Ripper Anatomy Class

[Errata]

...and doesn't that make a very solid argument against an ordered mind committing the crimes? Dave

Yes, or a possible exclusion of doctor and butcher types. Or even an extremely "ordered" mind who purposefully did not use known techniques to cover their trail.

I have found so far that there is no such thing as a disordered mind. The order just is not necessarily apparent. Even psychotics and schizophrenics have a logical explanation and set of rules for their behavior. It just isn't based in reality. The literal method to the madness. Whatever JtR's reasons or motives were, there is a logic to it. Somewhere.

I read a book called The God Particle, and the author used an illustration that I think fits. I will paraphrase:
Imagine aliens land. They are an advanced culture, but cannot see the colors black and white. They are taken to a World Cup match and they are very confused. Clearly it is a contest, clearly it is scored, but not being able to see the ball, they have no idea how scoring is accomplished. Through the course of the game, they determine an elaborate point system based on the speed of the strikers, the height and length of the goalie jumps, etc. And it fits, but it is terribly complicated. And then one of the younger aliens says "lets imagine for a moment that there is an invisible ball. The players are kicking it into the goal, and the goalie is trying to stop them." Its clearly a more elegant and sensible solution, barring the fact that there is no such thing as an invisible soccer ball. Except that there is such thing.

No matter what humans do, how random or crazy or beyond the pale, there is always an invisible soccer ball. Find it, and everything falls into place.

[joelhall]

Thanks for the post DG, very well done. However I do have some point I disagree with:

In larger animals and humans I would imagine the procedure would be easier because the whole hand could be inserted with less delicacy and more “grasping” capability.

Now this is quite true to an extent. It is far easier to get your hands into a human rib-cage, and far easier to grab hold of the heart (to some extent). However, the organs of the abdominal cavity would prevent this and have to be removed, as they too are larger, and of course heavier. The major vessels of course are larger and stronger, as is the attachment of the lungs, of course the pericardium is stronger in a larger mammal.

Of course there are many reasons I believe that Kelly was killed by a different hand, and that her killer had some knowledge, whilst that of the other women did not.

• It is most certainly necessary to have the knowledge to know where, how and what to do and nothing is random if a specific organ is to be removed.

• Some of the mutilations indicate surgical skill no matter how crudely other aspects might seem, particularly Chapman’s uterus, Eddowes’s kidney and Kelly’s heart. It is easier for the skilled to display ignorance on demand, but the ignorant cannot demonstrate skill when required. I don’t believe a butcher or slaughterman would go out of their way to remove a kidney from its capsule or a heart from the pericardium, this could be done once the organs were removed.

• The organs removed were “targeted” not for any intrinsic value of the organs but for their symbolic relevance to the killer’s personal narrative.

This is where I differ. I do not believe the organs were targeted in the first place. If they were they would of course have been missing in all cases, but only twice was the uterus taken away. This is of course another reason for not suspecting Kelly to have the same killer - despite being removed the uterus was left behind, under the head, as were the kidneys. I agree with an act of symbolism being likely, but the way in which the organs were removed seems remarkably bad. Where uteri were extracted the methods of removal differed substantially, which seems odd for someone with experience who would have developed his own method for efficiency and become used to it.

I'll have to apologise for the late reply. I originally prepared a long, technical, quite unreadable post on this (even for me), but instead later in the week I'm going to start recreating the method of the killing and mutilations which will be easier for most people to follow. I fear this may take some time, but should be an interesting exercise at the least.

I believe that the idea of the organs being removed after the bodies were removed from the scene can hold some merit, but we do not have to assume that the killer had much knowledge or skill if he did indeed remove the organs, as I will demonstrate.

[protohistorian]

Kate's nose

description,"The tip of the nose was quite detached by an oblique cut from the bottom of the nasal bone to where the wings of the nose join on to the face."
...and here you go. Dave

[protohistorian]

and Stride did not scream because...

... she could not. Severed structures of the Stride neck wound include but are not limited to:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sternocleidomastoid_muscle
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_jugular_vein
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratus_plantae_muscle
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truncus_Sympaticus
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoglossal_nerve
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_laryngeal_nerve
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_vein
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_carotid_artery
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_laryngeal_nerve
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constrictores_pharyngis
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiglottic_cartilage
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submental_artery
15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mylohyoideus
16.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geniohyoid_muscle
17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoglossus
18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylohyoideus
19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thyreohyoideus
20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharynx
Dave

[protohistorian]

Something just occurred to me looking at these wounds. Do we know which way JtR cut into the abdomen?
A butcher starts at the pubis and with a sort of sawing motion go up to the sternum, using the point of a blade. You get a straight line with rough edges. In field dressing you might also get a few stabs and nicks to the organs.
A doctor starts at the sternum and slices down to the pubis. But a doctor uses the edge of a blade, like holding a pen. He would not necessarily reach the abdominal cavity with the first cut. But he would trace back down the original cut until he did. If survival was not a factor, he would exert more force on the edge, and would probably end up with long slices in the organs. But still a straight line.
Looking at these illustrations, it appears that he started at the sternum, stabbed, pulled until it got difficult, stabbed again, pulled, etc. until reaching the pubis. It looks as though it may have been several cuts not quite connected until he reached in and pulled the flaps apart, ripping the last bits of connecting skin apart. Not really the most efficient of quickest method.
So if JtR had either a butcher's or medical professional's knowledge of the more efficient methods, why didn't he use them? Time was clearly a factor. Now I'm kinda curious about this.

...and doesn't that make a very solid argument against an ordered mind committing the crimes? Dave

[protohistorian]

Stride's neck wound

description,"The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw, and almost in a direct line with it, nearly severing the vessels on that side, cutting the windpipe completely in two, and terminating on the opposite side 1 inch below the angle of the right jaw."

I have made the operational assumption the cut reached the vertebra. The exact line was determined by the severance of the windpipe and the vertebral position. Dave

[Errata]

Something just occurred to me looking at these wounds. Do we know which way JtR cut into the abdomen?
A butcher starts at the pubis and with a sort of sawing motion go up to the sternum, using the point of a blade. You get a straight line with rough edges. In field dressing you might also get a few stabs and nicks to the organs.
A doctor starts at the sternum and slices down to the pubis. But a doctor uses the edge of a blade, like holding a pen. He would not necessarily reach the abdominal cavity with the first cut. But he would trace back down the original cut until he did. If survival was not a factor, he would exert more force on the edge, and would probably end up with long slices in the organs. But still a straight line.
Looking at these illustrations, it appears that he started at the sternum, stabbed, pulled until it got difficult, stabbed again, pulled, etc. until reaching the pubis. It looks as though it may have been several cuts not quite connected until he reached in and pulled the flaps apart, ripping the last bits of connecting skin apart. Not really the most efficient of quickest method.
So if JtR had either a butcher's or medical professional's knowledge of the more efficient methods, why didn't he use them? Time was clearly a factor. Now I'm kinda curious about this.

[protohistorian]

Errata I am no surgeon, but I have an angle on this. I have helped my brother dissect deer for consumption and it seemed to me the blood vessels were tougher. I leave this for professional confirmation however, Dave

[Errata]

Having once been a serial killer with a Home Office license endorsed by the Royal College of Surgeons, I can offer some practical experience to this debate. Fortunately for mankind, my victims weren’t human and they sacrificed their lives to provide the benefits that modern medicine provides.

That made me laugh really hard. I have a friend who is a biochemist, and I was trying to get her to explain her highly technical job to me. she said:
"On a good day? I cure cancer."
"On a bad day?"
"I kill mice."

As someone with actual albeit tiny surgical experience, I have two questions for you.
1: Is either skin or blood vessel tougher to cut? As in, what would take longer, the abdominal incisions or the freeing of organs?
2: Does the heart empty upon exsanguination, or do the chambers hold blood until it is emptied by other means?

[Investigator]

Practical heart removal

Hello All,
Thought I may make a visitor contribution on your anatomy class. Nice to see Joel and Protohistorian have introduced a science perspective.
Having once been a serial killer with a Home Office license endorsed by the Royal College of Surgeons, I can offer some practical experience to this debate. Fortunately for mankind, my victims weren’t human and they sacrificed their lives to provide the benefits that modern medicine provides.

In pursuit of pharmacological research within a British university, I required ex-vivo mammalian hearts that could be maintained live for several hours. To do this required rapid “butchery” to remove the live hearts of 40 or more rabbits over some weeks. While otherwise, with time permitting, I had good skills in animal surgery. The removal of the heart required exceptional speed and the finesse of surgical precision was not a priority, nutrients to the heart took precedence. Getting the technique right took a few casualties before the method settled down. It’s surprising that we didn’t hear more of Mr Ripper’s early failures or perhaps they were confined by academic walls.

The animal was rendered decerebrate with a stunning blow to the occipital/neck region, laid on its back and the fur/skin, most times with blunt end scissors and rolled off laterally to reveal the facia of the thorax and abdomen. Using rat-tooth forceps and blunt nose scissors the abdominal fascia and peritoneum were cut from the lower point of the thorax to the pelvis. This incision was extended laterally at the thorax end to produce flaps, thus taking off the retention pressure of the abdominal contents that flopped out. Two fingers, (un-gloved for sensitivity) were inserted above the liver lobes and stomach to feel the diaphragm. Gentle pressure pushed the abdominal contents aside – to access the diaphragm which was not easily seen because it embeds into the thoracic cavity. Sharp point scissors guided by the top of the two fingers penetrated the diaphragm. The upper border was cut and the fingers entered the thoracic cavity to feel for the (usually) pulsing heart.
Decerebration usually cuts the heart off from vagal and sympathetic nerve control and with vagal escape the heart may cease beating until the intrinsic mechanism restarts in the heart muscle.
The heart complete with pericardium can be pulled down sufficient to allow blunt nose scissors to severe all attachments, blood vessels, lungs, etc. This was done relatively blind and by feel only. Usually the heart was free of the pericardium at this stage but still attached at the root of the blood vessels entering the heart. It was important to take out as much of the aortic trunk and vena cavae as possible since the pulmonary artery had to be cannulated quickly to provide oxygenated mammalian Ringers solution to perfuse the heart tissues. With practice this whole procedure could be done within 2 minutes.
In larger animals and humans I would imagine the procedure would be easier because the whole hand could be inserted with less delicacy and more “grasping” capability.
From Bonds description viz: “The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings” it would seem Mr Ripper had attempted a thorax approach to the removal but found it too difficult to complete. Alternatively, this could have been another portal to assist a diaphragm exit. This may explain why the pericardium was still in the thorax, he was able to cut around the entry vessels. Viz: “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

The relevant aspects to the ripper “mutilations” are;

• It is not necessary to demonstrate surgical skill in removing organs if the victim is not intended to survive and time is critical.

• It is most certainly necessary to have the knowledge to know where, how and what to do and nothing is random if a specific organ is to be removed.

• Some of the mutilations indicate surgical skill no matter how crudely other aspects might seem, particularly Chapman’s uterus, Eddowes’s kidney and Kelly’s heart. It is easier for the skilled to display ignorance on demand, but the ignorant cannot demonstrate skill when required. I don’t believe a butcher or slaughterman would go out of their way to remove a kidney from its capsule or a heart from the pericardium, this could be done once the organs were removed.

• The organs removed were “targeted” not for any intrinsic value of the organs but for their symbolic relevance to the killer’s personal narrative.

• The medical profession of the day had a vested interest (and still do) to debunk any skills of a medical mutilator, after all how many patients would visit a doctor who’s hobby was potentially Mr Ripper.
Most people find these procedures revolting, the smell of warm peristalting guts, the slippy, serous fluid nature of the abdominal cavity; this demands a detachment which for most is only temporary while doing the procedure. I still feel my stomach retching on recalling 5 years work in this field, almost 50 years later.

What Mr Ripper did, does not just appear overnight without prior experience and familiarity with live, physical hands on learning. I do not believe that the killer picked up the skills from watching slaughtering or as he went along from victim to victim. He may well have modified his technique to suit the circumstances but generally he was adept before beginning his rampage. I can understand some temerity improving to confidence as his public street demonstrations proceed and I suspect that Kelly could have been the culminating catharsis of his anger towards women, but not necessarily the last burn out.

The force exerted in the incisions to the neck, are to me, indicative of a need for certainty that he had severed the major blood vessels. It was not an attempt to remove the head. His intent was to kill quickly and certainly. The Tabram killing was very likely his first because it released the explosive anger which needed venting before being able to exercise more rationality and technique in his method. The medical profession is not taught or trained to kill people and to do so would require learning procedures that are improved and adapted to circumstance. Because of adaptive changes continually changing, it is forensically unreliable to consider modus operandi as the common thread that links victims to the same killer.

Hope that some of this may help to stitch together some of the open questions, well done and regards to all. DG

[protohistorian]

Stride's neck again

Description,"There was a clear-cut incision on the neck. It was six inches in length and commenced two and a half inches in a straight line below the angle of the jaw, one half inch in over an undivided muscle, and then becoming deeper, dividing the sheath."

I believe this refers to the carotid sheath. This structure is in red in the diagram. Dave

[protohistorian]

Stride's neck

Dr. Blackwell's comments, "The incision in the neck commenced on the left side, 2 inches below the angle of the jaw,..."

Image shows a red line 90 degrees out from the angle of the jaw and 5cm in scaled length. An incision at this position would correspond to the lower 4th cervical vertebra. Dave

[protohistorian]

from Annie's inquest

"The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck. On the back wall of the house, between the steps and the palings, on the left side, about 18in from the ground, there were about six patches of blood, varying in size from a sixpenny piece to a small point,"

This is an 1887 sixpence in actual size, Dave

[Errata]

Gross Anatomy

Having said all this to me the killing and mutilations themselves appear to be very obvious clues as to who killed Kelly, which is one of a few reasons I don't believe she was killed by the same man as the other 5 victims

I always thought I was alone in this theory. Nice to see I'm not, although my reasoning seems to be slightly different than yours.

In general, I feel it is probably worth noting that all of the organs that were taken were the easiest organs to identify in a human body. At least at the turn of the century. I'm not sure I would recognize a kidney if it walked up and introduced itself, but anyone who had ever gone shopping for food in 19th century England would know them instantly. It was a food staple. Now a cow kidney requires some imagination to scale it down to human size, but a pig or a sheep would be about right.

The heart is also clearly recognizable, not only as a source of food (yeccch) but also by its placement. We can all put our hand to our chest and know its kinda left of center, and probably isn't squishy. After that you can just feel for it. You are probably going to cut up the liver some trying to get it out, maybe nick the stomach, but nothing about these killings was particularly neat. And it is possible that at least a few of these poor women lived long enough for the killer to locate it by its beating. On the other hand, in the 19th century corpses and organs were kind of everywhere. Butcher shops, butcher carts, kitchens, cat meat vendors, markets... and we aren't that far off from height of the "Autopsy as Spectator Sport" craze.

Then there is the uterus. I've heard arguments that the uterus is what requires at least some medical knowledge. Any woman who has had a routine pelvic exam can tell you EXACTLY why that isn't true, and will probably wince while saying it. You don't have to know where it is, or what it looks like. You just have to know that it is attached to the vagina. The rest I leave to you.

[protohistorian]

not ripper related

...but really interseting! In the pursuit of images that can be used to demonstrate different aspects of the wounds I come across some fairly wierd stuff. Submitted for your entertainment. He really nailed it! Dave