|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 403
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:12 pm: | 
|
I want some people's opinions on whether Polly might have been missing any organs as well, but it was overlooked?
This was the first killing where the victim was actually laid open and it seems likely to me that the killer laid all of them open for a reason, which would be to take an organ as a memento . . . so I think it stands to reason that Polly was missing something too, but it was overlooked at the time because of the distraction of the brutality of the crime . . .
By the time Annie was discovered to have been missing her uterus Polly was already buried, and it was too late to check.
What are other opinions?
-K |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 766
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:50 pm: |
|
Kris,
you know I had never thought of that.
Is a vague recollection about them having missed some of Polly's injuries prior to getting her to the mortuary correct?
Jennifer
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 404
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Jennifer,
I think prior to the mortuary most of her injuries were missed, to my recollection. I seem to recall that until they got her there everyone was under the impression she had had her throat cut, and that was all. I seem to remember a gentleman working at the mortuary fainted at the site of her abdomen being cut open.
-K |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:19 pm: |
|
So in that case it seems quite plausible/possible they could have missed something?
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:22 pm: |
|
They missed the abdominal mutilations because they were covered by the clothing.
That's a far cry from a doctor not noticing missing organs upon autopsy.
Mags
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 406
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Maria,
A doctor awoken in the middle of the night to come look at a dead prostitute might not have missed something?
I'm not saying that is for certain what happened, I'm just asking for the possibility that it may have been overlooked.
Keep in mind that the doctor wasn't exactly looking for the reason she was killed, that would be rather obvious.
I find it hard to believe that he did a head count of all organs in her abdomen on the spot. Obviously a lot of them would be apparent, intestines, stomach, liver, and such, and maybe even if the kidneys, but do you really believe he checked to see if her uterus was missing?
-K |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1057
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Hi Kris,only last night I read the letter from Machnaghten to George Sims his journalist friend
about the 5 victims then considered to have been carried out by the ripper.It said that Polly Nichols had only light abdominal injuries and compared these with those sustained by Annie Chapman,Kate Eddowes and Mary Kelly which he commented on as being much more extensive.Elizabeth Stride was mentioned as having no abdominal injuries.I think this tells us something about whether the abdomen was intact otherwise.I think that it would have been noted if
the abdomen looked as though it had been raided.
Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 59
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Kris--
By the time Dr. Llewellyn got to the mortuary, after his cursory examination in the street, the body had been stripped and washed. He gave a very detailed account at the inquest.Natalie is right-while the abdoman was cut several times it wasn't opened up as much as sliced into, if you see what I mean.
Mags
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 175
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:45 pm: |
|
Hi Gang.
The inquest into the murder of Nichols was not completed before the Chapman inquest was underway.
Because of the extent of the mutilations to Chapman, Llewellyn had to re-visit the body of Nichols, he commented, "and there was no part of the viscera missing". This was reported in The Daily Telegraph, Sept 18, 1888.
Are you suggesting he missed something on this re-evaluation?.
Regards, Jon |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 407
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Natalie,
That makes sense. Perhaps he was interrupted before finished. Thanks for the info.
Maria,
Thank you as well.
-K |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 230
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 11:36 pm: |
|
Yeah, they definitely rechecked Nichols' body after the Chapman case and no parts were missing.
But as long as we are on the topic of mixed up organs, Begg's new book raises the interesting point that it's possible that the parts missing from Chapman may have been misplaced rather than taken by the killer. In other words, somewhere in the process of moving the body, getting it onto the hand cart, taking it to the makeshift morgue and the washing and so forth before the autopsy, parts may have simply slipped out or got misplaced somewhere. He doesn't treat it as very likely, and I don't really either, but it I'd think it's conceivable.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2855
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 7:31 am: |
|
There's also the suggestion, in Bob Hinton's book, that rats may have taken away the victims' missing bits.
Robert |
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 409
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 8:52 am: |
|
Rats? Jesus. I guess if he left fleshy bits just laying about, like he left the piece of colon between Kate's arm and body, then rats may be something to consider . . .
In the case of Polly and Kate though, the time the bodies were laying dead on the ground was reletively brief, was it not? It seems to me Annie was on the ground for a longer period of time.
-K |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 443
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 12:35 pm: |
|
"But as long as we are on the topic of mixed up organs, Begg's new book raises the interesting point that it's possible that the parts missing from Chapman may have been misplaced rather than taken by the killer."
"He doesn't treat it as very likely, and I don't really either..."
Then why even raise the spectre?
Every inch of the backyard of Hanbury Street was gone over with what might as well have been Annie Chapman's fine-toothed comb. Every item in the backyard was studied--from pin-point blood spatters, to a scrap of envelope (painstakingly traced by the police) to the water-logged apron, to piss-stains on a neighboring fence.
Should I also suppose that Kate Eddowe's uterus inexplicably plopped out and rolled off into the gutter and was gobbled up by rats?
I like Paul Begg. His Uncensored Facts is a classic of the genre. But this is a non-starter. So I wonder...if two of the leading rivals to the Kosminski theory weren't Rosyln D'Onston and Francis Tumblety, would this suggestion have been aired?
Painting the Victorian police and medical men as unbelievably incompetent has become the standard weapon of those who favor modern profiling and the "disorganized" psychotic theory.
The uterus is a small organ. It was specifically removed three times--and taken away twice.
No doubt I labor under the mistaken impression that this might might be somewhat significant. RP |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 235
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 1:08 pm: |
|
R.J.,
Where I come from, raising and exploring every possibility is a good thing. Being tentative about conclusions and open to new ideas means being able to better figure out what really happened instead of what people just choose to believe.
Assuming that Chapman's uterus was taken away because Eddowes' was and Kelly's was removed (along with virtually everything else, so the significance of the one part is questionable) is basically making a conclusion on only one other instance. So Chapman's uterus was missing. It's fairly logical to assume that that was on purpose. But then there's two questions that raises:
1) Where does that leave the bit of belly wall that Chapman was missing? That wasn't taken in any other instances. Is it too difficult to believe that it could just go missing somewhere?
2) Without knowing the intent of the killer, it's difficult to know which was the cause and which was the effect. In other words, was Chapman's uterus missing because he had the desire to take it and that caused the publicity and then Eddowes' being taken as well, or did he get his desire to take a uterus from Eddowes based upon the publicity surround the missing uterus in Chapman's case? It wouldn't be the first time that a killer has decided to change plans based upon something in the press coverage. Do we really have evidence either way? Not really, all we have are assumptions.
For you to portray the possibility that a small organ could go missing by accident as painting the police and doctors as "unbelievably incompetent" is quite a stretch. And, heck, if you are attacking Begg for bringing the whole thing up to try to discredit theories other than Kosminski, why on earth would he be trying to discredit police and doctors when the Kosminski theory is based solely on the idea that they were very competent and not prone to mere wishful thinking?
I, for one, hope people studying the case continue to ask questions and examine all the possibilities. This particular possibility, minor as it is, is a heck of a lot more reasonable than all sorts of nonsense people regularly argue on these boards. I won't be ashamed for considering it as a possibility to think about.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Kris Law
Inspector
Username: Kris
Post Number: 415
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Dan,
My sentiments exactly. After a hundred years with no solution it is the minutiae we should be paying the most attention to, because let's be honest, the big points have been debated ad nauseum with no solution yet, so maybe the answer isn't there.
And if someone thinks that the tiny details aren't worth discussing, well, there are many other threads on this board that can keep them occupied.
-K |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Here I come with my anatomy class again. All the viscera are held in place by various membranes, sheets of connective tissue, etc. It is possible that an internal organ fell and was lost but if so it was because Jack cut it loose first. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 179
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Coroner Baxter had already posed the question of the possibility of some organs being lost in transit, the suggestion is not new, so therein lays the implication that they at least considered the possibility and took steps accordingly.
Regards, Jon |
Thomas Fitzgerald
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 10, 2005 - 2:37 pm: |
|
Hi, i'm new.
I just wanted to ask if anybody has a list of all the missing organs and body parts. If anybody has, could i please have a copy of it?
Thanks. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 776
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 5:24 am: |
|
Hi Thomas,
First of all, welcome to the boards.
Then, coming down to business, you could quite easily compile the list you seek from this dissertation: http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-victimwounds.html. There’s a great deal of dissertations like this on Casebook, covering a huge pile of interesting information. You might want to check (some of) 'm out - they're certainly worth it.
But, to make it easy for you (this time):
In Annie Chapman’s case the murderer took the womb, upper part of vagina, greater part of bladder, and part of the belly wall including the navel.
In Catherine Eddowes’ case he took the greater part of the womb, leaving a stump of ¾”, and the left kidney.
In Mary Jane Kelly’s case the heart was missing.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
