Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Baxter's influence on Ripper lore

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Hi Sam. Would you consider body type playing a factor..? Judging by the photos on her profile page, Catherine is obviously a thin (eg skinny) woman. I don't see any excess flesh around her midsection that could be cut away into 3,4,5 flaps (as possibly compared to Annie and/or Mary Jane).
    there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
      Hi Sam. Would you consider body type playing a factor..? Judging by the photos on her profile page, Catherine is obviously a thin (eg skinny) woman. I don't see any excess flesh around her midsection that could be cut away into 3,4,5 flaps (as possibly compared to Annie and/or Mary Jane).
      I don't think that the Ripper was removing excess flesh from Annie Chapman; he was just removing flesh. He could have taken exactly the same approach with Eddowes, had he chosen to do so.

      Indeed, one might speculate that inflicting a single, deep slash on so skinny a woman ran a greater risk of immediately damaging the underlying viscera (i.e. puncturing the stomach and/or intestines) and creating an unwanted mess from the outset, so perhaps a three-flap dissection would have been a "safer" approach in Eddowes' case as well, if the killer had more time.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        I don't think that the Ripper was removing excess flesh from Annie Chapman; he was just removing flesh. He could have taken exactly the same approach with Eddowes, had he chosen to do so.

        Indeed, one might speculate that inflicting a single, deep slash on so skinny a woman ran a greater risk of immediately damaging the underlying viscera (i.e. puncturing the stomach and/or intestines) and creating an unwanted mess from the outset, so perhaps a three-flap dissection would have been a "safer" approach in Eddowes' case as well, if the killer had more time.
        I think he may have cut her colon with that bisecting cut, creating the unwanted mess.
        there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
          I think he may have cut her colon with that bisecting cut, creating the unwanted mess.
          Not something someone skilled enough to create the impression he had medical grade surgical skills would likely do...as was assumed of Annies killer. And only Annies killer. The premise that they were looking for a surgically trained man lasted for the first few weeks after Annies murder.

          And the quote that " there were no meaningless cuts" should address the idea that there were any Josh.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
            I think he may have cut her colon with that bisecting cut, creating the unwanted mess.
            The colon in general lies rather deep, and that part of her colon that was cut sits well away from the midline and to the left, whereas Eddowes' wound stayed central then veered to the right after looping round the navel. Her colon was cut after the midline incision to open her abdomen, probably in tandem with, or shortly after, the removal of her uterus.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • #36
              I don't know much about the condition of the colon, only that it was about 2 ft. long. I considered that he may have cut (by accident?) the part of the colon that extends from one side of the body to the other side when he made his midsection cut. I remember that there was a report of the removed intestines being covered in feculent matter. This suggests 2 better likelihoods: 1) he cut the colon prior to removing the intestines from the body, and feces from the colon spilled out onto them; or, 2) he removed the intestines and placed them above her shoulder, cut the colon out of her body, and dumped the feces from the colon onto the intestines.
              there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                The colon in general lies rather deep, and that part of her colon that was cut sits well away from the midline and to the left, whereas Eddowes' wound stayed central then veered to the right after looping round the navel. Her colon was cut after the midline incision to open her abdomen, probably in tandem with, or shortly after, the removal of her uterus.
                Do you reckon the colon might have been damaged when Jack was removing the small intestines!

                Given Chapman had TB of the lungs and brain,it may have also caused Endometritis in her uterus.
                As Jack had a go at removing her head,does anyone suspect Jack might have known a fair bit about her condition?
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
                  I don't know much about the condition of the colon, only that it was about 2 ft. long. I considered that he may have cut (by accident?) the part of the colon that extends from one side of the body to the other side when he made his midsection cut. I remember that there was a report of the removed intestines being covered in feculent matter. This suggests 2 better likelihoods: 1) he cut the colon prior to removing the intestines from the body, and feces from the colon spilled out onto them; or, 2) he removed the intestines and placed them above her shoulder, cut the colon out of her body, and dumped the feces from the colon onto the intestines.
                  The cut colon segment was from the descending colon on the left of the body. The intestines smeared over with faecal matter were the small intestines which had been pulled out of the body prior to the organs being removed.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    [QUOTE=DJA;437019]Do you reckon the colon might have been damaged when Jack was removing the small intestines!/QUOTE]
                    Not that part of the colon which was cut out, as it lies at the far end of the alimentary tract to the innards that were pulled out and stretched across her body. Furthermore, the colon is too thick to tear accidentally.
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;437023]
                      Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      Do you reckon the colon might have been damaged when Jack was removing the small intestines!/QUOTE]
                      Not that part of the colon which was cut out, as it lies at the far end of the alimentary tract to the innards that were pulled out and stretched across her body. Furthermore, the colon is too thick to tear accidentally.
                      Got rather confused as to which victim was being discussed.

                      The descending colon taken out of Eddowes would have been cut when extracting the kidney.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DJA View Post
                        Got rather confused as to which victim was being discussed.

                        The descending colon taken out of Eddowes would have been cut when extracting the kidney.
                        Most probably (and/or the uterus).
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          Unfortunately, I don't think the other case reports are detailed enough to conclude that this was unique to Eddowes, only that it was uniquely mentioned (and illustrated).
                          Hi JR

                          I believe both Nichols and McKenzie had a similarly long gash as Eddowes, although not quite as central to the body as in Eddowes case

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            Not something someone skilled enough to create the impression he had medical grade surgical skills would likely do...as was assumed of Annies killer.
                            Er....that's exactly what Annie's killer DID do - Inquest, Dr Phillips, Echo 19th Sept;
                            "The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely"

                            The premise that they were looking for a surgically trained man lasted for the first few weeks after Annies murder.
                            Due mostly to Baxter and his theory. I believe Phillips only ever suggested some knowledge of anatomy, not necessarily human, rather than surgical skill - Echo, same issue;
                            "Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon, has had another consultation with the police authorities respecting certain theories advanced. There are three points upon which there is agreement - that Annie Chapman was lying dead in the yard at 29 Hanbury street, when John Richardson sat on the steps to cut a piece of leather from his boot, his failure to notice the deceased being explained by the fact that the yard door, when opened, obstructed his view; that the poor creature was murdered in the yard, and not in a house, as had been at one time suggested; and that the person who committed the deed was a man with some knowledge of human or animal anatomy."


                            And the quote that " there were no meaningless cuts" should address the idea that there were any Josh.
                            Meaningless does not equate to unnecessary.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                              I believe both Nichols and McKenzie had a similarly long gash as Eddowes, although not quite as central to the body as in Eddowes case
                              Thanks Jon,
                              Llewellyn's autopsy comments on Nichols' wounds I find confusing and somewhat contradictory, not even mentioning a central wound. But most of the papers agree (seemingly independently) that one wound went from vagina to breastbone. Sadly no reports I am aware of mention whether this wound went around, through or anywhere near the navel, but it sounds pretty central to me.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                The cut colon segment was from the descending colon on the left of the body. The intestines smeared over with faecal matter were the small intestines which had been pulled out of the body prior to the organs being removed.
                                I think it included the descending colon, but as that is probably less than a foot long, also included other parts. We know one cut was at or near the Sigmoid Flexure (adjacent to the uterus), two feet from there would be about the centre of the Transverse Colon, which is directly behind the abdominal wall at this point. We know the pancreas (more or less behind the TC) sustained a cut at "the left side of the spinal column" so it's certainly possible that this was collateral from the TC cut, but whether this was deliberate or was itself collateral from the abdominal incisions (as were the stabs to the liver) is debatable. However, Robert's point that the small intestines were smeared with fecal matter does suggest that the TC was at least nicked before they were removed (unless the smearing was deliberate, which seems less likely to me).

                                So I think the cutting out of the colon section is consistent with both accidental damage and deliberate removal. But at this remove in time, only the killer can say which.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X