Was Jack enraged by watching soliciting

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I believe what Kate's remaining kidney did show was actually Nephritis, inflammation of her kidneys, something which was interpreted as Brights disease by the 19th century physicians. It could have been something faulty with her immune system, or as the result of infection, but it would be something visible on the organ remaining, and the organ taken.

The section that was sent to Lusk had been "trimmed up", to what degree we do not know, but without an intact complete specimen and the patients history the physicians could not have made a final diagnosis of Brights Disease.

[RivkahChaya]

I believe what Kate's remaining kidney did show was actually Nephritis, inflammation of her kidneys, something which was interpreted as Brights disease by the 19th century physicians.

That was sort of my point. Bright's disease was more or less synonymous with nephritis. It technically wasn't, because the doctor who originally identified it defined it as nephritis due to the blood vessels being congested by the presence of excess protein, which was detectable in urine, and visible edema. However, I would be surprised to know that the coroner actually did a test for proteinuria, and I'm not sure how a coroner would make a distinction between edema and bloat in a corpse. Maybe he asked people who knew Eddowes, I don't know. From what I can gather, Bright's disease in the 1880s had become a generic term for nephritis, even though that isn't what Dr. Richard Bright had intended.

I'm willing to accept that a visual inspection of Eddowes intact kidney showed nephritis, but I don't think we can know anything beyond that, for example, whether it was an infectious process, or genetic, or residual damage from a past infection.

I wish we did know, because there are so many implications, but I don't think we ever can.

I don't think we can even use nephritis to prove that the Lusk kidney was Eddowes, even if we could say for a fact that both she, and the original owner of the Lusk kidney had Bright's disease, because it wasn't, and isn't, especially rare.

[GregBaron]

Much ado about Nothing...

Hello Greg. Well, both Polly and Annie suffered from various kinds/degrees of incapacitation. They were rather easily subdued. Can't speak for the others.

Cheers.
LC

This may be true Lynn but despite any infirmity these women were walking, talking and functioning, albeit shakily. This incapacitation still offers no explanation as to how they were taken to the ground for a throat cut. It's as if the killer said, "will you please lie on the ground and turn your head to your left so I can cut your throat".

The total lack of a struggle and scream defies explanation at least for C's...1 through 3....

Delighted to. It is found in Baxter's summary of the Stride case. He refers there to BOTH Nichols AND Chapman as having "skillful mutilations." If you have "The Ultimate Companion" it's on p. 176.

In the same edition of the "New Independent Review" where your excellent article appears Lynn, Chris Malone implies that Baxter was a bit of a drama queen who was promoting his American medico seeking uteri theory. For this reason, I think we should take his pronouncements with a grain of salt...........- not to mention the suggestion that a kidney removal in Mitre Square was more skillful than Chapman's uterus removal.....................

I think Chris' article also suggests that in general the medicos agreed about the nature of the mutilations..........Unfortuanely, confusion and misinformation have arisen since........at least in part due to the miserable media............



Greg

[RivkahChaya]

Baxter was a bit of a drama queen

He also seems, to me, to be working from the assumption that the killer went to work with a definite goal in mind, and accomplished it, as opposed to grabbing something, and slicing until it came out. It's the difference between hitting a target with a dart, and trowing a dart at a wall, and drawing a target around it.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but I once had a engine cooling fan seize and start to smoke on a car (that fortunately had two of them) after dusk, and popped the hood (bonnet, I think, in British), and removed it, basically by removing the smoking thing, and feeling back to all the connectors, and unclipping them, or if they were stuck, using bolt cutters in front of the clip. A flashlight was no help, because of where the thing was located.

I have experience working on cars, but not on this particular part. If the fan had not been smoking, I could not have done this. If someone had told me "Go take out an engine cooling fan in the dark," I would have said they were crazy, and particularly since this one had a weird shroud around it, there's no way I could have gotten to it had it not been smoking.

Now, if someone said "Go remove any engine part," that wouldn't have been a problem, because I could have grabbed something, and removed it by feeling back, the same way.

So, whoever the killer was, he was clever enough to know that an organ was held in by veins, and arteries, I suppose, but butcher's shops were less mysterious back then, plus, mutilating animals is in the background of most serial killers, so we don't know, but can safely speculate, that the killer dissected a trapped rat a few times in his childhood.

[lynn cates]

etc.

Hello Greg Thanks.

"This may be true Lynn but despite any infirmity these women were walking, talking and functioning, albeit shakily."

Agreed.

"This incapacitation still offers no explanation as to how they were taken to the ground for a throat cut. It's as if the killer said, "will you please lie on the ground and turn your head to your left so I can cut your throat"."

With Polly and Annie, what's wrong with a seizure and take down? By the way, I think Annie gave a good wallop to my lad as he had an eye blacked when pinched.

"The total lack of a struggle and scream defies explanation at least for C's...1 through 3...."

Vide supra.

"In the same edition of the "New Independent Review" where your excellent article appears Lynn, Chris Malone implies that Baxter was a bit of a drama queen who was promoting his American medico seeking uteri theory."

I pretty much agree.

"For this reason, I think we should take his pronouncements with a grain of salt"

Why? After all, what caused Baxter to come up with that silly theory in the first place? (Hint: the remarkable skill involved.)

" . . . not to mention the suggestion that a kidney removal in Mitre Square was more skillful than Chapman's uterus removal. . ."

More skillful? Who suggested that? Yes, knowledge of anatomy, but skill? See what the 3 wise men, er, drs. had to say about that.

"I think Chris' article also suggests that in general the medicos agreed about the nature of the mutilations. . . "

Pretty much. And I agree.

"Unfortunately, confusion and misinformation have arisen since."

Absolutely. And the worst confusion is to place these obviously different murders together.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

He also seems, to me, to be working from the assumption that the killer went to work with a definite goal in mind, and accomplished it, as opposed to grabbing something, and slicing until it came out. It's the difference between hitting a target with a dart, and trowing a dart at a wall, and drawing a target around it.

The only problem with a random organ grab theory is that if it was at random, they were still specifically seeking damned hard organs to get at. Neither the uterus nor the kidneys is in plain sight though an open abdomen. If you know what you are looking for, you don't have to remove the intestines or liver or whatever. You can locate a uterus by feel or through judicious shifting (thank god or hysterectomies would be truly horrific). But this guy rejected the intestines. He took them out, clearing the visual field. And even upon doing that, neither the uterus nor the kidney leap out at you. The liver is right there on top, pancreas, spleen, bladder, all right in plain sight. The uterus is a pocket of flesh folded up behind the bladder, and the kidneys have a protective layer over them that hides them from view.

So basically, if he wasn't specifically after a uterus and a kidney then he was specifically after an organ that was hard to get to. Because other organs are either in plain sight or stick out.

[RivkahChaya]

So basically, if he wasn't specifically after a uterus and a kidney then he was specifically after an organ that was hard to get to. Because other organs are either in plain sight or stick out.

I've never dissected a human body, so you make excellent points I wouldn't know about.

However, we still don't know JTR's intentions. Did he pull several things out, and take the last one to come out? That still doesn't mean the last one was his goal, it just means when he got it, he had to stop for some reason. Maybe the policeman on the beat would be returning.

I once found a wallet on the side of the road, and returned it to its original owner, intact. People kept telling me I had a "good eye" for spotting it, but without knowing how many times I'd missed wallets on the side of the road, that's an impossible judgment to make. We don't know what other women Eddowes' killer killed besides her, and what skill he may or may not have shown in removing other victims's organs.

On the other hand, maybe he had skill from years of cutting up victims both animal and human. That is probably not what Baxter was suggesting, but it could be the case.