Evidence left behind

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You asked me earlier why the torso killer would cut a body up with great skill and obvious care, only to later move on to discarding the parts. There is an interesting parallel here: Why would the killer take the time to cut out all of those organs from Kelly if he was not going to keep them?

Just like my answer to your question spoke of a killer going well beyond mere practical measures, this must hold true in Kellys case too. What possesed him to cut the organs out, seemingly carefully, leaving them intact and unharmed, only to then leave them behind?

Any thoughts, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

You asked me earlier why the torso killer would cut a body up with great skill and obvious care, only to later move on to discarding the parts. There is an interesting parallel here: Why would the killer take the time to cut out all of those organs from Kelly if he was not going to keep them?

Just like my answer to your question spoke of a killer going well beyond mere practical measures, this must hold true in Kellys case too. What possesed him to cut the organs out, seemingly carefully, leaving them intact and unharmed, only to then leave them behind?

Any thoughts, Trevor?

There are two possible answers. One may be that the killer of Kelly was not the killer of any of the other victims, but made her murder out to look like he was.

Or the killer of Kelly did murder the other victims but did not remove the organs from the other victims !

There can be no other explanations because if the same killer killed Kelly as killed Chapman and eddowes then why did he not take any of her organs away with him because he hah time to do just that !

There was no care taken in cutting the organs out of Kelly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[ohrocky]

I would be amazed if the WM had killed the C5 and not left DNA and/or clothing fibres.

But there's the problem. Whatever forensic traces the killer would almost certainly have left on his victims would have been impossible to detect in 1888. The first fingerprint id wasn't made until 4 years later.

Were the killings to be replicated today I have no doubt the killer would be caught in very short time.

So in answer to the OP - lots of clues - but none that the police could have recognised at the time.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

The section cut from Eddowes' colon wad said to be about two feet long, which is a little less than half (on average). So presumably consisted of all the descending colon and around half the transverse colon. So, as Dave says, it might well have been removed to provide easier access to the kidney. Alternatively, one or both cuts may have simply been collateral damage from the central cuts to the abdomen, and the colon removed by the killer because it was leaking. Most likely the first, though.

We don't know the location of the cut to Chapman's colon, except that Dr Phillips thought it was caused when extracting her uterus. It's a possibility the killer was in the process of removing it to go after a kidney when something or someone caused him to call it a night and leave with what he had.

[APerno]

The section cut from Eddowes' colon wad said to be about two feet long, which is a little less than half (on average). So presumably consisted of all the descending colon and around half the transverse colon. So, as Dave says, it might well have been removed to provide easier access to the kidney. Alternatively, one or both cuts may have simply been collateral damage from the central cuts to the abdomen, and the colon removed by the killer because it was leaking. Most likely the first, though.

We don't know the location of the cut to Chapman's colon, except that Dr Phillips thought it was caused when extracting her uterus. It's a possibility the killer was in the process of removing it to go after a kidney when something or someone caused him to call it a night and leave with what he had.

My reaction was to the post's suggestion that the colon was served intentionally in two places where the colon descends. To remove the colon at that point does not (at least according to the illustrations) give the killer access to the kidney, he would still have to move the horizontal section (likely simply by lifting it out of his way) to access the kidney.

Unless of course the cuts were at the very top of the descending portion, then that might make sense.

I think it is a reach to suggest that the served section of the descending colon blocks access to the kidney. IMO posters are trying too hard to make random mutilations sound surgical.