|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through January 12, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
JTR's Hysterectomies:
Archive through January 12, 2000
Author: Caz
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 01:47 pm |        | Hi Dr Ind,
Thank you so much for your contributions. Long may your enthusiasm for the JtR mystery continue.
If by the Rippermania Journal you meant The Ripperologist magazine of the London-based Cloak & Dagger Club, there is a web-site at: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/7020/indexwhich should tell you all you need to know about subscribing and forthcoming meetings etc.
Could you give me your opinion on another couple of points please?
You have said that, in your view, a lay person could be just as capable as the best surgeon of doing what JtR did to his victims if he simply opened their abdomens and felt around. And that, given the lack of light and the need to work with the utmost speed, even the best of surgeons would have his work cut out (sorry!) trying to excise specific organs to order. This suggests that JtR would probably not have planned his mutilations in much detail beforehand expecting to succeed. I have heard this opinion before (can't think for the life of me where, but it does seem to make sense to me). In that case, how likely do you think it is that JtR had more than a smattering of anatomical/surgical knowledge? The more knowledge he had, surely the more difficult he would realise his task would be to remove precisely what he wanted.
So, if JtR's plans involved no more than mutilating more or less at random and cutting out whatever organs he could easily grab in the dark and the time allowed, do you think it AS likely that he had no working anatomical/surgical knowledge or MORE likely? Some of us discussed some time ago the likelihood of a man with day-to-day access to patients or corpses needing to indulge in his abdominal meanderings again at dead of night. It all makes me think that maybe JtR was more likely to be a frustrated wannabe doctor with delusions about his own capabilities, wanting to show the world he could hack it (sorry again!).
What Diana said about JtR leaving MJK's uterus but taking other victims' bits and pieces made me think that perhaps JtR did not really know which bits he had collected from the others in the dark and only took them with him so he could examine them in proper light and at his leisure. With Mary he appeared to have exactly what he so lacked at the other crime scenes, light and time, so the differences in his behaviour should be able to be looked at accordingly. Apart from her heart, he could presumably have taken whatever trophies he fancied, but didn't.
Love,
Caz |
Author: The Viper
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 03:30 pm | | In his latest poste, Dr. Villon states:-
"If the latter, this must be almost incontrovertible evidence of medical skill, since there is no way that any layman would have the knowledge, let alone be able to do such a double trick, in the dark in three or four minutes." (my italics)
A small point, but one worth making is that dawn that day was 4:49 a.m. and sunrise 5:23 a.m. If we accept the probable time of death as 5:30, plus or minus a few minutes, then there would have been light for the killer to work by.
From the content of the Dr. Villon's statement it appears that this point may not change his view materially. Would this assumption be correct please?
Regards, V. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:20 pm | | Gosh
This has been a fascinating discussion.This could almost end up being a full time occupation for me!. Regrettably I will be offline from tomorrow until the weekend and am sorry to make a pause in my contribution.
Jon, your post delighted me as it seemed to support my theory for posting my message in the first place. What I wanted to determine is if the hysterectomy could give insight into the handedness of JTR and thus his MO. As Dr Villon has supported me in, the confounding factor is if the uteri were diseased. The later we will never know the answer to. However, if JTR held the uterus in one hand and removed with the other then the complete and thorough hysterectomy of Chapman was a result of 'perfect' positioning being able to access the abdomen from the victims right, using his left had to grasp the uterus and his right to excise it.
In Chapman's case he performed an extensive hysterectomy. This would support him being right handed and therefore support the theory that he attacked from behind not from infront as suggested by Baxter. My three bibles are not with me at the moment but I was convinced that Eddowes had her cervix left behind. As this has been challenged I will double check. If you say that she was attacked from the left then, then this would again support right handedness as in this case a less adequate hysterectomy was performed. Of course pelvic infection could also have caused this.
So now we need to know details of MJKs hysterectomy. From the photo it looks more likely that a left sided attack occurred. Therefore if my theory is to hold out, then a subtotal hysterectomy will have been performed here too.
My wife is calling me to supper so I will reply to the other posts in a hour |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 05:41 pm | | So where was I?
Firstly thanks for the information regarding the ripperologist. My heart sank when I saw another chat room. I'll stick to one for the time being!
Dr Villon's post is very interesting. There is clearly an element of judging by our own standards here both by Dr Villon and myself. From what I understand Dr Villon has worked for MSF. This I could never do as I just don't have the skill to have such a wide range abilities required. Maybe when Dr Villon states that he would feel more capable of performing a hysterectomy in the dark than a lay person it is because of this. On the other hand it may be because I have subspecialised and only deal with gynaecological cancer now. I would assume that I do not have such a broad range of skills that Dr Villon has. I am super confident in my area of expertise but would be filled with dread when it comes to dealing in an area that I do not concentrate on. So Dr Villons comments on medical ability have to be taken very seriously, perhaps more than mine. However, on balance I really do believe that anyone could have performed these extractions irrespective of their anatomical knowledge. As far as I am concerned, a uterus is easy to locate as it is the first (and only) 'nobbly thing' you would feel when placing a hand in the pelvis. A left kidney would expose itself when lifting out the bowel and would therefore be easy to expose. A liver would be difficult to remove as it is not very mobile, it is very soft and would be easily damaged and the practicalities of getting a knife around the top of a diaphragm would be difficult (hence only the cuts in MJK case and not a hepatectomy). A spleen is difficult to see but as with a uterus it lifts out. Feeling it, it would lift out and would be easy to excise but would probably be still attached to the stomach and possibly even the transverse colon if done so. Does anyone know if this was the case?
A heart throught the pericardium. Wow! I don't think I could do this? What about you Dr Villon? The simple answer probably is that I have never tried and I have the others (albeit in a well controlled surgical setting). Thinking about the heart makes be think about a history of medicine lecture that I once attempted. I'm not sure when anaesthetics came into being and I'm pretty sure that no thoracic surgery occured at this time. This is easily checked and I will endeavour to do so. If so, then even doctors and surgeons would not have experience in accessing this part of the body and therefore could have no benefit. Also remember the position of the fire in the room in MJKs case. This was the only light I assume. Where the body lies, it offers no light. Again, it is behind a bony structure and would be totally dark even if a surgeon was present.
I am therefore totally convinced on one thing. That the process was 'smash and grab' and totally directed by feel rather than sight. Prior to Dr Villon's post I was convinced that the question of medical knowledge was obvious. As the organs were removed by feel, then a doctor or surgeon would have no benefit over a lay person as a lay person would feel the same structures as a surgeon and be able to remove them even if they had no idea what they were. Dr Villon disagrees with this. This is either as he is a MSF doctor who is trained to cope with almost anything or because I am a sub-specialist who due to the process of time and concentration on a small subject have little ability in the areas of medicine outside my own.
I wasn't being serious about the pigs but the more I think about it the more I think that it would be a good study. While I have been pondering these things the other mystery I have been interested in is the Mallory and Irvine Everest expedition. This puzzle does not involve horrible murders and saves me from feeling guilty about lying awake at night working out how I would perform JTRs murders. In one breath I am saying that I am not sure that I would want to hack at a pig and in another I know that it would not phase me if the pig had already been killed and was destined for the dinner table where it could still go after we have performed our experiment. The problem I have is that after a series of posts such as these I always double check the doors are locked and the chain is on the hook before I go to bed! The problem with the JTR murders is that they really were so horrific. None of us would want to even suggest that we could be capable of performing them. So the lay person has denial. He couldn't perform them mentally as I couldn't. I cannot deny that I have the skill to perform them as it is blatently obvious that I do. A lay person can sit back in his chair and blindly deny that he has the skill to undertake the murders and thus defend his psychology. The simple fact of the matter is that I think we could all have performed these murders in terms of the skill required by gropping in the dark as all the abdominal organs removed can be felt with a hand wondering around inside an abdomen. I think that the suggestion that special skill is required is a lay persons pyschological defence to prove that he could not perform such a horrendous crime. To prove them wrong I would probably agree to take part but don't know how I could prevent subconciously biasing the results.
Finally on this subject and I will start a new post after this. A more acceptable approach might be a quesionaire to doctors of different skills. Perhaps Dr Villon and I could agree the wording of a question and give it to our colleagues that we would be embarrased to admit our interst to. Something on the grounds of;
What specialty?
What grade?
Given almost total darkness, no assistence and a sharp knife, do you think that your expertise place you at a much greater advantage, no advantage or only a minor advantage in removing a uterus and kidney from a cadaver than a lay person randomly removing what they felt? This is assuming that damage to other organs was not important.
I am churning my posts out again and clearly this question is difficult to read and verbose but I'm sure we could word it clearly. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 06:57 pm | | Hullo, all -- am coming late to this board, but I am awed and humbled at the great range of medical knowledge here. Many thanks, Villon and Dr Ind (and welcome to the Casebook, sir!). I think a specific thread devoted only to the medical aspects of the case would be a welcome addition.
With regards to pid in Annie Chapman, I am currently pawing through all my available primary and secondary source material on her. I am almost certain I once came across further pathological discussion of her than the standard "disease of the membranes" that was slowly killing her. More when I find (or not) the damned reference.
Peter - though I blow my own horn, you might want to check out the forthcoming issue 4 of "Ripper Notes," as I will have a lengthy essay on the authenticity of the Lusk Kidney printed there. I think it is a fake, and believe I have marshalled some fairly convincing medical evidence to support my position.
Dr Ind - in addition to the Cloak & Dagger Club's "Ripperologist," there are also two further JTR magazines worth reading:
"Ripperana" : 10 pounds per year; contact NP Warren, 16 Costons Avenue, Greenford, Middlesex UB6 8RJ
"Ripper Notes": $10 (US) per year; contact Christopher T. George, 3800 Canterbury Road, Apt 3E, Baltimore MD 21218 USA, or visit the website at http://business.fortunecity/com/all/138/
Regards,
Chris |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 06:59 pm | | And finally
Well my daughter is now 6 weeks old. Believe it or not we put her to bed at 23:00 and she sleeps until 07:00. As I leave for work at 06:00 and get back between 20:00 and 22:00 I am beginning to realise that I am going to have to limit my new enthusiasm to weekends. Either way, I will be offline until saturday.
Viper, are you sure dawn was that early. I am an early riser and it always seems dark. Was BST in existence then or was GMT used? Either way, as far as the hysterectomies are concerned I don't think it matters for the reasons I have already given.
Caz. No I don't think that the more skilled you are the less capable you could be of performing the excisions. Probably marginally better but the point I was trying to make is that I don't believe that surgical expertise puts you at much benefit and I believe it was all just groping in the dark. 'Smash and grab' was the phrase that someone coined. I think that anyone could have done it even though they might not have known what organ they were removing. The organs removed can all be felt with the hand and therefore removed. Dr Villon disagrees. Neither he nor I actually know and it must be considered an opinion rather than fact.
Someone then asked the questions about the Lusk letter and Maybrick. This is a different issue altogether. I would love to believe that the Maybrick diaries solve the mystery but so many things do not fit with my preconceived ideas. I belive that JTR did live in the area and that he was an inconspicuous person. I believe that he was probably even questioned by police as so many other serial killers have before being caught. I am not someone who supports an individual suspect. I realise that there are many facts contained in the diary that might not have been known today. However, I also realise that there are a lot of police documents that have been pinched with time and that may have provided a possible modern day forger or more likely a pre-war forger with the approriate knowledge. There are so many explanations other than forgery as well such as a schizophrenic who was well educated believing he was JTR in the same way one today may think they were Jesus. I don't know. But it does rely on the Lusk letter being genuine and there is some evidence that a journalist (I think his name was Best) wrote them. Either way, would you recognise a kidney was one question. Anyone who eats kidneys would recognise a human one. They are the same shape as those bought from the butcher and are unmistakable. Historically I cannot say which people could recognise which organs in that era. I might take some photographs of organs from or pathology museum and post the photographs asking lay people to identify them. If they could identify a heart, uterus and kidney from the photos then Maybrick probably could aswell.
Villon. I have just rememebered your comments about the ovaries and PID. I was due to do a hysterectomy today but cancelled it for anaesthetic reasons. I am doing one tomorrow though and a couple on thursday. I agree with your statement about skill in removing ovaries but PID (or even endometriosis) probably making them more adherent to the uterus and removed fortuitously. I think I stated the same theory myself in my original post. This would be true if my theory about holding and cutting is correct. The other option is that if in Chapman's case he didn't hold the uterus but with the bowel out of the way made one circular movement with the knife as far out as possible then the ovaries would also have been taken. However, this would also damage the ureter, iliac vessels and psoas muscle. I'm not even sure it is possible but I will be thinking about it at my next hysterectomy.
Villon suggested a medical section on the site. I think this is a good idea as long as it isn't the domain of doctors only. It would discuss all the area we are today. I note that since my original post 2 days ago that this has been the most popular topic by far.
I think the final point was Diana's concerning the bladder but forgive me as it is now almost three hours since I read the orginal posts. The bladder is a funny organ. You can't really feel it as a seperate organ as you can for a uterus or kidney. When medical students assist me at operations I show them the bladder and they stare at it and pretend they can see it. In reality it just looks like a fold of the peritoneum. There a few ways that experience tell you where it is and I will not go into them now. During a hysterectomy a catherter is in the bladder and the balloon tells the surgeon exactly where it is. One might argue that an experienced surgeon could remove the uterus without damaging the bladder as I hope that I do whenever I perform a hysterectomy. However, the bladder has to be moved off a uterus to prevent damaging it and that does require skill. JTR didn't have this skill and damaged the bladder. I'm not sure how much better I would do in the dark though.
When entering the abdomen, the bladder is also anterior behind the pubic bone. If the bladder is very full or if a patient has had previous surgery it is possible that the bladder can be damaged when entering the abdomen. However, normally, the bladder is under the pubic bone and safe from damage when entering the cavity.
Penultimately, I think we have now entered two topics. The first is my interest in the hysterectomy. The second are others interests in the possible medical/surgical skill of JTR. I think we should now split this up and have one thread on the surgial skill and another concentrating on the hysterectomy. Does everyone agree?
Ultimately, as you may have realised from the hysterectomy that was cancelled today I had a spare hour. I went to the pathology museum and could not find a uterus that fits Eddowes & Chapman's description of excision. So I can categorically say that they have not found their way to the museum at Barts. The two other big ones in London are the Huntarian at the Royal College of surgeons and the one at the RLH. I also looked for postmortem reports for the era but the museum only went back to 1946 (I assume the others are in the archives). It would be interesting to see if the postmortem reports or 1988 are all as bad as those for JTRs victims. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 07:03 pm | | Dr Ind
One minor detail that has always stuck in my mind was a comment by Coroner Wynne Baxter in a summing up refered to the Mitre Square victim as 'unskilful injuries.....in the case in Mitre Square - possibly the work of an imitator'.
I unfortunatly do not have a full copy of his statement but the implication is he got his info from Dr Bagster Phillips.
The problem was...Chapman & Eddowes just had to be victims of the same killer, but why then the apparent 'less skilful' mutilations?
I think you just gave us the clue, Jack was right-handed but had to work from Eddowes left side, so as you say, more difficult, less accurate, that may explain the comment.
Jack's efforts working 'kack' handed, could have been interpreted by other Doctors as less skilled & obviously the work of an imitator.
It's a possible explanation.
Thankyou, regards, Jon |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 07:59 pm | | I have just lost a large (poorly spelt) post so I have probably had it for the night (& until saturday).
Jon, Although I am flattered by your arguments in my support, the problem is that I am really referring to the hysterectomy only. The hysterectomy would be easier to perform from the right for a right handed person and vice versa for a left if my MO is correct (and it might be wrong). If you combine my theories and your facts then JTR was right handed and attacked from behind. Baxter was wrong.
I find it difficult to believe that Eddowes could be anything other than a true JTR case. In terms of the vulval injuries I even entertain the idea of Tabrum and think this quite plausable as a I don't believe that Nichols with those severe injuries could have been the first. Stride I am less happy with. The 4 laparotomies I have mentioned I think all had their throats cut as far as the vertebrae. That is enough to convince me of the same hand.
For what it is worth I don't think handedness is important for the kidney (although I realise that my original post is confusing). I think ideally that the left kidney would be approached from the right whatever handedness. However, I am convinced from yur post that it was not. I often operate from the left. The reason for this is when operating in the pelvis your neck is at a slant and by varying the side I operate from prevents a neck ache. I don't think JTR was conscious of his neck but it is possible to reach the kidney by feel from the left side.
I think the photo of MJK also suggests that he operated from the left side in this case. If he performed an extensive hysterectomy in this case and I don't know the answer, then my theory is faulted and we have to start again. I have only read the reports and I really need to study them in detail so I could draw a diagram. My problem is time (which I have little).
Eddowes looks pretty impressive to me. I don't believe that this is from a lesser hand. It is more ambitious and if you believe that a certain policeman wasn't drinking tea but doing his work then it would have been done very quickly. If you believe Stride is a victim then by someone who is angry that they hadn't done their job properly. (For what it is worth I don't think that Stride is a victim but that is a whole new topic that am not prepared enough at the moment to argue about)
I am in a slightly good position at the moment in having a knowledge of the crimes from a previous interest but little of the details in view of the period I spent away from JTR (I really only got back into JTR a few days ago). I am wondering whether my theories should not be biased more by analysing the details of the PMs at this stage.
Thanks for your post though. You have supported my argument and I would say that the gynaecological evidence points to him being right handed not left. I look forward to seeing the posts on Saturday. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 08:07 pm | | | Final message for the night. I meant 1888 not 1988. Perhaps this is the first millenium bug working! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 08:20 pm | | Thomas
Unfortunatly, I (we) dont know exactly to what Wynne Baxter was refering, whether external mutilations or internal extractions.
But we have had other medical input to try to deduce Jack's favoured hand, and by far the majority conclude, as you, he was right handed.
I look forward to hearing your opinion on his surgical skill.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 09:20 pm | | | How about a slaughterhouse worker. Drs are not trained in swift efficient killing, slaughtermen are. A surgeon aims at precision and quality work. A slaughterman learns to kill and eviscerate quickly, after all time is money. An operating room is extremely clean and very well lit, a slaughterhouse -- well, I've never visited one so I'm guessing. (Dim and Dirty?) Surgeons look very carefully at what they are doing. Slaughtermen may actually do a lot of the dressing out or whatever by feel. As to recognizing a kidney? You Brits have your steak and kidney pie right? Is a human kidney so different from an animals? |
Author: Sara
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 09:20 pm | | Great Shakes! What a find we have in Dr. Ind - enthusiastic, too. We should all promise not to tax his voluminous knowledge too much, lest he find his newborn more fascinating and less tiring...
Come when you can, Dr. Ind, and congratulations on the arrival of your new baby girl.
All the best,
Sara |
Author: Jeff D
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 04:55 pm | | Hello All !
.... and thank-you to Thomas Ind. for some very interesting information. It's great to have another professional to contribute, and although I still personally believe the Ripper did have some medical or anatomical knowledge, found the information extremely interesting.
Study of the crime scene, the mutilations and therefore the rippers MO & signature are about all we can do when we are this far removed from the crimes. I have for some time now, gone over and over details of the murder scenes to see if there is anything at all that just might leave a clue as to the villian, or type of person that might do such a thing. I find then, that seeing more details and opinions from a professional person very interesting.
I believe the Ripper was right handed, though am skeptical as to the conclusion he attacked from behind. I would think this would be too risky, and surely an attack from behind could allow (maybe just) a split second for the victim to emit some kind of screem. The attacks were quick and silent. Even people just the other side of an open window (not more than a few feet away on some occaions) didn't hear a thing. This is a very interesting aspect of the murders. I think though that the Ripper did stand face-to-face with the victim, then he had to quickly sieze the throat, throttle his victim to unconciousness (or death), then cut the throat and perform the mutilations. As mentioned, I am with Villon, (& Dr's Phillips and Brown) that the killer did show signs of medical or anatomical knowledge. I'm not as convinced as before though, so I do hope this kind of discussion continues
Many thanks for interesting discussion ! I haven't been here for some time as I had been away over the Christmas holidays & New Year, so I would like to wish everyone a very Happy New Year!!!!
Jeff D |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 10:48 pm | | | Dr. Ind -- My congratulations to your wife on surviving an entire pregnancy with a man who knew the worst possible connotation for every little ache, pain, or dizzy spell! (-: Would it be accurate to say that Jack knew what things were and where things were but not how to get them out? As to more than one implement being used on MJK I seem to recall mention at one time on these boards of a hatchet being found in the room with her. |
Author: Villon
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 04:34 am | | Hello all,
I believe Dr. Ind is being slightly misunderstood on this point. No one's fault, it is a very complex issue.
As I understand it, Dr. Ind agrees with me that medical skill would have made Jack better and faster at doing his deeds. Where we disagree slightly is in how much difference it would make. He says not much, I say quite a lot.
Dr. Ind, I am very flattered that you suggest my experience might be greater than yours. I don't think so. I tend to think of myself as an odd-jobber who has never had the discipline to specialise. I worked on medical wards for a couple of years after qualifying,until the state of the NHS began to depress me, dropped out, took a language degree, went to S.Africa, where I worked as a glorified drug-dispenser in a fantastically equipped all white geriatric nursing home, and then went on to do voluntary work in Zimbabwe and Rwanda, which led on to MSF.
It's true I've leared to busk through procedures I am not technically qualified to deal with. I've done 'operations' with pen knives, and once a bent fork. I've delivered babies, performed amputations, put in chest-drains, dug out bullets, not competently but necessarily because there was no one else there to do it.
I could not perform your job with your level of skill, but one thing we have to do quite frequently is call on unqualified assistance, and this has given me an idea of the massive gulf there is between the medically qualified person and the lay person.
I do not think I would have realised this if I had stayed in the hospital environment.
When we sit on a patient's bed and tell them they have a duodenal ulcer or colonic cancer or uterine carcinoma, we think they can picture what this thing is and where it is with reasonable accuracy. We forget how much we have had to learn and what a closed book the human body is to a lay person, even one who is highly educated in other ways.
My experience tells me that a lay person generally does not have the slightest idea of where anything is inside their own abdomen. I have had highly intelligent unqualified men and women standing beside me as an abdomen is opened, or try and close an extensive wound. Their reactions are almost always the same. The first time they see this expanse of blood and wobbly stuff, they are filled with an animal fear. They shake, they vomit. When they get over this, they are blind to the the things that I can see.
In my experience, the liver is routinely identified as a lung, and the stomach, spleen and kidney have all been identified to me as the uterus. And not just by men, by women, multigravidas some of them.
As Diana says, (she is a very smart lady, this one), all lay people think the uterus lies high in the abdomen.
I have never met a lay man or woman who knew where to find one.
Given my experience I do not think Jack would have been fumbling in the pelvis by accident. I think he went there on purpose, because he knew where to find the uterus. This indicates a knowledge of anatomy beyond that of the layman, and coupled with the speed of his performance I think we have considerable evidence that our jack was proficient at dissection.
It is also significant that most of the doctors who saw Jack's work believed he had a medical background.
Mike |
Author: Villon
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 04:48 am | | Another ps.
I suggest the medical questions are so important and complex they should have a subject heading of their own, not just a subsection of 'General' If the Maybrick Diary deserves a separate heading the entire imbroglio of the medical question certainly does. Does anyone agree?
Also I am away to Pricina for five days, so nothing from me for a while.
Mike |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 09:03 am | | I agree, Mike - perhaps "Medical Competence" or some such catchall heading might be what we need, and perhaps Dr Ind would take the lead on this when he returns.
Diana - you are quite correct. A hatchet was found in No 13, and it has been speculated (by Nick Warren FRCS, among others) that it was this implement which split open Mary Jane Kelly's left thigh-bone, as can be seen in the lesser-known second photograph of her poor body. The hatchet was mentioned in the "Globe" of 16 February 1891 as being an exhibit in Scotland Yard.
CMD |
Author: D. Radka
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 02:04 pm | | C-M,
I don't remember any significant Ripperlogical author giving credence to the hatchet. Are we sure this is true? This is a BIG matter, as I'm sure the sophisticati among us will understand.
David |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 06:25 pm | | I have questioned this 'hatchet' story myself.....never mind 1891, in some museum, we need contemporary reports, Abberline made an inventory of the room and we have several news reports plus inquest details & nowhere do I recall hearing about this hatchet.
I'm intrigued & puzzled.
Ok, where were we......body parts, yes...
I have mentioned this before on these boards somewhere & in the chatroom, and in reply to Dr Ind, I have to make it clear from an ex-butchers point of view. I would never have had the slightest trouble ripping into a carcass and locating either kidney, butchers get a feel for the location of a kidney whether in a full grown pig or lamb. It isnt a world away from where you would find it in a human.
But the uterus is quite another matter, I neither knew where nor what this thing even looked like, so I would never expect myself to remove it without previous knowledge or practice.
A butcher would definitly have the skill with the knife & anatomical knowledge to carry this out assuming he knew the location of a human uterus.
Regards, Jon |
Author: anon
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 06:47 pm | | "Some Medical Observations on the Ripper Case - Part 1"
by The Editor (Nicholas P. Warren)
Ripperana No. 18 - October 1996
pp 1-2.
"In 1988 the second crime-scene photograph taken of Mary Kelly's corpse at Miller's Court was returned anonymously to Scotland Yard from Croydon in Surrey. After a brief sojourn at the Yard's Black Museum, this photograph was forwarded to the Public Record Office for restoration and release to the public.
Examination of the details shown in this photograph indicates that Kelly's left femur (thigh-bone) has been split longitudinally from the hip downwards, exposing the marrow cavity. The outer part of the bone (cortex) stands out in clear relief. It was presumably to record this detail that the photograph was taken, as the camera-angle has been selected to place this specific injury virtually in the centre of the exposure.
Now, such an injury - the cleaving of a long bone in a healthy young adult can only be inflicted with a weapon such as a hatchet. It is impossible with a knife however robust.
The writer is grateful to the authors of the "A to Z" for bringing the following extract from an article in "The Globe" of 16th February 1891, describing a visit to the convict's office (department) at Scotland Yard, to his attention. This refers to -
Quote:"a hatchet by the door ... used by the Whitechapel murderer to hack and disfigure the first (sic) poor girl who fell a victim to his fiendish fury in Dorset Street."
The hatchet was apparently among the items found in Kelly's room.
While the facial injuries do appear more likely to be the result of chopping rather than slashing, the photographic evidence has to remain equivocal, since there is no "close up". The existence of the split thigh-bone, by contrast, is unequivocal evidence that a hatchet was indeed used.
Not so much Jack the Ripper as Jack the Chopper! "
(end) |
|
|
|
|
