Surgical knowledge?

[Cogidubnus]

I have to confess I smiled when I typed in "knocked up" and "actually aroused"...I swear it's so!...

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Hi Mr Lucky

But of course the debate (as expressed elsewhere at great length) is, in part at least, what time the good doctor was knocked up, what time he was actually aroused, what time he left the house, and what time he arrived at the crime scene...regardless of all of our honestly held reservations regarding LVP timekeeping...(sigh)

Thanks

Dave

Yes, this is the post that makes me a believer of the statement that Britain and America are separated by a common language. Sometimes the differences in idioms just smack you in the face.

[lynn cates]

a few minutes

Hello Lucky. Thanks. And a few minutes means . . . ?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mr Lucky

But of course the debate (as expressed elsewhere at great length) is, in part at least, what time the good doctor was knocked up, what time he was actually aroused, what time he left the house, and what time he arrived at the crime scene...regardless of all of our honestly held reservations regarding LVP timekeeping...(sigh)

Thanks

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

disagreement

Hi Lynn

'Dr Llewellyn, 152 Whitechapel road, he arrived quickly and pronounced life to be extinct, apparently but a few minutes'

Inspector Spratling's report 31/8/1888

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

You'll doubtless get a little (!) disagreement from some quarters, but not from me mate!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

early

Hello Dave. Thanks. I think both were a tad earlier than the standard theory accepts--maybe 10-15 minutes.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Lynn

As regards Polly I'm totally in agreement with you, feeling as I do that her TOD was a tad earlier than some commentators would have us believe...With Liz I'm a little less sure, but still prepared to listen...I suppose it depends on who was Schwartz's interpreter...there's this interesting chap listed as such who was deported in 1917...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Polly

Hello Cris.

"there is no physical evidence that an attempt was made to extract Mary Nichols' uterus. She was simply mutilated."

Completely agree. Nor am I one to entertain interruption theories--not Polly, not Liz.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

The fact that the cervix was removed uninjured was noted as a factor in the assessment of Chapman's pelvic injuries, as was it being left behind so noted by Brown pertaining to Eddowes' extractions.

Bottom line is that with the Eddowes murder, a re-assessment of Baxter's theory was made and rebuffed. Baxter was not about to admit he could have been wrong, so he implied that Eddowes was murdered by an imitator. She may or may not have been. If she was, her killer had to have acquired some anatomical knowledge and it was a helluva risk to take and required a mind as demented as the one who killed Chapman to do this and take those risks. This wasn't the Gateshead murder where Waddell had every chance to not be disturbed and he simply butchered his former paramour.

Although Mike referred to Chapman, instead of Nichols - as he was asked about Nichols by Lynn - there is no physical evidence that an attempt was made to extract Mary Nichols' uterus. She was simply mutilated.

No real medical assessment could be made as to the skill or lack of in any of these murders under the conditions they were perpetrated and where the real intent of the murderer was unknown.This is where Phillips fell short. He understandably saw some indications that may have been overexemplified while trying to find something logical to explain what he witnessed. But for some reason the uterus was extracted in three of these murders and some anatomical knowledge was necessary in all three for this very unique organ to be removed. How it was extracted- whether complete or incomplete - is not as important as the fact that each of these women's murderer knew what it was, where it was and held it to some degree of importance.

[Errata]

I think that many of us may have different definitions of an intact uterus. My father, an OB/GYN who I got to for a lot of these questions, considers both instances removal of an intact uterus, but notes that as he is more GYN than OB, his definition of intact would differ from the "baby catchers". He said a more OB oriented interpretation would be that neither were intact, because for that to be true they would expect a radical hysterectomy, which was not done.

Strictly speaking, the uterus tends to be defined by the lining. The endometrium. The cervix has no endometrium, therefore is not part of the uterus. It is it's own separate structure with its own separate duties to fulfill. So the cervix is no more the uterus than the stomach is the duodenum. Surgically, for a hysterectomy, they do everything humanly possible to leave the cervix intact. Back then they often did not, but since the preservation of the cervix is to preserve the ability to have sex without having to change the structure of the vagina, I wouldn't expect Victorian surgeons to try to protect the cervix on a woman who will never again bear children. But Victorians rarely defined the cervix as part of the uterus. It was more often considered part of the vagina. Which also isn't technically true, but whatever.

Really the only thing that matters is what the killer thought an intact uterus was, and that largely would depend on what he was doing with them. He was not selling them. In order for a uterus to be a useful medical specimen, it has to include the vagina, cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes and the ovaries. Just a uterus without the attendant structures are useless. I suspect he ate them. And if that's the case, then it makes perfect sense that he would not take the cervix the second time. It's a hard muscular structure, probably denser than the heart. Seriously not good eating, to be blunt. But for all we know, he was making little hats out of them, so it's hard to speculate.

So really, one man's intact uterus is another man's hack job. I think it's possible that Polly Nichol's uterus was targeted, but not the way you think. These were deep incisions, exposing the contents of the lower abdomen. I think it might have been a test run. I dont think he was trying to take her uterus, I think he was trying to figure out the best way to go about it.

[lynn cates]

Point A to Point P

Hello Mike. Thanks. My point is that I'm not sure how we get from Annie to Polly--at least as far as the uterus is concerned.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Im not saying I believe in the Uterus for Sale premise, ....

...but maybe "he" did?

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. I was wondering why you thought Polly's uterus was targeted? I don't personally see any evidence for it.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Well, it was the only internal organ taken from Annie in its complete form, and its removal did impress Phillips. His quote from the Inquest,.... "I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body".

A little more dramatically noted by Baxter,.... "There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found."

I think its clear that the physician who examined the dead woman and the coroner in charge of the Inquest both believed that the killer intended to extract the organ he took away intact before he even killed the woman.

Im not saying I believe in the Uterus for Sale premise, I dont in fact. But I do believe that the man intended to take the uterus...his motivation for doing so is unclear. Maybe its symbolic to him, maybe he wants to try the Thief Candle making idea, maybe he simply hates women, and what differentiates them better than their primary organ of regeneration.

Best regards Lynn,

[lynn cates]

Polly

Hello Mike. I was wondering why you thought Polly's uterus was targeted? I don't personally see any evidence for it.

Cheers.
LC