Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Prosector]

Hi Jon

I'm not sure my last reply got through as I think I pressed the wrong button.

I think the murder of MJK was entirely different from the others. I think the reason he cut her face away was to prevent post mortem photography and later identification. Bond thought that he had folded the corner of the sheet over her face as he was hacking away at it. Perhaps if you had once known the person and felt something for her this is understandable.

Just a thought.

Prosector

[RivkahChaya]

Hi C D

It depends what the surgeon wanted to remove. In a simple hysterectomy (for fibroids for instance) it would be the uterus alone. If it was for cancer he or she would do a radical hystercetomy and take all the surrounding tissues including the ovaries, the Fallopian tubes etc. This appears to be what Jack did in the case of Chapman although it is not totally clear. However, as I keep repeating, abdominal operations on the living were extremely rare in 1888 and very few surgeons would have done even a single abdominal hysterectomy. Pathologists such as Phillips had hugely more experience in this sort of thing.

Prosector

My mother had a hysterectomy in the late 1980s for fibroids. The doctor removed her cervix, so that cervical cancer would no longer be a concern, as long as he was doing the surgery anyway. Back then, hysterectomies involved a large incision, and no one knew that HPV was the cause of cervical cancer, so taking a sexual history to assess her risk wouldn't have been done. Ovaries were left, though, so she wouldn't need hormone supplements. She wasn't yet menopausal at the time, although she was 48, but she might be called "peri-menopausal" now.

My point is, I'm not sure it's useful to talk about whether what was done to these women was anything like a "standard" hysterectomy, since there was no standard hysterectomy in 1888. Other than on a corpse.

Hello Prosector.

"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."

Sounds more like Annie's entry.

Cheers.
LC

I've been told by vets that the umbilicus on a non-human mammal is very different from that of a human. Why, I don't know, but I do know that spay incisions on cats and dogs frequently obscure their navels, in spite of being pretty small. I don't know why, but I suspect that non-human navels are not as fibrous. Probably has something to do with support tissue we have for our organ when we're standing, but that's a guess.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Prosector

Thanks!

All the best

Dave

[Prosector]

Hi Rivkah

I agree that animal umbilicuses (or umbilici if you prefer) are less fibrous than human from animal dissections as a biology student, although, since you weren't going to sew them up it wasn't a matter of much concern.

Removal of the cervix with the uterus is still routine for the reason you mention. However, since the cervix projects about two centimeters down into the vagina you have to take the vaginal vault as well (as Jack did in the Chapman killing).

Prosector

[Prosector]

Rivkah

Further to last reply, I agree that talking about 'standard hysterectomies' in the context of JTR is meaningless since they were rarely done in life then but I was just replying to a question of what surgeons today remove in a 'standard hysterectomy.'

P

[lynn cates]

deviation

Hello Cris. Thanks.

And in doing that, he avoided the deviation at the umbilicus. So, looks like not a doctor.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

anatomical knowledge

Hello (again) Cris. I was reading "anatomical knowledge" as knowing where to find the viscera.

Maybe not?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

difficult go

Hello Rivkah, Prosector. Thanks.

If one were cutting a cadaver for the first time, might it not be that it is natural to cut around the umbilicus insofar as the cutting becomes more difficult there?

We know that Kate's assassin was holding the knife obliquely at least part of the time. So a slight change in pressure might easily be felt?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Rivkah

Further to last reply, I agree that talking about 'standard hysterectomies' in the context of JTR is meaningless since they were rarely done in life then but I was just replying to a question of what surgeons today remove in a 'standard hysterectomy.'

P

You would think a surgeon would have done a standard hysterectomy opening, which is of course a tranverse cut near the pelvic bone. Like a c section. The hysterectomies that were being performed were done that way, as were c sections. It makes it harder to get to a kidney that way, but certainly not impossible.

But no matter what signs of skill we may see here and there, the truth is that midline incision on Eddowes is atrocious. Now a lot of it may have to do with the fact that she was wearing three tops that were all still buttoned... which means running into road blocks rather frequently, but that was not a neat cut. He stabbed and pulled, stabbed and pulled. He didn't incise the flesh. He ripped it open the way a sailor rips open a sail. I think you can back up the idea that a surgeon would not have a hard time making that incision, nor would it take longer than the ripping and stabbing. So while a surgeon may choose the more violent and less effective method, I think you can also back the idea that when under pressure, people do what they were taught to do. In a battle you wouldn't suddenly decide to just slash about until you got to the bit you were looking for. You fall back on training. And if someone doesn't fall back on training while under stress, they likely never had that training.

As for the MJK thing, as best I can tell I am the only person who looks at the dispensation of organs and see some missing. Not necessarily that they were taken, but they aren't on the list. The primary examples being the vagina and the fallopian tubes. Now I grew up on an OB/GYN ward (literally. My school was across the street from my dad's office, so we hung out there until he was ready to go home) and I see them as separate entities, mostly because on the floor there were all kinds of posters and models of the vagina, or the tubes, not shown with the uterus. So I wonder if my point of view is skewed by this. I'm definitely disturbed due to one doctor's model pelvis with a fetal skull attached to it by a chain. If the uterus that was found had the vagina and tubes, and most people consider it a single organ the assumption is made that all of those things were together. On the other hand theres no mention of the bladder. Given his previous extractions, it would make sense for it to be with the uterus, but theres no mention. So I don't know where that went, and that is decidedly a separate organ.

It kinda makes me wonder if this could be a sign that MJK's killer was a different man who took something to make it look like the Ripper. And unfortunately he took the bladder and not the uterus because he couldn't tell them apart.

[Hunter]

Hello (again) Cris. I was reading "anatomical knowledge" as knowing where to find the viscera.

Maybe not?

I believe it was the method of evisceration that impressed Mr. Phillips. Add what Swanson reveals from Phillips' now missing post-mortem report and this segment from the Sept. 29th Lancet, "...the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse."

Basically, it was the incisions themselves in accessing the abdominal organs -- the umbilicus being initially averted by two incisions starting at a common apex just above it and dealt with by removing separately, the mesenteric attachments probably being cut while the intestines were lifted out, and the rectum being avoided when the organs were removed.

The reason why I posted that segment from Swanson's report is that I believe, while many are familiar with the Lancet article and often refer to it, the Swanson report is often not referenced even though it was taken from Phillips' actual report and offers more details than the Lancet actually does. I've seen many well versed Ripperologists incorrectly describe the incisions made to Chapman's abdomen because I believe Swanson's report is overlooked or mis-comprehended.

[Errata]

It's funny... my mom had a hysterectomy too... because her uterus fell out. Which was not a good day for me, being the only one home and her not being certain she could drive like that. I never knew that could happen, so yeah. That's a thought that festers.

I have always maintained that Jack found the uterus digitally. Which anyone who has had an annual pelvic exam can see why I say this. The doctor pushes the cervix above the pelvic bone so they can feel it. (Yes this hurts). If someone knows that the vagina is attached to the uterus, it's not a bad way to pick out the correct organ. But that would require the abdomen being very open, and at least one knee up on the corpse to tilt the cervix. But all of the victims were in that pose.

So I ask you Prosector, who has inside way more people that I have (I've only seen inside myself and one very unfortunate motorcycle rider) Would that kind of digital manipulation pop the cervix (and therefor the uterus) enough to be seen relatively clearly in darkness? That's the one part of the idea I don't know about. I know he could put his hand in there and feel for his own fingers, but could he see it?

[Errata]

I believe it was the method of evisceration that impressed Mr. Phillips. Add what Swanson reveals from Phillips' now missing post-mortem report and this segment from the Sept. 29th Lancet, "...the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse."

Basically, it was the incisions themselves in accessing the abdominal organs -- the umbilicus being initially averted by two incisions starting at a common apex just above it and dealt with by removing separately, the mesenteric attachments probably being cut while the intestines were lifted out, and the rectum being avoided when the organs were removed.

The reason why I posted that segment from Swanson's report is that I believe, while many are familiar with the Lancet article and often refer to it, the Swanson report is often not referenced even though it was taken from Phillips' actual report and offers more details than the Lancet actually does. I've seen many well versed Ripperologists incorrectly describe the incisions made to Chapman's abdomen because I believe Swanson's report is overlooked or mis-comprehended.

So, I don't know if this is a good reference or not, but I have worked with caul fat, which is what binds the organs of cows. It is tough and fibrous, but once nicked is easily torn. Kinda like cellophane where you cannot just jerk a piece off, but a little cut and it parts like the red sea.

If caul fat is analogous to mesenteries, it may not require a lot of knife work. Once cut it may have been like tearing cloth. No steering but fairly easy to do.

But if caul fat is not analogous to mesenteries, ignore everything I just said.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I'm not sure my last reply got through as I think I pressed the wrong button.

I think the murder of MJK was entirely different from the others. I think the reason he cut her face away was to prevent post mortem photography and later identification. Bond thought that he had folded the corner of the sheet over her face as he was hacking away at it. Perhaps if you had once known the person and felt something for her this is understandable.

Just a thought.

Prosector

Familiar thoughts actually, there is concern voiced by some about Kelly knowing her killer in a more than casual way.

...... I am reeling somewhat from the onslaught that I seem to have unleashed.

You are likely beginning to wonder just what have you got yourself into, so much for your weekend off

The fact you would take the time to appear on Casebook is really greatly appreciated. I only hope you have the stamina to ride the wave....

Thanks again...

[Hunter]

You would think a surgeon would have done a standard hysterectomy opening, which is of course a tranverse cut near the pelvic bone. Like a c section. The hysterectomies that were being performed were done that way, as were c sections. It makes it harder to get to a kidney that way, but certainly not impossible.

If you have it available, look at Foster's sketch closely. The 'pubes' were cut with a sideways "V" so the skin could be detached (but not completely)enough to reach the uterus. In Chapman's case the pubes were entirely severed and placed over the victim's shoulder. None of that would affect how the kidney was approached. The intestines were the main obstacle there and then getting the left lobe of the liver, the spleen and the pancreas out of the way so the peritoneal lining could be cut, the kidney grabbed by one hand while the other cuts the vascular attachments supporting it. What little fat may have been around the kidney wouldn't have been an impediment. Its mushy while the kidney is firm like a rubber ball.

But no matter what signs of skill we may see here and there, the truth is that midline incision on Eddowes is atrocious. Now a lot of it may have to do with the fact that she was wearing three tops that were all still buttoned... which means running into road blocks rather frequently, but that was not a neat cut. He stabbed and pulled, stabbed and pulled. He didn't incise the flesh. He ripped it open the way a sailor rips open a sail.

I believe the layers of clothing and Kate's diminutive size were major impediments compared to Chapman and may explain the ragged incisions.

As for the MJK thing, as best I can tell I am the only person who looks at the dispensation of organs and see some missing. Not necessarily that they were taken, but they aren't on the list...

Unfortunately, the real post-mortem report made by Mr. Phillips is missing. He would have been much more detailed than Bond, whose more abbreviated report to Anderson is all we have. Even though Bond didn't mention some organs, given how vital any information about missing organs would be considering what had happened before, I believe he would have informed the Assistant Commissioner of it.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe it was the method of evisceration that impressed Mr. Phillips. Add what Swanson reveals from Phillips' now missing post-mortem report and this segment from the Sept. 29th Lancet, "...the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed on the shoulder of the corpse."

Basically, it was the incisions themselves in accessing the abdominal organs -- the umbilicus being initially averted by two incisions starting at a common apex just above it and dealt with by removing separately, the mesenteric attachments probably being cut while the intestines were lifted out, and the rectum being avoided when the organs were removed.

The reason why I posted that segment from Swanson's report is that I believe, while many are familiar with the Lancet article and often refer to it, the Swanson report is often not referenced even though it was taken from Phillips' actual report and offers more details than the Lancet actually does. I've seen many well versed Ripperologists incorrectly describe the incisions made to Chapman's abdomen because I believe Swanson's report is overlooked or mis-comprehended.

So you are now saying that Swanson is a medical expert. ?

Bond doesn't mention anything about any organs being removed

Go back and look at the post mortem photos and then go back and read the report about the stab wounds through her clothing see if they match up.

If my theory is correct the cut around the umbilicus which does show signs of someone who knew post mortem procedures could have been made at the mortuary by whoever removed the organs i.e doctor,medical student or an anatomist.

I should also point out that the doctors did not examine the abdomen of Eddowes in any great detail at the crime scene and in fact with Nicholls they didn't even know she had been stabbed in the abdomen until the body arrived at the post mortem so these Doctors who you seek to rely heavily on were not as professional as you would have everyone believe.