Same motive = same killer

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks Debs.
Quite. Since the foetus was removed via a cut through the uterus' left wall, removing two strips of frontal abdominal wall wouldn't appear to be of much help if the uterus was still in situ.

You've got to expose the uterus first, before you can access it and remove the foetus via a cut in the uterine wall.

[Debra A]

That being the case, was this not an instance of a fœtus being removed, with the removal of the uterus being a somewhat secondary consideration?

That's a question I asked though, Gareth.
Why remove the uterus at all if the foetus had already been removed from it to facilitate dismemberment? An empty uterus would present no obstacle to dismemberment would it?

Hebbert describes the upper portion of the vagina, including cervix, as still being attached to the uterus and also the back portion of the bladder was present. In the bony pelvis was the lower portion of the vagina, rectum and the other portion of the bladder, showing the uterus had been cut out by slicing through those organs.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps the perpetrator(s) sought to "rescue" the baby, or at least spare it the indignity of being cut through. I recall that a similar notion came to the Manson killers in respect of Sharon Tate's baby.

[Debra A]

No Debra
I think Sherlock means by back street procedure something more along the lines of abortion by cutting the baby out of the woman via her abdomen.

Thanks Abby. I wasn't sure. The punctuation didn't give any clues for me.

[Sam Flynn]

Why remove the uterus at all if the foetus had already been removed from it to facilitate dismemberment?

It might have been perceived to be easier to remove the gravid uterus in its entirety before cutting out the baby, rather than attempting to do so in situ. The foetus having been "safely" extracted, the empty matrix could then simply be discarded with the other bits.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs.
Quite. Since the foetus was removed via a cut through the uterus' left wall, removing two strips of frontal abdominal wall wouldn't appear to be of much help if the uterus was still in situ.

Thanks JR
And also, I wonder why the left wall was accessed to remove the foetus if it was done while the uterus was inside the body? Unless the axis of the pregnant uterus in the pelvis only presents that option?

[Debra A]

Perhaps the uterus was removed with the foetus still inside, and then the foetus removed later, and then the uterus was then dumped in the river along with other body parts

You must not forget that there is no way of telling whether or not all the body parts were dumped in the river at the same time, a point emphasized by Dr Biggs, because as is known the various body parts were found spread out over over some distance and over some considerable number of days.

I think with regards to this victim and for the benefit of those who keep screaming murder. You might want to enlighten them regarding the anal plug purportedly found in her rectum. Something which might point to a medical procedure connected to labour/childbirth to prevent the person defecating on someone in such circumstances.

Reading you excellent dissertation on Jackson from 2008 you also mention the following and I quote "One of the last portions of the body which turned up was enveloped in a curious piece of white cloth, such as is used by certain students engaged on a particular kind of work"

Were you able to establish the kind of work? I wonder how many student occupations there were at that time, medical seems to stand out to me !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The empty uterus complete with appendages, placenta and cord, and two flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue (I read this as the skin including its underlying subcutaneous tissue, from the abdomen) were placed together and parcelled up in one parcel weighing 2-3lbs, which is why the parcel managed to travel so quickly to Horsleydown on the tide. The police believed that the other body parts were thrown in at exactly the same time, from the same place but their discovery hindered by their buoyancy, movement of traffic in the Thames, sticking in mud on the foreshore etc. The Thames police would be familiar with the tides.

A small square of rolled up linen was found in the rectum in the bony pelvis. This certainly suggests some sort of medical use, or copying of medical use. Its use in Victorian times would have been childbirth or pregnancy related, yes.
The 'curious piece of white cloth' was a term used by Macnaghten. He wasn't any more specific than that. He ties it to the finding of one of the last portions which as I recall off the top of my head was probably the thigh wrapped in a coster's apron pocket. He may have just mis remembered. He may have been referring to the linen plug but there is no way of determining this and as I said, the plug does suggest a medical related use and the fact that is what he may have been talking about.

This was Macnaghten's first big case in his new role coming days in to the start of his appointment. In the first days, when Macnaghten was present at the water side to watch recovery of the body portions; this was when Dr Bond was quoted in the papers as suggesting the death and dismemberment was abortion related.Dr Bond later ruled out than any abortion or attempt at abortion through instrument use had been attempted but Macnaghten may have remembered the initial findings.

[Sam Flynn]

Just noticed that one of Jackson's flaps had a portion of her buttock attached/reminding me of how one of the cuts on Catherine's body extended to her backside. It could be that cut to Jackson's buttock was made because she had her legs in a similar position to Eddowes' legs.

By cutting the flesh in the area of the genitals, the adjacent flesh of the buttock risks being cut as well.

Don't see much reason for cutting extra flaps if he intended to cut the torso in half.

Unless it had been decided to remove the baby, in which case the flaps wouldn't have been "extra", but essential, to that purpose.

[Debra A]

Hi Debs. Just noticed that one of Jackson's flaps had a portion of her buttock attached/reminding me of how one of the cuts on Catherine's body extended to her backside. It could be that cut to Jackson's buttock was made because she had her legs in a similar position to Eddowes' legs.
Don't see much reason for cutting extra flaps if he intended to cut the torso in half.

No doctor but is it possible he removed that left flap with umbilicus, placenta, uterus and removed the fetus away from her body?

Thanks Robert,
It's almost like he didn't know where exactly he wanted to stop cutting. Yes, Elizabeth's legs might have been similarly open during this cutting.
I think I agree with Josh about the line of the flaps possibly coming about to follow the line to almost 'lay open' fully the gravid uterus.

[Debra A]

It might have been perceived to be easier to remove the gravid uterus in its entirety before cutting out the baby, rather than attempting to do so in situ. The foetus having been "safely" extracted, the empty matrix could then simply be discarded with the other bits.

Well yes, Gareth. Does this mean that you agree that the uterus was removed now?

[Trevor Marriott]

The empty uterus complete with appendages, placenta and cord, and two flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue (I read this as the skin including its underlying subcutaneous tissue, from the abdomen) were placed together and parcelled up in one parcel weighing 2-3lbs, which is why the parcel managed to travel so quickly to Horsleydown on the tide. The police believed that the other body parts were thrown in at exactly the same time, from the same place but their discovery hindered by their buoyancy, movement of traffic in the Thames, sticking in mud on the foreshore etc. The Thames police would be familiar with the tides.

A small square of rolled up linen was found in the rectum in the bony pelvis. This certainly suggests some sort of medical use, or copying of medical use. Its use in Victorian times would have been childbirth or pregnancy related, yes.
The 'curious piece of white cloth' was a term used by Macnaghten. He wasn't any more specific than that. He ties it to the finding of one of the last portions which as I recall off the top of my head was probably the thigh wrapped in a coster's apron pocket. He may have just mis remembered. He may have been referring to the linen plug but there is no way of determining this and as I said, the plug does suggest a medical related use and the fact that is what he may have been talking about.

This was Macnaghten's first big case in his new role coming days in to the start of his appointment. In the first days, when Macnaghten was present at the water side to watch recovery of the body portions; this was when Dr Bond was quoted in the papers as suggesting the death and dismemberment was abortion related.Dr Bond later ruled out than any abortion or attempt at abortion through instrument use had been attempted but Macnaghten may have remembered the initial findings.

It is amazing that they first thought that she had been aborted, then changed their minds because of lack of instrument marks, when the whole abdomen had been opened and the foetus removed from the uterus which had been opened up by an instrument presumably a knife, and to top it all no foetus was ever found despite most of the organs being accounted for. How on earth could they expect to find instrument marks with all that having taken place.

Another reason why the opinions of these doctors back then have to be taken with a pinch of salt. We have Dr Biggs who states that much of what they said back then was simply guess work based on what we know today.

When you sit down and look at these torsos we have Jackson who clearly was not a murder victim, and the rest who no specific conclsuive causes of death were established, yet we have people still banging on about them being murdered by one killer, and that killer murdered all the Whitechapel women.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Christer, when you present it like that I find that far too simplistic.


1. Had their Necks cut?
In the case of Chapman and Kelly this was the cause of death, in Jackson such may well not be the case. The evidence does not point in that direction at all. Indeed cuts to the Neck are probably part of the dismemberment process.

So the similarity appears to be superficial.

2. Had the uteri removed?
Yes Chapman's was taken away, Kelly's left at the scene, in Jackson case she was pregnant and the reason for removal MAY be completely different.

Again it appears superficial similarity.

3. Opened from sternum to Pelvis.
The reasoning for Kelly and Chapman was probably to facilitate the removal of abdomenial organs, although the actual process of cutting may also have been important.

Jackson is far harder to anaylise, it may have been for the same reason, but there appears to be little to show this is the case, it may have allowed for easier dismemberment of the body.

So I see the similarity as being possibly superficial.

4. The large Flaps,
What can i say, you see this as significant, despite the fact that there may be no similarity in the cutting method or technique. Or even in what is cut and the reason for such.

Again I find the similarity to be superficial


Of course that does not mean there is no link, only I do not see any link to be particular strong or significant.

Yes I fear agreement will be difficult.


Steve

Excellent post, Steve, thank you.

The similarities and evidence are certainly not as clear as some believe and do not unequivocally point to just one killer.

[Sam Flynn]

Well yes, Gareth. Does this mean that you agree that the uterus was removed now?

It seems likely to me, Debs, albeit I get the strong impression that this was only done in consequence of a desire to extricate the unborn child, rather than for the "fun" of removing the uterus itself.

[Debra A]

It is amazing that they first thought that she had been aborted, then changed their minds because of lack of instrument marks, when the whole abdomen had been opened and the foetus removed from the uterus which had been opened up by an instrument presumably a knife, and to top it all no foetus was ever found despite most of the organs being accounted for. How on earth could they expect to find instrument marks with all that having taken place.

Another reason why the opinions of these doctors back then have to be taken with a pinch of salt. We have Dr Biggs who states that much of what they said back then was simply guess work based on what we know today.

When you sit down and look at these torsos we have Jackson who clearly was not a murder victim, and the rest who no specific conclsuive causes of death were established, yet we have people still banging on about them being murdered by one killer, and that killer murdered all the Whitechapel women.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You misunderstand what Bond meant, Trevor.
Abortion then, as now, does not involve the opening of the abdomen or uterus with a knife or scalpel. Abortion is the expelling of the contents of the uterus through the vagina. The same route as a live vaginal birth.

To stimulate expulsion of the womb's contents, instruments were inserted in to the vagina, through the tightly closed cervix and the uterus penetrated to break the waters and disturb the delicate foetus in the womb. Sometimes violence was also inflicted on the abdomen.

Bond stated that the cervix was not damaged nor was the vaginal passage, showing no instrument use but crucially no sign of the passage of a baby through either. Their size, shape and surface texture did not show evidence of either ie there was no stretching, bruising, tearing, grazing that comes with childbirth. Therefore his conclusion that there was no abortion performed would be accurate. That there was no attempt at abortion due to lack of evidence of instrument use does not mean that Bond concluded that there had not been an attempt to procure abortion by other means.

Bond reportedly said that because the stomach and neck were not recovered he could not determine whether the throat had been cut or whether she had drugs administered to her. Poisoning and instant death while attempting to bring on a miscarriage through taking a noxious substance were not ruled out by Bond.

Dr Bond was very experienced in bringing criminal abortion cases. In the same year 1889 he was involved in the Dr Gloucester case-. The damaged uterus, complete with penetrating object still inside it, from that case, apparently ended up as a pathological specimen in the Westminster Hospital museum. Hebbert was the curator at the time.

[Debra A]

It seems likely to me, Debs

Thank you, Gareth. At last.