Eddowes' gut cut

[Sam Flynn]

"Surely, such a process would be well known to the medicos if it was common practice with butchers and hunters?"

Not necessarily, Fish. How many London doctors would have been familiar with the practices of hunters, or butchers for that matter? Not many, I bet.

[Fisherman]

I think that's the way that a butcher, hunter or smallholder would remove a kidney when butchering an animal - make a small slit in the membrane, then slide your fingers into this and run them alomg the kidney and it essentially just pops out. Then just pull the kidney up and slice through the artery etc.

Which does seem to indicate that he knew what he was doing. Unless the cut to the peritoneum was collateral damage from other cuts, such as the colon. But most likely you're right.

Bu if this was what happened, then why are not the medicos of the time very clear in establishing that there can be little doubt that the killer wilfully targetted and extracted the kidney? Even if the cut to the peritoneal lining was collateral damage, it would seem that the kidney would need to be reached for by the fingers before it "popped out"?
Surely, such a process would be well known to the medicos if it was common practice with butchers and hunters?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Joshua.
Given the number of injured organs mentioned by Brown, I wonder if he meant that no bits of that kidney remained in the body. Meaning at least he was careful removing that organ?

Notice though, Brown does say the peritonial lining was cut on the left side, and the kidney removed.
This appears to suggest the killer made a slit in the stomach lining specifically to access the kidney.

Contra to some who have suggested that he rummaged around in the dark and just grabbed what ever he laid his hands on.

The intentional slit in the peritonial lining seems to indicate he targetted that organ specifically. I hadn't noticed that before.

I think that's the way that a butcher, hunter or smallholder would remove a kidney when butchering an animal - make a small slit in the membrane, then slide your fingers into this and run them alomg the kidney and it essentially just pops out. Then just pull the kidney up and slice through the artery etc.

Which does seem to indicate that he knew what he was doing. Unless the cut to the peritoneum was collateral damage from other cuts, such as the colon. But most likely you're right.

[Joshua Rogan]

That only applies to one of the wounds to the liver, Josh. The two other wounds ("below this... below this") could have been the product of something other than the initial abdominal puncture wound under the xiphoid.

Yes, possibly. I'm just trying to make sense of Brown's words. Do you have an alternative theory?

[Wickerman]

Thanks for that Jon. Brown does say that the kidney was "carefully taken out and removed" but even so, cutting the renal artery and ureter with a six inch blade might well account for the horizontal cut in the liver mentioned in my previous post.

Hi Joshua.
Given the number of injured organs mentioned by Brown, I wonder if he meant that no bits of that kidney remained in the body. Meaning at least he was careful removing that organ?

Notice though, Brown does say the peritonial lining was cut on the left side, and the kidney removed.
This appears to suggest the killer made a slit in the stomach lining specifically to access the kidney.

Contra to some who have suggested that he rummaged around in the dark and just grabbed what ever he laid his hands on.

The intentional slit in the peritonial lining seems to indicate he targetted that organ specifically. I hadn't noticed that before.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not so sure about that last bit, Sam. Brown says;
"Behind this the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about 2 1/2 inches and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut"

That only applies to one of the wounds to the liver, Josh. The two other wounds ("below this... below this") could have been the product of something other than the initial abdominal puncture wound under the xiphoid.

[Joshua Rogan]

We can see here how close the left kidney is the the left portion (lobe) of the liver.
Perhaps the liver was slit by the knife at he removed the kidney?

Thanks for that Jon. Brown does say that the kidney was "carefully taken out and removed" but even so, cutting the renal artery and ureter with a six inch blade might well account for the horizontal cut in the liver mentioned in my previous post.

[Joshua Rogan]

It could well be, Joshua, but it's hard to be certain. It is interesting that the word "slit" occurs in the description of both, not that "slit" is a technical term, you understand (I'm not going to fall into the "flap trap" ). I would suggest, however, that the cuts on the under-surface of the liver are unlikely to have been byproducts of the main longitudinal cut to the abdomen.

I'm not so sure about that last bit, Sam. Brown says;
"Behind this the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about 2 1/2 inches and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut"

To me, this sounds like he is describing three stabs in a line, the last of which only clips the bottom of the left lobe, leaving the slit. Possibly caused by the deepest plunges of thr knife as it was used in a sawing motion to get the cut started. But it does depend on what he meant by "below" and" vertical".
Thr second mention of the liver injuries I take to be from after the organ was removed as part of the autopsy, so further wounds could be seen;

"there was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this which were about 1 1/2" deep and 2 1/2" long"

Given that the left lobe is triangular this last cut at right angles must have gone up (toward the head), so (when viewed from the right side of the body where the killer worked from) forming almost a Z....should we be looking for Zorro the Ripper?

[Trevor Marriott]

We can see here how close the left kidney is the the left portion (lobe) of the liver.
Perhaps the liver was slit by the knife at he removed the kidney?




This pic identifies the left lobe.

But the same medical observations would apply if they were removed in haste at the mortuary, and may I remind you and everyone else, that no one can say for certain that the killer removed the organs. As stated this old accepted theory is based on nothing more than inferences, which I fully accept that people are able to draw from those inferences, but they should also consider what there is to negate these inferences.

There is more to suggest the killer did not remove them, than there is to suggest he did.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Quite. Can we say that "the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut" is the same wound as "the slit on the under surface of the liver"?

We can see here how close the left kidney is the the left portion (lobe) of the liver.
Perhaps the liver was slit by the knife at he removed the kidney?




This pic identifies the left lobe.

[Sam Flynn]

Quite. Can we say that "the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut" is the same wound as "the slit on the under surface of the liver"?

It could well be, Joshua, but it's hard to be certain. It is interesting that the word "slit" occurs in the description of both, not that "slit" is a technical term, you understand (I'm not going to fall into the "flap trap" ). I would suggest, however, that the cuts on the under-surface of the liver are unlikely to have been byproducts of the main longitudinal cut to the abdomen.

[Varqm]

But I say that he didnt remove the uterus and kidney from Eddowes, As stated I believe the motive was clearly and simply murder and mutilation and no design on the taking away of organs.

Where is the conclusive evidence that the killer took the organs, there is none, all there is are inferences drawn from the post mortem, where they were found to be missing some 12 hours later.

I am not going to get embroiled in this debate yet again, save to say that I will be publishing a complete new review of Sept 30th later in the year which will contain new facts and evidence to support my theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good point.I may have missed it but I have yet to read a report/quote that says organs were missing at the crime scene.
They did have opportunities:

Not the best ex. but at the Nichols inquest:

Robert Mann, the keeper of the mortuary, said the police came to the workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He went, in consequence, to the mortuary at five a.m. He saw the body placed there, and then locked the place up and kept the keys.

Inspector John Spratling..
The Coroner: Had they any authority to strip the body?
Witness: No, sir; I gave them no instructions to strip it. In fact, I told them to leave it as it was.

But they stripped the clothes anyway...
James Hatfield...
[Coroner] Who gave you instructions to do all this? - No one gave us any. We did it to have the body ready for the doctor.

But there are examples of killers taking organs so most likely the ripper did,but yes this is no proof in the ripper case.


-

[Joshua Rogan]

Interesting that Brown says that one of those perpendicular cuts was on the UNDER surface of the liver on the left.

Quite. Can we say that "the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut" is the same wound as "the slit on the under surface of the liver"?

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting that Brown says that one of those perpendicular cuts was on the UNDER surface of the liver on the left.

[Joshua Rogan]

To me, at least the first reported stab to Eddowes' liver was quite likely collateral damage inflicted with the initial plunge of the knife into the abdomen, as Brown says: "Behind this [the ensiform cartilage], the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument".

He goes on to say "Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut." These could have been caused by the initial abdominal incision, and/or sustained as a result of the killer's going after the left kidney - it's perhaps significant in this context that Brown reports a slit in the left lobe of the liver, which would be some distance away from the otherwise midline cut down her upper abdomen. Brown also indicates that the spleen, another organ adjacent to the left kidney, had been damaged

In his statement (from the Ultimate JTR.Companion) Brown gives additional info on the cuts to the liver;

"There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side and another cut at right angles to this which were about an inch and a half deep and 2 1/2 inches long."

I must admit I find that description hard to picture, can anyone else? But could well be collateral damage from the kidney extraction. Except that Brown describes that as "carefully taken out"

and that the pancreas had been cut on the left hand side.

Again, according to his statement, Brown says "the pancreas was cut but not through on the left side of the spinal column", rather than the left side in general. So quite near the mid-line, most likely.