Ripper Anatomy Class

[protohistorian]

another view of a chest cavity

This gives some idea of the undisturbed context of organs within the chest. Dave

[RJM]

And here's Alice Mackenzie. I Haven't done Frances Cole's injuries yet, but I probably will. I'm afraid Martha Tabram is impossible to even attempt as the descriptions were too vague.

Jane

xxxxx

Great work as always, Janie

I was wondering if you had a drawing of the abdominal mutilations for McKenzie? Also, it might be worth adding the bruises that many of the victims sustained. Just a suggestion.

A big hug,

Robert

[joelhall]

I've deliberately not gone into too much deatil here, lest I give away my idea too soon hehe. However once all is done I will repost with my complete answers, which I've saved on my laptop for now.

Joel, if I may make so bold, there are a few points I would like to pose to you?.
8metres of digestional tract has a particular weight to it. Removal is one thing which itself is difficult to imagine, given the problems you describe, but placement of this is another. In your opinion, was the placement after removal due to lack of space, or again by design of what was "coming next" so to speak? In other words, if I understand you correctly, you seem to suggest the laying out of the various organs are due to the proximity of which space is nearest after removal, correct? In doing so, you also suggest a fair comparison with someone used to animal organ removal. Would you lay weight on this to the degree that we should conclude a professional, or "trade" man (butcher etc)? Or are we to rest with the possibility of some sort of game hunter who would have the anatomical knowledge required?

It's possible it could be a game hunter, or even a gamekeeper or someone working in a manor kitchen, although I think there are numerous odds against it, such as the likelihood of finding such a person in Whitechapel, and the numbers of slaughtermen and butchers on the other being greater odds.

Of course any of these people might have the necessary knowledge, and the laying out of organs might be simply coincidence. Although we have to think that if there was no method to the way they were laid, why not simply chuck them into a pile, or far removed from the place of origin, especially as such organs would turn the killer's stomach!

To me the placement of organs is suggestive of someone who knew what he would removed and in what order, and so placed them in a manner he had before - very efficient, no wasting time as he was in an occupied building and did not know whether he would be discovered in the act.

As regards the GI tract - the killer has lifted this out, and placed it away from him, so as not to be in the way. It weighs a fair bit, but is not going to pose much problem to any reasonably fit adult, and takes up space so he wouldn't want it right in front of him.

In your opinion, is there also an element of de-sexualisation of the body?

I personally don't think so, no. The body seems to have been treated more as a carcass than anything sexual. More like what we could literally term a 'piece of meat' being carved up for dinner. If anything the killing looks more de-humanising than de-sexualising. After all the organs removed etc do not really show any sexual element. Neither do the injuries to the genitals given that there was more extensive mutilating of the limbs and face on the exterior of the body. I de-sexualisation played any part there would of course have been no need for the killer to extend the mutilations. We could only suppose this would be done out of morbid curiosity of some kind, which would defeat the purpose, and really ruin his fun.

Really though the mutilations should make the suspect fairly obvious.

I am in agreement with you about this murder being of a different hand from the others, with the possible exception of Kate Eddowes. Do you see, though time limitations are present, any similarity between these two particular murders?

I don't see any real similarities if I'm honest. The mutilations to Eddowes face were done in an entirely different manner, as was the removal of any organs. The intestines were haphazardly thrown over the shoulder, really just ripper out, still attached and simply moved to gain access to a smaller organ by a killer who didn't really know what he was doing. The bladder and uterus would have been right in front of him. If this killing was the subject of sexual motives as well, with a body part in mind, few would be confused between a uterus and a kidney. This is about the only comparison I can see - that sex was not the motive in either case. That to me really seems to be based on the flimsiest of evidence. In Eddowes case the killer has taken no time to relish in his work (nor the other victims). The FBI profile of this killer simply does not match what we see, it is simply guesses based on crimes committed in the 20th century, but there seem to be so many different 'types' of killer rolled into this one that the profile itself is all over the place, and they've simply plumped for the most obvious things.

Really though the motive, killer, method, differences between each, the accomplices, witness statements, mutilations and even the likely area he lived in should be obvious to such highly trained professionals. But they've still managed to miss the mark wildly.

In the Kelly case the killer has been more engrossed in dis-assembling a human being. The uterus after removal has no special bearing to it, it is simply placed along with the kidneys and a severed breast. It's a bit like someone dissecting an animal for the slaughter house, removing all the entrails. There doesn't seem to be any sexual connection, even if they did in fact have sex befoe the murder. I would say it looks like pure contempt for a person, not even giving them the little remaining dignity of a butchered lamb (the lamb wouldn't be left in the dark on a bed).

Finally, you mentioned two things that intruiged me. One being the left-handedness leanings, the other being the thought that the previously killer died in October. I understand the dextruousness, the killer standing with the head of the victim to his right as he looked down, and therefore the left handed removal under the rib cage would be far easier than for a right handed person in that position, but the October death leaves me a little puzzled. Have you any particular person or event in mind from this period of time? Do please feel free to pm me if you feel this particular part does not apply to this thread.

Certainly I believe the killer to be left-handed in this case. I say I'm swaying more towards that than a right-handed killer, but really I'm fairly convinced it had to be a left-handed killer. And that the killer did the job pretty quickly too.

Now I have deleted my seriously long part of this post. I will simply say however, that the are a great number of clues both in the doctors report and the crime scene photo which point towards a left handed killer. I might even go so far as to say the clues are often pretty obvious.

However the main points which suggest he was most likely left-handed are all included in the post-mortem report, and in the crime scene photo itself which everone can see for themselves. I have made up a quick list of major points which point to a left handed killer, numbering at the moment 17, and still have more to add - and I haven't even noted that a left handed man would find it easier to get under the rib cage, as if the killer wanted to do this he'd do it whatever hand he used, simply by straddling the corpse. Really the other points are all fair more telling of a left handed killer. To me it seems fairly obvious, but you really need to look at it from a fresh perspective, and the time away allowed me to do this. I will say that the Kelly murder seems the easiest to judge and to find a solution to, barring her background which still seems a mystery, although I have to admit - Mary Kelly was most likely her real name, not an alias.

As for the killer dying in October - I don't want to make anything too obvious yet, so I will PM you Oddly it was a post I nearly made by mistake last week which gave me the answer to why the killer stopped after Eddowes.

Again, I thank you warmly for your contribution. Likewise Dave, who has brought this idea to the boards with great aplomb and attitude, and likewise Jane, who, as always, adds that little extra to the scenario that many miss. Many, many thanks to you all.

Yeah thanks guys, this has certainly proved to be a great thread

[protohistorian]

just to break the monotony, the heart

Pay close attention to the plumbing hookups, their size and number hint at some of the difficulty faced in removal. Dave

[protohistorian]

No class, we are still on Nichols

As a sign in above the clock in one of my classes read," Time will pass, will you?" Here is another diagram of a neck. This one is 180 degrees out from the other one. All structures between the lines and the skin would have been severed. This list includes but is not restricted to:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levator_scapulae_muscle
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternocleidomastoid_muscle
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_jugular_vein
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglossal_nerve
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_vein
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_carotid
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platysma_muscle
10.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retromandibular_vein
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomus_caroticum
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_carotid_artery

This Ripper stuff gets less glamorous when one takes stock of the damage inflicted. Dave

[The Good Michael]

Proto,

The green cut as you display is about exactly what would be humanly possible if a man was holding onto a woman's forehead with his left hand while cutting with his right. Any more would require a readjustment in order to continue. That speaks of speed and efficiency to me.

Thanks,

Mike

oops: I am speaking of cutting the throat while standing and from behind of course

[Barnaby]

And here are Mary's injuries. Sorry that the text is breaking up, but I had to put it on or you wouldn't really have known which bit was which. It wasn't the easiest diagram to illustrate really.

Thanks, Jane. Wow. Sometimes it is easy to gloss over the spleen was here, the liver was there, bla bla bla, when we are reading because we have become so desensitized, but when I actually saw this diagram it made me shudder.

[protohistorian]

a dimwit + software + time

That could be the start of all great "Hey, check this out" stories! Call my publisher, I have an exclusive! Seriously, the pic shows the improvement in describing Nichols wounds thus far. I take suggestions and requests. Dave

[Phil Carter]

in awe

Hello Joel, Dave and Jane,

I am completely in awe of your combined descriptions and diagrams of the organ removal/descriptions. This is the exact type of thing that is needed re Mary Kelly in particular. As Dave has said, it is far far easier to understand this now than just the words from an autopsy in a book. Together with Dave's and Jane's offerings, I find this far clearer now than I have been after many years of looking at the words of the autopsy, the photograph(MJK1) and all the comments about this murder. Totally fascinating, one and all. Needless to say I find MJK3 a very doubtful photograph. But to move on...

Joel, if I may make so bold, there are a few points I would like to pose to you?.
8metres of digestional tract has a particular weight to it. Removal is one thing which itself is difficult to imagine, given the problems you describe, but placement of this is another. In your opinion, was the placement after removal due to lack of space, or again by design of what was "coming next" so to speak? In other words, if I understand you correctly, you seem to suggest the laying out of the various organs are due to the proximity of which space is nearest after removal, correct? In doing so, you also suggest a fair comparison with someone used to animal organ removal. Would you lay weight on this to the degree that we should conclude a professional, or "trade" man (butcher etc)? Or are we to rest with the possibility of some sort of game hunter who would have the anatomical knowledge required?

I personally get the impression here that a trade person would indeed lay the organs out in a particular manner. However, the obvious counter to this are the non-tradesman-like placements of the breasts, almost hiding them, and the almost biology-class dissection of the face.

In your opinion, is there also an element of de-sexualisation of the body?

I am in agreement with you about this murder being of a different hand from the others, with the possible exception of Kate Eddowes. Do you see, though time limitations are present, any similarity between these two particular murders?

Finally, you mentioned two things that intruiged me. One being the left-handedness leanings, the other being the thought that the previously killer died in October. I understand the dextruousness, the killer standing with the head of the victim to his right as he looked down, and therefore the left handed removal under the rib cage would be far easier than for a right handed person in that position, but the October death leaves me a little puzzled. Have you any particular person or event in mind from this period of time? Do please feel free to pm me if you feel this particular part does not apply to this thread.

Again, I thank you warmly for your contribution. Likewise Dave, who has brought this idea to the boards with great aplomb and attitude, and likewise Jane, who, as always, adds that little extra to the scenario that many miss. Many, many thanks to you all.

best wishes

Phil

[protohistorian]

Nichols neck wound length's

described as," On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length. the cuts must have been caused by a long-bladed knife, moderately sharp, and used with great violence. "

The green line is four inches in length, the black line adds 4 more. Sorry for the crudity, they will get better, I promise. Dave

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

There aren't that many more to do really, although I should do poor Frances. I'll get around to it when I get a chance.

As I said, some of it is best guess, because the information just isn't there, but at least it's interesting to compare the size and shape of the wounds etc.,

I do think I have some photos from way back of bits and pieces pertinent to the thread, but I'm not sure if they are copyrighted. I'll see what I can dig out.

Very good thread by the way!

Much love

Janie

xxxx

[protohistorian]

You rock Joel, no worries on the art, we are after a clear understanding, not Renoir. Dave

[joelhall]

Well the mesentery is part of the peritoneum which holds the small intestine to the back wall of the abdominal cavity. It's really two layers of peritoneum with some loose connective tissue between them, which form the lining of the cavity. Mesentery is often used in a fairly loose fashion to refer to any double layer of the peritoneum which is invaginated by a visceral organ, although strictly speaking it is only the double layer which holds the ilium and jejunum of the small intestine.

If you were to imagine a layer that surrounds the intestines, where part of it folds in on itself and through the loop runs the ilium (i suspect I'm causing even more confusion now hehe) then that infolding part, the double layer forming the fold is the mesentery. It occurs where organ protrude into the peritoneum itself, to help bind the to the cavity wall.

If you imagine a baby growing in the uterus. When it is growing the cavity is covered in a closed sac of membrane with a cavity inside it. Outside this are organs like the kidneys, whilst organs such as the stomach protrude into it as they grow, and become almost completely surrounded by the membrane of the sac (like pushing your fist into a latex sheet, it becomes wrapped by it) which lines the walls of the cavity. Where they fold back on themselves after enveloping the organ, in this case the ilium and jejunum, the double layer extending from the cavity wall is the mesentery.

Basically this membrane had been cut or ripped when the organs were removed, making the intestines only attached to the rest of the digestive tract and no longer anchored to the cavity wall, making them relatively free, and able to 'uncoil' as far as is possible after ripping them out. If they were still attached via the mesentery, then certain anterior parts could be pulled out, but at it's attachments the intestines would still be firmly secured to the back of the abdominal wall.

I've drawn a very rudimentary sketch with paint (I cannot use these things to save my life, it's taken me ages and it's still crap!) I hope this will help to understand it a little better, but if not I'll try and do a better diagram tomorrow.

[protohistorian]

Something to help understand this Dr. Phillips statement regarding Annie, "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;..." Dave

[joelhall]

The whole single movement concept in general. Perhaps you will help me Joel, I have not found a good way to demonstrate mesencentric attachments. Perhaps you could be so kind as to do this? Dave

Do you mean how were the intestines removed from the mesentary?