19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Elamarna]

How can all of those cuts in the clothing going off in different directions relate to one long rip ?

easily, given that the major cut changes direction several times.

[Elamarna]

Trevor

let us look at that picture.

First red circle nearest to arm, does not appear to actually be on the body,
certainly it looks to be on the background, and is not shown on the post mortem sketch.

The next two going down are not in the torso at all, but on the thigh. I admit I did not consider the thigh cut before as this would not bleed into the body cavity.
This wound is attested to by the post mortem report and the post mortem sketch.

The other could certainly be a stab, it corresponds to a stab mentioned in the pm report, and I did say previously that one of the cuts to the clothing could be stab.

In fact looking at the sketch, it is possible that there are two stabs very close to that last red circle.

indeed the post mortem does say:

"There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent."


I interpret this as a minor stab wound, first followed by a deeper one which reaches the peritoneum ,but not penetrating it.

Therefore Trevor you are correct she was stabbed, separate to the main rip.
However I do not see how this could have bled into the body, if the peritoneum was not penetrated!
Nor according to the pm does it appear to cause any major damage to underlying vessels.

in addition, it appears from the photo not to have been stitched at all, suggesting not that deep or large.


I therefore am still of the opinion that the body was not filled with blood, there would be some, but not filled.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you Trevor,

"But there was blood on the clothing if your read Insp Collards report of the description of the clothing you will just that along with the cuts there is blood on the clothing which came from the inside out"


Yes, but has I have said in another post, those cuts do not correspond to any marks on the body, other than the major rip, something backed by both the photographs and post mortem report.

They may not be exact because we do not know the position of the clothing in relation to the body when the cuts were made but some are pretty dam near

Trevor, no one has said there was no bleeding, just that the body cavity may not have been filled up with blood.

Well whether it was or it wasn't is academic in the grand scheme of things the issue is did the killer have enough time time to carry out the removal with the same level of expertise that Dr Browns colleague had in the time calculated by that expert. and that is not taking into account all the other aspects of this murder.

I question your second conclusion: death is by blood loss, therefore the amount of blood left to bleed internally is greatly reduced.

Removing the kidney could produce significant blood loss, two major vessels need to be cut, however given that the neck had already been cut, the the torso opened, how much is left to bleed from these vessels is open to great debate,
The removal of the uterus, again will certainly cause bleeding, again how much is open to question.

You do not seem to allow for the substantial amount of blood lost from the neck wound.

According to the doctors there was no blood splatter so that might suggest very little, and again we do not know the sequence of events. Did he strangle her first, then cut the throat, did he cut her throat and then stab her, Did he stab her in the abdomen first and then cut her throat?

"Yes and if done at the mortuary there would be very little blood flow would there ?"


Yes that is true from a technical viewpoint, however you have no evidence to back this other than your belief that the killer could not have carried out the procedure in time, do you?

No but as i said the facts and the witness testimony cannot be dismissed regarding times.

If I am wrong on that I have missed this evidence, could you link me it, I see nothing specific on your website, other than this belief, be that yours or the views of modern doctors.

It it is to be found in its entirety in my book Jack The Ripper The Secret Police files. Much of which has already been aired on here.

"You could be right but on the other hand its a question of interpertation"


Yes the whole thing is about interpretation.

My role as an investigator has always been to prove or disprove. I have ho hidden agenda just seeking the truth or as near to it as we can 128 years later.

The question of course is was this someone trained, or not?

you say yes, I say probably not.

If the organs were removed at the mortuary that could have been effected by a medical student,an anatomist, a doctor or even a surgeon. The fact that some anatomical knowledge was shown has to be taken into account. I rule out the butcher suggestion.

The most obvious organ for anyone untrained to take would be the heart everyone knows where the heart is located.So if the killer removed them he had some anatomical knowledge of some high degree to go for the kidney.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

if the killer didnt removed the organs there has to be another plausible explanation

You are obviously correct Trevor that if the killer didn't remove the organs then there has to be another plausible explanation but I'm wondering how plausible it is that in two different mortuaries a single organ was opportunistically removed from the bodies of two different women prior to a post-mortem in circumstances where that organ appears to have had little or no value either commercially or for medical research. In the price list you posted, neither a uterus nor kidney are included in the list which appears to suggest that complete or near complete corpses had value but not individual organs.

I can assure you that I don't have any attachment to any theories in this respect but I can't help thinking that the most likely explanation for the absence of the organs is that the murderer took them, despite the "flaws" you believe you have identified in this theory.

[Karl]

You have seen the description of the cuts to the clothing all with blood suggesting that the blood came from the inside i.e the body after the wounds, were inflicted. If the killer simply first cut her throat and was after the organs why did he not then simply lift all her clothes up above her waist and do what he need to do thereafter. Then we would not have the cuts and blood on the clothing.

The killer wouldn't be concerned with not getting blood on the victim's clothes. And why would he lift the victim's clothes above her waist? That would be the hard way of doing things. The coat opens. The other items could be lifted, but the body was lying on the ground. Easier to simply rip them with the knife.

Insp Collards Inquest testimony.

So it is from Catherine Eddowes's inquest. It can be found here:

http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_eddowes.html

Except I do not find that inventory list there. Instead I find this, by Collard:

I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.

But the list itself must come from a different source - it is not from the inquest.

But while we are reading the inquest, scrolling down to Inspector Collard's testimony, we find the following:

Mr. Crawford: When you arrived was the deceased in a pool of blood? [Collard:]- The head, neck, and, I imagine, the shoulders were lying in a pool of blood when she was first found, but there was no blood in front. I did not touch the body myself, but the doctor said it was warm.

[Crawford ?] Was there any sign of a struggle having taken place? - None whatever. I made a careful inspection of the ground all round. There was no trace whatever of any struggle. There was nothing in the appearance of the woman, or of the clothes, to lead to the idea that there had been any struggle.

Which suggests that all mutilations happened post mortem; that Dr. Brown was probably correct in surmising that death was quick following the brutal and quick slash of the throat.

[Elamarna]

Thank you Trevor,

"But there was blood on the clothing if your read Insp Collards report of the description of the clothing you will just that along with the cuts there is blood on the clothing which came from the inside out"


Yes, but has I have said in another post, those cuts do not correspond to any marks on the body, other than the major rip, something backed by both the photographs and post mortem report.



"What is there to debate when you infer I am making things up"


Where did I infer you were making stuff up?
I just think you are wrong in your interpretation and questioned it.



"Doesn't mean to say there was no bleeding does it. Dr Brown said a lot of things some we know to not be correct. That also might be a pointer to show the organs were not removed by the killer. If as you say there was very little blood that shows the killer didnt take the organs other wise there would have been more blood in removing those two organs."



Trevor, no one has said there was no bleeding, just that the body cavity may not have been filled up with blood.

I question your second conclusion: death is by blood loss, therefore the amount of blood left to bleed internally is greatly reduced.

Removing the kidney could produce significant blood loss, two major vessels need to be cut, however given that the neck had already been cut, the the torso opened, how much is left to bleed from these vessels is open to great debate,
The removal of the uterus, again will certainly cause bleeding, again how much is open to question.

You do not seem to allow for the substantial amount of blood lost from the neck wound.




"Yes and if done at the mortuary there would be very little blood flow would there ?"


Yes that is true from a technical viewpoint, however you have no evidence to back this other than your belief that the killer could not have carried out the procedure in time, do you?

If I am wrong on that I have missed this evidence, could you link me it, I see nothing specific on your website, other than this belief, be that yours or the views of modern doctors.



"You could be right but on the other hand its a question of interpertation"


Yes the whole thing is about interpretation.



"Well I dont know you background do I ?

There is a big difference between those who study anatomy and those who have to practice it

And I am well qualified to suggest what I have suggested based on the assessment and evaluation of the evidence coupled with expert medical evidence to support this from those who might be better qualified from a practical perspective to give opinions than yourself."



yes you are certainly qualified to suggest it, but please respect others, i do see that you still question my knowledge on the subject. oh well.
I agree 100% studying is not the same as doing, experience is everything when carrying out this type of procedures correctly.

The question of course is was this someone trained, or not?

you say yes, I say probably not.




"You are most welcome to challenge what ever you want to but I have nothing more to say on this subject we keep going around in circles and I have more pressing things to attend to. I have wasted far to much time on here as it is on this topic."


Such is your right, you are not forced to respond on anything Trevor, I am sorry you feel that it is a waste of your time. I hope you have a good day.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385512]

In a previous post you said you could not make out the wounds on the body which correspond in some way with the cuts in the clothing. Here is what I see as far as possible wounds on the body.

www,trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/url]

What is an owunf?

[Trevor Marriott]

How can all of those cuts in the clothing going off in different directions relate to one long rip ?

If you stab someone the blood flows from the owunf from the inside out soaking the clothing from the inside out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

How uninformative and ultimately utterly condescending a post.

I politely asked for a link to the note about the stab wounds through the clothing, so I could consider any significance, however I see you have not provided it.

I also see you ignore the point that there is no blood on the front of the clothing.

But there was blood on the clothing if your read Insp Collards report of the description of the clothing you will just that along with the cuts there is blood on the clothing which came from the inside out

The problem is you do not wish to debate, you wish to tell.

What is there to debate when you infer I am making things up

I will continue to attempt to clarify.

I do not need to prove it was not filled, you claimed it was filled with blood, making it difficult to remove the organs. I simply asked you to back up this statement, that you have not done.

How can I conclusively prove it was. I cant, but given the wounds to the abdomen the likelihood is it was, and if it wasnt totally the problem would still be there for the killer. end of argument

2. yes arteries and veins may be damaged, however Dr Browns report suggests they were not, and that of course starts with the comment about no blood on the front of the clothing. In addition:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels."

Doesn't mean to say there was no bleeding does it. Dr Brown said a lot of things some we know to not be correct. That also might be a pointer to show the organs were not removed by the killer. If as you say there was very little blood that shows the killer didnt take the organs other wise there would have been more blood in removing those two organs.

That certainly suggests only minor damage

Does the description of the wounds and what was done to the abdomen sound like minor damage. you are having a laugh.

The only damage to major blood vessels he mentions is:

"The left renal artery major was cut through"

which of course needs to be done to remove the kindney.

Yes and if done at the mortuary there would be very little blood flow would there ?

In addition his comments about the rip and stab to the liver are very revealing:

"We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument"


The obvious inference from that is that the stab was a result of the Rip to the body. that is the tip of the knife caused it!

You could be right but on the other hand its a question of interpertation

Trevor, while I do not know your educational background, given your occupation as a Police officer, it is probably safe to say I have far more of a handle on "this" than you do from a medical perspective.
If of course you have qualifications in either medicine or one of the natural sciences, then I may be wrong in that assessment.

Please do not tell me to reconsider my position before challenging again.

I am well qualified to make any observations on medical grounds.

Well I dont know you background do I ?

There is a big difference between those who study anatomy and those who have to practice it

And I am well qualified to suggest what I have suggested based on the assessment and evaluation of the evidence coupled with expert medical evidence to support this from those who might be better qualified from a practical perspective to give opinions than yourself.

I will therefore continue to challenge the information which is published by either yourself or others which I consider to be either wrong, or misleading.
It is up to others to make up their minds on who , if any, is correct or even partially correct.

You are most welcome to challenge what ever you want to but I have nothing more to say on this subject we keep going around in circles and I have more pressing things to attend to. I have wasted far to much time on here as it is on this topic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Still not the link, but at least something to work with.

here is the clothing as documented at the mortuary by Insp Collard you can see what I am referring to with regard to the wounds being inflicted through the outer clothing

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

So blood on the back, not the front. no indication of a stab wound.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

Not a stab, could correspond to the main rip, especially considering the Doctor Brown said this was done with the knife cutting obliquely.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

Again not a stab. same additional comments as above.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

This may be a stab, however the blood appears to be low on garment and not correspond to the cut.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

Certainly not a stab, corresponds to main rip as outlined above.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

Certainly not a stab, corresponds to main rip as outlined above.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

This is the bottom garment, the one next to the skin, no mention of any stabs. it is torn not cut.

Is that source good enough for you ?

Certainly, it shows no stab wounds to the clothing at all.



All. I see is cuts to clothing which can be linked to the major rip to the body.


There appear to be no corresponding wounds on either the photographs or in the post mortem report other than the major rip.

Where are the wounds?


steve

update:I see you have supplied the link, thank you Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Did you not say there were four such stab wounds? Where do we see them on Eddowes's body? At any rate, stab and draw would manifest itself as a cut injury, not a stab injury. And this kind of stab is best done when the victim is already dead, not alive and kicking.

You have seen the description of the cuts to the clothing all with blood suggesting that the blood came from the inside i.e the body after the wounds, were inflicted. If the killer simply first cut her throat and was after the organs why did he not then simply lift all her clothes up above her waist and do what he need to do thereafter. Then we would not have the cuts and blood on the clothing.

Where can I find this source? Someone simply quoting a source on an internet forum doesn't quite... cut it. I naturally want to be able to check for myself. As a researcher, I am sure you understand. At any rate, we still have Dr. Brown stating the abdominal cuts were inflicted post-mortem. Do you simply dismiss that?

Insp Collards Inquest testimony.

[Elamarna]

Trevor,

How uninformative and ultimately utterly condescending a post.

I politely asked for a link to the note about the stab wounds through the clothing, so I could consider any significance, however I see you have not provided it.

I also see you ignore the point that there is no blood on the front of the clothing.

The problem is you do not wish to debate, you wish to tell.

I will continue to attempt to clarify.


"Have you proven it wasnt ? if you are a so called medical person they you will accept that if a someone is stabbed 4 times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife it is going to do some damage to arteries and veins, which will bleed into the abdomen. Now disprove that if you will"



Several points here, the tone of the reply is confrontational when there is no need for such

1. I do not need to prove it was not filled, you claimed it was filled with blood, making it difficult to remove the organs. I simply asked you to back up this statement, that you have not done.


2. yes arteries and veins may be damaged, however Dr Browns report suggests they were not, and that of course starts with the comment about no blood on the front of the clothing. In addition:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels."


That certainly suggests only minor damage.



The only damage to major blood vessels he mentions is:

"The left renal artery major was cut through"

which of course needs to be done to remove the kindney.



In addition his comments about the rip and stab to the liver are very revealing:


"We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument"



The obvious inference from that is that the stab was a result of the Rip to the body. that is the tip of the knife caused it!


Trevor, while I do not know your educational background, given your occupation as a Police officer, it is probably safe to say I have far more of a handle on "this" than you do from a medical perspective.
If of course you have qualifications in either medicine or one of the natural sciences, then I may be wrong in that assessment.

Please do not tell me to reconsider my position before challenging again.

I am well qualified to make any observations on medical grounds.

I will therefore continue to challenge the information which is published by either yourself or others which I consider to be either wrong, or misleading.
It is up to others to make up their minds on who , if any, is correct or even partially correct.

And note I have not been rude to you, which would be extremely easy and very tempting, however I do not need to be.


Steve

Trevor,

Further comments on your post:

"Dr Brown stated in his post mortem report that the liver was stabbed through"


He does not say it was stabbed through the abdomen does he? or have I missed that?

Does it matter where it was stabbed it was one of the stab wounds inflicted through the outer clothing. and to put the record straight I misred the report and previoulsy stated that the kidney was stabbed. I consider myself reprimanded.

You have not proven the abdomen was filled with blood.

Have you proven it wasnt ? if you are a so called medical person they you will accept that if a someone is stabbed 4 times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife it is going to do some damage to arteries and veins, which will bleed into the abdomen. Now disprove that if you will

Please note I have not been rude. Maybe a lesson could be learnt.

You wonder why I appear to be rude when you have not even got a basic handle on this. Yet you are quick to dismiss things that I have said that are well documented. May I suggest you do your research thoroughly and the reconsider your position before you make any further challenges

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

You dont read the posts before replying. I said she was stabbed and the knife drawn down and across

Did you not say there were four such stab wounds? Where do we see them on Eddowes's body? At any rate, stab and draw would manifest itself as a cut injury, not a stab injury. And this kind of stab is best done when the victim is already dead, not alive and kicking.

here is the clothing as documented at the mortuary by Insp Collard you can see what I am referring to with regard to the wounds being inflicted through the outer clothing

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

Is that source good enough for you ?

Where can I find this source? Someone simply quoting a source on an internet forum doesn't quite... cut it. I naturally want to be able to check for myself. As a researcher, I am sure you understand. At any rate, we still have Dr. Brown stating the abdominal cuts were inflicted post-mortem. Do you simply dismiss that?

[Trevor Marriott]

Where does it say the stab wounds were inflicted through clothing? The clothing were free of blood. And looking at the picture of C. Eddowes, I see no stab wounds.



Given that there was no blood on the front of her clothes, no stab wounds visible on her skin, it seems fair to conclude that she was cut up after her heart had stopped beating. Dr. Brown agrees:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels. I draw the conclusion that the act was made after death, and there would not have been much blood on the murderer."

So, the abdominal cavity was not blood filled. Unless you can prove that it was, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.



This is where we tell you to take your own advice in as polite a manner as possible. I do not like being this forward, but you are in no position to accuse others - who actually reference sources, unlike some I could name - that they haven't even got a basic handle on things.

As for your reply to me:


I never said you categorically stated the kidney came from Eddowes. You did, however, categorically state the kidney showed signs of Bright's disease - hence the link in rebuttal.
Perhaps you should read the posts more thoroughly and digest the contents before rushing to reply...

You dont read the posts before replying. I said she was stabbed and the knife drawn down and across

here is the clothing as documented at the mortuary by Insp Collard you can see what I am referring to with regard to the wounds being inflicted through the outer clothing

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

Is that source good enough for you ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk