Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Prosector]

Dear Rivkah

The left kidney is deep behind the posterior abdominal peritoneum embedded in very firm fat (called suet if it's a cow). You can't get hold of it by inserting your hand into the abdominal cavity. It is simply not there to be got hold of. You have to know exactly where it is and then go looking and digging for it. And the easiest way is to remove the descending colon, which is what he did. Not instinctive or accidental, you need knowledge. Ask anyone who has actually done it and see what they say.

Prosector

[curious]

Dear Rivkah

The left kidney is deep behind the posterior abdominal peritoneum embedded in very firm fat (called suet if it's a cow). You can't get hold of it by inserting your hand into the abdominal cavity. It is simply not there to be got hold of. You have to know exactly where it is and then go looking and digging for it. And the easiest way is to remove the descending colon, which is what he did. Not instinctive or accidental, you need knowledge. Ask anyone who has actually done it and see what they say.

Prosector

It's great to have the opportunity to learn this. Thank you!

curious

[Prosector]

Hi Errata

1) No, it wouldn't require muscular activity to still be present. In fact if it was it might actually be more difficult. See my previous comment. It's like trying to turn the finger of a large (and slippery) glove inside out from the outside. As a matter of interest, muscular activity of the intestines does sometimes continue for some time after death. if you have ever had a patient die on the table (and most surgeons have) you would have observed that.
2) Not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean how and where he placed them? If so, I do think there was a certain macabre and symbolic reasoning to it that was not present in the other killings. As a matter of interest, the cutting away of the anterior abdominal wall and placing it on the table was purely practical. In order to completely eviscerate her he needed better access than in the other cases. He didn't have anyone to act as an assistant and retract the two flaps aside so I think that after a few attempts when they kept flopping back like automatic doors closing he simply took the easy way and sliced them off.

Prosector

[Prosector]

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

[lynn cates]

corroboration

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Well, you said long ago that there was a great difference in technique between Annie and Kate. You are now corroborated.

Cheers.
LC

[Prosector]

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

[lynn cates]

medical

Hello Prosector. Thanks.

A medical man eh? Very well. That was a strong contemporary theory.

You pointed out his great disparity in technique. What is your preferred way to explain that difference?

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Prosector,

Thanks for your response. Just so I am sure that I understand you, with respect to the uterus, it is your opinion that Jack could not have duplicated this just by cutting and grabbing. Correct?

c.d.

[lynn cates]

no detour

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

[Hunter]

...As a matter of interest, the cutting away of the anterior abdominal wall and placing it on the table was purely practical. In order to completely eviscerate her he needed better access than in the other cases. He didn't have anyone to act as an assistant and retract the two flaps aside so I think that after a few attempts when they kept flopping back like automatic doors closing he simply took the easy way and sliced them off.

This was done previously with Chapman. The flaps were placed over the victim's shoulder.

[curious4]

Hunter

The 'reach in and grab' method that you describe doesn't really work when it comes to mobilising the small intestine which he did in both the Chapman and the Eddowes cases. As I mentioned in a previous post, he used the method that is used by medical students in dissecting the human body and by surgeons and pathologists, namely dividing the root of the mesentery. You can think of it this way: imagine a large crinkly lettuce leaf still attached to the lettuce. The small intestine runs along the edge of the leaf. You need to detach it from the rest of the plant. You could do that by carefully cutting all the way along the edge of the leaf, being careful not to actually cut across the ege of the leaf, or you could just cut through the stalk (the root of the mesentery) which is what he did.

The small intestine and mesentery is about 50 times bigger than a lettuce leaf so you can see how long it would take using the grab and cut technique. But you would have to know about how and where to find and divide the root of the mesentery. Medical students, doctors and (probably) butchers would know how to divide the root of the mesentery but not any old homicidal maniac.

And by the way, the question of whether he deliberately removed the descending colon to get at Eddowes's left kidney is, I think, answered in Brown's post mortem report. He states that a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if the have to excise the descending colon. Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again but it is not a manoeuvre that would instinctively occur to someone who had not previously observed it I think.

Just another reason why I think JTR had at least seen some of these things being done even if he hadn't previously done them himself.

Prosector

Hello Prosector,

You don't think that someone who had watched, or participated in the cutting up of animals after a hunt would have had enough knowledge to do what Jack did? When gutting an animal, the liver and kidneys would have been separated from the other "innards" (for want of a better word). Also the female reproductive organs might have been pointed out as a matter of interest.

Best wishes,
C4

[Hunter]

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.

The umbilicus was averted in Chapman's case by an inverted 'Y' incision; where the separate prongs of the 'Y' started was just above the navel. The flap containing the navel was taken away with the rest by the killer.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

1) Yes, I think he may have used his left hand. Doesn't necessarily make him left handed though. .....

Thankyou Prosector.

I can assure you I have no left-handed suspect in mind, I ask purely from a technical point of view. Although, if in using your expertise you were able to detect the killer walked with "an awkward gait", I would be all ears.


If you don't mind me saying, one of the value's of someone like yourself sharing your knowledge and skills with the great unwashed is the perception on our part of impartiality.
I notice you write:
"It may come as no surprise that I have someone in mind (who has never been mentioned before). His father was a semi-professional anatomist (ie he did public dissections) and I believe that his son may either have started out as a medical student or at least have watched his father and had access to his medical library."

If you have any detractors here, I think you may have just shown them your achilles heel, if you get my drift.

2) I agree. I don't think he went back and studied the books and practiced on a few more cats (although he might have done). I think it was chiefly increasing confidence, more opportunity (maybe why he chose the back yard rather than the open street) and maybe old skills returning after a period of not having practiced (suppose he had been a medical student 20 or so years before).

I appreciate your acknowledgement.

3) I would forget battlefield surgeons. Other than a few colonial skirmishes the last major war was the Crimea in 1854/5.

Actually, what I had in mind was the US Civil War, some 20+ years prior, in the 1860's. Not a theory by any means, only an observation.

You're response is much appreciated.

[Hunter]

To better explain what I previously described, here is an excerpt from Chief Inspector Donald Swanson's Oct. 19th report to the Home Office on the murder of Annie Chapman:

“...Removed from but attached to the body, & placed above the right shoulder were a flap of the wall of the belly, the whole of the small intestines & attachments. Two other portions of the wall of the belly & ‘Pubes’ were placed above left shoulder in a large quantity of blood... The following parts were missing: part of the belly wall including the naval; the womb, the upper part of the vagina & greater part of the bladder... The doctor gives it as his opinion that the murderer was possessed of anatomical knowledge from the manner of removal of viscera..."

[Wickerman]

2) Not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean how and where he placed them? If so, I do think there was a certain macabre and symbolic reasoning to it that was not present in the other killings. As a matter of interest, the cutting away of the anterior abdominal wall and placing it on the table was purely practical. In order to completely eviscerate her he needed better access than in the other cases. He didn't have anyone to act as an assistant and retract the two flaps aside so I think that after a few attempts when they kept flopping back like automatic doors closing he simply took the easy way and sliced them off.

Prosector

Hi Prosector, with reference to the above, to another member...

We understand that you have studied the medical notes, such as they are, and presumably the existing photo's of the murder scene at Millers Court.

Do you get the impression that the killer had completed the task he set out to achieve that night?
I ask, after considering her abdomen was not completely emptied of viscera, organs, etc, her limbs only partially denuded of flesh, her face not entirely removed of its features, so the thought crossed my mind, had he actually finished when he left, or does this seemingly unorganized mess indicate he was cut short in his mutilations?

We have always assumed as this is the way Mary Kelly was found then this must be the way he intended to leave her, yet, the scene on discovery could just as easily be interpreted as another interrupted mutilation.

I guess this is more of an observation than a question, but I wondered what the thoughts of an expert might be.