Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mary Jane Violence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

    Going out on a limb here and please feel free to shoot me down but could it have been a bit of professional jealousy/pride in that only a person with surgical skill could remove organs, that there is no way a average person would be able to do something like that?

    Tristan
    I understand the question Tristan, and in my opinion, I doubt that factored in here. The fact that the killer in some cases seems to have quickly eviscerated and extracted organs, in near darkness, might have...I want to say impressed..the physicians who examined the women. The 3 that come to mind would be Polly, Annie and Kate. That's also my own personal Canonical Group. But these were cases of such importance at the time the public safety issues weighing on the minds of the investigators must have been in the forefront.
    Michael Richards

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
      Couldn't help but notice, a person named Edward GINGERICH was a paranoid schizophrenic who killed his wife in 1993.

      He was so ill that he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and released 5 years and one day after the event.
      Not sure what point you are trying ot make here, or even if you are trying to make any point at all. Can you help out, please?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DJA View Post

        Yep.

        Arrogance would possibly be a better word.

        Given the evidence before them at Mitre Square,a cover up is likely.

        Lack of blood spray,the length of colon,kidney extraction,the expert diversion around the navel ......

        When lies and incompetence are rampant,it's difficult to differentiate.
        Sorry, expert division around the navel? Its one of the features that surely discounts anyone with skill. As does, in what appears to be an error because it served no other purpose, a 2 ft colon section cut off with feces in it.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • Hi Cogidubnus

          This is an interesting point and I don't think anyone has ever commented on it before. When medical students, pathologists or surgeons open an abdomen using a midline incision they always skirt round the umbilicus to the right. Even if they are naturally left handed it is always to the right. The reason that the umbilicus is avoided is that it is a very tough and fibrous structure. When it comes to sewing up at the end of the operation or autopsy it is very difficult to stitch through the umbilical tissues. Of course Jack wasn't going to sew up afterwards but it seems to have been embedded somewhere in his psyche.

          I remember once assisting a surgeon who decided to go round the umbilicus to the left just for the Hell of it. There was a shocked silence in the theatre and the scrub nurse nearly walked out. It is regarded as terribly bad form and bad luck to deviate round it to the left. As far as I know that holds true the world over. So where had he learned to do that?

          Incidentally, as far as I know, butchers never bother, they go right down the midline since they are not going to be sewing up afterwards.

          Prosector

          (Dr Wynne Weston Davies,a senior surgeon).
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment



          • I have been reading some of Prosectors's posts and it's interesting.Prosector had experience "I have operated on the abdomen many hundreds of times".
            All quoted text from Prosector.

            It seems JTR nedded to know how to a) severe the intestines from their mesenteric attachments (Chapman,Eddowes),not to "cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content,lift the small intestines out of the abdomen so he could have a clear field" in (b) removing the uterus (Chapman,Eddowes),c) "deliberately removed a section of the descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney" (Eddowes), d) Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (Eddowes),"done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum", "from oozing back into the abdominal cavity",e) possibly the choosing of the left kidney instead of the right (Eddowes), researching why the left kidney not the right,it's mostly used today for kidney transplant because the left renal vein is longer,easier to cut and "sew back in".
            My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DJA View Post
              I have been reading some of Prosectors's posts and it's interesting.Prosector had experience "I have operated on the abdomen many hundreds of times".
              All quoted text from Prosector.

              It seems JTR nedded to know how to a) severe the intestines from their mesenteric attachments (Chapman,Eddowes),not to "cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content,lift the small intestines out of the abdomen so he could have a clear field" in (b) removing the uterus (Chapman,Eddowes),c) "deliberately removed a section of the descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney" (Eddowes), d) Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (Eddowes),"done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum", "from oozing back into the abdominal cavity",e) possibly the choosing of the left kidney instead of the right (Eddowes), researching why the left kidney not the right,it's mostly used today for kidney transplant because the left renal vein is longer,easier to cut and "sew back in".
              Couldn't agree more .
              The late Nick Warren who was also both ripperologist and practicing surgeon was equally sure .

              Let's not forget ,in the case of Eddowes , removing the uterus without piercing the bladder
              You can lead a horse to water.....

              Comment


              • Posted 12 Feb last year by Varqm,not me.

                2.36am and being lazy.
                Last edited by DJA; 10-09-2019, 03:55 PM.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                  Couldn't agree more .
                  The late Nick Warren who was also both ripperologist and practicing surgeon was equally sure .

                  Let's not forget ,in the case of Eddowes , removing the uterus without piercing the bladder
                  And in Chapmans case, removing the uterus and cutting the bladder open. Let´s remember that too, least we want to be called cherrypicking. Furthermore, the killer did not remove Eddowes uterus, he removed part of it: "The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch."

                  Before we make a call of superior skill and anatomical/surgical insights, it is important that we have the whole picture.

                  Comment


                  • Why, as Prosector observed, would a murder worry about being able to sew up the stomach? If this "navel-wiggle" was ingrained in the killer's nature, why didn't he employ it in the other evisceration murders? Was it a true circumvention of the navel, or a byproduct of joining together two cuts that weren't particluarly well-aligned?

                    When I google "incision around the navel", by far the greatest number of hits are about umbilical hernia repair and tummy-tucks. When did this procedure become standard, whether as a surgical procedure or for autopsies?
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                      Why, as Prosector observed, would a murder worry about being able to sew up the stomach? If this "navel-wiggle" was ingrained in the killer's nature, why didn't he employ it in the other evisceration murders? Was it a true circumvention of the navel, or a byproduct of joining together two cuts that weren't particluarly well-aligned?

                      When I google "incision around the navel", by far the greatest number of hits are about umbilical hernia repair and tummy-tucks. When did this procedure become standard, whether as a surgical procedure or for autopsies?
                      Instinct
                      You can lead a horse to water.....

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                        oh god here we go again with the it wasn't mary Kelly nonsense.
                        Well, maybe it wasn’t really her.
                        “If I cannot bend heaven, I will raise hell.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                          And in Chapmans case, removing the uterus and cutting the bladder open. Let´s remember that too, least we want to be called cherrypicking. Furthermore, the killer did not remove Eddowes uterus, he removed part of it: "The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch."

                          Before we make a call of superior skill and anatomical/surgical insights, it is important that we have the whole picture.
                          But he did allegedly also remove the kidney, which is the hardest organ in the body to locate, and then apparently removed with some precision in almost total darkness in the time it would have taken a medical expert in female anatomy, absolutely amazing for 1888, I wonder how many would have possessed such knowledge, skill and expertise to have done that ?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But he did allegedly also remove the kidney, which is the hardest organ in the body to locate, and then apparently removed with some precision in almost total darkness in the time it would have taken a medical expert in female anatomy, absolutely amazing for 1888, I wonder how many would have possessed such knowledge, skill and expertise to have done that ?

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Every tom ,dick and harry apparently
                            I do sometimes wonder whether people are interested in investigating anything at all or just convincing others that the seemingly impossible was possible because the 'pet suspect' falls by the wayside otherwise
                            You can lead a horse to water.....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              But he did allegedly also remove the kidney, which is the hardest organ in the body to locate, and then apparently removed with some precision in almost total darkness in the time it would have taken a medical expert in female anatomy, absolutely amazing for 1888, I wonder how many would have possessed such knowledge, skill and expertise to have done that ?

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              If anything, it is NOT "absolutely amazing for 1888", Trevor. Becasue if we were to try and find an era when people in general would know where the kidneys were positioned inside the human body, it would be this exact period of time. As I have already pointed out, there were wax museums that put Anatomical Venuses on display, and where pedagogical shows were showing people the exact locatiopn of the organs inside the body. The repicated organs were pointed out, named and lifted out of the body, so that the spectators - mainly consisting of members of the working class - could learn where to look for them.

                              Once you know where they are, you can easily find them and cut them out, should you be so inclined.

                              To boot, we all know that it was alwyas regarded as odd that the kideny was taken out from the front, whereas it is usually removed from the back. But guess what? In the displays of Anatomical Venuses, the kidneys - and all other organs - were always taken out from the front.

                              So instead of saying "absolutely amazing for 1888", we should perhaps say "if it was likely to happen at any time, the late 1800:s would probably be that time".

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by packers stem View Post

                                Every tom ,dick and harry apparently
                                I do sometimes wonder whether people are interested in investigating anything at all or just convincing others that the seemingly impossible was possible because the 'pet suspect' falls by the wayside otherwise
                                Please explain to me how "every Tom, Dick and Harry" who visited a display of an Anatomical Venus would NOT know afterwards where the kidneys were positioned inside the body! And once you are done explaining that, maybe you could also explain why any suspect would fall by the wayside on account of a perceived lack of anatomical insights on your behalf that is in total conflict with the existing reality.

                                After clearing that out of the way, we can hopefully get back to a rational discussion.

                                If tyou take a alook at this link:

                                https://www.researchgate.net/figure/..._fig3_50863459

                                ... you will find an Anatomical Venus by the foremost wax sculptor of his time, Clemente Susini. And you will be able to see how the victorian visitors to the wax museums - including Tom, Dick and Harry - were shown how the kidneys were placed inside the body. These exhibitions were hugely popular and attracted hoards of visitors. In later years, we have names of people who have visited wax exhibitions and become very fascinated with them. Two such names are Albert Fish and Peter Sutcliffe.

                                If you want a little history alongside the exploits I recommend, the link:

                                https://www.theguardian.com/artandde...benstein-books

                                ...is helpful.
                                Last edited by Fisherman; 10-11-2019, 09:19 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X