Archive through 03 March 2002

** 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 03 March 2002

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions: Medical round table: General: Anatomical skill of JTR: Archive through 03 March 2002

Author: E Carter Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:00 pm
Jon, I have been at the operating table during several a nephrectomy: a process long and arduous the kidney is indeed very difficult to access. The murderers skills were of a different level and this is why the skill level has caused argument concerning ability. The skill level at best was that of a Shochet. ED
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:10 pm
Hi Bob, Good to see you. You might want to scroll back and compare some of your comments and questions with those made by our resident doc from early last year, Thomas Ind. A couple of his posts - those of Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 09:16 am, and 12:30 pm - would appear to address some of your points quite well. I think Tom Ind would agree that even the best surgeon would have needed either luck, or some assistance (someone to hold a light for him perhaps? attention two-man theorists everywhere!), but that the worst would possibly have tackled the basic incisions slightly differently, even in pitch darkness. Love, Caz PS How's Goosey? Has someone had his guts out and sliced him up for dinner yet?
Author: David Radka Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:51 pm
Oh! what beauty dwells upon these boards! What serenety of smooth skin, what aquilinity of features, what stylish unity of parts to the whole! Oh! the whiteness of face and strawberriness of hair! Never, never the equal of which have I seen. David
Author: E Carter Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 03:13 pm
David, do you have a biscuit missing from the packet? ED
Author: graziano Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 03:33 pm
Hello David, no way man, Caz is mine. The italian .
Author: Jon Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 08:50 pm
Hi Bob. Yes, I most certainly agree, an argument can be made for his apparent anatomical knowledge being pure luck. It's just how much luck are we going to assign to Jack?, lucky in this and lucky in that, where does it end? I tend to view the suggestions that we "chalk it up to luck", as being an admittion that the proposer is beat for any another reasonable answer. Regards, Jon
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 03:48 am
Hi Jon, Of course, if Jack were two, not one, they would need less than half the chalk when accounting for luck - in almost every detail, from waylaying and incapacitating a suitable victim, doing and taking what they wanted from her, through to making a quick and safe getaway. The luck would come later, when both killers stayed loyal to one another and stayed in the shadows 'til death did they part. Love, Caz PS Despite the Italian 's kind words, I thought David was actually looking in the mirror. If he'd meant Caz, he would have written 'Oh! the whiteness of hair and strawberriness of face!' after my two weeks in Spain.
Author: R Court Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 07:26 am
Hi Caroline, my dear, Hi Jon, Caroline, the ignorant SOB is still honking outside my window at 5 in the morning. Either he has chosen me out, or he is a ghost come back to haunt us. Pictures will follow. I'll take a look at the earlier posts, but when I go back over the MB over the years, there isn't very much anyway which hasn't already been chewed over at least once. Remember Victoria Queen, mass-murderess midwives or sex-mad Sooty? David was looking in the mirror, by the way. Two weeks in Spain would be just the thing for me too, then I'd have even whiter hair and even strawberryer face... Private mail comes..... Hi Jon, The guy seemed to have a charmed life, let alone luck. Trotting gaily around one of the most densely (school essay... "The population of London is very dense.") populated areas in England, slicing people to ribbons all over the place within a square mile and within a few months, without anyone knowing anything about him personally at all..... even today. I'd like his luck, even if I don't feel like slicing people up (usually). Ed, I did once consider Double-Jack, with Yaz together(oh those days of innocence!) but gave it up and settled for Tabram as victim instead. Best regards, Bob
Author: Jon Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:15 am
Bob In all honesty I would suggest that this perseption of a 'Lucky Jack' is more to do with our lack of information about the events than actual luck. Was he seen about the streets both before & after the murders?....of course. Why wouldnt he be, the streets were busy at all hours, yes he brushed passed people walking the streets minding their own business, the homeless, prostitutes, market workers, constables, he walked passed them to accost his victim then also likely walked passed them while leaving the scene. We can imagine he simply vanished into thin air, all makes for a good mystery, but in reality isn't it more likely he simply blended into the background and became part of the hustle and bustle of East End life. Saying he vanished into thin air is a misnomer, he may well have been seen, I think its very likely, but was not recognised. For some reason people did not come forward, either out of ignorance or complacency. Some will prefer to not get involved, others were just not paying attention, then possibly others simply should not have been there anyway and would prefer to stay anonamous. Lack of information, lack of witness accounts and lack of records all contribute to giving the impression that Jack was skilled, cunning, lucky, and had the ability to avoid all human contact. Very unlikely, if you ask me. The other componant is the time factor, our theories always draw on the speed & efficiency of the murders and yet we are often reminded about the innacuracy of clocks & timepieces in that period. Here we again create the image of a skilled operator who has the ability to blend into the shadows and alleyways throughout the backstreets of the East End, strike out of the blue, with lightning speed and efficiency then vaporized into the shadows again. All within minutes, as testified, but how reliable are these times?. Really makes for a great mystery, but the skill & luck of 'saucy Jacky' is likley more to do with our lack of knowledge than any actual ability. Regards, Jon (In a boringly sober mood)
Author: E Carter Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 09:29 am
TABRAM WAS KILLED BY TWO PEOPLE, BOTH ARE NOW NAMED 'JACK THE RIPPER'. Personally I also want a single killer to exist, I also want stealth and mystery! In fact we have two political agitators using the murder of Miriam Angel, by Israel Lipski to cause further agitation! The aim was to turn the unemployed and therefore very disgruntled gentile against the immigrant Jew. The very medium for anarchy! ED
Author: R Court Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 11:21 am
Hi Jon, Yep, we don't know and if we did, we'd probably be disappointed. There does seem to be something there, though, something 'different'. I even toyed with the thought that Jack could have been blind, accounting for his evident talent in the dark and even escaping suspicion for that reason, who would suspect a blind man as being Jack, and that also goes for the victims. Sorry about the sober mood, I intend to ensure that I will not be sober this evening, weather here like the Bahamas and sod the day tomorrow. I'm off to buy a boat.. Regards, Bob
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 11:22 am
Hi Jon, As one of the denser members of London's population (hi Bob ), can I ask if you are saying, then, that given the times were unreliable, the killer probably had more time, in every instance, to pounce on his proposed victim, do his work and escape through the densely populated area, without fear of being spotted in the act? I'm afraid I still think he would have had to be pretty foolhardy to hang around at the scene one moment longer than absolutely necessary - he took a big big chance staying around with Eddowes to rip up everything including her pinny, and had a lot of luck not to be caught putting the final touches to her facial sculpting before exiting Mitre Square. (But if you had a lookout with you, there would not be quite the same urgency or trusting to luck, would there?) Love, Caz
Author: R Court Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 11:38 am
Hi Caz, Post crossed. I was innocent of the dense Londoner bit, that was a clown in my class at school. A look-out has been in my mind ever since Schwartz reported what might have been one, as Liz may have got killed. Were two-man groups eyed by the law with the same suspicion as single, blood-reeking, knife-wielding, black-bag and ripped-up guts-carrying men? Probably not. Now to buy that b..... boat, Love, Bob
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 04:03 am
Hi Bob, If you buy that boat, and the bunks are bigger than snooker cue cases, I'll be over to inspect it for a night or ten. I'd like to have met that clown in your class - sounds like he'd make a great comedian. My daughter had to do a religious cartoon strip at school a couple of years ago, and she wrote beneath one drawing 'Mary wanted a baby from God so he gave her one.' (And that was no accident, apart from her inherited naughty humour.) Would two-man groups also have escaped the suspicious eye of vigilante, whore and costermonger? Probably. Love, Caz
Author: R Court Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 09:45 am
Hi Caz, The boat is big enough for two BIG people, but although the uppers and deck are fiberglass, the keel is of wood (aaaahhh!). Still, I've spoken with the owner..... The clown in my class was the only one who didn't laugh.... The two-man group may not have attracted so much attention, it's true, but I remember that the three horse slaughterers came under suspicion for a short while. I can suppose that knife-wielding, blood-reeking, ripped-up guts and black bag carrying pairs would also not have remained un-noticed at the time. Love, Bob
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 23 August 2001 - 11:25 am
Hi Bob, But we know he, or they, did remain un-noticed, with no one keeling over at the gory sight of them, so how come? Perhaps everyone thought it was just more horse slaughterers, family pig butchers, or your average careless barbers, bloodied but unbowed on the streets first thing after another normal night-shift. Love, Caz
Author: R Court Friday, 24 August 2001 - 07:02 am
Hi Caz, I suppose either half London went around covered in gore and guts or Jacky boy had an effective method of avoiding/hiding the splashes. He must have had blood on him though, rummaging through the insides of at least Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as he did must have marked him. Polly's horse butchers were probably marked with blood, thus putting suspicion on them, but the evidence freed them. Somehow I just can't visulise the Londoners of the time all going around either blood-soaked or otherwise drawing attention to themselves, Jack must somehow have simply fitted into the background. Off to Lisa's for the weekend (another birthday party, this month is full of 'em) Bob
Author: Neil K. MacMillan Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 09:26 am
I've always opted for the single man theory. (Hi Caz! How have you been?) If our lad were one of the following: Butcher, fishmonger, doctor, midwife or sochet, as long as he were not covered head to toe his neighbors would think little of it. I would think also that in dark narrow streets where you don't pay alot of attention to the other guy they might not have noticed the blood. regards to all, Neil
Author: Jon Wednesday, 17 October 2001 - 10:49 pm
Several months ago I was looking for old medical papers on the net, something written in the Victorian days about organ removal to see what techniques were actually used and to my surprise I found an extract of a medical report from a doctor of that period, the subject was either kidney removal or uterus removal, I honestly cannot remember which, however I posted the extract on this Casebook but try as I might I have not been able to locate it since. However, the extract stated the start of the medical operation thus: "A long abdominal incision is made from the pubes to the arch of the breastbone to open up the abdomen". This, apparently, was the typical medical procedure even for removing such a small organ and I had to ask myself if a person not so educated in medical procedures would actually make such a cut, or more likely hack into the abdomen in a smaller area and a less orthodox manner. Whoever Jack was it appears he copied the correct medical procedure. Coincidence? I have tried several web searches since and had no luck locating this document again, its here on this site somewhere and I am still looking for the original website. Regards, Jon
Author: Robeer Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 12:15 am
Jon, It would seem that JTR experimented as he progressed till he finally learned the above mentioned incision was the most efficient. He cut horizontal slashes across the abdomen of Nichols, a circle on Chapman, and the verticle incision you mention on Eddowes. Not sure exactly how he initiated the evisceration of Kelly. It seems JTR became more proficient as he got more practice. However, it could be he varied his technique for other reasons. It is almost impossible to pin anything down on JTR. Did he learn by OJT or did he already have the knowledge? Hard to say.
Author: Jon Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 12:41 am
Robeer. Of course, it always depends on what evidence you choose to accept. According to doctors at the time we have observations declaring that thee most 'professional' display of supposed skill was with the murder of Chapman, Eddowes being less so and Nichols can be argued as an interrupted victim. Taking the statements of the doctors present at the autopsy I think there is no support for 'increased ability', not if Chapman was the neatest of the three. Don't you mean increased ferocity? Regards, Jon
Author: Robeer Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 01:58 am
Jon, No, I mean actual technique. See Ripper Victims: General Discussion: Other Victim wounds drawings. Author: Jill De Schrijver Monday, 22 May 2000. Comparison injuries to the victims are illustrated using template diagrams. The color coded injuries to the victims are based on verbal descriptions. On Nichols JTR attempted to use horizontal cuts to enter the abdomen. On Chapman he cut a complete circle to access the abdomen. With Eddowes he just unzips her abdomen with a long verticle cut. Yes he was interrupted so we don't know how he would have finished the job on Nichols. Cutting the circle on Chapman was probably time consuming. With Eddowes he learned the long verticle cut was quicker and allowed maximum access to the abdomen. It would appear that he became more efficient with each victim. This would indicate he was not experienced with surgical technique, unless he chose to use a different technique on each victim for reasons known only to himself. For instance, even if he did know how it should be done by doing it his way he is again defying authority. After examining these illustrations in comparison and in sequence, it would appear JTR became more efficient at surgical incisions. By the third victim he is now using the same procedure recommended by medical doctors to enter the abdomen. Was JTR simply on the learning curve or did he want each victim to have a different mutilation to shock both the authorities and the public? After looking at the drawings again it appears JTR used the same incision pattern on Kelly as he did on Chapman with a circular incision on Kelly's abdomen. Does this indicate he felt safe enough to take his time and was in no hurry? Why did he return to the pattern used on the second victim in the sequence? Kelly was different. With the other victims JTR attacked their throat and their abdomen. The object seemingly is to take something from inside the abdomen. He did mutilate the face with Eddowes. Why? With Kelly he seems to attack her beauty. Her face, breasts, and thighs are destroyed. These are parts of the female anatomy that men are strongly attracted to. Put another way, these parts of the female anatomy send very strong sexual signals to the male and give the female power to influence the male or perhaps to even dominate the male. It would almost appear in this horribly vicious attack JTR was trying to destroy all the power this attractive female possesed. He robbed her of all her power over men or over JTR himself. It was as if JTR was saying now that he has eliminated her power she can no longer control him or any other man. JTR may have hated himself for being attracted to someone like Kelly. He may have been ashamed of himself and felt revulsion to what he considered a weakness. To take control he must destroy all the power this female had to make him feel this way. After removing all of her external power he then removes her very essence, her heart. At this point I am practicing psychiatry without a license so maybe someone who has the knowledge can speculate why Mary Jane Kelly was so horribly mutilated.
Author: graziano Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 05:08 am
Jon: "According to doctors at the time we have observations declaring that the most professional display of supposed skill was with the murder of Chapman(8th of september), Eddowes (30th of september) being less so...". This is evident, yes. And it is also clear that he wasn't interrupted in any of both cases. I would even say that he probably was in a less stressing situation in the case of Eddowes (secluded spot) than in the case of Chapman (yard of an house inhabited by 17 people and surrounded by other houses). Possible logic conclusion: it was not the same hand. Jon, could that not be an hint that we are in the presence of a gang ? Bye. Graziano.
Author: graziano Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 05:29 am
Robeer: "Cutting the circle on Chapman was probably time consuming. With Eddowes he learned the long vertical cut was quicker and allowed maximum access to the abdomen. Maybe, he could have learned that in the three weeks separating the two murders. Dr Phillips (report 22nd july 1889, Mepo 3/140, f. 270): "After careful and long deliberation, I cannot satisfy myself, on pure anatomical and professional grounds, that the perpetrator of all the Whitechapel murders is one man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this, noting the mode of procedure and the character of the mutilations and judging of motive in connection with the latter.". Now, we know Dr Phillips to have discounted Alice McKenzie and Frances Coles as Ripper victims and to have entertained serious doubts about Kate Eddowes ( Sugden's, page 356 ). Maybe, it was just not the same hand. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Jon Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 09:06 am
Hi Graz. "Maybe, he could have learned that in the three weeks separating the two murders." Are you suggesting our killer(s?) had access to cadavers?....a mortician?....a medical student?....a doctor?.....how else could one 'practice'? Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 09:35 am
Graz. When you quote Phillips as to whether the murders of Chapman & Eddowes may be by different hands, you forget he cautioned that view by pointing out that haste may have made a difference. I wrote the following to Bob some time ago on the same subject. "All the lacerations and random cuts can easily be put down to haste and poor lighting rather than claim inexperience. As Dr. Phillips pointed out 'There were indications of anatomical knowledge, which were only less indicated in consequence of haste'". (Though that statement was with reference to Chapman, the observation surely remains the same for Eddowes) With that caveat it could still be the same hand at work. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 09:59 am
This whole suggestion, raised by many, that Jack 'practiced' his skill really only serves to elevate the murders of a few lowly prostitutes to a level equal to political assassinations. The idea that Jack spent evenings & weekends perfecting his technique so he could snatch an insignificant prostitute off the streets is a little extreme. There is a potential learning curve if you accept Nichols as his first, he attacked her in a dark and narrow street, but was still out in the open and, possibly due to that, was interrupted. So, he learned to do it in a more secluded area, a backyard (Chapman), but then it was a little too light, so next time he selects both a dark & secluded spot (Eddowes) but still could not avoid feeling rushed.....next choice, inside. I'm not suggesting this WAS his progression, but the evidence MAY be interpreted in such a way. Personally, I don't favour Jack learning any technique, the wounds & injuries are so variable due to varying degrees of haste, in my opinion, nothing more. Regards, Jon
Author: graziano Thursday, 18 October 2001 - 10:34 am
Hello Jon, "Maybe, he could have learned that in the three weeks separating the two murders." Was a sort of a sarcasm from my side. Everything is possible, but I think that this point hinted by Robeer is by all standards a bit irrealistic. How to explain in fact this apprenticeship in the three weeks ? We already spoke about that point and I think we both agreed that there wasn't any sign of increased ability or ferocity in the whole serie. I, like you, do not see there any learning process. Just different situations and time at disposal. But Robeer makes good points relating the different kind of cuts for the apparently same purposes (heavy mutilations and evisceration). So, not increased ability but still differences beyond the one due to time and stress. Different hands ? I think it's the best explanation. Different hands and same M.O. A gang ? I think it's the best explanation. The best but of course not the only. Terroristic plot ? Political assassination ? It is what convinces me the most. Of course you may always add elements that owe to the serial killer or to the rivalry of different gangs. I do not think you would be wrong. As I already told you, to confine this case only to the lonely serial killer as defined by the FBI profile by John Douglas or to the psychotic or psychopat (sociopath ?, sorry I am a bit lost in all that) killer is to stay a bit short from what could be realistic with the facts on the case as we know them. Bye. Graziano.
Author: Diana Sunday, 13 January 2002 - 07:28 am
I have had two new thoughts on this subject. One relates to the attempt to sever Annie Chapman's head. It is said that the vertebrae were nicked as though he tried to decapitate her. If Jack were a doctor, or even a butcher, wouldn't he have the expertise to separate vertebrae if he wanted to? A butcher might conceivably know more about such a thing than a doctor because he would do it more often. I may need correction on this but I don't think that in 1888 most doctors would want to do this because it would expose the spinal cord which they didn't want to mess with. Even so, a doctor would have general knowledge of how to separate a joint. The second thought relates to the finding and excision of the uterus and kidney in Eddowes which seems to indicate anatomical knowledge. I have read some of John Douglas' writings on SK's and he makes quite an issue of the fantasizing stage. He describes how most SKs spend months or years daydreaming about what they would do to a victim long before they do it. I can picture Jack poring over a diagram of the human anatomy, eyes gleaming (ugh!) or watching the slaughter and butchering of a pig and then questioning the butcher as to technical details. If he spent years daydreaming about kidneys and uteri then as part of that process he might have become aquainted with their locations and methods of removal.
Author: James Terence Kearney Monday, 14 January 2002 - 05:10 pm
I have two questions the attacks have two theories. If the cuts are from left to right which is the case of most of them, then he would have to use his right hand. The incissions were deep in the left and then he cut across the neck. There is two possibilities here. The blade would have to be projecting out from the little finger side however if the blade was projecting from the thumb side then he could attack quite comfortable from behind. Both these methods could be used from behind while overing the victims mouth and he would have a quick kill in seconds. Secondly if he attacked from the front and judging from some eye witness accounts the he could only have been right handed and the blade would have to be projecting from the little finger side. The first method as I explained is used by knife fighters and they do have some knowledge in anatomy. Any comments and ideas would be helpful. Remember also usually one side of the blade is the cutting edge with a few exceptions.
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 08:15 am
Hi all, I've wandered over to this recently silent thread just to tell a little story. Yesterday, one of my students attended her first autopsy. She is a pre-med student here at the university and was very excited about this. As she was describing it all to me in delighted detail, two things she said caught my attention. The first was that she was initially surprised by how much force it took to get stuff open and out -- not just getting through bone, but even getting through some of the tissue and muscle and cutting the right things and removing them. The second was that even though she had studied anatomy in her books and dissected creatures of various sorts and all of that, when she first saw the body cut open, she would not have been able to identify much of anything -- that it was all much more of a mess than in the drawings or in frogs or cats and that she had to be shown all the stuff hiding behind other stuff and that she couldn't imagine being able just to pick out things on first sight. Now, you know why these remarks interested me, of course. And we've been all through the "medical knowledge" discussion countless times. And we know the conflicting reports and opinions from the doctors and the papers of the time, etc. But this is just a fresh and initial reaction from someone with no real medical training -- just her undergraduate experience in the classroom -- upon seeing her first human body opened and the organs removed. She did seem pretty sure that if you stop the average guy on the street (or the average nineteenth century cotton merchant or painter or Prince, for instance) and ask him to look into an open human body and take out the uterus or a kidney or a selected organ or two, they're probably not going to know even where to start. The organs aren't conveniently color-coded like in the books, and it's all just a big mess to many people when they first see it. Anyway, this all means nothing really, but I thought her story was interesting and I thought I'd mention it. She loved her first autopsy, by the way, and can't wait until she gets to do her own. All the best, --John
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 09:03 am
John Interesting point. I remember having a feeling of revulsion at my first autopsy ...for about the first minute, then stepping forward and keenly pointing to various parts inside the body and asking what they were. From memory I don't think there was an excess of force necessary for the body to be cut open, I was amazed how easy it was for them to peel the face back and take the top of the skull off. But nevertheless, your student's opinions are informative. I'm not sure that you are making a point or just stating what you were told when recollecting her confusion at the sight that greeted her upon the body being opened. For my two pence worth, I don't think "Jacky" would have had to be aware of what he was removing from the bodies. One cut down the middle, hands inside, pick something up and throw it out. Over her shoulder. Let's see what's left. Cut something else out, pick it up, throw it away. Slash about with the knife about -stuff some things in his pocket. I don't think he needed any medical knowledge or even anatomical knowledge (and I haven't even mentioned the Victorian cotton merchant). I think he cut open, reached inside and removed what he saw. Nice to talk to you "off topic" so to speak. Take care Peter.
Author: John Omlor Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 09:14 am
Peter, You don't think removing the uterus was a deliberate choice? --John
Author: Peter Wood Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 10:16 am
John From memory, wasn't that particular organ removed with part of the bladder? I.E. There is no proof that Jack meant to remove just the uterus, but we can infer that Jack may have just been cutting indiscriminately inside his victims and removing whatever became free. In short: No, I don't think removing the uterus was a deliberate choice. Where are you going with this? Peter.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 11:38 am
Hi Both, Add darkness and speed to the fact that different organs were taken out/removed from the scenes of crime, plus the opinions of the various medical men who have trodden these boards, and I tend to think we are always going to end up fifty/fifty on this one. The killer could have had surgical experience as well as anatomical knowledge, working quickly and in poor light to get whichever organs he wanted each time. But then with Kelly he took plenty out, presumably had more time and light, but made one hell of a mess and only stole her heart (or ate it or burnt it). On the other hand, as Peter says, Jack could just as well have been cutting and grabbing and wallowing around in the dark, having to make do with whatever bits came free in the process. Love, Caz
Author: Chris Hintzen Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 01:25 pm
Hi All, I'm not saying Jack was a Doctor, a Med. Student, a Mortician, Butcher, Fishporter, or even a Tanner. But there is one problem in the theory that he's cutting and grabbing whatever he feels in the dark. That problem is Annie Chapman. Yes it's true he did take the upper portion of the vagina and 2/3's of the bladder. However, he didn't harm any of the tissues surrounding them. Didn't damage the rectum, which the uterus is partially connected to, didn't damage the cervix uteri, which holds all of these items in place. So either he was EXTREMELY LUCKY, or he was just DAMN GOOD! But as Caz says, it's a 50/50 split. All I know is, if I were Jack, and I wasn't as good at chopping up women, then I'd make a FORTUNE IN VEGAS! Cheers, Chris H.
Author: Thomas Ind Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 07:13 pm
I just couldn�t not put my penny�s worth in. I�m sorry I have been off the boards but I am just too busy at the moment. This isn�t my return but just me stirring things up for a bit. A few things have cropped up just browsing a few of the past posts. Caz, you have misquoted me and I will rectify that (don�t worry not badly and nice to see you still at it). E Carter, if you have scrubbed in a few nephrectomies I hope that you will support my comments. Caz, you mustn�t forget that I have always said that JTR had no medical or surgical knowledge. A limited (current day 13 year old school child�s) anatomical knowledge might have been helpful but only might. The thing that sways me the most on this is the famous drawing of the incision on Eddowes abdomen. Surgeons in the Victorian era were very swift. Anaesthetic was dangerous and very crude so surgeons had to be quick. I can deliver a baby by caesarean in a crashing emergency in under a minute from �knife to skin� so even I know a bit about economy of movement. The most efficient way to open the abdomen if JTR had a sharp knife would be in one movement with the blade horizontal to the skin. The incision in vertebrae proves he had a sharp knife. He could get into the abdomen in seconds probably with just two movements. Anyone who regularly handles a surgical knife would know this (it seems that there are two other doctors on the boards so they can confirm). On the Eddowes drawing it clearly shows that the abdomen has not been opened in a straight line but a jagged series of about ten sawing motions pointing downwards. That would be the most obvious way to make an incision to the lay person but less so to a surgeon. If I can find some drawings from my surgical skills course I run for the students I will upload them if I still know how. That might explain better. Secondly, E Carter is correct in that a nephrectomy is a tricky business but JTR removed the adrenal gland and did not dissect out the vessels. JTR did these in total darkness. The position of the womb and kidneys is such that even when exposed, a strong light has to be pointing in the right direction for them to be seen (the kidney is retroperitoneal and covered in fat so even more difficult). It is like looking at the underside of a black box. No matter how much light is present in the room, unless the light is pointing in the right direction then nothing can be seen. I have done hundreds of hysterectomies but can hardly see the pelvis with an operating light unless it is pointing in the right direction. A strong fire (as in MJK) would be no use to man nor beast. When we do a laparotomy in a woman with cancer (what I do most of the time as I am a gynaecological oncologist) we feel all the internal organs with our hands before exposing the operating site. The two organs that are felt almost immediately are the kidney and the uterus as they are semi-hard �nobbly� bits easy to feel. By grasping these organs with one hand they can be removed with the other in a single movement (albeit damaging bowel and bladder which JTR did). Did he know what he was removing? Possibly, but equally, possibly not. By standing on the woman�s right JTR�s right hand would have passed into the pelvis and the uterus would be felt and removed. Moving the hand upwards towards Eddowes left paracolic gutter a nobbly bit could be felt. That would be the kidney. That would then be removed but a lot quicker if the bowel was lifted up out of the way. Therefore, a surgeon or doctor would have done it better. Anatomical knowledge may have helped but both organs could be found by accident and repeatedly so.
Author: Thomas Ind Saturday, 02 March 2002 - 07:18 pm
Oh and Chris He did harm the rectum and the portion of the bladder was also harm to an adjacent organ.
Author: Scott E. Medine Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 01:08 am
After observing 100+ autopsies of bodies in all imaginable stages of decomposition, and manners of death, everything from 12 gauge shotgun blasts to the head (yes these no brainers require autopsies to verify cause of death), edged weapons (knives, cane knives, ball point pens, scissors and weed eaters) deposited in various places, the ever popular over dose, motor vehicle accidents yadda yadda yadda, the thing that always gets me is the layer(s) of fat that have to be plowed through. It seems that all of the high school biology books, I remember, always depicted, as John stated, the color coded organs in the body of a well muscularly defined human. I am 5'9" and 200 pounds, I know what kind of yellowish, mushy mess the medical examiner would have to plunge through. I can only imagine how much Jack had to plow through in the case of Chapman. Also the idea that Jack removed and threw is not accurate. He removed and carefully and neatly placed and arranged. This is seen vividly in the placing of the intestine between the arm and body of Kate Eddowes and in the placing of flesh in the Kelly. It is part of his signature. The killer did not just remove and discard over his shoulder. Peace, Scott P.S. I have to agree with Peter, in order for one to appreciate the sight of the medical examiner peeling back of the face and then replacing it,is something that has to be seen in person.
Author: Chris Hintzen Sunday, 03 March 2002 - 07:40 am
Hi Thomas, I have to disagree with you on the rectum matter, I'm gonna give you the quote from Dr. Phillips Report on the Post-Mortem of Annie Chapman: '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. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more.' As you can see Dr. Phillips clearly states he avoided the rectum, and injury to the cervix uteri. And the incisions were cleanly made. However, as I stated earlier this doesn't necessarily mean he was a Doctor or Surgeon or the like. As you stated with the case of Catherine Eddowes shows that his precision wasn't exactly, shall we say, precise. Also, according to the Post Mortems, Jack typically made incisions starting from the pelvis and working his way up to the sternum. And anyone that has ever been a part of any surgery or dissections(or at least witnessed them) knows that one is supposed to start from the sternum and work your way down. So like I said, I'm not saying Jack was a Medical Man(or men depending on the theory you like best.) I was just refuting the fact that he couldn't just be grabbing parts blindly in the dark cutting lose whatever he found interesting. I feel that the organs he's taking is important to him somehow. What that reason is? Well I have my own theory, but I know many people who would disagree.(Then again what in this case does everyone agree on, asides from the fact that these women were murdered.) Sincerely, Chris H.