To Womb It May Concern

[The Good Michael]

I was just pondering the hows and whys of uterus and other organ taking by our favorite neighborhood fiend. I know that some have postulated a sexual reason for uterus theft, while others have suggested specimen taking for a resale purpose. Still others have simply said that JTR was taking whatever he could get his hands on.

I've been examining the uterus (explicit photos, not hands on, mind you) and have come to the conclusion that JTR, unless he had some anatomical knowledge, would probably have just taken what he could take. My reasoning is that the uterus must simply feel like any other organ when someone is rooting around. In its natural state, that is, without a fetus attached to the womb, the uterus is compressed into an oblong shape that would look and feel like any other organ to the layman.

These are just my thoughts from looking at photos of surgery and cross sections of specimens, and still others of doctors holding them in their hands (not Tumblety, alas).

I await the missiles.

Mike

[Normy]

Hiya all
Maybe slightly off topic but...
If he just wanted body parts for sale he wouldn't have mutilated their faces would he?


Cheers

Normy

[Normy]

Mutilate the faces of Eddowes and Kelly that is.

Cheers

Normy

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe slightly off topic but...
If he just wanted body parts for sale he wouldn't have mutilated their faces would he?
There goes the thread! Seriously, though, Normy, I know at least one person who'd agree with that, but not for the reason you and I might have in mind ;)

Come in, Perrymason... but please be gentle with us :)

[Normy]

Oh no, I'm sorry I take it all back.
Forget I said anything, I just want the quiet life.

Normy

[protohistorian]

I would agree. I also submit that without at least some knowledge of anatomy, he would not be able to isolate features like mesocentric attachments on the intestines by tactile sensation alone. Respectfully Dave

[perrymason]

Hiya all
Maybe slightly off topic but...
If he just wanted body parts for sale he wouldn't have mutilated their faces would he?


Cheers

Normy

The women who may have been killed for their uterus did not have their faces mutilated Normy....thats what Sam was hinting at...:laugh4:

Although Kate did donate a partial uterus it would be useless as a "sample for sale"...and in the case of Mary Ann, the physicians thought that her killer was the same as Annies killer, and she was intended to donate the same organ. The only element really missing in terms of an interruption is excision and extraction, whereas the other alledged Ripper murder that is supposed to have ended prematurely shows no signs that abdominal mutilation was even planned. She is found on her side for one.

I suppose with Kate the kidney may have been a fall back theft....taking a complete organ or some kind might be worth more than a partial uterus. The only thing is we have knowledge that uteri were sought as samples...we do not have that same knowledge about generic, gender neutral organs.

Cheers Normy

[Normy]

Hi PerryMason
Thanks for the clarification.

Although Kate did donate a partial uterus it would be useless as a "sample for sale"...

Well if the target was the uterus what would have been his motive to cut her face? Frustration? Surely someone targeting parts wouldn't bother doing what he did in this case, just move on to another victim?

Cheers

Normy

[Sam Flynn]

I also submit that without at least some knowledge of anatomy, he would not be able to isolate features like mesocentric attachments on the intestines by tactile sensation alone. You don't need an intimate knowledge of the structure of plants in order to slash your way through the undergrowth with a stick.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

You're not suggesting Sir Stanley, emboldened by his travels in Africa, used a machete in the jungles of London, deluding himself that prostitutes were plants? It does work, and he was Welsh, after all.

Mike

[perrymason]

You don't need an intimate knowledge of the structure of plants in order to slash your way through the undergrowth with a stick.

That works with Mary Janes murderer...he obviously had no anatomical training or knowledge, and certainly no surgical skills. Slashing his way around is most apt for that murder.

Since all 5 Canonical murders show different traits by the killer (s)....that missing skill or talent need not be set as "Jacks" profile though.

Its clear that the killer in room 13 was a newbie at surgery.....its also clear that both physicians who inspected the first 2 Canonical victims wounds thought that their killer definitely had some "talent". That they sought 3 med students for questioning supports a thesis that they did indeed at one time feel the man might even be a doctor or one in training.

That idea faded when they decided to add murders to his list that did not show any knowledge or skill.

No wonder everyone has been so unlucky looking for Jack all these years, they've been looking for a man who has a very rare case of Sporadic Knowledge apparently.....what a rare bird that is.

Seems to me if someone knew something on their first kill... or 2nd kill....it wouldnt appear as if he had forgotten all that on his 4 or 5th. Someone that cut a uterus out of a woman... "cleanly"... during that Fall had skill, and knowledge.

Cheers all.

[protohistorian]

structure density suggests that it cannot be that simple. Actions have reactions, and intent can be verified by action on occasion.

[The Good Michael]

Let's look at the doctor's partial words: "...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..."

In my mind I see myself as a child removing photos from magazines in order to make a collage for a school project. I want to get the information quickly, but I don't want to damage a distinct component. I therefore make a clipping in a swath around the exact image I want because I am in a hurry and so I don't damage that particular image. I use my scissors quickly and effectively so the cutting isn't jagged and doesn't tear anything. In essence, it is a clean cut. I am not a scissors expert. I am not cutting clothing in a precise pattern that i will sew together. Yet, I am still tidy and efficient.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

i do not intend to become embroiled in further arguments over who where when and how the organs were removed my views on that have been fully documented and well discussed on here.

i would add however that the doctors of the day suggested that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman used a knife with a blade length of around 6 inches.

I should point out that the results of tests conducted recently by medical experts suggest that it would have been impossible to remove Edowes kidney using such a knife given the conditions of the crime scene at the time.

So either the killer had two knives or he, as I previoulsy stated did not remove the organs.

I also see that the removal of the organs topic has been more openly discussed of late and its pleasing to see more and more readers warming to the theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes or Chapman at the crime scene !!!!!!!!!

[richardnunweek]

Hello Trevor,
I understand your theory naturally, however the murder in millers court , had many organs removed at the scene by the killer I presume...
If of course your assumptions are correct , that would add more fuel to many, that Kelly was a copycat murder , and committed by someone who was acting out what he had read in the newspapers, but if the previous murders had not been reported correctly, surely then suspects such as Fleming, Barnett, and ex lovers, or aquaintances of kelly cannot be dismissed.
In other words the only JTR murder that showed real sickening mutilation was Kelly, the others were just a rip or two.
Intresting...but...??
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Let's look at the doctor's partial words: "...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..."Strictly speaking, Mike, wasn't that the word of the Lancet? They're often attributed directly to Phillips himself, but as far as I'm aware we don't know that.

A side issue, but one of some minor importance perhaps - not least because, in those papers who chose to print more details of Phillips' inquest deposition than others, it's apparent that the large intestine (if not explicitly the rectum) was, in fact, cut.In my mind I see myself as a child removing photos from magazines in order to make a collage for a school project. I want to get the information quickly, but I don't want to damage a distinct component. I therefore make a clipping in a swath around the exact image I want because I am in a hurry and so I don't damage that particular image. I use my scissors quickly and effectively so the cutting isn't jagged and doesn't tear anything. In essence, it is a clean cut. I am not a scissors expert. I am not cutting clothing in a precise pattern that i will sew together. Yet, I am still tidy and efficient.
Good analogy. That's how I see it too.

PS: Stanley lived about 400 metres away from my house - albeit across the valley! - and that other great Victorian adventurer, Alfred Russel Wallace, lived literally down the road from me, a mere 5 minute walk away... both of them long before my time, of course :)

[Sam Flynn]

That works with Mary Janes murderer...he obviously had no anatomical training or knowledge, and certainly no surgical skills. Slashing his way around is most apt for that murder.
It takes no less "slashing around" to cut the pericardium and remove the heart than it does to cut the peritoneum to remove a kidney. In fact, it's a darn sight trickier - and much more fiddly than removing a womb. Don't forget that we have no info from Bond as to how cleanly he excised Kelly's uterus either. It might have been a perfect, stumpless cut for all we know.

[Scott Nelson]

...more and more readers warming to the theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes or Chapman at the crime scene !!!!!!!!!

I think he did. But still unexplained is the lack of blood-stained handprints and fingerprints at any of the crime scenes.

[perrymason]

It takes no less "slashing around" to cut the pericardium and remove the heart than it does to cut the peritoneum to remove a kidney. In fact, it's a darn sight trickier - and much more fiddly than removing a womb. Don't forget that we have no info from Bond as to how cleanly he excised Kelly's uterus either. It might have been a perfect, stumpless cut for all we know.


Hi Gareth,

On that last point you may be right, in which case a completely intact and cleanly excised uterus might have been left behind. Needless to say, thats highly improbable for a killer who may have killed for that very organ his second.... and perhaps also attempted it with his first, victims.

Im sure that removing a kidney under the conditions that existed in Mitre Square required some skills, but finding a heart to take when youve removed everything else in the area doesnt seem exceptionally savvy to me.

In Mitre Square even a partial uterus was worthy of theft...in Bucks Row and in Hanbury Street it may have been the reason for the killings,.. but not in Dutfields Yard, nor in Millers Court.

Cheers Sam

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,
I understand your theory naturally, however the murder in millers court , had many organs removed at the scene by the killer I presume...
If of course your assumptions are correct , that would add more fuel to many, that Kelly was a copycat murder , and committed by someone who was acting out what he had read in the newspapers, but if the previous murders had not been reported correctly, surely then suspects such as Fleming, Barnett, and ex lovers, or aquaintances of kelly cannot be dismissed.
In other words the only JTR murder that showed real sickening mutilation was Kelly, the others were just a rip or two.
Intresting...but...??
Regards Richard.

I like many others have grave doubts about Kelly being killed by the same killer as Eddowes and Chapman, Likewise Strides murders i would suggest was the work of a totally different killer to the aformentioned three

[Trevor Marriott]

It takes no less "slashing around" to cut the pericardium and remove the heart than it does to cut the peritoneum to remove a kidney. In fact, it's a darn sight trickier - and much more fiddly than removing a womb. Don't forget that we have no info from Bond as to how cleanly he excised Kelly's uterus either. It might have been a perfect, stumpless cut for all we know.

Sam you have this fixation for slashing I would be the first to agree that the killer did slash the victims but in the course of the mutilations and as part of the frenzied attack. There is no way on this earth that a killer could remove those organs by means of slashing. Even a modern day surgeon would not be able to remove for example a kidney by your slashingmethod.

A modern day consultant gynecologist has stated that in the case of Eddowes the uterus and its attachments were removed almost intact and would appear to have been taken in a way consistent with being remobed for medical research. Time for a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[perrymason]

I like many others have grave doubts about Kelly being killed by the same killer as Eddowes and Chapman, Likewise Strides murders i would suggest was the work of a totally different killer to the aformentioned three

Its always good to see someone else put the logical ideas forward, although Im referring only to the above encapsulation, and not all of what you personally feel is the most probable time organs were taken Trevor.

I believe that the evidence suggests that victims 1 and 2 were killed so that the killer could obtain what was only successfully taken in his second attempt....that victim # 3 was only murdered almost immediately following a witnessed altercation with a man in the street, victim #4 was killed in almost the identical manner but clearly with a different objective or focus than the killer of victims 1 and 2 had, and that the killer in room 13 attempted to utilize the fear and reputation generated by the alleged Ripper to disguise a murderer from within Marys personal circle.

I think thats what the existing evidence suggests....and story that ties all 5 to one man is just that....a story.

Cheers Trevor

[Sam Flynn]

On that last point you may be right, in which case a completely intact and cleanly excised uterus might have been left behind. Needless to say, thats highly improbable for a killer who may have killed for that very organ his second.... and perhaps also attempted it with his first, victims.
Whatever the aim, Mike - which is something we'll never know - and despite my speculating about the cleanness (or otherwise) of Kelly's hysterectomy, the salient facts are these:

1. Despite what the Lancet might have said, the Ripper made a truly awful mess of Annie Chapman's body;

2. If it takes a certain amount of determination (I won't use "skill") to remove a womb, it certainly takes more to remove a kidney and a womb, and yet more again to remove a womb, two kidneys, a liver, a spleen, the entire intestinal system, a stomach, two breasts, a heart... and a womb.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam you have this fixation for slashingIt comes to us all with age, Trevor :)Time for a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Always glad for one of those, Trevor - but in this case I was just replying to, and quoting, someone else.

[perrymason]

Sam, it isnt what the Lancet said thats the crux...its how the data was interpreted and summarized by the physicians attending the victims.

And Bond said the man in room 13 had no skill or knowledge. Since he only saw her first hand, thats all he can really speak to with any authority....despite his wave of the hand dismissals of his peers conjectures about the women that they were in charge of.

All the best SF

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, it isnt what the Lancet said thats the crux...its how the data was interpreted and summarized by the physicians attending the victims.
...which detail we don't have, apart from the Eddowes and Kelly case, because the records are missing. From such details as do survive, however, I find it touching (actually, laughable) that anyone still has faith in Bagster Phillips' - alleged - view of the "neatness" of the Ripper's work on Annie Chapman. She was foully mutilated, have no doubt about it - her side was scooped open in three slabs of flesh, and her womb was certainly crudely removed, taking out a chunk of the bladder and cutting the colon in the process. Messy, messy stuff.

[Hellrider]

then again, he had absolutely no time to waste in Chapman's case and had to get right down to "business" (sorry if that seems tasteless).

[Jon Guy]

Absolutely, Hellrider.

It is easily missed but Dr Phillips uses the phrase "in consequence of haste" a couple of times whilst giving his evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

then again, he had absolutely no time to waste in Chapman's case.
The same was true of the Eddowes murder - and the result was the same: intestines shoeved out of the way, followed by crude disembowelment and evisceration, but at least in Eddowes' case he succeeded in leaving the bladder intact!

The idea that there was more "skill" exhibited in the Chapman murder compared to the rest is simply not borne out by the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you saying he got lucky with Eddowes and with your cut and slash theory managed to avoid any damage to the bladder. Hmmmmmmmmm and in almost total darkness.

You cannot cut and slash in any way shape or form and remove a kidney by that method. Also impossible using a six inch bladed knife. (proven)

Sam I am sorry to say it just didnt happen. Accept it move on !!!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

Are you saying he got lucky with Eddowes and with your cut and slash theory"Cut" theory, Trevor. As I made clear earlier, the "slashing about" was a quote from somebody else's post.Hmmmmmmmmm and in almost total darkness."Almost" being the operative word. Besides, people do all sorts of things in near-darkness, with organs somewhat less well-defined (and sometimes smaller) than the kidney. It's amazing what one can achieve by touch alone.

[Fisherman]

Mind you, Sam, it sometimes goes very wrong too ...! :oops:

The bottom line, though, is that we need to realize that we do not have to pose any unrealistic demands here; it is not as if our boy would have failed if he got a cut in an inch further to the left than he intended, or if he happened to cut things off that he in all honesty would have been better off leaving intact. He actually did precisely these things on numerous occasions, but since there was never any intention to stitch the "patients" back together, such things did not matter very much.
Crude conditions, pressed time limits and very little light would have been quite enough to shove a knife into a body, rip it up, feel for any bits and pieces that may have appealed to him and then slice them out, leaving a badly messed up body behind.
And who´s to say he did not cut himself in the process once or twice? Nobody could account for the blood on the premises - it was just presumed that it all belonged to the victims.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Crude conditions, pressed time limits and very little light would have been quite enough to shove a knife into a body, rip it up, feel for any bits and pieces that may have appealed to him and then slice them out, leaving a badly messed up body behind.Indeed so, Fish. Well put.
Nobody could account for the blood on the premises
Ooh, now I don't know about that.

[Fisherman]

Right you are, Sir! Though, strictly speaking, I was referring to the fact that if there was blood left behind, belonging to both killer and victim, that would have gone undetected.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Well what with the cut and slash from Sam and now another take on that i wonder on those theories why the killer didnt take away the whole abdomen and its contents in a Sainsburys carrier bag would have been easier !!!!!!!!!!!.

[Sam Flynn]

Well what with the cut and slash from Sam and now another take on that i wonder on those theories why the killer didnt take away the whole abdomen and its contents in a Sainsburys carrier bag would have been easier !!!!!!!!!!!.Now, that's interesting, Trevor, in terms of the alternative view that the organ(s) were removed "off-site" by someone other than the killer. If they had been, (a) why did the eviscerator leave varying degrees of damage and "stumpage" behind?; (b) why didn't he stick to just the uterus and "perfect" that?; (c) why was only one kidney taken from Eddowes, when he could easily have removed both?; and (d) why, in general, weren't more organs taken away?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why indeed, a good question, the answers are un ending however if i sat and wrote a long list it would only be based on un corroborated theories which i dont subscribe to.

At least my original theory does have more crediblity than your cut and slash theory and mine is also backed up by corrobortive evidence,

As far as the Kelly murder is concerned I would ask why the killer did not remove other organs then ?

To many theorists in the world of Jack The Ripper !!!!!!!!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

At least my original theory does have more crediblity than your cut and slash theoryFor the last time, Trevor, I do not have a "cut and slash theory". I quoted from someone else's post who used the term "slashing around" in the context of the Ripper murders (not that that's too wide of the mark).As far as the Kelly murder is concerned I would ask why the killer did not remove other organs then ?Short of the brain and thyroid gland, I'd have thought that there wasn't much left to remove.
To many theorists in the world of Jack The Ripper !!!!!!!!!!!
True, and far too few pragmatists.

[Monty]

Maybe Trevor should get an expert to read through your posts for him.

Monty
:)

[perrymason]

Pragmatically speaking Sam:pleased:,.... all we can use to deduce what organs if any the killer sought to obtain during the course of the murders, or as being the catalyst for the killings, are what organs he took with him in full or partial form.

There are no matchs. Each organ donor gave something new as the "de jour" choice of the killer seemed to change.

But some organs were taken in a manner that was consistent with a killer having knowledge how to do so efficiently...the fact that none are truly excised using surgical standards or efficiencies shouldnt overshadow that fact....the environmental conditions and the performing of the acts themselves were stress inducing.

My point is that using conjecture offered by the men that examined Polly Nichols when asserting Annies murderers potential overall objectives you do find that its possible that the first 2 women were the only women where the uterus was sought specifically.

In Lizs case that would be high speculation...if true in Kates case then he botched that uterus extraction, something that Annies killer wouldnt likely have done,...and in Marys case, he actually cuts it free and places it under her head with a breast.

The core reason that makes killers kill stays constant, unless they need to just shut up people in addition...everything else can and does change often.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

Pragmatically speaking Sam:pleased:,.... all we can use to deduce what organs if any the killer sought to obtain during the course of the murders, or as being the catalyst for the killings, are what organs he took with him in full or partial form.Personally, I see no reason to suppose that he didn't simply take what he could, according to circumstance and opportunity. To that extent, every "trophy" murder in the Whitechapel series is consistent.
But some organs were taken in a manner that was consistent with a killer having knowledge how to do so efficiently...I fail to see how effecting a crude hysterectomy, after opening a cavity equivalent (in human terms) to a meteor crater, can be seen as "efficient" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
That mat be crude in your eyes but the level of expertise in removing those type of organs was not as it is today so this has to be taken into account. The doctors stated "Some anatomical knowledge" they didnt state as to what level those statements refferred to.

You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs..

That in itself must raise a serious doubt about the killer/s removing the organs at the scene. Put that with other facts which would have made it almost impossible for those organs to have been removed by the killers at the time.

And if took what he could as you suggest surely the heart would have been an obvious first choice not something as complicated and difficult to reach like the kidney

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott writes:

"You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs.."

...unless it suggests something else - that the Ripper was not schooled enough in anatomy to be consistent in his work.

The best,
Fisherman