Sunday, 11 July 1999 - 05:16 am
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 11:41 am
Well, I don't practise anymore, but I have the training and the letters after my name.
This is an interesting possibility.
Someone somewhere else suggested the killer might have taken the portion of Eddowes' apron to staunch the flow of blood from a wound he had given himself while slicing into his victim.
When I read this suggestion I idly pondered the thought that if he had cut himself at that time he would likely have sustained serious infection. The wound would doubtless have become contaminated with faecal matter, resulting in an explosion of bacteria directly into the bloodstream. The resultant infection would likely have been fatal.
In the days before antibiotics, a wound sustained during dissection, even under the proper conditions, always carried grave risk to life. In the mess and madness of Jack's performance, the risk would have been even greater. I tentatively suggest a small hypothesis.
Our Jack might truly have cut himself while attending to Eddowes, suffered wound infection, septicaemia and death. And Kelly was, as some suggest, killed by another hand?
Any takers?
regards
Mike
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 12:48 pm
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 07:02 pm
It seems to me that someone who had the anatomical knowledge to locate and remove uteri and a kidney under the conditions appertaining to the murders would also likely have the perspective to avoid the risk of self-contamination. This was a person who understood what the organs were, what they did, and where they were. I'd think he'd be careful around contaminated material, and not cut himself.
David
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 10:46 pm
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 10:53 pm
Tuesday, 13 July 1999 - 10:54 pm
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 03:28 am
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 05:11 am
Edana
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 07:25 am
Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown performed the post-mortem on Eddowes. From his report:
"The wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp pointed knife, and that in the abdomen by one six inches long". [emphasis mine]
As other have pointed out, even skilled surgeons occasionally cut themselves, despite working under optimal lighting conditions with a surgeon's scalpel, the blade of which is considerably shorter than 6 inches. It's certainly feasible that an unskilled or semi-skilled person, working in near total darkness with a long-bladed weapon and under considerable stress, could accidentally cut themself.
Edana: interesting idea. I've no idea how long it takes to die from septicemia, but even a minor cut that becomes infected will show obvious symptoms within just a few days. Left untreated for 6 weeks, (the length of time between the Eddowes and Kelly murders), such an infection could well become debilitating. This raises other questions: given the state of the medical arts in 1888, how effectively could such an infection have been treated? And, assuming an effective treatment was available, could JTR have availed himself of it (assuming he was a local)?? Were there such things as free clinics in Whitechapel in 1888?
Cheers all,
Jim
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 07:47 am
19th century clinicians had only rudimentary ideas about the process of infection. They probably were familiar with the term septicaemia, or blood poisoning, although without much idea of the process.
Before the introduction of antibiotics and sulfa drugs, just after the second world war, effective treatment of bacterial infection was virtually impossible. All that could be done was to enable the body to fight the infection as best it could on its own. Septicaemia (basically sepsis of the blood), is a very dangerous infection, even today. Victorian medics would have been almost powerless to treat it.
If Jack did cut himself 'on the job', then the introduction of intestinal bacteria directly into into an open wound would likely have produced a catastrophic and rapidly fatal septicaemia. He would have been incapacitated within days, probably dead soon after.So, if the postulation is correct, maybe Kelly was someone else's victim?
keep up the good discussion
Mike
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 08:38 am
as the bite. (Obviously she didn't get rabies or I wouldn't be here.) Nobody knows why Jack lit that blaze in MK's fireplace. Suppose he cuts himself and he knows that he is in danger of infection. So he builds up this big blaze and then takes whatever metal object might be to hand, gets it red hot and cauterizes himself. (Ouch) but obviously it doesn't work and within a week he's dead.
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 08:42 am
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 10:48 am
~Blood poisoning, or septicemia, is a serious secondary infection that occurs when bacteria from an infected site somewhere on your body invade your bloodstream. If bacteria continue to multiply without being stopped by your immune system, you run the risk of septic shock, a potentially life-threatening condition.
Blood poisoning occurs most frequently in people who have just had surgery or other invasive treatment and in people whose immune systems are weakened by an acute or chronic ailment. Both blood poisoning and septic shock require immediate treatment to stop the spread of infection and to ensure full recovery.
CAUSES
Blood poisoning is almost always a complication of
an infection and occurs when bacteria escape from
the primary site and enter the bloodstream. Both the bacteria that cause the infection and endotoxins released by your body's immune system to battle those bacteria impede the blood flow to your body tissues. This triggers fever and chills — the characteristic symptoms of acute septicemia. If the poisoning is not brought under control by the body's immune system or by medical intervention, septic shock begins.
Although blood poisoning can result from infected
surgical incisions, wounds, or burns, other types of infection can release enough bacteria into your blood to create septicemia. Such conditions may range from urinary tract infections or pneumonia to boils and abscessed teeth or gum problems. As the number of patients undergoing invasive procedures for testing and surgery increases, the bacteria responsible for septicemia are continually evolving new strains that are immune to conventional antibiotics.
In rare cases, blood poisoning develops from eating unpasteurized dairy foods, including certain soft cheeses, that contain the bacterium Listeria monocytogenes. Eating raw oysters or other seafood that is infected with the bacterium Vibrio vulnificus can result in lethal septicemia for members of certain high-risk groups, such as people with liver disease, iron imbalances, and weakened immune systems.
...certainly in my line of healthcare (spinal-cord injury) septicemia is, in this century, a very grave and life-threatening risk if left untreated for even a short period.
Lyn
(In case anyone is interested,
http://ab.edu/~delcol_l/worker.html#chadwick
has some interesting information regarding 'The Life of the Industrial Worker in 19th-Century England'. I found a rather interesting contemporary report on sanitary conditions there.)
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 03:01 pm
Diana: my understanding is that the piece of Eddowes' apron found in Goulston St was smeared with faecal matter as well as blood. Again, from Dr. Brown's post-mortem report:
"About two feet of the colon was cut away." (which would surely have deposited some faecal matter on the knife), and "Some blood and, apparently, faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street."
I'm unaware of any document that describes the pattern of smears on the piece of Eddowes' apron that was recovered, and the post-mortem report does not tell us the order in which the cuts were made. But, for purposes of our discussion, I don't think it really matters. Whether JtR cut himself first and then cut into Eddowes' colon, or the other way around, the practical result would be the same, assuming that JtR did cut himself at all. (Big if, of course.)
Lyn and Villon (or do you prefer Dr. Villon?): many thanks to both of you for contributing your medical expertise. You've certainly addressed the questions of the time frame for septicemia to become a serious problem, and the efficacy of available treatment for this condition in Victorian times. Given all of this, I think that the avenue of research suggested by Diana of checking death certificates for septicemia might prove fruitful, though perhaps the records for Spitalfields and Mile End should be checked as well. Any takers in the UK?
Cheers,
Jim
Wednesday, 14 July 1999 - 06:50 pm
Let's reread the detailed reports of what was found in Mary Kelly's apartment to determine if he might have started that fire to cauterize himself. The idea seems sound, since the fire was a roaring one, and whatever was handy in the room was used for fuel, as would be the case in desperation. This is frankly the best explanation for that improbable fire I've heard--it belongs in the next A to Z as an entirely reasonable speculation, IMHO. I also feel this is one of the best new ideas ever to come out of these message boards--perhaps a separate section could be titled up to handle postings for it, which I think may prove ongoing and extensive. Perhaps the famous melted teapot appendage is what he used to press against his wound--it melted because he purposely put it right into the flames to heat it up fast--it shouldn't melt like that if the teapot were used normally, I would think.
What other signs of cauteriation should we seek in the room? Possibly, other implements placed near the fireplace in ways not common to normal kitchen practice that could have been used, such as ember pokers, any piece of metal, etc. Maybe some would have his blood on them, and the police simply thought it was MJ's blood. I have always been of the mind that the Ripper carried a towel or other cloth with him to wrap his knife, wrap the plundered organs, and wipe his hands--he would have grabbed this first to clean the wound immediately, so I wouldn't think we'd find any fabric in the room used for this--but let's keep this possibility open anyway. How about a strap, cord, stick or other implement used as a ligature to cut down blood flow while the fire heated up? A confirmation of some kind from the evidence in the room that cauterization took place there would be a distinguished contribution to Ripperology.
In terms of death or hospital records, we are looking for someone sick with or dying of septicemia originating likely from a cut on the hand or arm within one or two weeks of November 9, 1888, and who lived in Whitechapel, was the right age, etc. etc. If we can establish that this person was a slaughterman or dissection room worker, or had served previous prison time possibly for molesting women, etc., etc.--maybe case close to being closed right there!
We would also want to be compiling lists of all septicemia patients, ones who died or not. Where would he likely go for treatment? The casual ward of a local workhouse? London Hospital (not far from Miller's Court!! Maybe he went there straightaway! Let's check admission records. Likely he wouldn't give his real name, though! Perhaps also he'd be listed as a burn patient, probably telling the admissions people he was a blacksmith, etc. The shape of the burn might have been the shape of the teapot appendage.) Soldiers/sailors treated for or dying of septicemia or burns should also be checked.
Got a suspect, Bunky? Check him. Think your case is a good one now? Well, if you find your chappie being treated for a burn or an infected cauterization soon after November 9, 1888, you would have a gold-plated case in that case, senior!
He would have left the room right after cauterization. So if the fire was warm when the police found it, maybe we could backtrack to the time of the murder--?? I.e., lighting the fire came as a last order of business, he didn't light it well before to help with the mutilations, as has been suggested.
Now, since he didn't light the candle MJ bought for light, and if he didn't use the fireplace for light to do the mutilations, then there was enough light in the room. Wouldn't this imply a daytime murder, justifying Maxwell? What does this give us?
If he lit that fire to cauterize himself right on the spot, then he must have been a cool, cool customer indeed, my friends. He couldn't have been a rip-roaring wildman as of Miller's Court. He'd be prioritizing, thinking straight and scientifically, being resourceful. Imagine him sitting there waiting for that teapot to heat up...Perhaps he boiled water for his wound, using the teapot. What else would he have done? Bite and spit?
Anybody for David Cohen? He was the fellow picked up for screaming lunacy in the streets, and died soon after being taken into custody. Could his mad-dog behavior have been a symptom of septicemia? Could the police medical men handling him have missed diagnosing the septicemia?
Druittism: MJD fails to cauterize properly or in time, starts having symptoms, knows he's in for a howling death, wants to spare his family the shame of an involuntary confession while he's in his death throes, so he jumps off a bridge while he's still got a nut to think with, covering with a sappy suicide note. Any takers?
Let's say whoever he was he cauterized the wound and survived--he'd likely be left with a scar. Is there any information about suspects presented in the A to Z having an apposite scar in the right place?
MY HEARTIEST CONGRATULATIONS
TO MS COMER FOR HER SUPER IDEA!
Now, let's see if we can all pull together to determine implications for this. I'm having fun!
David
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 01:38 am
Enjoy!!
Certainly something to think about!!!
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 03:33 am
Calm down.....
You don't need a rip-roaring fire to cauterize a wound, any old flame will do, even a match, a candle, just a local hot spot is all thats required, and much safer.
Jon
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 03:58 am
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 06:20 am
I tend to agree with Jon in that a "roaring fire" is certainly not needed to cauterize a wound, but the idea of some form of blood poisoning being contracted by a self-inflicted (and accidental) wound incurred during either the Eddowes or Kelly murder is certainly an intriguing one. As was mentioned before, frenzied knife attacks often result in self-inflicted nicks and scrapes -- just look at OJ Simpson (oh wait, that was a broken glass.... ;-)
We know that the Eddowes murder was indeed frenzied (perhaps even morseo because of his [possible] disturbance at Dutfield's Yard), it was committed in near pitch darkness, there was a large amount of faecal matter present on the knife (and presumably the killer's hands), and we know the killer took the time to remove a piece of fabric to wipe his hands and/or knife -- something, to our knowledge, he never did before.
Instead of assuming the Ripper eventually died from this disease (which would explain why Kelly was his last), might it be suggested instead that his mysterious six week hiatus in October could be the result of his being incapacitated in hospital for treatment of blood poisoning?
I tend to think that if the killer was experiencing septic shock from the Eddowes murder, six weeks down the line (without treatment) he would hardly have the energy to perform two to three hours' worth of mutilation on poor Mary Kelly.
We may not yet have found the answer to why the killing stopped, but we may have solved the riddle of the uneventful October. Of course, if you believe the From Hell letter is genuine, then we have to picture the Ripper sending off a piece of kidney straight from the hospital bed in mid-October!
Finally, just a suggestion: it might be a fun project for everyone involved here in this discussion to eventually compile their information/findings into one article, for publication on the Casebook and in Ripperologist. I think we've got a very plausible theory here, and the beauty of it is that it really is the result of many collaborating parties, which was the whole philosophy behind starting these message boards. Good show everyone!
PS: I am renaming this topic to "Did the Ripper Contract Blood Poisoning?" since the current subject line, "Is there a Dr. in the House?" is a bit vague considering the recent turn of events.