Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 06:33 am
I thought some of you might be interested to know the answer a visiting doctor gave me yesterday when I asked him what method of treatment would have been used to prevent blood poisoning, had a person cut themselves and possibly thought that they had contaminated the wound with faecal matter or another person's blood, in the late 19th Century's East End. "Cleaning the wound as best one could with probably filthy water, filthy dressings, and cauterizing" (though I don't recall him saying how the cauterization would have been done). He then asked, "why?"
Suffice to say, despite this being the first time we'd met, he didn't back away from me slowly :-)
Instead, he was most interested in this latest discussion, and thought it highly possible that, had Jack cut himself while Ripping, he could well have developed blood-poisoning, which at that time, with only primitive treatment available, more often than not resulted in death - the time frame he suggested for death would have been no more than six weeks. He also added that cauterization may not always have been free from the risk of infection in itself.
Thanks Jim and Diana for the kind words - I'm usually out of my league where Ripper discussion is concerned, so tend not to get too involved. I appreciate the encouragement.
Lyn.
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 07:10 am
David, I have just finished John Douglas' Anatomy of Motive. He describes serial killers as being people who have no compunction at all about meting out death and destruction to others, but become very self pitying and depressed when caught and incarcerated (poor little me!). They also have an inflated idea of their own importance. You mentioned prioritizing. I think if Jack cut himself and he saw that it was a dirty cut he would drop everything and tend to his own needs first.
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 08:28 am
Congratulations on the development of a plausible scenario in the Jack the Ripper murders. I agree that the thought that Jack may have cut himself at Miller's Court and/or in Mitre Square and developed septicemia from the blood and fecal matter could explain a number of mysteries about the case, and might tell us that he died after the Kelly murder, or after the Eddowes murder if we feel that Kelly may have been killed by another hand.
To add to Lyn's post about the causes of septicemia, I would like to give the research committee the following from the entry on "septicemia" in Clarence Wilbur Taber, "Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary" 9th edition (Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company, 1963), p. S-27:
"Morbid condition from absorption of septic products into blood and tissues or of pathogenic bacteria which may rapidly multiply there.
"Experiments on animals show there are 2 varieties of this form of blood poisoning:
"Sapremia, toxemia, or septic intoxication, in which symptoms supervene immediately upon the innoculation."
The other form involves ptomaines where, note this, Ripperologists, "The method is through the diffusion and multiplication of the bacteria from an infected wound even of a trivial character." In this form of septicemia, the "development of the disease is more gradual. . . . Fever curve is of the continuous type, as in sapremia, and as fatal end approaches will range higher. . . ."
Symptoms are given as follows:
"Temperature, 105° F. or more. Fever intermittent, some chills, pulse weak and rapid, freedom from pain unless localized. Delirium common and diarrhea not infrequent. Great prostration, headache, anorexia, and a typhoid condition supervene. May be accompanied by vomiting. Tendency to enlargement of lymphatic glands throughout body and more particularly of spleen. Skin pale; dusky, scarlet eruption may occur. Skin hot, dry; later bathed in perspiration; finally becomes cold and clammy. Senses dulled, countenance listless; tongue covered with brownish fur; diarrhea increases; urine concentrated and scanty. Delirium followed by coma, patient becomes moribund."
Prognosis: "Grave."
Although Jack undoubtedly deserved a bad end, still we might pity someone with this catalogue of symptoms.
I recently wrote an article for Ripperologist on "D. G. Halsted and the London Hospital in the Autumn of Terror" (Ripperologist, April 1999). In my research, I found that, in the early Victorian period and up to comparatively recent times before the Whitechapel murders, surgeons delighted in walking round in bloody smocks, treating this as a "badge of office." It was only with the antiseptic procedures introduced at the London by Sir Frederick Treves, of Elephant Man fame, and Sir Joseph Lister, that the need for cleanliness in the operating theater came to be understood. Indeed, as I discussed earlier on these boards, the epidemiologist John Snow, only a few years before (1849) linked a cholera epidemic to a public pump in Broad Street, Soho, but his findings would not be generally acknowledged until the beginning of our century.
If Jack did cut himself and sought to cauterize a self-inflicted wound in the fire at Miller's Court, we might therefore ask ourselves if the common man would know that it is necessary to cauterize an infected wound, or if it could imply that Jack was a doctor or had been a medical assistant and therefore was aware of some of the latest theories.
Bearing in mind the notion that the fire in Mary Kelly's room and the melted kettle may have some connection with Jack trying to deal with a wound, here is the definition for "cauterization" or "cautery" in Taber's medical dictionary (p. C-25):
"A means of destroying tissue. . . . Used in potentially infected wounds. . . . Thermocautery consists of [a] red hot or white hot object, usually a piece of wire or pointed metallic instrument, heated in a flame. . . ." Note also that another means of cauterization mentioned by Taber is cauterization by steam, so the kettle could have been used to boil water to cauterize his wound. The method of cauterizing by means of superheated steam, being a medical procedure, might likewise imply that Jack was a medical man.
Chris George
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 09:09 am
Noble price earned for this train of thought.
Christopher George- I would not be so sure IF JtR indeed had thermocauterized his wound, that this would implicate that he was a medical man (probably, but no certainty).
With the plague people started burning the bodies. And before the 1880s it was known that by cutting the boils they could stop the illness. I am even positive they would have closed these wounds again by thermocautery. They would not have known the medical theories about germs and bacteries, but from experience know actions that could help stop infection (even working classes).
All- It also occurred to me that in early times, people drank wine instead of water, because it was healthier (it is an antisceptic). I believe they treated wounds with it.
I am no medical expert, and have no books to back me up right now. We certainly have to find these things out in literature about life in the 19th century and before that, about common knowledge of casual inflictions and how to treat them with folklore medicin. I will try to go to the library this weekend.
Jill
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 10:09 am
Edana
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 12:27 pm
This may turn out on the order of Mr. Begg turning the page to find Joseph Hyam Levy's name on the same document as Martin Kosminski's. I've been reading the case since 1991, and have worked up a profile of the murderer's cognitive style. The cauterization idea fits him perfectly, IMHO--it seems to me exactly "like him" to have reacted this way. The fire in MJ's room was the only false or inexplicable step I've considered in him--otherwise, he seemed to me disciplined, he wasted no motions, was totally cool and decisive, and went right to work, counting the seconds until the beat cop would reappear on the scene so he could round the corner to escape in time. But why light that fire, when there was a candle available? Why use clothing as fuel? Why risk someone seeing the uncustomary bright orange reflection in the windows and peering in, or summoning the fire department? Used clothing usually smells when burned, too--why risk someone noticing that? Why not burn coal or the candle if he wanted heat, methane-combustion or light, why the clothing? It never quite worked itself out in my mind. This does. It is a PERFECT, elegant, simple explanation; if this analysis is on target he reacted logically, straightest line between two points, and right along the lines of the same internal safety warning system that kept him alive time after time when he killed on the streets. SAME REACTION, SAME GUY!
David
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 12:29 pm
David
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 02:00 pm
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 02:14 pm
A very exciting course of study here. My congratulations to all!!
Perhaps someone would be willing to do a write up for Ripper Notes on this one?
Cheers,
Dave Yost
Casebook Productions
jacktripper@fcmail.com
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 04:53 pm
Congratulations!
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 06:29 pm
Chris - from Diana's account of her grandmother's cauterization, I'd imagine that it was 'the done thing' at the time, regardless of background. I'd certainly like to check into treatment methods used at the time.
Lyn.
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 06:50 pm
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 09:20 pm
STEPHEN: I look forward to medical input on how often people with treated cases of septicemia survived in late 1800s. Also, if septicemia is the only condition JtR might have come down with.
Here's a small tidbit to add to the mix.
Microsoft Encarta 97 Encyclopedia:
"Bacteremia (blood poisoning), the presence of bacteria in the blood, precedes septicemia and, unlike septicemia, is not life threatening. Bacteremia is often asymptomatic, and a problem may not be apparent until the development of septicemia.
... Septicemia is more likely to occur in people who suffer from immunodeficiency."
So far, I still think Jack killed Mary.
Take care,
Janice
Thursday, 15 July 1999 - 11:39 pm
Well far be it for me to rain on anybody's parade, but it seems as if everyone has gone off the deep end so I will have to act as Devils Advocate. We have an interesting theory, but is it one that answers the question? Does it get us any closer? I would have to say not really. I admit that I'm jaded after 27 years of hunting the Ripper, and there was once a time that I might have become enthusiastic but what really do you have?
The question of blood poisoning stemmed from a query as to whether the Ripper could have contracted some sort of disease from placing his hands inside his victims and removing organs. The answer was no, unless he had an open sore or had cut himself while doing it. This led to someone's theory that the Ripper had taken away a portion of Catherine Eddows apron because he had cut himself. Presto!, you have solved the whole puzzle. Well what evidence is there that the Ripper cut himself? None. In fact it is more likely that the Ripper tok the piece of apron because he didn't want to wipe feces on his own rag (if he carried one) and then have to stick it in his pocket. Is ther any evidence to support this theory? Yes, the Ripper did wipe feces from his hands and onto the apron. Is this the answer to the apron mystery? I don't know, but there is more evidence for this than a cut.
It then became clear that septicemia will kill relatively quickly and debilitate before death. The great Canadian battle surgeon, Dr. Norman Bethune, cut his finger while operating on soldiers of Mao's 8th Rout Army. Although he treated the cut, some days later, the cut became septic when he had to operate without gloves. He treated the infection but became too sick to get out of bed within a week and he died ten days after infecting the cut. So, this means that if the Ripper had cut himself while murdering Eddows, ther is the distinct possibility that he would have been dead by mid October. Obviously then, the Ripper didn't cut himself in Mitre Square unless anyone seriously thinks that Mary Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim.
What do we do now, considering the fact that the suspected cut had come from the Eddows apron debate? Well we can argue that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim, or, hey! matbe the Ripper had cut his hand while butchering kelly! So where's the proof? there is none. Any so called proof had come from Eddows murder and that proof was non existent.
So in the end what we have left with is an interesting idea that the Ripper could possibly have cut himself during the Kelly murder and have died of blood poisoning soon after. Now imagine if someone had posted that theory without any dialogue, how would it have been treated? probably with polite curiosity and nothing more. So here's another theory that also has no evidence to back it up. Hey, what if the Ripper was run over by an omnibus right after the murder in Miller's Court, or what if he fell down a flight of stairs in a drunken stupor, considering many serial killers drink heavily, or what if he went swimming and drowned. These are all possibilities that rank up there with blood poisoning.
In the end, I'm not saying that the records shouldn't be checked out for septicemia or infection or fever, but let's put this whole thing into perspective and calm down a little.
Wolf.
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 01:32 am
Firstly, you'd have to search the Deaths Register for 1888. The only details given are name, age and area the death was registered in, followed by a reference number. The cause of death is not given.
Once you've found the record you're looking for (and if you don't know the name of the deceased it's going to be difficult!) you order the certificate - only then do you discover the cause of death.
Of course, you could order a certificate for everyone who died in the East End between November 1888 and say March 1889...
Sorry to put a damper on it, but I wanted you to realise it won't be easy
Adam
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 01:38 am
Wolf - I don't think people here do actually believe that it is proven that he had cut himself. But to try to solve problems with almost no direct leads to a suspect, jumping ahead and some IMAGINATION can open doors. We can try to track down people who fit the physical profile who either died or were tended for septicemia. After that find out the history of these persons. IF JtR indeed had cut himself then probably a detail you normally would overlook will fit, ... until maybe the whole puzzle fits the FACTS.
Actually I think a majority of crimes are solved this way (a detective of the police can help us out here).
Trying to find records of men who died of an accident isn't that stupid either. It is one of the options of what happened to JtR.
And you must admit it is a neat solution for the fire in Mary's place, if only you can consider it as circumstantial evidence.
Jill
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 03:49 am
No sense jumping ahead of ourselves until we are absolutely sure that the original premise stands true. (Don't mean to hamper the party, just want to be sure we follow the correct procudures... we may truly be onto something here).
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 03:55 am
Adam, a system like you describe is daunting, but there would be ways to cut the problem down. First, you could eliminate all areas but Whitechapel, Spitalfields and Mile End. You could then cut the remaining problem in half by cutting out the women (no, I don't think Jill the Ripper is likely). Then the time frame could be limited to October, November and just maybe the first two weeks of December (one of our emails said septicemia can be preceded by bacteremia which is not as serious -- I'm wondering how long that would take.) Then you could cut out all subjects under the age of say, 15, and codgers over the age of say, 50. (I don't honestly see a teenager doing this, but for the sake of thoroughness . . . I don't really think Jack was much over 40 either.) When you got done you would have a list well worth saving because if the murders ended because Jack died, no matter what he died of he would probably be on that list.
I just grabbed the Houston Chronicle and counted the list in the obituary section for one day. It had 48 names on it. Houston is a city of several millions. I'll look it up later how many. Rounding to 50, you have a period of about 75 days. That would give you 3750 deaths to pick through. Then you cut out the women. You're down to 1875. Then you have only part of the city to consider so lets cut it in half again. We're down to 938. Jack would have been in his prime. Most people who die are very old -- wait a sec, I'll go through those Houston Obits again -- some of them didn't give the age but out of the 41 that did there were only five that fit the age parameter, that eliminates 7/8 of them. We're down to 117. Somebody's going to remind me that people died a lot younger then. Right -- but a lot of kids died then too that don't now. So I hope it balances out.
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 02:15 pm
Friday, 16 July 1999 - 06:04 pm
I'd just like to echo Wolf's caution. This whole septicemia theory hinges on the huge, and as yet unproven, assumption that our boy did accidentally cut himself during either the Eddowes or Kelly murders.
I'd also like to suggest some other avenues for research. Checking the death registers pre-supposes JtR died from the infection. If he got treatment and did not die, he would escape our notice. Would it be better to check admission records for London Hospital, or maybe the casual wards in the local workhouses, to see if anyone who fits our age and gender profile was admitted during the relative period suffering from septicemia (or whatever they called it in 1888)??
Adam, would this approach be any less expensive or complicated than checking death registers?
Cheers all,
Jim