Evidence left behind

[DJA]

Yeah,and Stride was found with "sweetmeats and grapes in either hand".

[Joshua Rogan]

He did - Daily News (and others) 5 Oct;

"A piece of the intestines about two feet long was detached and placed between the left arm and the body, apparently by design"

[DJA]

Not that I am aware of.

Measured the drawing of Eddowes at Mitre Square.
Colon beside her was ~ 20 % of her height. She was 5'.

[Joshua Rogan]

The section of colon was ~ 12",so given her height, part of the transverse colon was part of it. Not much,perhaps a couple of inches.

Didn't Dr Brown say that about two feet of the colon was cut away.?

[DJA]

yup. the ripper was also about staging a scene ie displaying victims. in odd and shocking fashion. sound familiar?

Alice Cooper?

[DJA]

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.

When an eminent senior surgeon and immune system researcher like Dr Wynne Weston-Davies (Prosector on Casebook) tells us that the descending colon was removed to access the left kidney,I take notice.

Ditto,his explanation of the diversion around Eddowes' belly button.

[DJA]

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.

The section of colon was ~ 12",so given her height, part of the transverse colon was part of it. Not much,perhaps a couple of inches.

[Fisherman]

yup. the ripper was also about staging a scene ie displaying victims. in odd and shocking fashion. sound familiar?

Very much so, yes. I believe the key to understanding what made the killer tick lies hidden in these odd and shocking inclusions.

[Abby Normal]

To me, the main points of interest are that the killer severed the colon in TWO places, implying a wish to extract that part of it, and subsequently stretched it out and placed it neatly alongside and parallel to Eddowes´ body - intentionally, as per Brown.

I think we may make a mistake if we "grade" the body parts and prioritize some over the others, resulting in us opting for a view that the taking out of the colon section must have been led on by a practical wish to get at the kidney.

What if the colon section was taken out because the killer wanted to take out a section of the colon? The attention given to it afterwards goes some little way to strengthen that argument. In Kellys case, we have numerous organs placed beside her in the bed, so why not cut a colon part out and place it beside Eddowes?

yup. the ripper was also about staging a scene ie displaying victims. in odd and shocking fashion. sound familiar?

[Fisherman]

To me, the main points of interest are that the killer severed the colon in TWO places, implying a wish to extract that part of it, and subsequently stretched it out and placed it neatly alongside and parallel to Eddowes´ body - intentionally, as per Brown.

I think we may make a mistake if we "grade" the body parts and prioritize some over the others, resulting in us opting for a view that the taking out of the colon section must have been led on by a practical wish to get at the kidney.

What if the colon section was taken out because the killer wanted to take out a section of the colon? The attention given to it afterwards goes some little way to strengthen that argument. In Kellys case, we have numerous organs placed beside her in the bed, so why not cut a colon part out and place it beside Eddowes?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?