The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not this yet again. The organs were taken by the killer. The idea that they were taken in the mortuary is a theory invented for the sake of having a theory.

[FISHY1118]

From being the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick Differ]

Not sure what happened there..fat fingers. Per Fishman the Mortuaries were described as no more than human slaughterhouses. Small , not well lit and not furnished with medical equipment. I have not read where the Doctors in the case of Chapman and Eddowes distinguished the Intestine specific anatomy like descending colon or transverse colon. The Peritoneum was not a thick membrane. This begs the question..Did the killer get a better view of the abdomen in emerging light after he removed " intestines " during Chapman and apply what he learned to Eddowes? Butchers deal with viscera daily with animals v a mortuary assistant with no medical skill as they are not the ones removing organs.
i do not believe this killer was a transient because of the depth of local knowledge required to escape in a 20 to 30 minute cycle. If the Eddowes apron on Goulston Street showed anything it showed a killer completely comfortable within an area teaming with Constables and plain clothes detectives all the while taunting them. He lived right there. No transient could be that lucky ( my opinion).

[Patrick Differ]

Fishman in his East End 1888 describes the mortuaries in questions as no more than a h

[The Rookie Detective]

hi rookie
good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.

Yes, I agree.

An individual who was experienced at hunting animals and various prey is an excellent point. They would no doubt be skilled with a knife and I think you're spot on with that idea.

It would be good to have a list of all those suspects and/or persons of interest that would fit into the list.

it's always surprised me that subjective observations like age, height, appearance, ethnicity, attire etc... sometimes take precedence over the fact that the Ripper must of had at least one of the following...


Anatomical Knowledge
Surgical Skill
Skill with a knife
Experience with a knife


I feel that at least one of those listed above can be attributed to the Ripper. Not necessarily all, but one at least.

[Trevor Marriott]

Rule them out from what exactly ?

From being the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I think the question should be...


Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

(We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.

hi rookie
good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.

[Indian Harry]

If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.

I am with you on this.

Now that you mention horse slaughteres... I sometimes ponder the possibility that Nichols was done in by one of the slaughterers employed right there in Bucks Row. For subsequent murders the culprit was smart enough to operate a little further from his place of employment to avoid drawing attention.

[FISHY1118]

On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rule them out from what exactly ?

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the question should be...


Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

(We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George , Some interesting points you make for sure , and like all things in this JtR world, its always subject to heavy debate . Having said that tho George ,given the language and the exact technical wording Dr Phillipps uses , i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

In my opinion, if ever there were grounds for a case for supporting a Surgeon or Doctor as a legitimate suspect, this one description from Dr Phillipps has to surely carry weight for that arguement . I dont see how anyone could effectively debate such a person would be ''less'' likely than a butcher or abattoir worker , given Dr Phillipps wording.

Forgive me if i dont share your view on different killer/s for the C5 victims , Im comfortable with all the evidence and inquest testimony, that for me points to a single same killer. Just my opinion of course. Cheers.


P.s Any thought on the jfk files?

On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Depends on which medical man your referring to Baron.

[The Baron]

i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

You might want to add: a medical man who descended into madness, there Fishy!



The Baron

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

That is pretty much how a butcher would remove these body parts - with one sweep of a knife and without regard to collateral damage to these organs. To a butcher these were waste products.

For Eddowes the uterus was removed leaving the bladder in place and undamaged. I wonder if a butcher had ever practised this procedure...why would he when these waste products could be removed with a sweep of his knife?

For Chapman and Eddowes it was not noted if the organs were or were not missing at the crime scene. However, Prosector noted that the practice of lifting the small intestines out of the abdomen gives a clearer view, and Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). This was an intended procedure as anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

In the case of Eddowes, Prosector stated As far as I am aware he never accidentally perforated the small intestine (and few surgeons even today could say that). The only time that he cut into the bowel was when he deliberately removed a section of Eddowes’s descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney. The descending colon however contains semi-solid faeces so although there was a little contamination it was nothing like what would have happened if he had perforated the small intestine.

He needed anatomical knowledge to know that the left kidney lay behind the descending colon and even then it would have been difficult to find and excise because it is completely covered by the posterior peritoneum (the ‘membrane’ that Dr Frederick Brown talked about at her inquest).

So while the is no evidence as to whether or not the organs were still present at the crime scene, it appears that the above preparations indicated, at least, an intention to do so. The question still remains as to whether it was possible in the time available and under the conditions. Prosector comments:
It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary. I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part.

For MJK, there is no doubt that all the organs were extracted at the scene. The heart was removed via the abdominal cavity using an incision in the pericardium to access the heart, which was removed leaving the pericardium in place - a technique taught by Virchow.

My current opinion is that Nicolls and Chapman were the victims of a butcher, Stride was murdered by Kosminski and became Anderson's suspect, Eddowes and Kelly were murdered by someone who knew them (facial attacks), that person being very practiced in the dissecting room - someone like Thompson, without necessarily being Thompson.

JMO

Cheers, George

Hi George , Some interesting points you make for sure , and like all things in this JtR world, its always subject to heavy debate . Having said that tho George ,given the language and the exact technical wording Dr Phillipps uses , i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

In my opinion, if ever there were grounds for a case for supporting a Surgeon or Doctor as a legitimate suspect, this one description from Dr Phillipps has to surely carry weight for that arguement . I dont see how anyone could effectively debate such a person would be ''less'' likely than a butcher or abattoir worker , given Dr Phillipps wording.

Forgive me if i dont share your view on different killer/s for the C5 victims , Im comfortable with all the evidence and inquest testimony, that for me points to a single same killer. Just my opinion of course. Cheers.


P.s Any thought on the jfk files?

[GBinOz]

Dr. George Bagster Phillips Report following the post mortem examination:

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

I think Dr Phillipps opinion is often overlooked .

Hi Fishy,

That is pretty much how a butcher would remove these body parts - with one sweep of a knife and without regard to collateral damage to these organs. To a butcher these were waste products.

For Eddowes the uterus was removed leaving the bladder in place and undamaged. I wonder if a butcher had ever practised this procedure...why would he when these waste products could be removed with a sweep of his knife?

For Chapman and Eddowes it was not noted if the organs were or were not missing at the crime scene. However, Prosector noted that the practice of lifting the small intestines out of the abdomen gives a clearer view, and Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). This was an intended procedure as anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

In the case of Eddowes, Prosector stated As far as I am aware he never accidentally perforated the small intestine (and few surgeons even today could say that). The only time that he cut into the bowel was when he deliberately removed a section of Eddowes’s descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney. The descending colon however contains semi-solid faeces so although there was a little contamination it was nothing like what would have happened if he had perforated the small intestine.

He needed anatomical knowledge to know that the left kidney lay behind the descending colon and even then it would have been difficult to find and excise because it is completely covered by the posterior peritoneum (the ‘membrane’ that Dr Frederick Brown talked about at her inquest).

So while the is no evidence as to whether or not the organs were still present at the crime scene, it appears that the above preparations indicated, at least, an intention to do so. The question still remains as to whether it was possible in the time available and under the conditions. Prosector comments:
It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary. I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part.

For MJK, there is no doubt that all the organs were extracted at the scene. The heart was removed via the abdominal cavity using an incision in the pericardium to access the heart, which was removed leaving the pericardium in place - a technique taught by Virchow.

My current opinion is that Nicolls and Chapman were the victims of a butcher, Stride was murdered by Kosminski and became Anderson's suspect, Eddowes and Kelly were murdered by someone who knew them (facial attacks), that person being very practiced in the dissecting room - someone like Thompson, without necessarily being Thompson.

JMO

Cheers, George