The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[GBinOz]

The specific point that I want to mention is the level of light available to the killer. In discussions we often hear phrases like ‘in near total darkness,’ or ‘pitch black’ when discussing the level of difficulty facing the killer. No one can deny that this murder occurred during the hours of darkness but we have to consider the words of Doctor Sequiera who arrived in Mitre Square ten minutes or so after PC Watkins found the body. He said at the inquest:

“Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

“Sufficient light.” Can anyone think of a reason why we should doubt him?

Prosector:

"Of all the doctors involved, the one I respect least is Dr Sequeira. He had only been qualified for two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible (LSA - although he later got the MRCS), he was not a police surgeon (and therefore had little or no autopsy experience and, as far as I know, he only turned up to confirm death and was not present at the autopsy so how would he have known how much skill had been displayed?) Phillips was by far the most experienced doctor involved in the Ripper cases (and I include Bond in that) and Brown was the next. They both thought that JTR had both anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill."

With "little or no autopsy experience", what faith can be had in his opinion as to what level of light was "suffient"?

Note: Prosector later admitted that he was mistaken about Sequeira's attendance at the autopsy.

[JeffHamm]

It's interesting that it was noted by the Doctor that there was sufficient light for the killer to inflict the wounds on Eddowes, because it then means that by the same token, there must have been a form of light source within relative proximity to Eddowes as she was being butchered.

On that basis it's difficult to believe that the Ripper couldn't be seen by PC Harvey, who was alleged to have walked as far as the entrance to the square.

If that's indeed true, then the Ripper must have been gone before that time.

If the Ripper had enough light to inflict wounds on Eddowes, then by the same token there would have been enough light for the Ripper to have been seen also.

There was a lamp situated at the far end of the alleyway (approximately where Lawrende claimed he saw Eddowes and a man earlier) that could have obscured a person's field of view as they looked down the alleyway and directly towards the murder site.

It therefore seems that IF the Ripper was still there mutilating Eddowes when PC Harvey allegedly walked down the alleyway and as far as the Square, then PC Harvey couldn't have walked as far as the square without seeing the killer.

So, either the Ripper was there at the time Harvey claimed he was there, but the latter lied about how far he walked down the alley I.e. he didn't bother to walk down to the other end closest to the square, or...

the Ripper had gone before PC Harvey got there...and he simply failed to notice the significance of Eddowes laying there.

PC Harvey failing to see Eddowes laying there isn't particularly suspicious, but failing to see the killer IF the killer was still there, is not viable unless PC Harvey lied about how far he walked towards the square.

All of the above of course is based entirely on there being "sufficient light."

Hi RD,
There was a lamp at the end of Church Passage, so when PC Harvey gets to the end of the passage he's got light between him and the dark area where Eddowes was found. That results in making it nigh on impossible to see into the dark corner. In addition, it raises the distinct possibility that PC Harvey does not have to patrol all the way to the end of the passage, but just far enough into it to be able to ensure there's nothing untoward within the passage and the lamp allows him to see to the end. Mitre Square was not part of his beat, so he doesn't have to check into the square itself, just deal with the length of the passage way.

The converse, however, is not true. JtR in the dark area would very easily be able to see PC Harvey if the PC entered into the area lit up by the lamp.

It is, therefore, very possible that it was PC Harvey's patrol that resulted in JtR fleeing the area, resulting in him getting away rather than being caught in the act.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

He was referring to the act of murder and mutilation and not the removal of the organs thats just your take on what he said to suit your own agenda

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He said, "There was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed". "The deed" would include everything that the killer did. That would include the removal of organs if Dr. Sequiera thought that the killer did that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was referring to the act of murder and mutilation and not the removal of the organs thats just your take on what he said to suit your own agenda

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor. You’ve made that up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George

I notice Herlock has chosen not to mention this part of prosector's post

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is nothing by Prosector in your post Trevor. What are you talking about?

[Trevor Marriott]

I am going to conclude this fiasco you have instigated and post 3 reports from modern day medical experts in their field on dealing with evisceration of bodies starting with Phillip Harrison a mortuary manager whose roll it is to prepare bodies for post morttems and assist with the post mortems he has over 25 years experience

I will firstly comment on the murder of Annie Chapman. She was described in the post-mortem report as showing signs of great deprivation. I mention this as in my opinion evisceration is more difficult in a person with a poor covering of body fat. When a person is very thin the skin at autopsy loses its elasticity. It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched. Surgeons use a retractor to make the opening as big as possible. Surgeons need as much room as possible but would work internally in what would seem to the layperson as an impossibly small opening. The skin is very elastic and a small incision can be stretched to make it quite large.

Chapman’s abdomen was laid open. For someone with anatomical knowledge and experience, the small intestines are the easiest to remove from the mesenteric attachments. I would imagine the original pathologist is referring to the small intestines. With great skill and practice, it is easy to remove the small intestine from its mesenteric attachments with one cut if speed was of an essence. But it does take skill and many years of practice.

I am right-handed and I would suggest the perpetrator to have been right-handed as the neck wound indicates that and the fact that the organs removed from the abdominal cavity were placed at the head of the body.
A piece of the stomach was found on the left shoulder. This could have been cut and removed accidentally during the frenzied attack as the intestines, and in particular, the large intestine was removed and placed to one side.
An interesting point is the removal of the pelvic organs. The report states that the uterus and its appendages and the upper portion of the vagina, and parts of the bladder had been entirely removed. To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of a blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite a skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today’s methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum. These specific organs are in very close proximity to each other and at post-mortem are removed by a mixture of blunt dissection and a sharp knife. Even doing this carefully it is still possible to damage some of the surrounding organs and tissues. There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus.

It is stated that a knife of at least five to six inches long was used. It may be possible under normal modern-day hospital conditions but would have been almost impossible given the number of mutilations and the fact that it was dark.
This brings me back to the signs of great deprivation. I would imagine that the deceased was very emaciated. This could have made the abdominal opening much tighter to work in to delicately remove the pelvic organs. The organs would have been covered in blood and probably faeces and make it difficult to see where to cut and handle the organs. The organs do not bleed but they ooze blood, and faeces would also have come out of the cut sections of the bowels. I also note that the original reports show that when the body was discovered both her legs were drawn up, indicating this is how the killer left the body. With the legs in those positions, it would have been a hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen.

The second report I will comment on relates to the murder of Catherine Eddowes. The injuries inflicted on the face and neck has been well documented and most of the other injuries to the face, neck and lower body occurred after death. There is no doubt she was subjected to a frenzied attack. The report states that the abdomen was opened from the xiphoid process to the pubic bone. This seems to be a much smaller incision to the one made at post-mortem allowing access to the abdominal organs.

There is difficulty in ascertaining how much elasticity remained in the deceased’s tissues for the kidney and uterus to be removed. As I have previously stated deceased persons who have very little body fat covering tend to have very tight skin coverage especially over the abdomen thus making it difficult to enter the abdominal space. In Eddowes’ case looking at Picture (3) taken before the post-mortem. This clearly shows a much smaller jagged incision than is described in the post-mortem report. An interesting side point about the abdominal wound is how it circled the umbilicus. The umbilicus or belly button is cartilaginous in nature and is not cut through during the initial post-mortem incision today. An experienced anatomist would have known this.

In my experience, this would have made it extremely difficult for the killer to investigate the abdominal cavity and to remove any organ easily especially in almost total darkness especially if the killer was in a rush and trying to work quickly.

For the left kidney to be easily removed a person would need to be on the right side of the body as this gives easier access to the left kidney. What cannot be underestimated as briefly mentioned in the post-mortem report is the amount of blood and faecal matter that would have been present around and in the abdominal cavity. The liver was stabbed and almost cut through; this would have undoubtedly let a lot of blood into the abdominal cavity. A newly deceased does not bleed in the normal sense of the word but there is a lot of seepage of blood from the tissues and organs.
This makes it even more difficult to remove organs carefully. Standard post-mortem procedures involve wearing gloves that give more of a grip when dealing with blood and body fluids. It would have been difficult for a person to grip warm and very messy organs to remove them carefully so soon after death.

The kidneys are situated at the back of the abdominal cavity surrounded by their own protective covering and the renal capsule and surrounding fat. The post-mortem report states that about 2 feet of the colon was removed. If the colon was removed from the left-hand side of the transverse colon and the descending colon, access to the kidney is somewhat easier. To remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge.

The uterus was also removed without damaging any underlying tissue. This is also very difficult especially as the report says that the sigmoid colon was invaginated into the rectum very tightly. It would be difficult with a six-inch knife to carefully remove the uterus. I use surgical scalpels and have also become quite adept with a very sharp knife with a 4” blade. We have in the post-mortem room “daylight lighting”. Given the levels of light available and the time available it would have made it more difficult to remove the organs carefully, especially given the crime scene location and the level of light required. As I have stated previously if the killer was targeting specific organs for removal, as with the murder of Chapman the killer would not have needed to remove the intestines to remove the uterus.
I also note that the original reports show that when the body was found one leg was drawn up. I again refer to my previous comments with regards to the position of the body of Chapman and the hindrance having a leg drawn up when trying to access and remove organs from the abdominal cavity.

To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six-inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened levels of awareness and the prospect of being caught makes this even more difficult. The emphasis is on carefully because only a person with expert knowledge of anatomy would be able to remove the organs in the manner described and would find it very difficult if not impossible in almost total darkness

In my opinion, I do not believe that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes was responsible for removing their organs at the crime scene. Even for a highly skilled medical man given all the circumstances, it would have been a daunting task which given the level of expertise of surgeons in Victorian times would also make it a lengthy process for such a person in any event. In my opinion, the killer could not have removed those organs in the time known to have been available to him

Dr Calder-Pathologist
I am a Fully Registered Medical Practitioner and Consultant Pathologist. I have the basic qualifications of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery from the University of St. Andrews. I have the additional qualifications of Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Science, Membership of the Royal College of Physicians, Fellowship of the Royal College of Pathologists, Fellowship of the College of Pathologist of Hong Kong, Fellowship of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians, Diploma in Medical Jurisprudence and Diploma in Medical Disability Assessment. I have approximately twenty-eight years of investigating sudden and unnatural deaths. I have also been involved in basic research in pathology. I have no idea as to the number of autopsies I have carried out but it must be in the tens of thousands.

I have been asked to express my opinion relating to the evisceration and mutilation of the bodies of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. Evisceration requires considerable experience and overall awareness of anatomy, especially human anatomy. In my opinion experience in eviscerating animals requires an entirely different technique, so as a basic premise it is mercenary to consider a person with practical experience in human anatomy and/or surgery. Even in those experienced in evisceration it is not a technique, which can be done ‘blind’, and would have to be carried out under direct visual observation. Organs at autopsy and in fact surgery are slippery, which can cause technical problems unless gloves are used.

In considering Catherine Eddowes, from the autopsy report it does appear she was subjected to a “frenzied attack”, with injuries both post-mortem and ante-mortem distributed over the body.
The autopsy report states that the abdomen had been opened from the bottom of the sternum as far as the pubis. It is interesting to observe that this incision appeared to be irregular, which could suggest the use of a slightly blunt knife. However the incision had avoided the umbilicus (which is more difficult to incise), and this would perhaps be supportive evidence that the assailant knew of this from past experience.

The kidneys are in the upper posterior of the abdomen and are not easy to locate as they are behind major organs. Given this, the usual surgical approach is by an incision in the loin. To remove the left kidney an approach from the right side would be ergonomically easier. Technically it would be easier with visceral organs removed. However, to carry this out in the dark would be almost impossible without producing damage to other organs. This lends support to the fact that to achieve such there needed to be not only knowledge of anatomy, but experience in applying it.

To remove the uterus without adjacent damage is technically very difficult, even with a sweeping motion of a knife, even when pulling the uterus out of the bowl of the pelvis. An anatomist would not need to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of a uterus.

It is difficult to explain the piece of cloth, which was part of an apron, which had faecal staining and blood spotting. There have been put forward three possible uses for this - cleaning the assailant’s hands, wiping a knife or as wrapping material for a kidney. A kidney removed from a fresh cadaver would have a considerable amount of blood.

In the case of Annie Chapman, she was a sparse female and would suggest that the abdominal wall was without much fat and possibly lean. To remove the bowels would require expertise and experience.
The pelvic organs appear to have been removed skillfully without damage to adjacent tissues.

This would be technically very difficult, as the organs are down in the bowl of the pelvis, and would require continuous observation, to avoid the complicated local anatomy.

Conclusion

From the evidence considered if the assailant did remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman, he would not only have known about anatomy but experience in using it. Even in the experienced, such evisceration would have to be carried out by observation in a well-lit area. Therefore there has to be a doubt about the removal of these organs at the crime scenes. I also suggest that there is a doubt about when and where all the abdominal injuries to the victims occurred. In my opinion, the killer could not have removed the uterus and kidney within the time frame suggested available to him at the crime scene.

I have also looked at the reports relating to the removal of the organs from Mary Kelly. In my opinion, these removals do not appear to have been made by someone with specific medical anatomical knowledge.

Edmond Neale-Gynaecologist

I am Edmund Neale; I have been a consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist for over 25 years. I am a Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and a senior examiner for them.
I have viewed the post mortem reports of the victims, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. I have looked at them from the perspective of a modern-day gynaecologist, but have tried to extrapolate back to practice in 1888.

In both cases I note the severity and depth of the fatal neck wounds, suggesting an extremely sharp blade was used, as it marked the anterior surface of the vertebrae.

Catherine Eddowes

In addition to the post mortem report, I have also seen a drawing and a photograph of the body before the post mortem. 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. I believe this approach would allow maximum pressure to be exerted on the abdominal wall whilst minimizing the damage to the internal organs.

“Someone with anatomical knowledge” could accomplish the removal of the uterus quite quickly once access has been obtained. Traction on the organ would allow division of the tissues on either side with one sweep of the knife. The only task that would then remain would be to cut horizontally to remove the organ. In the case of Catherine Eddowes, I note the cervix of the uterus was left behind.
Today this would be termed a subtotal hysterectomy as the cervix is seen as an integral part of the uterus. The obstetricians and midwives of the 19th century were aware of the importance of the cervix in childbirth, but I have no knowledge of Victorian anatomist’s gynaecological view of the cervix. I would, however, have expected it to be removed as well if the organ was required for experimentation.

I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but, interestingly, it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish, and a longer time frame needed.

In respect of the piece of the apron and whether it was used as a sanitary towel or not, it is quite possible that even in Victorian times women in their late forties would still be menstruating and may well have used a piece of rag as a sanitary towel. Blood spotting is a part of the female menstrual cycle. I have not been shown a photograph of the original apron piece showing the blood spotting, so I, therefore, cannot give a definitive answer as to whether the blood spotting described on the apron piece is consistent with the menstrual cycle

I have provided a photograph of a surgical swab showing the effect of wrapping a recently removed normal-sized uterus from a live donor. Picture 8. This clearly shows a heavy concentration of oxygenated deep red blood, which has heavily stained the swab. Annie Chapman

My comments above on the removal of the uterus will again apply. I note that in this case it is reported that the appendages were removed. Also, the uterus and cervix were removed, the transverse incision cutting through the vagina. However, in this case, a portion of the bladder was also removed.

Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done), this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However, I note that in this case, it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

Conclusions

As to the time and feasibility of undertaking these procedures in semi- or almost total darkness, the Doctors assessment at the time of the inquest was probably around about right. To my mind, the various stab wounds noted in the livers would again support my theory that the blade was stabbed in through the abdominal wall and cutting down the sides and across the bottom. It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut to identify the kidney and remove it. It should also be noted that an anatomist would know drawing upwards rather than a surgical type incision from the outside the uterus would be fairly easy to remove with a modicum of knowledge by pulling up hard and that there would be no need to take out the intestines to remove a uterus.
It is difficult to accurately estimate the time required to perform such a procedure. It In modern-day practice with an anaesthetic and attempting to preserve the tissue layers and anatomy to reduce morbidity one would take 10-15 minutes to make such an incision and removal in a planned non-urgent case, but it could be achieved in around 3 minutes in an emergency situation, however, one would also have to also consider the time needed to perform the removal of the kidney, which I would estimate would have taken at least two more minutes, and the time taken to carry out the other mutilations (apart from the murder itself).

Once the abdomen has been laid open there is the question of access. In modern-day practice with a live patient, there remains a tension in the abdominal wall and retractors are used to display the surgical site fully. In this case, there would be no such tension in the abdominal muscles (the pathologist states rigor mortis had not yet begun) so the abdominal wall could be expected to “fall open” to a greater extent allowing better access.

In order to remove the uterus, it could simply be felt and pulled upon. It would usually be reasonably mobile, but if these women had borne children it is likely to be more so. There are four sets of ligaments attached to a normal uterus. The round ligament arises from the top, the broad ligament from the side (and has the fallopian tube at its top and the ovary right behind) and the cardinal and uterosacral ligaments which are attached in the region of the cervix. Victorian anatomists were usually quite precise, that’s supposing it was the killer who removed them. So I am surprised that there is not greater detail of which of these ligaments were removed and which were not, however, suffice to say that the round and broad ligaments would have to be cut or removed in part even to perform a subtotal hysterectomy.

It is my professional opinion that once the abdomen is open, the killer or whoever, had merely to take the uterus in his hand (it has a unique shape and texture in the pelvis and so could easily be identified even in the dark (if one had some prior knowledge of it), pull hard and cut either side of one’s hand to separate the round and broad ligaments. A horizontal cut across the base of his hand would then separate the uterus from the body. The lower the cut, the more likely the organ remover is to remove the cervix and damage the bladder, the higher the cut the more likely he is to leave the cervix behind.
I note that the hysterectomies performed on the two victims were different, but there is not enough information available to me to say whether or not they were carried out by the same person, or different persons. I am not able to say where or when the organs were removed.

They could have been removed at the crime scenes had the perpetrator had sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to locate the specific organs and had the time available to him to do so, or equally I cannot dismiss the suggestion that they could have been removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by someone with sufficient anatomical knowledge.

Finally one should consider the nephrectomy, but I make these conclusions from my anatomical and gynaecological knowledge. I have not worked in urology for 32 years.
If the killer is on the patient’s right, it would be easier and more natural to remove the left kidney. The kidneys lay either side of the spine protected by fat and the peritoneal membrane in all mammals. Again they have a particular feel and consistency unique for their position. I am unable to comment on the amount of fat there is likely to have been in Victorian times, but the less there is, the easier it would be to find once the bowels have been moved to one side (whether detached or not). If the killer knew of the position of a mammalian kidney (whether human or animal) they would also be aware that the only “attachment” is the vessels and urethra which lie between the kidney and the spine. If one was not concerned with preserving life a simple longitudinal cut parallel to the spine would create an opening in the peritoneum into which a finger and then a hand could be placed and the kidney “shelled out”. I estimate this could be done in 1-2 minutes as a minimum working at speed under modern-day theatre conditions.

In concluding and with regards to the removal of the organs from Eddowes and the time needed for them to have been removed at the crime scene. In my opinion, it would not be the skill that would be needed, but the level of anatomical knowledge, which would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. If the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge otherwise he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window” as stated by Dr Brown.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi George

I notice Herlock has chosen not to mention this part of prosector's post

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

My apologies for stating the obvious but none of us were there in Mitre Square so we have to rely on those that were plus any other evidence/hints that are left to us in the records. The specific point that I want to mention is the level of light available to the killer. In discussions we often hear phrases like ‘in near total darkness,’ or ‘pitch black’ when discussing the level of difficulty facing the killer. No one can deny that this murder occurred during the hours of darkness but we have to consider the words of Doctor Sequiera who arrived in Mitre Square ten minutes or so after PC Watkins found the body. He said at the inquest:

“Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

“Sufficient light.” Can anyone think of a reason why we should doubt him?


The killer could also see well enough to make cuts through his victim’s eyelids pus the two ‘v’ shaped cuts in her cheeks. This doesn’t suggest anything like “near total darkness” to me.

However the differing levels of knowledge (policing or medical) in 1888 as compared to today we can state with confidence that the people involved in this investigation weren’t idiots. If it had been too dark for the killer to have killed, mutilated and removed organs no one can doubt that someone would have mentioned it.

He was referring to the act of murder and mutilation and not the removal of the organs thats just your take on what he said to suit your own agenda

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

My apologies for stating the obvious but none of us were there in Mitre Square so we have to rely on those that were plus any other evidence/hints that are left to us in the records. The specific point that I want to mention is the level of light available to the killer. In discussions we often hear phrases like ‘in near total darkness,’ or ‘pitch black’ when discussing the level of difficulty facing the killer. No one can deny that this murder occurred during the hours of darkness but we have to consider the words of Doctor Sequiera who arrived in Mitre Square ten minutes or so after PC Watkins found the body. He said at the inquest:

“Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

“Sufficient light.” Can anyone think of a reason why we should doubt him?


The killer could also see well enough to make cuts through his victim’s eyelids pus the two ‘v’ shaped cuts in her cheeks. This doesn’t suggest anything like “near total darkness” to me.

However the differing levels of knowledge (policing or medical) in 1888 as compared to today we can state with confidence that the people involved in this investigation weren’t idiots. If it had been too dark for the killer to have killed, mutilated and removed organs no one can doubt that someone would have mentioned it.

It's interesting that it was noted by the Doctor that there was sufficient light for the killer to inflict the wounds on Eddowes, because it then means that by the same token, there must have been a form of light source within relative proximity to Eddowes as she was being butchered.

On that basis it's difficult to believe that the Ripper couldn't be seen by PC Harvey, who was alleged to have walked as far as the entrance to the square.

If that's indeed true, then the Ripper must have been gone before that time.

If the Ripper had enough light to inflict wounds on Eddowes, then by the same token there would have been enough light for the Ripper to have been seen also.

There was a lamp situated at the far end of the alleyway (approximately where Lawrende claimed he saw Eddowes and a man earlier) that could have obscured a person's field of view as they looked down the alleyway and directly towards the murder site.

It therefore seems that IF the Ripper was still there mutilating Eddowes when PC Harvey allegedly walked down the alleyway and as far as the Square, then PC Harvey couldn't have walked as far as the square without seeing the killer.

So, either the Ripper was there at the time Harvey claimed he was there, but the latter lied about how far he walked down the alley I.e. he didn't bother to walk down to the other end closest to the square, or...

the Ripper had gone before PC Harvey got there...and he simply failed to notice the significance of Eddowes laying there.

PC Harvey failing to see Eddowes laying there isn't particularly suspicious, but failing to see the killer IF the killer was still there, is not viable unless PC Harvey lied about how far he walked towards the square.

All of the above of course is based entirely on there being "sufficient light."

[Doctored Whatsit]

My apologies for stating the obvious but none of us were there in Mitre Square so we have to rely on those that were plus any other evidence/hints that are left to us in the records. The specific point that I want to mention is the level of light available to the killer. In discussions we often hear phrases like ‘in near total darkness,’ or ‘pitch black’ when discussing the level of difficulty facing the killer. No one can deny that this murder occurred during the hours of darkness but we have to consider the words of Doctor Sequiera who arrived in Mitre Square ten minutes or so after PC Watkins found the body. He said at the inquest:

“Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

“Sufficient light.” Can anyone think of a reason why we should doubt him?


The killer could also see well enough to make cuts through his victim’s eyelids pus the two ‘v’ shaped cuts in her cheeks. This doesn’t suggest anything like “near total darkness” to me.

However the differing levels of knowledge (policing or medical) in 1888 as compared to today we can state with confidence that the people involved in this investigation weren’t idiots. If it had been too dark for the killer to have killed, mutilated and removed organs no one can doubt that someone would have mentioned it.

Don't apologise for stating the obvious - sometimes it is helpful or necessary! As you say, not only did the doctor specify that there was sufficient light, but the neat little nicks on the cheeks and eyelids show just how much he could see and do - enough light for JtR to arrogantly "show off" his skills.

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies for stating the obvious but none of us were there in Mitre Square so we have to rely on those that were plus any other evidence/hints that are left to us in the records. The specific point that I want to mention is the level of light available to the killer. In discussions we often hear phrases like ‘in near total darkness,’ or ‘pitch black’ when discussing the level of difficulty facing the killer. No one can deny that this murder occurred during the hours of darkness but we have to consider the words of Doctor Sequiera who arrived in Mitre Square ten minutes or so after PC Watkins found the body. He said at the inquest:

“Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

“Sufficient light.” Can anyone think of a reason why we should doubt him?


The killer could also see well enough to make cuts through his victim’s eyelids pus the two ‘v’ shaped cuts in her cheeks. This doesn’t suggest anything like “near total darkness” to me.

However the differing levels of knowledge (policing or medical) in 1888 as compared to today we can state with confidence that the people involved in this investigation weren’t idiots. If it had been too dark for the killer to have killed, mutilated and removed organs no one can doubt that someone would have mentioned it.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I quite agree. but with so many unknowns and so many contradictions, can we justify dismissing any theories addressed at providing possible solutions? There may have been more than one perpetrator, and Trevor provides a theory that relieves the ripper from having to possess advanced dissection techniques. I don't know that we are so amply provided with hard facts as to enable us to dismiss theories out of hand.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Except for the fact that these poor women were butchered and were discovered some time after their killer had left, there are very few hard facts, if any at all, to be found in this whole case. So, it’s up to our individual sense of logic and way of thinking what to make of the evidence left to us. Mine tells me that Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly fell victim to the same man and that this individual didn’t stop at lifting the skirts, opening up the abdomen and getting intestines out of the way. Why should we think he did stop there, when we know some serial killers did take organs or body parts from their victims? I see no compelling reason to think he wouldn’t have taken away organs, especially the uterus. Just my view, of course.

Cheers,
Frank

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

I think that we have to acknowledge that a butcher's aim was to eviscerate a body to attain a carcass with the innards being separated for later processing for by products. I struggle to see how this relates to medical dissections. Why would a butcher commit to the time involved in carefully extracting the heart from the pericardium. The entire innards, including heart and, in the case of a female animal, the reproductive organs, as well as the bladder, would have ended up on the floor. There would have been no intricate procedure involved- that just wasn't economical.

For what it is worth, I am also not convinced totally that Kelly was a victim of JtR, but I am also not convinced that JtR was a single entity.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I fully understand what you are saying. I just don't think JtR was attempting total evisceration of his female victims, as if they were pigs or sheep, there is no evidence to suggest that. I believe that he was using his experience to slash his victim and obtain some sort of trophy, though possibly not with a specific plan for a particular organ each time. Like you, I also think that there may have been more than one Whitechapel murderer.

[John Wheat]

Hi George,

The point I was trying to make, and apparently failed, was that butcher/slaughterers were eviscerating hour after hour, day after day, must have developed specific techniques for this, and we have no way of knowing what they were. There is no reason to suppose that they were not similar to surgical techniques developed later. Would a bucher have deviated around the navel - probably yes! How can we know how an experienced slaughterer might have removed a heart. For what it is worth, I am not convinced totally that Kelly was a victim of JtR.

We don't know just how skilled JtR was, nor do we know what his exact purpose was - was he just getting a thrill from cutting a body up, was he after a specific organ, or did he just take a trophy. We cannot know.

We may know these medical procedures to which you refer, but we have no knowledge whatever of slaughterers' evisceration techniques, but they must have existed.

Great post. I might add that a lot of serial killers begin by killing animals and it would be perfectly possible that Jack eviscerated the animals he'd killed so might have been experienced in evisceration before the C5. In short I don't think ruling any suspect in or out due to surgical skill and anatomical knowledge or supposed lack of it is a good idea.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

The point I was trying to make, and apparently failed, was that butcher/slaughterers were eviscerating hour after hour, day after day, must have developed specific techniques for this, and we have no way of knowing what they were. There is no reason to suppose that they were not similar to surgical techniques developed later. Would a bucher have deviated around the navel - probably yes! How can we know how an experienced slaughterer might have removed a heart. For what it is worth, I am not convinced totally that Kelly was a victim of JtR.

We don't know just how skilled JtR was, nor do we know what his exact purpose was - was he just getting a thrill from cutting a body up, was he after a specific organ, or did he just take a trophy. We cannot know.

We may know these medical procedures to which you refer, but we have no knowledge whatever of slaughterers' evisceration techniques, but they must have existed.

Hi Doc,

I think that we have to acknowledge that a butcher's aim was to eviscerate a body to attain a carcass with the innards being separated for later processing for by products. I struggle to see how this relates to medical dissections. Why would a butcher commit to the time involved in carefully extracting the heart from the pericardium. The entire innards, including heart and, in the case of a female animal, the reproductive organs, as well as the bladder, would have ended up on the floor. There would have been no intricate procedure involved- that just wasn't economical.

For what it is worth, I am also not convinced totally that Kelly was a victim of JtR, but I am also not convinced that JtR was a single entity.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Good post Doc. It relates well to the Chapman murder. However, when we look at the Eddowes and Kelly murders:

Would a butcher have deviated around the navel with his incision.

Would a butcher have extracted the uterus while taking particular care not to damage the bladder - a task that can be unsuccessful even in a modern theatre - or just removed both with a sweep of the knife as in the Chapman case.

Would a butcher have extracted the heart from the enclosing pericardium leaving the latter in place, or just cut out both in a single grab and snatch.

While in 1888 appendectomies were a brand new field, and the surgical extraction of kidneys was unknown on live patients, these procedures, and the removal of the heart from the pericardium, were being taught and practised in the medical dissecting rooms....and not by butchers.

I'm not convinced that these medical procedures would have been employed by a butcher.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

The point I was trying to make, and apparently failed, was that butcher/slaughterers were eviscerating hour after hour, day after day, must have developed specific techniques for this, and we have no way of knowing what they were. There is no reason to suppose that they were not similar to surgical techniques developed later. Would a bucher have deviated around the navel - probably yes! How can we know how an experienced slaughterer might have removed a heart. For what it is worth, I am not convinced totally that Kelly was a victim of JtR.

We don't know just how skilled JtR was, nor do we know what his exact purpose was - was he just getting a thrill from cutting a body up, was he after a specific organ, or did he just take a trophy. We cannot know.

We may know these medical procedures to which you refer, but we have no knowledge whatever of slaughterers' evisceration techniques, but they must have existed.