The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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."