Eddowes' gut cut

[Sam Flynn]

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

[Fisherman]

So....some sort of alien abdomen-burster?

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

In other words the irregular line suggests the abdomen was opened from inside out rather than outside in"

So....some sort of alien abdomen-burster?

[Sam Flynn]

the Times report (to me) suggests the "shelving" is caused by the cutter being on the body's right side, so the knife is not held perpendicular to the ground but is pointing down and to the left....If that makes sense?

It makes perfect sense, Josh.

[Trevor Marriott]

The meaning of words do change over time. In the Victorian age "opposite" also meant "in front of".
Here we should replace "opposite" with, "in front of" the enciform cartilage (aka Xiphoid process).



The cut certainly began at the sternum (not the pubes), but just below the sternum. As the Enciform/Xiphoid is the lowest point of the sternum, the cut began just ahead (below) the xiphoid process (in front of it).
This was the initial stab, but the knife was thrust upwards behind the sternum and not directly into the chest. So, up and at an angle, then dragged down to the pubes.

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"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The meaning of words do change over time. In the Victorian age "opposite" also meant "in front of".
Here we should replace "opposite" with, "in front of" the enciform cartilage (aka Xiphoid process).



The cut certainly began at the sternum (not the pubes), but just below the sternum. As the Enciform/Xiphoid is the lowest point of the sternum, the cut began just ahead (below) the xiphoid process (in front of it).
This was the initial stab, but the knife was thrust upwards behind the sternum and not directly into the chest. So, up and at an angle, then dragged down to the pubes.

[Sam Flynn]

A right handed killer kneeling to Eddowes’ right hand side would, in my opinion, logically slice open the abdomen from right (pubes) to left (sternum).

On that contrary, that would be rather uncomfortable, as he'd have to have started off with his arm twisted in an awkward position, i.e. with the "pulse" side of his wrist pointing away from him.

[Sam Flynn]

Starting the cut at the sternum seems in theory to be impractical.

Much easier to cut from there than from the pelvis upwards, especially for a right-handed killer, if you think about it, Kat.

In particular starting the cut at the right-hand side of the ribs, if that is what “opposite” the ensiform cartilage means

As I said earlier, I think Brown simply meant that the knife was placed on the opposite side of the ensiform cartilage - i.e. on the abdominal side, rather than the sternal side, just below where the ribs come together. And slap-bang in the middle of the ribs to boot, not the right-hand side of the ribcage.

would entail reaching across and down to killer’s own left side.

Eddowes wasn't a long woman, and she wasn't wide either. A killer positioned to her right wouldn't have had to reach particularly far across or to his left in order to cut from the base of the sternum downwards.

[Kattrup]

No problem, Sam.

Just trying to understand the process. I find it interesting since it gives some indication of the killer’s position, and possibly of his handedness.

I’ll explain: in my opinion, the killer kneeled at Eddowes’ right hand side. This is of course also what dr. Brown thought:

The cut was made by someone on the right side of the body, kneeling below the middle of the body.

There are, in my opinion, many indications that this was the case: face turned to the left, consistent with killer holding and rolling head with left hand while cutting the throat with right, or possibly the head being knocked to the left due to the many slashes and cuts from the right -hand side.
Colon placed between left arm and body, I.e. on opposite side of killer, would have been in the way if placed on same side.

Intestines placed at Eddowes’ right shoulder, again consistent with right handed killer cutting open, then drawing out viscera with empty left hand, placing them to his left.
Eddowes’ left leg straight, but right leg bent, the killer drew it towards him to open space to cut genital area. Cut extending from thigh area to right hand side of abdomen. Stabs, cuts to liver, also right- hand side.

A right handed killer kneeling to Eddowes’ right hand side would, in my opinion, logically slice open the abdomen from right (pubes) to left (sternum).

Starting the cut at the sternum seems in theory to be impractical. In particular starting the cut at the right-hand side of the ribs, if that is what “opposite” the ensiform cartilage means, would entail reaching across and down to killer’s own left side.
In practice of course there’s no telling how much he moved about, so really any direction of cut is possible. But sticking with the description of the cut around the navel and the hypotheses that the killer kneeled to the right, a cut ascending from the groin seems not unlikely.
I therefore started wondering where exactly is the starting point of the cut?

[Sam Flynn]

I meant, as mentioned, the description of the cut around the navel

Ah, sorry, Kat. I missed that bit.

[Joshua Rogan]

Here's the way the Times reports that section;

"The abdominal walls were divided vertically in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel; the cut then took a horizontal course for 2 ½ in. to the right side; it then divided the navel on the left side - round it - and then made an incision parallel to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was 2 ½ in. of the lower part of the rectus muscle of the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique course to the right."

[Kattrup]

You are, I'm afraid, Kat. As I said, nobody would describe a wound to the pubic area as "opposite the ensiform cartilage" anymore than one would describe a head-wound as "opposite the feet".

I meant, as mentioned, the description of the cut around the navel:

The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.

The cut first moves to the right. then moves around the navel on the left, and makes a parallel horizontal cut.
Looking at the photo, how is that possible if the description moves from sternum to pubes? The line of the cut clearly, or somewhat semi clearly, goes to the right of the navel.

I wonder if there’s a comma missing in the sentence “It then divided round the navel on the left side”
Perhaps it should be “It then divided round, the navel on the left side”

[Sam Flynn]

Comparing the photo to the description of the cuts around the navel, it seems clear to me that the description moves upwards, I.e. it follows the cut from the pubic area to the sternum. But perhaps I’m misinterpreting it.

You are, I'm afraid, Kat. As I said, nobody would describe a wound to the pubic area as "opposite the ensiform cartilage" anymore than one would describe a head-wound as "opposite the feet".

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks, Joshua.

I’m not sure it solves the “opposite” the ensiform cartilage-part to my satisfaction, though
As his drawing shows the starting (or ending) precisely at that point. So what’s “opposite” supposed to mean?

It is puzzling, but I've always taken it to be an obscure Victorian alternative term for "near". If you do that, the description of the cuts and their direction then makes sense.

Comparing the photo to the description of the cuts around the navel, it seems clear to me that the description moves upwards, I.e. it follows the cut from the pubic area to the sternum. But perhaps I’m misinterpreting it.

I think you may be. I certainly read the cut description as going down from the sternum and ending at the crotch. Allthough the navel section is slightly difficult to make out, it starts and ends with a horizontal cut, so reads the same going either way. The bit that puzzles me is why the cut goes horizontally right and then doubles back to go down the left side of the navel, then horizontally back right again. Was he intending to cut out the navel completely, a la Chapman?

[Kattrup]

Foster's mortuary sketch is probably a better guide to the extent of the wounds than the photo.

http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...album=35&pos=8

Thanks, Joshua.

I’m not sure it solves the “opposite” the ensiform cartilage-part to my satisfaction, though
As his drawing shows the starting (or ending) precisely at that point. So what’s “opposite” supposed to mean?

Comparing the photo to the description of the cuts around the navel, it seems clear to me that the description moves upwards, I.e. it follows the cut from the pubic area to the sternum. But perhaps I’m misinterpreting it.