Baxter's influence on Ripper lore

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[DJA]

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?

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

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).

[Joshua Rogan]

In short, I believe that, feeling pressed for time at Mitre Square, he adopted a "slash and grab" method rather than a more laborious three-flap dissection. Furthermore, it's possible that the approach decided upon in Mitre Square was partly informed by the experience he'd gained during the Chapman murder.

I don't have any problem with a killer who learns, adapts and improvises as he goes along. That said, descriptions of the wounds to Nichols' abdomen are very similar to those inflicted upon Eddowes. So it's not too much of a stretch to think that the cuts to Chapman and Kelly would have followed the same pattern, at least initially.

For what it's worth, Dr Phillips' inquest testimony Morning Advertiser 20th Sept;
"the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts.......On adjusting these three flaps it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting."

Although pure speculation, it's possible (or at least not inconsistent with the description) that the navel was initially on a tongue of skin, as with Eddowes, which the killer then cut off for whatever reason. But as I said earlier, the lack of details about the cuts means we'll never know.

To return to the theme of the thread, it's thanks to Baxter's insistence on hearing Phillips' evidence that we know even this much. Although his theory that it was all about the uterus is somewhat doubtful, not least because of the missing navel.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe the killer used the time he saved to perform the facial mutilations?

They'd only have taken a few seconds to complete. My guess is that, having adopted the three flap approach at Hanbury Street, the killer surmised - correctly - that a single, long cut would take up less time. Perhaps he also had a better idea of where the abdominal organs really were, after having gained the experience of removing Chapman's uterus and bladder, and that most of the abdominal organs would be accessible if he opened up his next victim with a single, large slash, without having to go to the trouble of cutting out a panel of flesh in three flaps.

In short, I believe that, feeling pressed for time at Mitre Square, he adopted a "slash and grab" method rather than a more laborious three-flap dissection. Furthermore, it's possible that the approach decided upon in Mitre Square was partly informed by the experience he'd gained during the Chapman murder.

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks for that Sam, sometimes I make a statement assuming that most everyone here is on the same page and has read many of the same books/articles/dissertations. Its why I have this habit, Im sure annoying to some, of making a statement sometimes without the supporting documentation.

I wasn't disputing your statement Michael, only the conclusions you seem to draw from it.

The tracing of the navel was unique in the Eddowes case, and like some of the many other things that didnt need to be done in order for him to obtain a kidney and partial uterus, it was a waste of valuable time,... objectively speaking. Double entendre is fun too.

There are plenty of cuts in the Chapman case that "didn't need to be done" and so could be said to be "a waste of valuable time": Eddowes and Stride (and possibly Kelly) ended up just as dead with only a single cut to the throat; The same (and further) extractions were performed on Eddowes as on Chapman without the need to cut away any flaps of skin, let alone four.
Maybe the killer used the time he saved to perform the facial mutilations?

[Joshua Rogan]

I think that he cut out a flap of flesh which included the navel, but that might not quite be the same as tracing around it, bearing in mind that he also removed two other flaps of flesh which he left at the scene.

Thanks Sam. The point I was trying to make is that, whether or not the wounds were inflicted in the same manner, logically it takes less time to partially cut around the navel than to entirely cut around the navel.

What distinguishes the Eddowes murder is the long wound down the midline of her abdomen, which dodges around the navel before continuing on its course.

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).

[DJA]

As did Chapman's killer.

Agreed.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that he cut out a flap of flesh which included the navel, but that might not quite be the same as tracing around it, bearing in mind that he also removed two other flaps of flesh which he left at the scene. What distinguishes the Eddowes murder is the long wound down the midline of her abdomen, which dodges around the navel before continuing on its course.

Thanks for that Sam, sometimes I make a statement assuming that most everyone here is on the same page and has read many of the same books/articles/dissertations. Its why I have this habit, Im sure annoying to some, of making a statement sometimes without the supporting documentation. Bad habit, but they do die hard, dont they my friend?

The tracing of the navel was unique in the Eddowes case, and like some of the many other things that didnt need to be done in order for him to obtain a kidney and partial uterus, it was a waste of valuable time,... objectively speaking. Double entendre is fun too.

[Sam Flynn]

As did Chapman's killer.

I think that he cut out a flap of flesh which included the navel, but that might not quite be the same as tracing around it, bearing in mind that he also removed two other flaps of flesh which he left at the scene. What distinguishes the Eddowes murder is the long wound down the midline of her abdomen, which dodges around the navel before continuing on its course.