|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 8:21 am: |       |
I am now completing my second semester of a course in Anatomy and Physiology, which has kind of broadened my thinking especially with regards to the post mortems. I now see that the disection of the stomach, and the removal of the liver and spleen were not just random mayhem, but part of a determined effort to tunnel up from the abdominal cavity and get the heart. Once he got past the spleen, liver, stomach and diaphragm, and cut open the pericardial membrane, he would have faced another obstacle. The heart is firmly attached at the top to the superior vena cava and the aorta. I think I know why there was damage to the right lung. The inferior vena cava comes up inferior to the heart on the right side. He would have had to break off a piece of lung tissue in order to get at it and cut it. But how did he sever the other two? Dr. Bond says the intercostal muscles had been removed between the 4th 5th and 6th ribs allowing him (Bond) to see into the thorax through the holes. I entertained for a time the possibility that he inserted the blade between the ribs and cut the vena cava and aorta that way but I looked at some diagrams and those intercostal spaces would have been rather low. http://www.surgery.usc.edu/divisions/ct/graphics/instrumentthroughthorax1.jpg He would have been slicing the middle or top of the heart, unless of course he angled the knife. I dont know enough to say for sure but I would think that it would have been impossible for him to just reach up through the diaphragm grasp it and tear it out. The aorta in particular has a thick muscular wall which must stand up to a lot of pressure as blood is forced out of the left ventricle. I'm not a Dr. but I would suspect it would be difficult to just tear it. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1027
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Hi Diana
I think the way the Ripper removed the victims' organs, which was unconventional, is one reason why many medical experts of the day denied that he could have been a doctor. The murderer may have had some rudimentary knowledge of anatomy, but the way he went about his "work" might indicate that he was not trained in the proper technique in how to excise the organs in the most efficient and accepted way.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 343
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
I dont think he was a Dr. because even a crazy Dr. would know how to get the rib cage open and would not have messed around tunnelling. It came to me after I did the original post. The parietal pericardium has serous fluid inside it which functions as a lubricant so the heart can move in the pericardial cavity without being impeded by friction against the serosal membranes. That would mean that in addition to being firmly attached to blood vessels the heart would have been slippery and hard to get a good grasp on. It makes the idea of wrenching it out even more unlikely. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
