Evidence left behind

[Trevor Marriott]

On that summary point above that I highlighted, I say absolutely correct Trevor.

As a matter of fact Ive been considering that some of the murders that seem to be by a different hand may still be connected...if 2 or more killers were involved in some. Its always been a staple of this area of study that we are looking for a solitary man, mentally ill, and with uncontrollable compulsions to kill and cut. If the motivations for any of the kills is not just one madmans desires, then its possible 2 or more cutters may have killed some of the women. Seeing different hands on different murders might be easier to understand in that context. I think that may be a factor in the Pardon offer, because Wideawake Man does suggest at least the possibility of 2 men,...maybe they could alternate between lookout and killer in some cases.

Eddowes murder is the key, to solving what happened to the organs, and who, and where they were removed.

Prove that the killer of Eddowes did not have the time, the knowledge, or the expertise to remove a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness and it proves he did not remove the organs from Chapman. Kelly is a different kettle of fish because no organs were taken, when her killer had the chance to take away many body parts, but took none.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe one got inspiration from the other...and when one "series" stopped, the other lost momentum. For that to be true, the first appearance of a unique situation was the earlier Torso murder, not the eviscerated women in the Fall of 88. Is it likely then that the evicerator received inspiration from the former Torso criminal? That's when the "inspiration" premise falls down. if there was influence, we should see much greater similarity in their behaviours and actions. We don't.

Heres a little food for thought...since the Disarticulator works indoors, he has to either kidnap the woman and physically take her to his lair, or have her accompany him there. Is that an indication that the Disarticulator might have known his victims...in order to have the victim voluntarily accompany him, there would have to be some trust there.

Interesting distinction possibility, because it appears from all the known evidence that Polly and Annies killer, the 2 I have no problem marrying by killer, was a stranger to the victims. He posed as a client. That's possibly a huge point...serial killers almost never kill people they know personally...they kill people they cant be traced to.

[Losmandris]

S

On that summary point above that I highlighted, I say absolutely correct Trevor.

As a matter of fact Ive been considering that some of the murders that seem to be by a different hand may still be connected...if 2 or more killers were involved in some. Its always been a staple of this area of study that we are looking for a solitary man, mentally ill, and with uncontrollable compulsions to kill and cut. If the motivations for any of the kills is not just one madmans desires, then its possible 2 or more cutters may have killed some of the women. Seeing different hands on different murders might be easier to understand in that context. I think that may be a factor in the Pardon offer, because Wideawake Man does suggest at least the possibility of 2 men,...maybe they could alternate between lookout and killer in some cases.

Strange that they both (all) stopped at roughly the same time???

Tristan

[Michael W Richards]

Lets not forget that the uterus taken from both victims was removed in two different ways, what does that mean? What is the likelihood that a butcher would have the skill to remove them in two different ways? so that rules out butchers, as to hunters, there were very few wild animals running around Whitechapel to hunt in 1888,

Secondly it points to the obvious fact that they were removed from the victims by two different persons using two different methods and not two different killers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On that summary point above that I highlighted, I say absolutely correct Trevor.

As a matter of fact Ive been considering that some of the murders that seem to be by a different hand may still be connected...if 2 or more killers were involved in some. Its always been a staple of this area of study that we are looking for a solitary man, mentally ill, and with uncontrollable compulsions to kill and cut. If the motivations for any of the kills is not just one madmans desires, then its possible 2 or more cutters may have killed some of the women. Seeing different hands on different murders might be easier to understand in that context. I think that may be a factor in the Pardon offer, because Wideawake Man does suggest at least the possibility of 2 men,...maybe they could alternate between lookout and killer in some cases.

[JeffHamm]

Lets not forget that the uterus taken from both victims was removed in two different ways, what does that mean?

that JtR might not have had any clue as to what he was doing, as per Dr. Bond?

What is the likelihood that a butcher would have the skill to remove them in two different ways?

Given butchers don't normally operate on humans, their skills and general knowledge would mean they could do it quickly, but at the same time would have no set "routine" to follow when removing a human uterus, so I would think it would be quite highly probable they might do it differently. It's the doctor that I would expect to show consistency.

so that rules out butchers,

I guess we differ on that.

as to hunters, there were very few wild animals running around Whitechapel to hunt in 1888,

Hunter would work if we're talking someone wealthy enough to hunt, and therefore a non-local who came into Whitechappel. Personally, while I think a hunter would be able to do it, I don't think a hunter did.

Secondly it points to the obvious fact that they were removed from the victims by two different persons using two different methods and not two different killers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Two different people would also explain it, of course. Although I don't buy the "stolen at the morgue" hypothesis, that doesn't change the fact that one could argue for two different hands at work (and the contemporary medics did argue over whether Eddowes and Chapman were killed by the same person, eventually deciding they were, but I don't think that view was unanimous even at the time).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't have details in front of me, but I believe in Annie Chapman's case the uterus is described as essentially being removed in full, with damage to the bladder in the process. In Katherine Eddowes' case, the uterus is described as 3/4 removed, and while no damage to the bladder there was damage to the bowel and intestines. The former case appears to have occurred when there would be some light of dawn, while the latter was middle of the night in a darker location; so lighting conditions available could account for the differences without even considering other details with respect to potential time pressures, risk of discovery (though I find it hard to believe either location could be considered lower risk to a meaningful degree).

While Dr. Phillips' opinion was that anatomical knowledge was shown by Annie Chapman's killer, he also believed that such knowledge would be within the realm of a butcher/slaughterman's knowledge base, though that doesn't preclude more specific knowledge of human anatomy it does widen the range of skill sets necessary to consider as reasonable. Meaning, while a medical professional would fall within that set, so would butchers, etc. The police did investigate the butcher's, slaughterman, in the area, as well as medical students and so forth, clearly indicating they were investigating that entire space of skill sets.

- Jeff

Lets not forget that the uterus taken from both victims was removed in two different ways, what does that mean? What is the likelihood that a butcher would have the skill to remove them in two different ways? so that rules out butchers, as to hunters, there were very few wild animals running around Whitechapel to hunt in 1888,

Secondly it points to the obvious fact that they were removed from the victims by two different persons using two different methods and not two different killers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

The left kidney is up in that corner behind the pancreas.

[APerno]

The descending colon was removed to access her left kidney.

Not something a butcher would be familiar with.

When looking at the location of the kidneys in most human anatomy drawings they seem to be hidden behind the section of colon that moves horizontally across the body, not behind any section that is descending.

I could could be misinterpreting the drawings, but it seems consistent over several illustrations.

[DJA]

But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it



Found that funny for quite some time

[DJA]

Eddowes' colon was cut in two places and the section between those cuts removed (presumed to have been done intentionally).

The descending colon was removed to access her left kidney.

Not something a butcher would be familiar with.

[JeffHamm]

We shouldn't forget that Dr. Bond was asked to review the cases, and working from the autopsy notes (presumably more complete than what we have), he was of the opinion that JtR did not even have the anatomical knowledge of a butcher or slaughterman, and he did not think any particular skill was shown. He points out, of course, that he only had the notes to work from other than for Mary Kelly, which he had direct experience with. His interpretation, therefore, could very well be swayed by any opinion he formed from that case.

That being said, it is clear that the opinions of the medical professionals directly involved were far from unanimous on the issue of skill and/or anatomical knowledge. It is probably unwise of us to draw any firmer conclusion than they were willing to do on the whole. Unfortunately, that doesn't narrow things for us, but such is the evidence we have to work with after all these years.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Where does it state that there was no collateral damage done to the bladder?

There is only one mention of the uterus' removal at the inquest (and that was made by the coroner during summation and not by Dr. Phillips) and there are no details to argue how precise the cuts were, furthermore Wikipedia claims that only part of the uterus was removed. I wonder why.

I have read where others claim that the killer cut both the bladder and the vagina when trying to remove the uterus.

Can anyone point me in correct direction where the autopsy is described in detail?

There may be some confusion between Hanbury Street and Mitre Square cases;

Chapman's uterus was removed entirely (presumably intact), however her bladder was damaged in doing so, also her (I think) descending colon was cut through in one place (presumed accidentally due to haste).

Victim's section contains the following;

"the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri."

Eddowes' uterus was only partially removed (cervix was left in the body) but her bladder was undamaged. Her colon was cut in two places and the section between those cuts removed (presumed to have been done intentionally).

Details can be found in Dr Brown's post mortem report, also in victim's section;

"The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.

The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water."

[JeffHamm]

Where does it state that there was no collateral damage done to the bladder?

There is only one mention of the uterus' removal at the inquest (and that was made by the coroner during summation and not by Dr. Phillips) and there are no details to argue how precise the cuts were, furthermore Wikipedia claims that only part of the uterus was removed. I wonder why.

I have read where others claim that the killer cut both the bladder and the vagina when trying to remove the uterus.

Can anyone point me in correct direction where the autopsy is described in detail?

I don't have details in front of me, but I believe in Annie Chapman's case the uterus is described as essentially being removed in full, with damage to the bladder in the process. In Katherine Eddowes' case, the uterus is described as 3/4 removed, and while no damage to the bladder there was damage to the bowel and intestines. The former case appears to have occurred when there would be some light of dawn, while the latter was middle of the night in a darker location; so lighting conditions available could account for the differences without even considering other details with respect to potential time pressures, risk of discovery (though I find it hard to believe either location could be considered lower risk to a meaningful degree).

While Dr. Phillips' opinion was that anatomical knowledge was shown by Annie Chapman's killer, he also believed that such knowledge would be within the realm of a butcher/slaughterman's knowledge base, though that doesn't preclude more specific knowledge of human anatomy it does widen the range of skill sets necessary to consider as reasonable. Meaning, while a medical professional would fall within that set, so would butchers, etc. The police did investigate the butcher's, slaughterman, in the area, as well as medical students and so forth, clearly indicating they were investigating that entire space of skill sets.

- Jeff

[APerno]

Where does it state that there was no collateral damage done to the bladder?

There is only one mention of the uterus' removal at the inquest (and that was made by the coroner during summation and not by Dr. Phillips) and there are no details to argue how precise the cuts were, furthermore Wikipedia claims that only part of the uterus was removed. I wonder why.

I have read where others claim that the killer cut both the bladder and the vagina when trying to remove the uterus.

Can anyone point me in correct direction where the autopsy is described in detail?

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n723783]

If a butcher slaughtered pigs then he would have a very good understanding of human anatomy as a result, same for someone who hunted boars for example. Annie Chapmans murder initiated a search for suspects that is unlike any other of these investigations...they looked for trained people. Med Students, Med practitioners, ...it was the only period when they did this, and as a direct result of the interpretation of Annies murderers skill set determined by qualified medical examination of Annies remains.

So a butcher would know exactly where to look in a human body, and be able to find a uterus and a kidney, and be able to remove them in almost total darkness in 3-4 mins? When it took Dr Browns medical expert in female anatomy 3 mins just to remove a uterus, and he also damaged the bladder something that the "killer" didnt do. I think you and anyone else who postulates the butcher theory needs to have a rethink.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Partial bladder taken from Berner Street. I don't promote the butcher theory Trevor, though I do think I know the butcher that killed Polly and Annie.