a packing-case maker’s. The body was actually found in the back yard, just behind the back door, mutilated in an even more ghastly manner than the woman Nicholls. As in her case, the throat was cut, and the body ripped open, but the horror was intensified by the fact that..."
The writer is comparing the wounds on Chapman with those of the previous case of Nichols. They were the same across the throat & abdomen, except in Chapman's case there was worse.
And, later in the article....
"...Her throat was cut from ear to ear. Her clothes were pushed up above her waist and her legs bare. The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before. Not only this, but the viscera had been pulled out and scattered in all directions,..."
Its the "The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before." that I find of interest, they are saying the wounds on Chapman are the same as those on Nichols AND subsequently would appear on Eddowes. Both had their abdomen ripped from the pubes to the breastbone, in fact all three were mutilated in the same manner.
There was no progression of mutilation from Nichols to Eddowes, but only that Nichols intestines were left intact, hence, indicating that the killer may have been interrupted.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 05:19 am | | Hello Jon & Chris,
Yes I entirely agree with both of you and Alex.
That's was why I put the report from the Times on the boards in the first place. We simply do not know for sure as to the validity of any newspaper reports or for that matter any 'Official' police reports. They differ, they conflict with each other. This is proved time and time again. WE should all be wary of these reports, but if they fit any of our particular theory or theories we tend to believe the one that suits us. That is only human nature. This is what the JTR case is all about. I tend to think that in the case of Nicholls Dr Llewellyn saw and knew of the mutilations at the scene but said nothing. A keen eyed PC on guard saw them as well, and for a couple of shillings, told the first reporter thirsting for information and prepared to pay.
Who just happened to be from the Times.
This low level form of 'Back Hander' has, and still is going on, and has been for years.
Andy. P. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 08:59 am | | Hi, Andy:
I'm sorry but you the assumption you are making is not borne out by the facts, and what Jon, Alex, and I are saying is the more likely scenario. In fact, the way you describe what happened, "Dr Llewellyn saw and knew of the mutilations at the scene but said nothing", is illogical bcause doing so makes him appear a bit foolish doesn't it? And actually as history shows he does look foolish because his examination at the murder scene could not have been thorough since he did not notice the wounds to Polly's abdomen. However, we might give him the benefit of hindsight... we know the wounds to the abdomen were there, he did not when he was called to the murder scene. In fact no one was to know that there was a serial killer about who would commit a series of murders all (except Stride) featuring horrific wounds to the abdomen, so he probably, nay almost undoubtedly! thought that her only wounds were the awful wounds to her throat that he first saw and which were after all the means of her death.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Andy & Sue Parlour
Tuesday, 10 September 2002 - 02:27 pm | | Hello Chris,
Again I agree with you. But being aware of the previous murder of Martha Tabram, do you think he
(The Doctor) kept quite about the mutilations, using a bit of sense, knowing to make them public before the mortuary examination, could have spread panic amonst the locals?
In which case he was quite clever.
On Inspector Helson's report he is citing Jack/John Pizer (Leather Apron) as a suspect within hours. This in turn bought a lynch mob onto the streets.
What a good little thread this is turning out to be.
A. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 11 September 2002 - 07:50 am | | Wolf, anyone,
It seems to me that, from the photo of Nichols, that she was indeed strangled. Im no doctor but it would have been the first thing I would have thought of after looking at her face.
Why or how could Llewellyn miss this ?
Confused..again, Monty
|
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 10:52 am | | Monty
What is apparent is that the medical testimony given at the inquest was of the briefest nature possible. Every comment by every witness did not make it to the press.
If you notice Inspector Spratling made a detailed police report, following his discovery at the mortuary, describing the severity of the wounds to Nichols body, and yet at the inquest he made no mention of the wounds.
Dr Llewellyn's inquest report was more detailed on the wounds around the throat, which the inquest concerned itself with, being the cause of death. The abdominal mutilations were mentioned in the briefest detail as they were not, after his reconsideration, the immediate cause of death.
Dr Llewellyn, it seems, was not the most thorough of his calling, but then he was not aware that the murder of Nichols was to be out of the ordinary to the usual violence of the backstreets.
Hence, he was required to backtrack and then reconsider his opinions after the murder of Chapman 7 days later.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:23 pm | | The abdominal wound first seen by Insptr Spratling, prior to sending for Dr Llewellyn while the body was laid at the mortuary still clothed.
 |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:26 pm | | On the actual day of the murder (Friday), while the body was still at the mortuary, the day before the post-mortem and the inquest testimony, the Star reported the second wound as running from "straight upward along the centre of the body to the breast-bone"
The Woodford times, Sept 7, described the third cut, over her right hip....
(see last post) |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:32 pm | | These descriptions are not in opposition, they are in agreement. Llewellyn tells us of more cuts "downward" on her abdomen in fact he tells us of more than what I draw above but as we cannot hope to know exactly where these other wounds were. His testimony is very vague. We must rely on reports coming via the press, and so long as these reports do not stand in opposition to the medical evidence I cannot understand your refusal to admit that these other wounds exist.
Or, am I misunderstanding your argument?.
Regards Jon |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:46 pm | | On the actual day of the murder (Friday), while the body was still at the mortuary, the day before the post-mortem and the inquest testimony, the Star reported the second wound as running from "straight upward along the centre of the body to the breast-bone"
The Woodford times, Sept 7, described the third cut, over her right hip....
 |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 05:58 pm | | And for comparrison.....if it turns out.
The wounds on Eddowes.
 |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 06:05 pm | | | And 'for comparison' we can see what the press reported on Nichols, repeated again on Eddowes. And the occational news article tells us that Chapmans body portrayed the "same wounds", though we have no description by Dr Phillips to go on. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 12:47 pm | | Monty
You asked above about Llewellyn missing evidence of strangulation?
The bruises on the face are not positive evidence of strangulation, they are though very likely the marks a left hand would make while the jaw was held by the killer, she is laid on her back, he grasps her jaw and with the knife in his right hand, slices her throat.
The bruises appear to have been made by the left hand.
As to evidence of strangulation, there is an interesting observation not generally known on this point.
In the main press releases no mention is made of this observation, but then the details are brief and not too complete.
In The Times, Sept 3rd, Dr Llewellyn's observations are paraphrased as....
"....and there was a slight laceration of the tongue. There was a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw on the right side of the face. That might have been caused by a blow from a fist or pressure from a thumb. There was a circular bruise on the left side of the face, which also might have been inflicted by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length,....."
The bruises on either side of the face are the ones I suggest are caused by the killers left hand while holding her head firmly prior to slicing her throat.
The following extract is from The Daily Telegraph, Sept 3rd and is not in paraphrase, notice the report is in the first person, the "there was" is replaced by "there is". This is presented as the words of Llewellyn himself.
"....and there is a slight laceration of the tongue. On the right side of the face there is a bruise running along the lower part of the jaw. It might have been caused by a blow with the fist or pressure by the thumb. On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long ......"
Almost identical reports, but in The Woodford Times, Sept 7th we read....
"......On the right side of the face was a recent and strongly marked bruise, which was scarcely perceptible when he first saw the body. It might have been caused either by a blow from a fist or by pressure of the thumb. On the left side of the face was a circular bruise, which might have been produced in the same way. A small bruise was on the left side of the neck, and an abrasion on the right. All must have been done at the same time. There were two cuts in the throat, one four inches long....."
This minor detail is also present in the East London Observer, Sept 8th.
".....On the right side of the face was a recent and strongly-marked bruise, which was scarcely perceptible when he first saw the body. It might have been caused either by a blow from a fist or by pressure of the thumb. On the left side of the face was a circular bruise, which might have been produced in the same way. A small bruise was on the left side of the neck, and an abrasion on the right. All must have been done at the same time. There were two cuts in the throat, one four inches long....."
The obvious question arises, "is that detail original or inserted?", if original then this is clear evidence, or as clear as we can expect, of a hand across the throat.
Unfortunatly, there is always a degree of literary licence with news reports. However, we also know, from comparison, that even the 'original' reports are edited to some degree. So, was this an original detail that was edited?.
A bigger question arises in that where and by what means are the 'original' press reports compiled. In some cases some of the major papers present the same stories, when quoting statements this may be expected, but when paraphrase is also copied it tends to suggest that they are actually eminating from a common source.
The Central News Agency was a common source for the press stories in legal cases, I have to wonder if anyone here (Stewart?, Martin?, Paul?, etc) have come across any indication that the press represented at these inquests were only from the CNA and not representative of the individual news agencies (Times, Telegraph, Express, etc).
It's a question that has occured to me before, some of these 'origial' stories appear to contain very similar phrases suspicious of a common source.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 05:22 pm | | Bruises on Nichols face?.
 |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 08:01 am | | Jon,
Excellent posts and diagrams. Especially the last post. Well done and thank you.
You do slightly misunderstand me though. I do not refuse to admit that these wounds existed. My original question is born out of the statement by Llewellyn that it was the abdominal injuries that did for Polly rather than the throat wound.
Wolf later surmised about the strangulation which I elaborated on.
I do not doubt for one moment that these abdominal wound exist nor have I ever. I just questioned how the Docs could have reached such a conclusion.
I am no medical man, I do not pretend to be and your posts above have made my understanding a lot clearer.
Thank you.
Monty
|
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 17 September 2002 - 10:53 pm | | Here are some questions Jon might like to attempt to answer. He claims that the main wound to Polly Nichols ran from the breastbone to the groin. Regardless of the fact that Inspector Spratling's report and Dr. Llewellyn's inquest testimony say otherwise, Jon claims that this is true. He bases this erroneous observation on the fact that the Star and other newspapers have written reports making this claim. Jon has even gone so far as to offer us some extracts from Star, 8 September, 1888, that he says show that the wounds to Chapman were the same as the wounds to Nichols. I can't say much for his grasp of anatomy but I find Jon's editing skills to be first rate.
Remember, we are asked by Jon to believe that the newspapers, in this case the Star, are more credible than the officials who worked the case because they contain information that supports Jon's theories while the official reports do not. Jon first offers us this:
".....The scene of the murder is the house 29, Hanbury-street - a packing-case maker's. The body was actually found in the back yard, just behind the back door, mutilated in an even more ghastly manner than the woman Nicholls. As in her case, the throat was cut, and the body ripped open, but the horror was intensified by the fact that..."
The paragraph ends in mid sentence and Jon adds rather obviously: "The writer is comparing the wounds on Chapman with those of the previous case of Nichols. They were the same across the throat & abdomen, except in Chapman's case there was worse." But why has Jon edited out the ending of the paragraph in mid sentence? What details unknown to the police and the doctors might this article offer us? Well, this:
"The scene of the murder is the house 29, Hanbury-street - a packing-case maker's. The body was actually found in the back yard, just behind the back door, mutilated in an even more ghastly manner than the woman Nicholls. As in her case, the throat was cut, and the body ripped open, but the horror was intensified by the fact that
THE HEART AND LIVER WERE OVER HER HEAD.
It seems that the crime was committed soon after five. At that hour the woman and the man, who in all probability was her murderer, were seen drinking together in the Bells, Brick-lane...."
It is now obvious why Jon has edited out the rest of the paragraph as it shows the total worthlessness of relying on newspaper reports, especially the Star. Many of the facts offered to us in this article are wrong and yet Jon feels that we should rely on them regardless of this fact. Why?
Jon then submits this paragraph:
"...Her throat was cut from ear to ear. Her clothes were pushed up above her waist and her legs bare. The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before. Not only this, but the viscera had been pulled out and scattered in all directions,..."
From this paragraph he is able to conclude this:
"It's the "The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before." that I find of interest, they are saying the wounds on Chapman are the same as those on Nichols AND subsequently would appear on Eddowes. Both had their abdomen ripped from the pubes to the breastbone, in fact all three were mutilated in the same manner.
There was no progression of mutilation from Nichols to Eddowes, but only that Nichols intestines were left intact, hence, indicating that the killer may have been interrupted."
In order for us to agree or disagree with Jon, we must first ask who is being interviewed? Who is the expert who has, apparently, seen both bodies and has been able to make an educated opinion as to the similarities between the Nichols and Chapman wounds? Is it one of the police? Or perhaps one of the medical men? No, the Star is clear on this, this expert witness is none other than Amelia Richardson, the woman who rented the building and who ran a packing case business from the vary yard where the body was found:
"MRS. RICHARDSON'S DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGHT
makes this murder even more horrible than any of its predecessors. She was lying on her back with her legs outstretched. Her throat was cut from ear to ear. Her clothes were pushed up above her waist and her legs bare. The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before. Not only this, but the viscera had been pulled out and scattered in all directions, the heart and liver being placed behind her head, and the remainder along her side. No more horrible sight ever met a human eye, for she was covered with blood, and lying in a pool of it, which hours afterwards had not soaked into the ground."
As Mrs Richardson has offered us an error filled description of the body of Annie Chapman and never had seen the body of Nichols, can we truly trust this article enough to make judgements on the similarities or differences between the injuries to Nichols and Chapman?
Finally, if Polly Nichols was injured from the groin to the breastbone, as Jon keeps telling us, how does one explain Polly's stay's? Polly Nichols was wearing stays (a corset or girdle). Usually stays would cover the area of the woman's body from the waist to just under the breasts however in Polly's case the stays were described as being "short" but would still cover much of the area that Jon claims was incised. As the stays, as well as the rest of her clothing, were uncut by the killer how does one explain this? Does this fact not strengthen Dr Llewellyn's inquest testimony when he states that, "There were no injuries about the body until just about lower part of the abdomen." ?
Wolf. |
Author: Esther Wilson
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 09:51 am | | Jon, thanks for the great diagrams. It really puts a good mental image into my head while reading the posts. (I'm still very behind in them all)
Esther |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 21 September 2002 - 10:48 pm | | | Esther, this is off subject, but about three years ago we had a poster on these boards named Esther and I believe she was scared off by another poster who was extremely rude to her. I was wondering if it was you because I always felt bad about it. If it was you I'm glad you decided to try again because most of the people here are not like that. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 06:46 pm | | Hi Monty
My sincere appologies, that "refuse to admit" remark was a carryover from another thread where Wolf & I were discussing the location of the wounds on Polly Nichols abdomen. The remark was directed at Wolf, not your good self.
Esther
You are very welcome, but as always they are just my opinion, or interpretation, accept or contest them as you choose.
My dear Wolf, you have now confirmed my belief that you are intent on creating arguments just for the sake of it.
I may only appear here once a week or very infrequently but you can address me directly not in the third person, you are not addressing a jury of peers, unless you are grandstanding......like that would ever happen.
Ok, lets get one thing straight, what I am claiming is this, that the press reports of Dr Llewellyn's findings are not complete. This could be due to either Dr Llewellyn providing a prepared statement (as, I think, Dr Phillips did one time) or the press edited portions of his testimony, as well as large portions of the testimony of others.
None of the press reports are complete verbatim accounts of inquest testimonies, this we know, this you also know.
So, I am attempting to fill in the gaps with eyewitness accounts that do not contradict what we already know. Is that clear?.
As knowledgable as you are in Ripper matters I had believed you would also know that as suspect as news stories can be, we cannot discard them entirely.
Next, why did I not include "THE HEART AND LIVER WERE OVER HER HEAD.", I would have thought it obvious, for two reasons. First, Dr Phillips never stated where her heart or liver was, whether still in situ or cut away, we have no clue, but of course you can make any claim you choose.
Secondly, the location of these, or any other organs had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, namely, the wounds to the abdomen.
As for Mrs Richardson's statement, please be good enough to help me locate Dr Phillips testimony that directly conflicts with what she is supposed to have said. Anything.
Wolf, well you know, as well as I do, that the stays were 'too short' as testified by James Hatfield, or at least the Foreman had to remind Hatfield that he had demonstrated that. Stays that are too short and, therefore, worn too high would account for the cut reaching nearly to the diaphragm, as noted.
Incidently, have you noticed that the cut "from centre of left-side rib cage" (if you will allow a little clarification) is not "the lower part of the abdomen", far from it. So, Dr Llewellyn's own description is suspect if you take it literally.
Best regards, as always, Jon |
Author: Esther Wilson
Sunday, 22 September 2002 - 07:58 pm | | Hi Diana--I can assure you that I am not the same Esther as the one you are thinking of. I have only just recently found this message board and joined for the first time. But thanks for asking. )
Esther |
Author: Monty
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 09:15 am | | Jon,
No worries
Monty
|
Author: Jon
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 10:52 am | | Was Mrs Richardson telling lies?
She has been accused of making an error filled statement.
However, as we already know, through inquest testimony, Amelia Richardson was called into the backyard to see the body by her 14 yr old grandson, Thomas.
MRS. RICHARDSON’S DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGHT
Mrs Richardson.
"She was lying on her back with her legs outstretched."
Dr Phillips.
"He found the dead body of a female......lying in the backyard, on her back......the legs were drawn up and the feet resting on the ground.
Ok, lets accept that 'outstretched' is incorrect.
Mrs Richardson
Her throat was cut from ear to ear.
Dr Phillips
He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.
Mrs Richardson
Her clothes were pushed up above her waist and her legs bare.
James Kent.
Her clothes were disarranged......there were marks of blood about her legs.
(this would indicate the legs were uncovered)
Mrs Richardson.
The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before. Not only this, but the viscera had been pulled out and scattered in all directions, the heart and liver being placed behind her head, and the remainder along her side.
Dr Phillips.
The body was terribly mutilated.
The Times & The Lancet.
The abdomen had been entirely laid open. The intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse, whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed.....etc, etc.
Wolf.
Would you care to reconsider your opinion of Mrs Richardson's error filled description?
Yes, Chapmans legs were drawn up and Mrs Richardson said they were outstretched. If this is the extent of your argument to discredit her observation then you are, once again, exaggerating in the extreme.
My opinion was to leave out her remark about the liver & heart because it is neither corroborated nor contradicted by any other witness or medical evidence. We simply do not know.
We might expect someone, especially Dr Phillips, to have mentioned either detail but due to the extensive editing of the testimony we cannot in all faith accuse Mrs Richardson of lying.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 23 September 2002 - 12:48 pm | | Hi, Jon and Wolf et al.:
I think Amelia Richardson, a woman almost undoubtedly without any medical training, can hardly be trusted to testify correctly that the innards placed beside Annie Chapman's head were the victim's "heart and liver. . ." I should think more likely she just saw a bloody mess and may have made the above assumption or simply picked up those "facts" either from a newspaper account or from the opinion of another member of the public.
All the best
Chris |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 10:53 am | | Hello Chris.
There's a kind of irony in that statement.
Seniors have a wide experience of life, more than we might inadvertently give them credit for.
Had Mrs Richardson ever cooked liver?, kidney?, does anyone actually need medical training to recognize a portion of liver?
Customers in a butchers shop automatically know the difference between liver, kidney, heart, etc. without a medical degree.
Sorry, my friend, I'm just toying with you, but you get my drift?, we should not try to undermine a statement by using 'experience' as an excuse.
I'm sure Mrs Richardson had seen plenty of Liver in her time, she must have been in her 60's.
In this response I am not offering support for the statement, just that the objections against it are not sound.
However, the statement in the press is totally unclear as to which words were used by Mrs Richardson and which were possibly used by the reporter by way of literary licence. I am just as wary as anyone else over that particular statement but the fact remains the statement stands in isolation and cannot be either corroborated or discredited. But, to address your concern, would a lady in her 60's need a medical degree to recognize liver?, surely not.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Saturday, 28 September 2002 - 08:25 pm | | | "Outstretched" is a strange word. I wonder if Mrs Richardson could have meant the legs were "stretched open wide"? Remember she would have had to deal with "victorian modesty" in describing how the legs were positioned. When I see the word I automatically think legs being flat, but she was probably describing as best she could without compromising her reputation. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Friday, 04 October 2002 - 04:16 pm | | Jon, the more I read your posts the more surprised and disappointed I become. I have noticed that you have made a couple of references saying such things as I "refuse to admit" or, "Would you care to reconsider your opinion?" and I wonder what evidence offered by you would possibly compel me to reconsider my opinion? There seems to be some belief on your part that you have supplied some compelling hard evidence that proves your point but I am afraid that this is not the case. Far from it.
You have stated that, "what I am claiming is that the press reports of Dr Llewellyn's findings are not complete. This could be due to either Dr Llewellyn providing a prepared statement or the press edited portions of his testimony, as well as large portions of the testimony of others."
Perhaps you should re-read Dr. Llewellyn's inquest testimony. To say that it is "incomplete" is unsubstantiated. Was the testimony as complete as, say, official post mortem notes? No, because Llewellyn doesn't explain the exact position, length, breadth and depth of each and every cut. He does, however, give us a rough idea of the position and nature of all the cuts that existed. There seems to be no glaring holes in his testimony, no editing out of any gory details. In fact his testimony seems to be remarkably detailed. What you are arguing is that the testimony must be incomplete because it has left out your supposed cut from the breastbone to the groin. That this imagined cut does not appear in his inquest testimony is obviously evidence that it did not exist outside of the imaginations of certain newspaper reporters and yourself. Do you have any real evidence to the contrary?
You have also stated, "None of the press reports are complete verbatim accounts of inquest testimonies, So, I am attempting to fill in the gaps with eyewitness accounts that do not contradict what we already know."
It is true that the press reports of inquest testimony are for the most part not verbatim but then neither are the official inquest reports themselves. The press reports may not be an exact word for word account of what has been said, and not all the newspapers may have published every answer in detail but by reading as many newspaper as possible, and some newspapers are more detailed and more trustworthy than others, it is possible to gain a fair idea of what has been said in total. You, however, are claiming, with absolutely no evidence, that every newspaper of the day, every single one, missed an important pathological detail of the doctors testimony. Very convenient for you and your theories but not very plausible or realistic to the rest of us. I'm afraid that the logical explanation for this "oversight" is that there was no oversight because there was no deep wound from the breastbone to the groin.
Also, once more claiming that you are attempting to fill in the gaps with eye witness reports that do not contradict what we already know is an unsupported and unconvincing argument. What we know officially about the mutilations to Polly Nichols comes from Inspector Spratling's report which includes a description of the mutilations given by Dr. Llewellyn. We can add additional information by reading Llewellyn's inquest testimony. These sources make absolutely no mention of a wound from breastbone to groin therefor by claiming that such a wound did exist you are contradicting the known facts. Perhaps it is the meaning of the word "contradiction" that you are having trouble with. "Contradict", to be contrary to; inconsistency.
One of the main stumbling blocks to your theory as to the wounds to Polly Nichols must be the fact that she was wearing "stays" when she was murdered. This piece of evidence must be overcome with either hard evidence or at least some skilled theorizing. You offer neither. Claiming that, "Stays that are too short and, therefore, worn too high would account for the cut reaching nearly to the diaphragm, as noted.," is a rather staggeringly uninformed statement, one that left me wondering if you were pulling my leg. The fact that stays are a rigid corset made from fabric and whale bone seems to have eluded you.
According to Margaret Spence, an historical costumer at the University of Toronto, "stays normally extending from the breasts to the waist, the garment designed to flatten the stomach and synch in the waist while thrusting up the breasts. "Short stays" would extend from the waist to the bottom of the rib cage and be anywhere from eight to twelve inches in length for the average mature woman, they could not be very much shorter and still function as they were designed." Thus short stays are worn lower on the body than regular stays. Your observation that they are worn higher seems to come from your own imagination.
While Inspector Spratling testified that, "The stays did not fit very tightly, for he was able to see the wounds without unfastening them.", (at least one press report took this to mean that there were no mutilations beneath the stays), he did acknowledge that he hadn't paid much attention to the way the clothing was fastened. Inspector Helson, who did examine the clothing carefully stated that the stays were "fairly tight". The real question is how high could the stays be pushed up and how much of the abdomen would therefor be exposed. The obvious answer is that they could only be pushed up until the top of them came into contact with the underside of Nichols breasts, roughly parallel with the breastbone. Thus the area of the breastbone and below from a distance of between eight to twelve inches was covered by a fabric and whale bone "cage". Logically it seems highly unlikely that the killer would be able to shove his hand and knife up underneath the stays to the breastbone and still be able to obtain the ability to inflict a serious wound while so constricted.
Moving on to Amanda Richardson's interview with the Star, 8 September, 1888, you asked if I would like to reconsider my opinion that it was "error filled" and also claimed that I was "exaggerating in the extreme" by claiming that it was. First, I stated that the entire article was error filled, as it is, but you have decided to zero in on Mrs. Richardson's supposed interview. You then go through her interview with something less than a fine tooth comb and claim that the only inconsistency comes from the positioning of the legs. Based on this stellar research you then ask if I would like to reconsider my opinion. Well, let's see:
MRS. RICHARDSON'S DESCRIPTION OF THE SIGHT
makes this murder even more horrible than any of its predecessors. She was lying on her back with her legs outstretched. Her throat was cut from ear to ear. Her clothes were pushed up above her waist and her legs bare. The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before. Not only this, but the viscera had been pulled out and scattered in all directions, the heart and liver being placed behind her head, and the remainder along her side. No more horrible sight ever met a human eye, for she was covered with blood, and lying in a pool of it, which hours afterwards had not soaked into the ground.
All statements in red are incorrect.
"with her legs outstretched." You have already conceded that this statement is wrong.
"Her throat was cut from ear to ear." Although I don't expect, unlike you, that Mrs. Richardson fleeting observance of the body enabled her to offer a detailed and thorough enough evaluation of the mutilations, it should be noted that this statement is indeed wrong. "The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck.," This from Dr. Phillips' inquest testimony. Ear to ear is not right around the neck. Inspector Chandler, the first policeman on the scene observed the same thing, "throat cut deeply from left and back in a jagged manner right around the throat."
"Her clothes were pushed up above her waist." Not according to two other witnesses, (three if you count James Kent but parts of Kent's description of the body are as suspect as Richardson's so I will leave it out). According to the inquest testimony of John Davis, the man who actually found the body, "The clothes were up to her groins (sic)." This seems to indicate the lower abdomen. Inspector Chandler testified that, "...the clothing was above the knees," which is a strange way of putting it if indeed the clothing was "above her waist".
"The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before." See above for doubts that the entire abdomen, rather than the lower abdomen, was exposed. Interestingly, even if Mrs. Richardson's observation was correct and the clothing was "above her waist", wouldn't the clothing have to be well above her waist, say up to her breasts, in order for the claim that Chapman had been "ripped up from groin to breast-bone" to be observed? Did Mrs. Richardson have x-ray vision or do you think that she actually lifted Chapman's dress up in order to see the extent of the wounds? If Chapman's dress was lifted up to her breasts why did no one, including Richardson say that it was? Do we now see Inspector Chandlers' statement, that the dress was "above the knees" to be understatement taken to the extreme?
Let's look more closely at Richardson's supposed statement, (personally I believe that this is a bit of journalistic fantasy), that, "the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before". According to the Lancet, "the abdomen had been entirely laid open." This is not the same thing as "having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone" as the Star would have you believe. Inspector Chandler's official report on the murder of Annie Chapman, dated 8 September, 1888, supported by Swanson's later report, tells us that, "...flap of the abdomen lying on right side, above right shoulder...two flaps of skin from the lower part of the abdomen...above the left shoulder." Add to this description, this fact, "The following parts were missing:- part of the belly wall including the navel...," from Swanson's report dated 19 October 1888. Here we clearly see that almost the entire abdominal wall had been removed in four parts and either placed on the ground or taken away leaving a gaping hole. Mrs. Richardson does not report this fact and the Star's claim, "as before", meaning the Nichols murder, becomes meaningless. The wounds on Chapman were totally different and more extreme than Nichols.
"she was covered with blood." Certainly there was a lot of blood on the ground, especially around the wound to the throat, but the body itself was not "covered in blood". Inspector Chandler's inquest testimony states, "The outside jacket...had bloodstains round the neck, both upon the inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm.... Deceased wore a black skirt. There was a little blood on the outside. The two petticoats were stained very little; the two bodices were stained with blood round the neck...The stockings were not bloodstained...."
"the heart and liver being placed behind her head, and the remainder along her side." You have made several astounding statements concerning this glaring bit of fantasy. Stating that, " Dr Phillips never stated where her heart or liver was, whether still in situ or cut away, we have no clue, but of course you can make any claim you choose." Or that your opinion, "was to leave out her, (Richardson's), remark about the liver & heart because it is neither corroborated nor contradicted by any other witness or medical evidence. We simply do not know." Or, "We might expect someone, especially Dr Phillips, to have mentioned either detail but due to the extensive editing of the testimony we cannot in all faith accuse Mrs Richardson of lying." Or, "but the fact remains the statement stands in isolation and cannot be either corroborated or discredited." These statements are jaw dropping in their illogic and ignorance of the basic facts of the case.
That we have two professionals, Chandler and Phillips, who surveyed the body and the area around it and have left us with their observations, which include no mention of the heart and liver, should be evidence enough that the Star is once again wrong. Chandler's detailed report of the body lying in situ carries more weight than a thousand articles written by the Star. While Richardson merely glanced at the body, Chandler studied it and made notes including a description of what was lying around the area of the head. You are claiming that he missed the heart and liver while Mrs. Richardson correctly identified these organs because of her familiarity with cuts of meat? It is obvious to anyone with evan a passing interest in the details of the Chapman murder that what Richardson saw was part of the abdominal wall lying next to the head of the victim, not the heart and liver.
Claiming that Dr. Phillips' testimony was edited in the newspaper reports is one thing but failing to acknowledge the detailed description of the mutilations reported in the Lancet, a magazine not available to the general public and not squeamish with the medical details, is quite another. The Lancet makes no mention of the heart and liver being removed from the body. Indeed, how in the Hell do you think that this was accomplished? The removal of a human heart is difficult in the extreme unless you crack the ribs. Are you suggesting that this little detail was also missed by everyone? Or do you think that the killer emptied the entire body cavity, as he did with Mary Kelly, removed the heart and then replaced everything neatly, so as to disguise the fact?
Perhaps, Jon, you "have no clue", and you "do not know", but most of us do.
Wolf. |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 05 October 2002 - 02:37 am | | Wolf,
Quite a long post, but, yeah Jon is awfully selective about what he chooses to believe and what he chooses not to about the medical evidence, largely to try to prove his "it had to be someone harvesting organs" theory.
Funny though, if the killer removed Polly's heart and liver (assuming he could even get at the heart, which, as you say, is patently absurd in these conditions), why would an organ thief leave those lying around, only to decide in later killings that those organs are what he wanted?
It's also odd that he chooses to believe that a woman off the street can properly identify a liver discarded on the ground near a corpse's head amidst blood and gore without medical training but insists that the killer would have had to have some medical knowledge to point a sharp thing into soft tissue and then tear things at random out. How very curious.
It's one thing to look at the medical evidence as presented by the doctors and try to come to conclusions, but it's quite another to start believing random parts of notoriously unreliable newspaper reports wihtout any reason other than doing so adds credence to his own theory. That's called doctoring the evidence, and it's a form of baseless speculation that exceeds most of the already wild speculation we see on the boards.
Dan |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 09:11 pm | | Wolf
Quite possibly your disappointment would not be so great if you actually read what I wrote. Read on....carefully.
(Wolf)
"Perhaps you should re-read Dr. Llewellyn's inquest testimony. To say that it is "incomplete" is unsubstantiated."
I already presented much in Llewellyn's own words and in particular one piece was noted, namely that from The Daily Telegraph of Sept 3rd which (once again) ran as follows.
"On the left side of the face there was a circular bruise, which also might have been done by the pressure of the fingers. On the left side of the neck, about an inch below the jaw, there was an incision about four inches long..."
Your accusation of 'unsubstantiated' (edited medical testimony) was unwarranted, as, if you had read on, you would have seen this...
"On the left side of the face was a circular bruise, which might have been produced in the same way. A small bruise was on the left side of the neck, and an abrasion on the right. All must have been done at the same time. There were two cuts in the throat, one four inches long....."
The above extract was reported in the press one week later (Sept 7th) and adds that little piece of information in red which was not previously reported.
Do you wish to conclude that this extra piece of information was simply a literary creation of the press?.
If this is your contention then read Dr Phillips report of the medical details of Annie Chapman. Notice, this description only appeared in the press following the recall of Dr Phillips to complete his medical testimony.
"..on the last occasion, just before I left the court, I mentioned to you that there were reasons why I thought the perpetrator of the act upon the woman's throat had caught hold of her chin. These reasons were that just below the lobe of the left ear were three scratches, and there was also a bruise on the right cheek..."
(The Daily Telegraph, Sept 20)
also...somewhat in paraphrase.
"....he came to that conclusion because on the left side, on the lower jaw, were scratches one and a half to two inches below the lobe of the ear and going in a contrary direction to the incision in the throat. They were of recent date. The abrasions on the left side and on the right side were corresponding bruises. He washed them, when they became more distinct..."
(The Times, Sept 20)
So, you see, the medical testimony concerning the throat wounds from the murder of Annie Chapman go a long way to substantiating the bruises reported on the neck of Polly Nichols. The very wounds, I may remind you, that were not reported in the press in the initial testimony, but only appeared one week later.
This, my dear Wolf, is the kind of 'substantiation' I seek out. It takes a little work to compare the various press reports to find these little snippets of information but it is well worth the trouble.
So, don't tell me "it is not substantiated", you see for yourself that the reports are close enough to indicate strangulation was used in both the cases of Polly Nichols & Annie Chapman and the medical testimony reported from the inquest of Polly Nichols is incomplete.
As to the abdominal wounds, I do not really see the point in repeating the testimony as I had gone through this excersize some weeks ago and it should be sufficient. You, and anyone else, are left to draw your own conclusions.
The Star report, printed on the same day as the murder (Aug 31st), is presented in such a way as to make us believe the reporter actually viewed the body.
This 'viewing of the body' is also reported in the press by other reporters, but as ever, I suppose you refuse to believe this too.
The Star report was printed before any official reports were given by either the police or Dr Llewellyn therefore, if the report of a wound running to the breastbone, is literary licence (as I think you are suggesting) then it is remarkable in its detail in almost predicting the same wounds which would be found on later victims. And, if 'literary licence' was the culprit then may I ask "what do you suggest was the influence?".
Previous murders were of a nature of a blunt instrument thrust inside a woman (Smith) and multiple stabbings across the throat, breast and related areas (Tabram).
Where on earth do you think this reporter gained his influence in describing what would become an MO or possibly a Signature of these crimes?
The simple answer will likely be he didn't, the reporter only described what he saw on the day of the murder while the body lay in the shambles of a mortuary. Thats Occams Razor at work.
Mrs Richardson?
You are trying to devalue her statement because she failed to use the exact words used by others who saw the wounds. Really Wolf, do you expect a 60(?) year old woman to take hold of Chapmans head and rotate it to see if the cut ran all around????
Good grief man, she saw what she could from her perspective, which obviously (to some) means she could only see the cut running across the neck from one ear to the other.
And why you keep bringing up this "heart & liver" statement when I had intentionally left it out as 'not substantiated' by any other reports, I cannot understand. If you go back to my original point I omitted that line as it was not relevent to the discussion at hand and it could not be supported by other testimony, why do you insist on implying otherwise?
Like this...(re: heart & liver)
"Indeed, how in the Hell do you think that this was accomplished?"
I didnt say it was...if you took the time to read what I write I already said, more than once, that it cannot be supported....so...I...left...it...out!!!!
You berated her statement and I pointed out that if it actually was her words (which I also suspected may not be the case) then you were wrong to say it was erroneous.
In my field, Engineering, (and Science), as any Policeman will tell you, individual statements by laypersons often differ even when describing the same sighting. Not because of any intention to mislead but due mainly to the fact that laypersons are not trained to make detailed descriptions. This you are overlooking.
The whole report (Mrs Richardsons) is not clear as to which words are hers and which are possibly added by the reporter so this whole discussion is meaningless. Her report differs slightly, not enough to berate it but only enough to admit that it is obviously (assuming they are her words), the best she could do given her viewpoint, her age and lack of training.
I really do not think anyone else is interested in this so if you wish to prolong it then lets take it to email, but I may tell you I am a little tired of your nitpicking arguments as if you expect this to be either 'black' or 'white', every witness to be medically trained, every reporter to be a lair.
We are dealing with multiple shades of grey here and we must use the press reports where they do not contradict what we already know.
Sorry, but this is getting very tiresome.
All the same, best regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 10 October 2002 - 09:29 pm | | Dan
I have already caught you out in making rash statements about the knowledge and experience of Dr Phillips. And your excuse was to pass the buck and blame the webmaster???
My good man it is entirely up to you to do your own research and not blame others.
I might suggest in future you always provide sources & references when you make definitive statements until it appears that you do at least know what you are talking about.
Thanks, Jon |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 11 October 2002 - 04:11 am | | Jon,
You haven't caught me out in anything. It speaks volumes about your inability to support your claims that you chose to resort to such weak strategies.
You told me nobody could characterize MacKenzie's knife wounds as "stabs" -- this very website calls them such. That's not passing the buck, that's a simple truth. Sorry if you don't understand that "stabs" is a perfectly normal way to refer to knife wounds that enter into the flesh instead of just scraping along the outside.
Dr. Phillips' many errors speak for themselves. Modern doctors and criminalogists all agree that the work was slipshod, even for the time. He was just jumping to conclusions out of ego instead of using facts. I'm only sorry you feel the need to continue the same path by ignoring things that don't fit your theory and choosing to believe sources that are known to be extremely unreliable. if that's your idea of how to "do your own research" then I'll stick to the research of reliable authorities, thanks.
If the extent of your rebuttal is to just say I don't know what I'm talking about it's pretty obvious you can't defend your statements on their own merit.
Dan |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 13 October 2002 - 06:33 pm | | Hi Dan
I would appreciate a list of 'all' these modern doctors and criminologists who are of like mind and who would endeavour to make such outragous statements as to accuse Dr Phillips of "slipshod" procedures.
In advance of you securing such a list I might suggest this is yet another one of your 'blanket statements' of little worth.
So now you castigate the Police Surgeon of 'H' division as being little more than a charlatan?
Not only do you have little understanding of the limits of 19th century medical knowledge but you accuse a most eminent doctor of having an obstructive ego?.
Shear and utter rubbish.
Whatever it is you are reading is distorting your perception to an incredible degree, no wonder you make such understandably erroneous statements.
Initially, when I first read your poste ("how can we believe anything this guy says"), I assumed you simply mistook the words of Dr Thomas Bond for those of Dr Phillips. Personally, I show no interest in secondary summaries such as to which you refer on this website.
This site (Casebook) is not totally factual Dan, you must be very carefull what you read. Another site which is more concerned with factual data & reports is
http://www.casebook-productions.org/main.htm,
which I would assume you are already familar with. If not you are in for a treat.
However, getting back to this original comment that you made, I assumed you made a simple error, I had to wonder if you were aware that both Dr Bond & Dr Phillips made out medical reports concerning their individual findings on the body of McKenzie.
It was Doctor Bond who described the wounds to the throat as 'stabs', not Phillips. It was also Doctor Bond who ascribed the wounds, in general, to the same hand as all the other Whitechapel murders. And, by defacto, this could lead someone to think Bond saw 'anatomical knowledge' in making that equation.
Bond actually saw no anatomical knowledge displayed throughtout the range of murders. But then, he was only working from the inquest testimony notes provided by the doctors involved.
Dr Bond was not talking from first-hand knowledge with Nichols, Chapman, Stride & Eddowes.
In the medical summary of McKenzie Dr Phillips never once uses the term 'stab' and most certainly never admitted to any visible evidence of 'anatomical knowledge' in her murder.
The words Phillips actually used were...
"..the wound was caused by sharp cutting instrument with at least two strokes."
You may have been misled by poorly researched material, you may also be being misled by 'modern criminologists' and "some" (one?) doctor who knows more about his modern profession than he does about his 19th century forbears.
Dr Phillips was extremely experienced and occupied a very responsible position, a highly respected professional. We are more used to reading of such ill-aimed critisizm focused on the police but not on the only true professionals involved in the case, not doctors.
While doctors may disagree, on professional grounds, with each others findings, we can hardly criticise either as being incompetent. Having said that, I later note, for amusement only, some strange opinions & observations by Dr Bond.
Now, should you want to investigate the numerous errors made by Dr Bond, this might prove interesting to some. Lets, for amusement sake, take the rigidly critical perspective recently levelled against poor Mrs Richardson and use this same criteria on a more respectable professional, namely Dr Bond himself.
Doctor Bonds report on the autopsy of Mary Kelly starts off with a glaring error.
"...the body was lying naked in the middle of the bed....."
The 'body on the bed' photo we are lucky to have preserved clearly shows that Kelly had been wearing a nightdress in the form of a chemise and at least her right leg shows a remaining stocking. Mary Kelly was not naked, but we usually make allowances for the good doctor and accept that her mutilated condition exposes so much flesh that his mistake is understandable, well, maybe 'understandable' is not the correct word.
Then, he goes on in describing her right arm....
"...the forearm supine with the fingers clenched...."
Although her right hand is mostly obscured by folds of what looks like linen, we can still see her forefinger. This finger is extended and it appears her thumb is also relaxed.
Nothing conclusive, but what we are able to see is not supportive of clenched fingers, rather the opposite. Neither are the fingers of her left hand 'clenched'.
But still, we make allowances.
Skipping to his summary of the Whitechapel murders we encounter more....
"....all five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand" (Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, Kelly)
Where else do we read, prior to Bonds report being written, that any medical man was of the opinion that all five were committed by the same hand?
Bond was only working from inquest notes remember. And yet he was able to form such an opinion?
Then...in commenting on the time between the crime being committed and the discovery of the bodies...
"...In Buck's Row, Hanbury St. and Mitre Sq, three or four hours only could have elapsed..."
I do not recall any doctor allowing three or four hours of elapsed time in the cases of Nichols & Eddowes. How could Dr Bond possibly draw such conclusions? Even with Chapman, Dr Phillips did not let the original time of death stand as originally stated. He corrected himself and qualified his original statement, so in no case were we left with possibly "three or four hours".
But still, .....we make allowances.
Then...
"..in all cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling"[sic]
Astonishing!!
We have already recently read of the bruises found and mentioned at either side of the neck of Polly Nichols. These same bruises, with scratches, were also noticed by Dr Phillips on Chapmans neck. Does Dr Bond seriously think that such evidence of strangulation would go without any resistance?.
You may recall, the fingernails of Annie Chapman were described as turgid. Turgid is swollen, swollen fingernails, in a case of strangulation, is a very good indication that the victim was embroiled in a severe fight for her life.
The scratches on her neck, running contrary to the cuts to her throat, may have been made, not by her killer but by herself, in a frantic attempt to break free from his deadly grip.
Her fingernails were swollen.
"no evidence of a struggle?"
Not many commentators would suggest the jagged cuts to Kelly's arms and cut thumb and bruises on back of her hand as anything else other than defence wounds.
Dr Bond even noted these wounds & bruises himself and yet he makes the claim "no evidence of struggling?".
I had to smile to myself when reading of Wolf's rigid (sorry Wolf) intollerance of the "supposed" words of poor Mrs Richardson being "error-filled" when such an eminent person as Dr Bond can make such outragous errors and yet 'we' do not discard his opinions in the same manner we are being asked to treat Mrs Richardson.
One rule for the rich and one for the poor. ah, such is life.
Ok, I won't mention it with you anymore.
Sorry if I raised your blood pressure but I saw a need to defend Dr Phillips in face of substandard research, by someone.
Best regards, Jon |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 11:47 am | | Tiresome Jon? Perhaps now you know what it is like trying to debate with you. It is sort of like trying to catch fish with your bare hands. You say one thing, I respond with evidence to the contrary and you rebut by moving off on some tangent not related to what you had originally stated or to my response.
Interestingly, you are correct, information regarding bruising to Polly Nichols throat was not reported in all of the newspapers but only in some of them. Stating that this information came out a week later, although technically correct, is misleading.
Daily papers with inquest reports came out daily while weekly papers with inquest reports came out weekly, that would mean only once a week. The reporters of the two types of paper who attended the inquests heard and took notes on the same testimony, something which you apparently are unaware of considering your statement, "The very wounds, I may remind you, that were not reported in the press in the initial testimony, but only appeared one week later." The weeklies were printing the "initial testimony".
The bruising to Nichols throat was not new information picked up by some of the press a week later, nor was it obtained by interviewing the doctor after his inquest appearance but rather a piece of Llewellyn's testimony only reported by some, but not all, newspapers. Unfortunately for you this means that the inquest testimony was incomplete only in those papers that failed to report on the bruising to Nichols throat. It was obviously not incomplete in weekly papers such as the East London Observer and the Woodford Times. Papers that did report the bruising in their coverage of the inquest.
As I stated, "It is true that the press reports of inquest testimony are for the most part not verbatim but then neither are the official inquest reports themselves. The press reports may not be an exact word for word account of what has been said, and not all the newspapers may have published every answer in detail but by reading as many newspaper as possible, and some newspapers are more detailed and more trustworthy than others, it is possible to gain a fair idea of what has been said in total."
You have just proved my point. You have also shot yourself in the foot by providing an example of this. As I had also stated, "...You, however, are claiming, with absolutely no evidence, that every newspaper of the day, every single one, missed an important pathological detail of the doctors testimony." Most, but not all, newspapers failed to report on the bruising to Nichols throat, but it was reported, and it seems highly unlikely that every newspaper could have missed your extensive wound from the groin to the sternum had it actually been mentioned by Dr. Llewellyn. Your claim is unsubstantiated.
If you want to continue to believe that sensationalist newspaper reports, reports that served a political as well as financial purpose, are to be given greater weight than police or medical experts, then that is your privilege. If a police or medical expert says one thing and a reporter from the Star says another, feel free to believe the reporter over the expert, especially as it pertains to medical evidence and evaluation, just be aware that others are free to not take your claims or theories seriously if they are based on such sources. It's that simple.
Mrs. Richardson's statement to the Star is evidence of the problems with your approach in believing everything that you read as long as it supports your point of view. I have pointed out, several times in fact, that this whole article is so riddled with errors that it is untrustworthy as a source and not worth the paper it's printed on. In short, any use of this article as evidence of anything is fraught with danger. I devalue Mrs. Richardson's statement because it is full of errors, as I pointed out, not just because she got the wounds to the throat wrong.
As I posted, "Although I don't expect, unlike you, that Mrs. Richardson fleeting observance of the body enabled her to offer a detailed and thorough enough evaluation of the mutilations, it should be noted that this statement, ("Her throat was cut from ear to ear"), is indeed wrong." As indeed it is and if she was wrong about that, what else might she be wrong about?
I continue to bring up the ‘heart and liver' statement because it shows how incredibly worthless the Star article is. You do not seem to see that this major error should cause warning flags to pop up and extreme caution to be observed if you are going to use the article as evidence in your theories, as you have. In the past you have defended the Star article while trying to lesson the evidence of its worthlessness by trying to obscure the facts of the official reports. You have made statements such as:
"Dr Phillips never stated where her heart or liver was, whether still in situ or cut away, we have no clue"
Mrs. Richardson's " remark about the liver & heart...is neither corroborated nor contradicted by any other witness or medical evidence. We simply do not know."
"...but the fact remains the statement stands in isolation and cannot be either corroborated or discredited."
This is obfuscation on your part especially when you now state that, "I had intentionally left it out as 'not substantiated' by any other reports," and, " I already said, more than once, that it cannot be supported....so...I...left...it...out!!!!" Either you believe that "we have no clue", that it is not contradicted and cannot be discredited or you believe that it is "not substantiated" and "not supported." So which is it?
The crux of all this is the fact that you have seemed fit to use an error riddled newspaper report carried by an untrustworthy newspaper in order to try and prove your theory that there was not a progression of mutilation between the Whitechapel victims vis, "Its the "The abdomen was exposed, the woman having been ripped up from groin to breast-bone as before." that I find of interest, they are saying the wounds on Chapman are the same as those on Nichols AND subsequently would appear on Eddowes. Both had their abdomen ripped from the pubes to the breastbone, in fact all three were mutilated in the same manner.
There was no progression of mutilation from Nichols to Eddowes, but only that Nichols intestines were left intact, hence, indicating that the killer may have been interrupted." I would hope that in the future you might add some warning or caveat to such declarations and try and remember what you posted about Mrs. Richardson,
"...I pointed out that if it actually was her words (which I also suspected may not be the case)...individual statements by laypersons often differ even when describing the same sighting. Not because of any intention to mislead but due mainly to the fact that laypersons are not trained to make detailed descriptions....The whole report (Mrs Richardsons) is not clear as to which words are hers and which are possibly added by the reporter...to admit that it is obviously (assuming they are her words), the best she could do given her viewpoint, her age and lack of training."
Wolf. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Tuesday, 22 October 2002 - 05:13 pm | | I haven’t looked into all of the murders in depth as of yet but, in regards to Tabram, Nichols and Chapman there are severe problems with the work performed by Dr. Killeen, Dr. Llewellyn and Dr. Phillips. The times of death as established by Dr. Killen and Dr. Phillips are both off by an hour and the on scene examination of Nichols by Dr. Llewellyn borders on legal malpractice. I do cut them a little bit of slack as they were only working by Victorian standards and they were not schooled in Pathology.
In legal terms, there is a big difference between estimating time of death and fixing time of death. Dr. Killeen and Dr. Phillips both “fix” time of death entirely too early in the investigation thus putting the police at a slight handicap. They both seem to ignore police and witness statements and jump the gun and fix time of death to early.
In the case of Polly Nichols, Dr. Llewellyn fails to notice the attempted mutilations on the abdomen. It is his testimony that there was very little blood. If he would have performed a thorough on scene examination he would have noticed the blood underneath her and the blood soaked clothing. He would have noticed the blood between her legs which would have led him to the wounds on her abdomen. (Notice that the key words here are ON SCENE. Not in the examination room.)
Coroner Wynne Baxter is no better. In what should be a fact finding judicial proceeding, the Nichols inquest quickly becomes a three ring circus. Baxter has three key witness with thier backs to the wall and fails to ask the right questions to illicit the important information. He has two police constables who can not account for their time and a horse slaughterer who admits to hating women. This should in no way mean that I suggest that Neil, Thain and Tompkins are in any way responsible for the murder. It merely suggests that should a person had been arrested and tried for the murders or at least the murder of Annie Chapman, a defense attorney would have had a field day tearing apart the testimony of these three. Because Wynne Baxter is so inept, he leaves holes in the testimony of all three that one could sail the USS Nimitz through. At times I wonder just whose side Baxter was working. So yes, the work of the four Whitechapel elitist, at best, can be called slipshod.
Peace,
Scott |
|
|
|
|
