Tweet
A lot of what has been discussed on this thread is similar to one I participated in last year; I kind of got tired of that thread given that everyone seemed to be talking past one another, which I guess confirms the cynicism of a few of the early posters here. Nevertheless, I'll take (pardon the expression) another stab at part of this topic.
Let's take up the removal of the descending colon in Eddowes. To answer Errata's question, yes, it is quite possible, perhaps most likely, that the invagination of the sigmoid colon into the anus was an involuntary contraction and the killer had nothing to do with it. It is also possible that he deliberately, in effect, created a prolapse into the rectum. Since I don't believe any medical practitioner of that period was trained in sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy or rectopexy procedures, I wouldn't assume medical skill was required; just an obsessive imagination that had previously, in a hands-on way, manipulated the bowels of animal or human cadavers for his own pleasure.
Regarding this issue, there are (at least) three versions of what happened with the colon removal in Eddowes case. The first assumes that the killer had accidentally incised the base of the descending or sigmoid colon when he bisected the uterus, pulling away the fundus, ligaments, and probably ovarian tubes, etc. This horizontal cut was quite different from what Chapman's killer had done, as several of us have explained on older threads. Not less or more skillful, incidentally, but different. Anyway, according to this version of the event, the killer, having inadvertently cut through the sigmoid colon, said "f**k it", and severed the bulk of the descending colon with a second cut, leaving the whole by the left side of Eddowes' body.
The second version is that the killer, with as much of a taste for the erotics of the anal cavity as he had for the female reproductive parts, cut out the descending colon on purpose, immediately after he removed the bulk of the uterus. And here's where the deliberate invaginating of the sigmoid colon back into the rectum might be plausible. There is an account or two, I think, of officials who viewed the in situ scene saying that Kate's corpse was flecked with fecal matter. Perhaps it amused the killer to spatter the body with its own excrement.
The third version is what is suggested in this thread: that the removal of part of the colon was entirely practical, making an easier access to the left kidney. Maybe, although the colon removal in no way would leave the kidney under the killer's hand; he would still need to lift the stomach up to locate, presumably by touch, the kidney as a concealed mass or lump against the anterior wall of the abdominal cavity. In any event, this version gives us a more methodical worker, more objective oriented, than is usually imagined. Thus the entrails were lifted out to make the pelvic evacuations simpler; the liver and upper GI tract needed to go in order to reach the heart from underneath, and so on. If you think this way, then the organ removals were thought out and pursued with forethought, and were the primary object of most of the mutilations.
Obviously, the three possibilities I've outlined here are not mutually exclusive from one another.
Two other quick points: there is no reason to assume that the killer's object in Chapman's case was to extract the uterus alone. He may have wanted the entire vagina, and messed it up. The uterus was just a by-product of the scooping cut. In Eddowes, there was no doubt that he intended to take the uterus, but again, he messed it up. Perhaps Errata is right, and he manipulated the womb from inside the body, but preferred to keep the ends of his fingers. Seems a trifle sophisticated for the average jack, however (perhaps I'm being cynical now).
As to the naval, it's conjecture, but I think he may have cut around and under it because, as had happened in Chapman, he intended to pocket this particular item, but either because he forgot in his haste or decided against it, he left it behind. This is an important detail, because the removal of the naval in Chapman was not, to my knowledge, reported in the press. If he had taken it, it would have been strong evidence that the same killer was involved in both cases. But he did not.
Let's take up the removal of the descending colon in Eddowes. To answer Errata's question, yes, it is quite possible, perhaps most likely, that the invagination of the sigmoid colon into the anus was an involuntary contraction and the killer had nothing to do with it. It is also possible that he deliberately, in effect, created a prolapse into the rectum. Since I don't believe any medical practitioner of that period was trained in sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy or rectopexy procedures, I wouldn't assume medical skill was required; just an obsessive imagination that had previously, in a hands-on way, manipulated the bowels of animal or human cadavers for his own pleasure.
Regarding this issue, there are (at least) three versions of what happened with the colon removal in Eddowes case. The first assumes that the killer had accidentally incised the base of the descending or sigmoid colon when he bisected the uterus, pulling away the fundus, ligaments, and probably ovarian tubes, etc. This horizontal cut was quite different from what Chapman's killer had done, as several of us have explained on older threads. Not less or more skillful, incidentally, but different. Anyway, according to this version of the event, the killer, having inadvertently cut through the sigmoid colon, said "f**k it", and severed the bulk of the descending colon with a second cut, leaving the whole by the left side of Eddowes' body.
The second version is that the killer, with as much of a taste for the erotics of the anal cavity as he had for the female reproductive parts, cut out the descending colon on purpose, immediately after he removed the bulk of the uterus. And here's where the deliberate invaginating of the sigmoid colon back into the rectum might be plausible. There is an account or two, I think, of officials who viewed the in situ scene saying that Kate's corpse was flecked with fecal matter. Perhaps it amused the killer to spatter the body with its own excrement.
The third version is what is suggested in this thread: that the removal of part of the colon was entirely practical, making an easier access to the left kidney. Maybe, although the colon removal in no way would leave the kidney under the killer's hand; he would still need to lift the stomach up to locate, presumably by touch, the kidney as a concealed mass or lump against the anterior wall of the abdominal cavity. In any event, this version gives us a more methodical worker, more objective oriented, than is usually imagined. Thus the entrails were lifted out to make the pelvic evacuations simpler; the liver and upper GI tract needed to go in order to reach the heart from underneath, and so on. If you think this way, then the organ removals were thought out and pursued with forethought, and were the primary object of most of the mutilations.
Obviously, the three possibilities I've outlined here are not mutually exclusive from one another.
Two other quick points: there is no reason to assume that the killer's object in Chapman's case was to extract the uterus alone. He may have wanted the entire vagina, and messed it up. The uterus was just a by-product of the scooping cut. In Eddowes, there was no doubt that he intended to take the uterus, but again, he messed it up. Perhaps Errata is right, and he manipulated the womb from inside the body, but preferred to keep the ends of his fingers. Seems a trifle sophisticated for the average jack, however (perhaps I'm being cynical now).
As to the naval, it's conjecture, but I think he may have cut around and under it because, as had happened in Chapman, he intended to pocket this particular item, but either because he forgot in his haste or decided against it, he left it behind. This is an important detail, because the removal of the naval in Chapman was not, to my knowledge, reported in the press. If he had taken it, it would have been strong evidence that the same killer was involved in both cases. But he did not.
Comment