Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

I agree that downwards was possible, but one of the things that superficially suggests an upwards cut was that the depth of the cut at the sternum was shallow. That would mean the knife wasn't plunged in at that point and brought downward. It sickens me a bit thinking of it regardless.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



No, I was referencing Swanson's Home Office report which summarized the details of the investigation into the murder of Annie Chapman. He would have relied on reports from others, including that of H Division surgeon George Bagster Phillips. He was reporting elements of that surgeon's notes. Therefore, Swanson did not have to be a medical expert. As a former detective you do know how that works?



Bond reported that the heart was absent. Although I could be wrong about which murder you are referring to, I'm guessing Kelly's. I was pointing out that Bond's report to Anderson would not have been as detailed as Phillips' official post-mortem report, which is unfortunately now missing.



I've read both Collard's testimony and list of clothing, and condition thereof, as well as Brown's testimony of the injuries, seen his sketch, those of Foster's and the various photo's. I see no discrepancy between any of them. There was a stab wound made in the victim's groin area along with some other cuts and the liver had been stabbed.



You do understand that Foster made detailed sketches of the external injuries of the victim immediately after the body arrived at the morgue and the clothing carefully removed and cataloged by Collard? The time is noted on of the sketch. The cut around the umbilicus was most definitely made by the killer.



Unlike Rees Llewellyn, Gordon Brown was a police surgeon practiced in forensics and had the hindsight not afforded by Llewellyn to understand what had happened before in what was now a series of murders of great magnitude. Many changes had been made since August 31st. Surely you can understand that? Brown even made a sketch of the victim in situ.

If you are in need of any further assistance regarding the evidence, the medicos, Swanson's role at CO, or any other aspects of this case, feel free to call on me anytime. My rates are reasonable...LOL. Take care Trevor.

Hi Chris
First off all the fact that the killer stabbed Eddowes possibly four times through her outer clothing to me shows that he did not have any design on the organs if that had been the case why not simply cut her throat then help himself without the difficulty of trying to enter an abdomen which had already been damaged and organs likely damaged to.

To remove a uterus and a kidney shows a pre meditated deliberate intent not trophy taking.

As to Fosters sketch do you know when he prepared it ?

If you look at Fosters sketch it is somewhat misleading, It tends to show one jagged wound from breast bone to pubis As I said before the clothing she was wearing tends to show she was stabbed four times through the clothing twice in downwards movement of the knife and once in a mid line cut across the abdomen, and the fourth unknown direction. Those do not show up specifically on the sketch

One jagged cut 10.5 inches down alpaca skirt waistband downwards

second jagged cut 6.5 inches down chintz skirt waistband downwards

Third cut 1.5 inches at front petticoat direction unknown

Fourth cut 5.inches long from right to left at bottom of bodice. Now she was wearing a bodice no stab wounds or cuts to the upper part. When the body was found none of the upper clothes were described as being up and besides being able to lift a bodice up would be no easy task.

So all in all we get back to the inconsistencies between descriptions given, sketches taken against what the clothing tells us.

As to Kelly as has been said before Bonds statement about the heart being absent is ambiguous. The newspapers of the day tell us that nothing was removed.

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Prosector,

First of all, thank you for your invaluable input on the subject. I think many here, myself included, are learning great amounts from your insight.

In your opinion, given that the body was found in the darkest corner of the square, and given that the time factor is crucial, when considering the above, could a person with the presumed tools used for the purpose on this occasion, actually have the time to do everything to the Eddowes body, including the above, in the allotted timespan under the conditions known? Either

a) As a person with the anatomical kniowledge required as you have posted or

b) As a person not having such anatomical knowledge.

I appreciate the answer will be of personal opinion, of course, but would like to hear the professional viewpoint, all things considered.

Many thanks once more



Phil

[Prosector]

Hi Errata

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't believe that Jack was either a surgeon or a gynaecologist, merely a lay person with some experience of the dissecting room either as an observer or, possibly, some years back, a participant. I don't know if you have heard of Langer's lines? If not look them up on Wikipedia. I don't know exactly when surgeons were trained to make incisions that follow Langer's lines, they certainly are now. But, as I keep on repeating, abdominal surgery was extremely rare in the 1880s. There is another reason why Jack may have chosen a midline incision. It follows the linea alba (white line), so called because it is almost bloodless. It is possible to open an abdomen that way with scarcely a drop of blood being seen. I know that the victims were already dead so there wouldn't have been a great deal of bleeding (although blood does take 20 minutes or so to clot completely) but it may have been a factor.

Prosector

[Prosector]

Hi Phil

I am convinced that you would have to have had anatomical knowledge to have extracted Eddowes's left kidney. As Brown said 'it lies behind a membrane' (and buried deep in a mass of suet and tucked away behind the mesentery of the descending colon). It was, apparently, extracted cleanly together with about an inch of the renal artery if you believe that the Lusk kidney was the same one (as a matter of fact I don't, but that's mainly a hunch). It isn't just something that you can stick your hand in and grab.

Prosector

[Jon Guy]

As I said before the clothing she was wearing tends to show she was stabbed four times through the clothing Those do not show up specifically on the sketch

The clothing, ie waistbands, were specifically cut through.
She was not stabbed, which is why there are no corresponding wounds.

[Prosector]

Hi Michael

I think you have to take account of circumstances. All the of the first 4 canonicals were done ion a hurry in difficult circumstances. Not surprising that there were some differences in technique and quite a lot of evidence of being rushed. Some of the cuts including those in Kate's liver were prtobably the result of the long bladed knife flailing about as he transferred it from hand to hand, as he almost certainly had to. I think that he did kill Long Liz and the fact that she wasn't mutilated was simply that he was disturbed by Diemschutz's premature return. He also bungled the severance of the left carotid artery because it was incompletely cut through which was why it went on bleeding so copiously.

I don't think that the primary goal was organ harvesting. I think he was showing off when he extracted the uteri and the kidney as well as trying to raise the shock factor. The primary goal was to put a signature on the first four killings that would connect them as being the work of one man before he tackled the last one that was his real objective. He clearly wasn't totally successful in that objective because people are still arguing 125 years later as to whether they were in fact the work of the same man. But he had a good stab at it, so to speak.

Prosector

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

I am convinced that you would have to have had anatomical knowledge to have extracted Eddowes's left kidney. As Brown said 'it lies behind a membrane' (and buried deep in a mass of suet and tucked away behind the mesentery of the descending colon). It was, apparently, extracted cleanly together with about an inch of the renal artery if you believe that the Lusk kidney was the same one (as a matter of fact I don't, but that's mainly a hunch). It isn't just something that you can stick your hand in and grab.

Prosector

Hello Prosector,

Many thanks for your reply.

Do I gather from this then that in your personal opinion, that the killer being a person with anatomical knowledge, it WOULD have been possible to perform all the mutilations etc in the time limit of 4-5 mns (if we presume all factors we are told are correct re. Lawende seeing Eddowes, the two policemen at either end of square and their patrol timings, etc.)?

Or are we delving here into the 5-10 min catagory or more?

The light was quite poor, and if the anatomical knowledge was a necessity, as you suggest, just how experienced would a person have to be(in your opinion) to make the eyelid nicks in that sort of light under that sort of pressure (of being caught) and experienced at the same time in organ removal of said left kidney?

I see personally here a knowledgable and practised anatomically aware person. What title he had I cannot say, but the more I think of it, the more I believe that said person must have been used to the workings and insides of the human body, and practised in "handling" said parts.



Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

The clothing, ie waistbands, were specifically cut through.
She was not stabbed, which is why there are no corresponding wounds.

That your opinion.

Even if it were just cuts there would be signs of those cuts on the body and if you read Collards description their was blood emanating from the jagged cuts to the clothing.

And why make just cuts no logical reason ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Prosector,

Many thanks for your reply.

Do I gather from this then that in your personal opinion, that the killer being a person with anatomical knowledge, it WOULD have been possible to perform all the mutilations etc in the time limit of 4-5 mns (if we presume all factors we are told are correct re. Lawende seeing Eddowes, the two policemen at either end of square and their patrol timings, etc.)?

Or are we delving here into the 5-10 min catagory or more?

The light was quite poor, and if the anatomical knowledge was a necessity, as you suggest, just how experienced would a person have to be(in your opinion) to make the eyelid nicks in that sort of light under that sort of pressure (of being caught) and experienced at the same time in organ removal of said left kidney?

I see personally here a knowledgable and practised anatomically aware person. What title he had I cannot say, but the more I think of it, the more I believe that said person must have been used to the workings and insides of the human body, and practised in "handling" said parts.



Phil

Hi Phil
I think its a mute point because if the killer did not have time to do all that he is supposed to have done. Then it matters not if the killer was the most highly experienced surgeon in the country and leaves it open to other plausible explanations with regards to the removal,

Timing is crucial according to the witnesses the time factor is 0-5 mins and no more that take into account walking in the square, and exiting the square.

I would bet even Mr Proscetor could not even effect that in that time if he is honest, but of course if he is a ripper enthusiast then his answer may be biased.

[Jon Guy]

And why make just cuts no logical reason ?

Some of the clothing around the waist was cut so the killer had access to the torso. Eddowes had too many layers on to just push the clothing up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Some of the clothing around the waist was cut so the killer had access to the torso. Eddowes had too many layers on to just push the clothing up.

When the body was found the lower garments were up around her waist if the killer was targeting the abdomen why not after killing her did he not simply lift the clothes up.

To many inconsistencies !

[Jon Guy]

if the killer was targeting the abdomen why not after killing her did he not simply lift the clothes up.

The killer could not push the clothing up to access the sternum to pubes because of the items of clothing tied around her waist. Which is why he cut through some of the material tied around her waist.

[Wickerman]

..... that there were differences in how Eddowes was killed and cut (cut up versus down,....

With all due respect to Lynn, I have never understood this claim, we have the cut clearly described as beginning at the breastbone.

....one throat cut instead of two, no sign of strangulation).

This is a good point, for the longest time, since at least 2004, I have interpreted the words of Dr Gordon-Brown as describing two cuts, not one.
One superficial cut and one cut deep enough to sever all the structures, etc. The choice of wording leaves it open to interpretation.

I would also appreciate Prosector offering his opinion on what was actually meant by the doctor.

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer could not push the clothing up to access the sternum to pubes because of the items of clothing tied around her waist. Which is why he cut through some of the material tied around her waist.

So how did he manage to push up a tight bodice and yet still stab her through the bottom part of it ?

Also how do you explain the 6.5 in cut going down from the waistband and the 10.5 inch cut also going down from the waistband ? making those cuts would not have helped him manoeuvre the clothing would they ?