Was Jack enraged by watching soliciting

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

Polly, Annie, and Kate for that matter must have fell asleep in some strange places

Ha. I meant he would have moved them after, to some place darker, for one. It was just a suggestion.

“Catherine Eddowes had kidney disease, although we don't have any way of knowing just how sick she was.”

Are you sure of that? Many researchers have reneged on that one.

From what I understand, "Bright's disease," which just meant a congestion of the blood vessels of the kidneys, had been a pretty easy diagnosis since 1830. The Dr. Bright it was named for managed to find excess protein in kidneys using crude, but for his time, brilliant techniques.

Anyway, if a visual exam showed kidney stones, congestion, or edema in the kidneys, a coroner would probably say "Bright's disease," without that meaning much in modern terms, but we can still think that Eddowes had some sort of kidney abnormality. It could have been a bladder infection that spread to her kidneys, though. All the different conditions that fall under "Bright's disease" range from kidney damage from untreated strep infection, to genetic conditions that cause kidney failure, to vitamin D deficiency. One thing that doesn't cause it is alcoholism, though, which seems to be what the coroner at the time inferred.

How serious her condition was, is anyone's guess. I know someone who has a genetic dominant form of polycystic kidney disease, but takes really good care of herself, and is very active, and because she's been in otherwise good health, has had a couple of laparoscopic procedures that have kept the disease at bay; you'd never have an idea there was anything wrong with her.

“Is it remotely possible that he came upon any of them passed out ... or asleep? ...”

Don’t think so. The evidence for Polly and Annie is quite clear—they were strangled.

Good enough.

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Christer. Thanks.

"Could you point me in the direction where Nichol´s wounds were described as skilfully inflicted, Lynn? I don´t remember seeing it myself, but I know you have a good eye for details so I guess you are correct here!"

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.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

ah!

Hello Jon. Thanks for the clarification.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

skillful

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

“Is it possible that skillful meant "so damn strong, the knife may not have been all the sharp, and he still managed"?"

Doubtful. The knife was described as sharp. Try cutting meat with a sharp knife; now a dull one. See the difference in cuts?

“Skillful could mean more than one thing-- it could mean that he knew exactly where to cut, and could find the vein in the dark, by touch, quickly, and get it with a minimum of cutting. Or it could mean that he was so strong, his only limitation was the tensile strength of the knife.”

Skillful was described as per the mutilations. The chap who did for Polly and Annie was no stranger to a knife.

“How sharp could the knife have been?”

Quite sharp. Dr. Phillips thought it was a butcher’s knife well ground down.

“Then, maybe the skill was in sharpening the knife in the first place."

Well, he obviously did that.

“Does anyone think that JTR must have carried this knife in some kind of sheath?"

Well, my lad wore his apron and had his knives in it—until just after Polly was killed.

“Catherine Eddowes had kidney disease, although we don't have any way of knowing just how sick she was.”

Are you sure of that? Many researchers have reneged on that one.

“Is it remotely possible that he came upon any of them passed out (not necessarily from alcohol) or asleep? again, not necessarily sleeping peacefully, but maybe fallen down from fatigue? I'm guessing that most of them were chronically sleep-deprived.”

Don’t think so. The evidence for Polly and Annie is quite clear—they were strangled.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Is it remotely possible that he came upon any of them passed out (not necessarily from alcohol) or asleep? again, not necessarily sleeping peacefully, but maybe fallen down from fatigue? I'm guessing that most of them were chronically sleep-deprived.

Polly, Annie, and Kate for that matter must have fell asleep in some strange places

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"Actually, the knife work in BOTH Polly and Annie's cases were described as "skillful."

Could you point me in the direction where Nichol´s wounds were described as skilfully inflicted, Lynn? I don´t remember seeing it myself, but I know you have a good eye for details so I guess you are correct here!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks. Given that one were arrested for a throat cutting, I doubt he would worry a good deal over being found with a ligature.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.
I was meaning that anyone can carry a knife and explain it away, even as a means of self defense. Not so with a ligature, if you are found carrying one of those you have criminal intent.
People were often taken off the streets for questioning, when searched if a ligature is found, you are in poops-ville!

Regards, Jon S.

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Ruby. Thanks. Actually, the knife work in BOTH Polly and Annie's cases were described as "skillful." So he should have been quite confident in his throat cutting skills.

Is it possible that skillful meant "so damn strong, the knife may not have been all the sharp, and he still managed"? Skillful could mean more than one thing-- it could mean that he knew exactly where to cut, and could find the vein in the dark, by touch, quickly, and get it with a minimum of cutting. Or it could mean that he was so strong, his only limitation was the tensile strength of the knife.

How sharp could the knife have been? I've read accounts of people committing suicide by cutting their own throats, which seemed to require an awful lot of determination, I'd think, but then, I've accidentally cut myself with really sharp kitchen knives, and not realized how badly right away, because it didn't hurt much, if I wasn't cutting peppers, and didn't get salt on the cut.

Then, maybe the skill was in sharpening the knife in the first place.

Does anyone think that JTR must have carried this knife in some kind of sheath? I'm trying to imagine some other way of carrying a knife that sharp so that it was concealed, without having it cut through a pocket, or cut him, if it was carried close to his body.

Hello Greg. Well, both Polly and Annie suffered from various kinds/degrees of incapacitation. They were rather easily subdued.

Catherine Eddowes had kidney disease, although we don't have any way of knowing just how sick she was. It's a possibility she had reactive hypoglycemia, or even subclinical diabetes (type I diabetes, but her pancreas makes some insulin, just not enough, so she wouldn't be completely dependent on injections, if she were diagnosed today). I don't know she had that, I just know that some of the diseases that produce the symptoms that were called "Bright's disease" in 1888 are frequently comorbid with pancreatic dysfunction. I'm not willing to put money on anything specific, but I feel pretty safe saying that Eddowes wasn't in good health.

Is it remotely possible that he came upon any of them passed out (not necessarily from alcohol) or asleep? again, not necessarily sleeping peacefully, but maybe fallen down from fatigue? I'm guessing that most of them were chronically sleep-deprived.