Eddowes' gut cut

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve

I've often wondered whether the cut down the abdomen wasn't completed in two or more "stages" and not, to paraphrase The Lancet, one sweep of the knife. There's nothing in Brown's report that says that it was, but then again there's nothing in Brown's report that says it wasn't.

Gareth,

"Stages" looks a real possability to me, but would not put it any stronger than that.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Steve

I've often wondered whether the cut down the abdomen wasn't completed in two or more "stages" and not, to paraphrase The Lancet, one sweep of the knife. There's nothing in Brown's report that says that it was, but then again there's nothing in Brown's report that says it wasn't.

[Elamarna]

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

Thanks for that input Mr Williams

Of course that could be seen as arguing against the old tale of organs removed in the dark, with no damage to other organs.
While the cuts could be collateral damage, i am still interested in the possability of whatwe may have is a series of jabs and cuts joined togeather rather than a single sustained cut.

Possabilitiez, possabilties!


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

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

[Elamarna]

Returning to the issue of the cutting of Eddowes, the stabs to the liver and the similar cuts to the omentum of Nichols do indeed suggest a method much as Trevor's expert has suggested.
To me at least that suggests someone who may not be particularly skilled at using a knife.
Anyone else have any views on that aspect?
Hope its not straying off topic.

Steve

[Fisherman]

For those researchers who suggest Eddowes is a copycat, i beleive the stabs/cuts to the liver are very reministent of the cuts to the omentum in the Nichols case. While of course not conclusive it suggests the method and probably the same hand.


Steve

It is secondary, but not unimportant. The primary matter is that we should not expect mutilators who cut the abdomen open to surface two at the time. In that context, however, any further similarity - like the one you point to - will of course strengthen the case for the same man being responsible.

And no, I´m not going to elaborate any more on the matter on this thread.

[Elamarna]

For those researchers who suggest Eddowes is a copycat, i beleive the stabs/cuts to the liver are very reministent of the cuts to the omentum in the Nichols case. While of course not conclusive it suggests the method and probably the same hand.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Given my moniker, I must confess that I find it slightly unnerving to speak of gutting fish, though ...

Of course. But sometimes its required. It and the knowledge is essential then.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Christer,
Your fish gutting description is very handy.
Your take on the process seems highly probable.
It certainly fits with my experience too.

Steve

Given my moniker, I must confess that I find it slightly unnerving to speak of gutting fish, though ...

[Elamarna]

Thanks for the replies, everybody

Concerning the sternum, would you agree that the stitching visible on the postmortem photo was a result of the doctors opening the body further? I.e. the killer’s cut did not run the full length of the stitching.

I’m wondering if we can attribute any other damage visible on the photo to the postmortem rather than the killer?

Hi agree with Sam and Christer on this.

Steve

Also with Joshua, Wickerman and Trevor. Looks like something we can all agree o .

Steve

[Elamarna]

That would be interesting. However, I think that what Trevor means is that the cutting force of the edge was directed upwards and not downwards. In other words, Eddowes was gutted much like a fish, where you insert the tip of the knife, let the blade sink in, and then you angle the blade and start cutting the abdomen with the edge pressure directed up instead of down.

I think that we may be locking ourselves unnecessarily to the idea that the cut went from point A to point B, always travelling in the same direction.
What is said is that "The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage". I take that to mean that it started out somewhere in the area underneath the ensiform cartilage, but in line with it vertically. That is the only "opposite" that makes sense, since the skin over the sternum was unharmed.
But then it is said that "The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum". So, to my mind, the killer inserted the tip of the knife in the upper abdomen, below the ensiform cartilage, the blade being angled with the tip pointing roughly towards the heart, and then he cut like we do when we gut a fish, upwards towards the sternum and with the pressure of the cutting edge directed from the inside and out.
When he did this, the abdominal wall was cut open and the cut "then divided the enciform cartilage". This would have come about with the blade angled, the way we angle a blade when we gut a fish. And so, this is why it is said that "The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage".
So the ensiform cartilage was more or less divided from beneath, and the cut in it would have reached furthest up on the inside of it.

Is this an acceptable solution? The killer plunged the knife in, actually initially cut upwards for an undefined stretch (could have been an inch or two only of course), and then he changed direction and performed all of the rest of the cut downwards. If he wanted to produce as large an opening as possible, I think this would make sense - you plunge the knife in where you know there is no bone structure to stop it, you cut upwards until that bone structure stops the cut, and then you start working downwards.

Christer,
Your fish gutting description is very handy.
Your take on the process seems highly probable.
It certainly fits with my experience too.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

The "un-stitched" photograph might provide some insight, particularly as regards the commencement of the abdominal incision at an insertion point near the xiphoid process:



There's a pronounced, almost triangular hole at the very top of the wound, consistent with an up-and-down stroke that could easily have been the one that divided the xiphoid in two, as described by Brown (see mine and Fisherman's recent comments on that point above).

[Kattrup]

Thanks for the replies, everybody

Concerning the sternum, would you agree that the stitching visible on the postmortem photo was a result of the doctors opening the body further? I.e. the killer’s cut did not run the full length of the stitching.

I’m wondering if we can attribute any other damage visible on the photo to the postmortem rather than the killer?

[Varqm]

One of my team of medical experts who has reviewed the medical evidence makes this observation

"I am first struck by the jagged appearance of the abdominal wound. This does not look like a surgical incision. The irregular nature of it, and some of the minor wounds to underlying organs suggests to me that possibly the knife (the pathologists at the time conjectured a thin blade of 6-8 inches) entered probably the upper portion of the abdomen which was then opened by pulling the knife upwards, possibly with a sawing motion, as opposed to a surgical incision where one would press down with the blade on the skin. In other words the irregular line suggests the abdomen was opened from inside out rather than outside in"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have not read much about it so I'm a novice when it comes to medical evidence,but just curious,if there were lots of pictures of the damage done to the body would the probably and possibly above become definitely?

-

[Fisherman]

That's pretty much how I see it, Fish.

Great, thanks for that - it´s good to agree for once!