Finding Jack the Ripper

[Donpayasos]

a stab in the dark?

A lot depends on whether the Ripper was going after the kidneys and showed amazing skill, or whether he cut deeply into his victim and the kidney happened to be what was exposed.

Looking at the scars on transplant patient's sides, I'm wondering whether going in through the front of the abdomen is a sensible way to extract a kidney. If that had been his goal, should he not have turned his victim on her side to make his job easier? What would a butcher do?

I'd welcome the thoughts of those more anatomically expert. If the most obvious way to get a kidney were through the side, it lends weight to the idea that the Ripper found his trophy by chance.

[Hunter]

Hi Jon and Caroline,

Although I do believe the organ extractions were deliberate in all of the instances they were done, I would stop short in hypothesizing that the killer (if it was the same individual) was sending any kind of message. I've speculated on how some knowledge may have been acquired to implement what was done and that someone prone to do this may have acted it out in his mind (fantasizing) over and over beforehand... something like a rehearsal. But I would readily admit that this is speculation based on my interpretation of the evidence at hand and what has been learned about certain types of murderers in the intervening years.

Whether he would taunt the authorities, leave signals or even interject himself into the case? I really don't know. Some other killers have done so, but most did not; simply content to act out their predilections for their own morbid gratification without a care of what anyone else thought or did outside of the natural inclination to not get caught and to be able to do it again at some point.

Certainly there are several 'coincidences' surrounding these murders that were never satisfactorily explained at the time and probably never will be at this removed date. And much of the interpretation hinges on suspect theories that force-fit certain aspects together to bolster those theories without letting them fall into possibly some more plausible place on their own or to just simply admit that there's insufficient information to make a resolution at all. But, I also admit that this is an interpretation based on how a historian would approach it and not the natural inclination of someone seeking to solve the mystery.

[caz]

It's almost like the killer was deliberately showing his contempt for the various theories about his identity and motivation. Could he have taken Kate's kidney to make mincemeat out of the theory that he was an American doctor seeking wombs? If so, he could have aimed the GSG at the fools who had previously been blaming Leather Apron types. Did he take on the appearance of a sailor to do some more messing with minds?

Who would he make a fool of next? Would he mess with Lusk's mind by posing as an uneducated Irishman?

I tend to think he would have been interested in his own publicity, given that the murders happened in an age when most adults were now able to read and newspapers were doing much bigger business as a result.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

The kidney may have been extracted by chance, but given its location- especially with the body lying on its back- and a lobe of the liver, the stomach and intestines above it, let alone it being encased in 'fatty membrane', I find it remarkable considering all of the other organs available.
.......... The kidney wasn't just grabbed and pulled out; the peritoneal lining on the left side was cut (the kidney is retroperitonial) and the renal artery was cut in facilitating the kidney's removal. That seems deliberately done to me in order to excise it.

Nicely explained!
Having spent my teenage years as a butchers apprentice, I have since formed the impression that the very act of removing this kidney from Eddowes, in short time and poor lighting, this killer was making a statement to the authorities.
The careful removal of this particular organ in less than desirable conditions can send an effective message that requires no exchange of words.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

Wynne/Wynne situation

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Yes, Wynne was a flashy lad. I have always wondered, however, just how much of his thinking was quietly inspired by Bagster. But certainly not his offbeat conclusion.

Interesting hypothesis about the clothing. They were, to some extent, "thrown up" but apparently the cutting came about through the cut dress. (A bit difficult to say where the interface was insofar as the most explicit reminder we have is the sketch. If I recall properly, Mr. Stewart Evans remarked on this in his and Skinner's "Letters from Hell.")

I also agree that, after Kate's murder, his "organ sale" hypothesis was all but worthless--given a link from Annie to Kate.

Your last paragraph is absolutely correct. Odd that, today, we focus on Liz and her place in the canon, but in the October 1 "Lloyd's' (if I recall) was the beginnings of "mutilatus interruptus," whereas Kate was already questioned in a "Times" piece of October 2.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I think that Baxter took a wrong turn when he tried to link Annie's murder with the supposed American doctor seeking uteri. But I've always been fascinated by what may have prompted him into that hypothesis. He seems fixated on the "one sweep of the knife" speculation.

I wondered the same thing myself. I think the answer in part- as with most individuals- lies in Baxter's character and background; both, of which, were very different than Roderick Macdonald's. Wynne Baxter's professional background was through the legal system and he was good at it. Most successful lawyers develop the ability to 'turn a witness', as it is called and to wrestle control of a proceeding from his legal opponent and his personality was well suited for it. He was an assertive and flamboyant man. Even his often gaudy outfits were part of his effort to focus the attention of a jury on him and maintain it with an almost theatrical presentation that would rival any stage actor of his time. In lay terms he was a 'control freak'. His inquests were more than the usual fare. He was on a mission and considered himself every bit as much of an investigator as the police; which caused some strain between the Met officials and his office on several occasions. Some of the exchanges he had with witnesses during his WM inquests exemplified it exponentially; the most relevant, for our question here were the confrontations between the reticent and 'by the book' Mr. G. B. Phillips and the ever persistent Wynne Baxter.

By the proceeding of the 20th of Sept. Baxter had won the 'stubborn battle' with Phillips, gotten the details he wanted and ran with it like a dog with a prized bone. Furthermore, this information from the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum came to his notification almost immediately as a result; justifying in his mind his propensity to extract even more information than may be legally required for such proceedings. It was a 'Eureka!' moment for this self-styled sleuth. He now had a method and a motive... and on the last day of the inquest (the 26th) he methodically summarized all of the evidence, leading to his climatic conclusion by re-emphasizing the professional testimony of the Division Surgeon and then dropped the thousand pound elephant into the room like a circus master presenting the 'grand finale'.

He never expected what followed; a virtual firestorm from professional quarters (except the Lancet) that challenged his assertions, his methodology as a coroner and even his integrity. And in the middle of all of this there were two more murders- that if linked with the previous- totally destroyed any defense that he maintained and made Bagster Phillips- who didn't want all of this information out in the first place-probably feel like a helpless Curr on his first rabbit hunt.

It did have an effect on the proceedings that followed in several respects.

Do you attach any importance to the cuts of Kate's dress as opposed to the lifted skirts of Polly, Annie (and, I think, Tabram--but let's not worry about her).

Well, it seems that the clothing of the previous victims were loosely worn and they didn't have half as much apparel as the more diminutive Kate did. Her killer may have started trying to throw stuff up, only to keep finding more. He probably had a WTF moment and just started cutting as a remedy. Unlike Nichols' and Chapman's murders, Kate's showed the added dimension of outright rage. This murder showed someone completely detached from rhyme or reason on a scale that was now, undeniable, but even more perplexing. She seemed to have been more effectively subdued than either Tabram, Nichols or Chapman. The throat wound seemed more precise as did the extraction of the organs. But there was also evidence of lack of control at some points. The colon had been severed. The inner thighs and the genitalia were stabbed, cut and parts even peeled back and of course the face slashed and probably even kicked (the posthumous abrasions).

The murder of Catherine Eddowes represented a new diminsion in this series that caused some debate then, for much of what was previously thought no longer applied... and certainly it fuels some of the debates we have today.

[lynn cates]

hypothesis

Hello Chris. Thanks for that.

I think that Baxter took a wrong turn when he tried to link Annie's murder with the supposed American doctor seeking uteri. But I've always been fascinated by what may have prompted him into that hypothesis. He seems fixated on the "one sweep of the knife" speculation.

Do you attach any importance to the cuts of Kate's dress as opposed to the lifted skirts of Polly, Annie (and, I think, Tabram--but let's not worry about her).

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Hunter

But, in this instance, with what remains to examine, I think the very practical and conservative Bagster Phillips had attempted in the first case to rationalize what was probably not rational at all and then he was faced with the reality of nothing really tangible in the Eddowes case.

Spot on and well said.

[Henry Flower]

Hunter, a really informative and detailed post that's given me food for thought. Thank you

[Hunter]

That's a good point, Lynn and I do believe the added mutilations are the key in Phillips' assessment of Kate Eddowes' case. But there again, it is added mutilations that would display even more carnage. But actually, Eddowes' uterus was extracted this time without the bladder being disturbed or without any of the external genitalia removed; even more deliberate than with Chapman, in my opinion.

Instead, her killer made cuts and stabs in the groin area. He was apparently able to get at the uterus alone in this instance, as that was all that was removed there. Compared to the way Chapman's was extricated by basically just taking out a chunk, this seems even more remarkable given the conditions the killer had to operate in. The reason why Brown detailed that a 'stump' remained was to drive home the point that the part extracted would be useless for the reasons hypothesized by Baxter at the recently concluded Chapman murder inquest; a topic that was a hot potato right at the time of the so-called double event... and a controversy that Phillips was inadvertently drawn into because his assessment of the killer's knowledge and/or skill was used by Baxter as leverage.

The kidney may have been extracted by chance, but given its location- especially with the body lying on its back- and a lobe of the liver, the stomach and intestines above it, let alone it being encased in 'fatty membrane', I find it remarkable considering all of the other organs available. The intestines could have been lifted out easily enough; I've done this with deer. But the liver is much more rigid, large and firmly attached. The left lobe of Kate's liver was cut; maybe by chance too... but maybe not. The kidney wasn't just grabbed and pulled out; the peritoneal lining on the left side was cut (the kidney is retroperitonial) and the renal artery was cut in facilitating the kidney's removal. That seems deliberately done to me in order to excise it.

Unlike Chapman, Eddowes was slashed and stabbed as well as eviscerated and organs extracted and I believe this distracted Phillips greatly. He was a very good and competent surgeon of long standing, but even he had never seen anything like this; none of them had. If he was correct in the 'skill' displayed in Annie Chapman's killer, he never seemed to explain the more direct removal of Kate Eddowes' uterus nor the apparent deliberate extraction of her kidney. It could be argued that both, in Eddowes' case, evidenced a more deliberate method than what was done to Annie Chapman. Phillips' detailed written summary of his part in the autopsy of Kate Eddowes has not survived. We only have second hand reporting by the press and what he wrote in the summary of the McKenzie post mortem report.

I'm alway willing to give anyone who was actually there the benefit of a doubt. There may be more that Phillips saw in the Chapman mutilations that the Lancet failed to detail. We'll never likely know unless further documents come forth. But, in this instance, with what remains to examine, I think the very practical and conservative Bagster Phillips had attempted in the first case to rationalize what was probably not rational at all and then he was faced with the reality of nothing really tangible in the Eddowes case.

[lynn cates]

time differential

Hello Chris. I agree that the degree of skill in the organ extractions may or may not vary a good deal.

But I keep going back to the mutilations themselves. As a hunter, I'm sure you've seen those who exhibit skill with a knife as compared to those who don't. I cannot carve even a cooked fowl. It comes out in shreds.

If Bagster were serious--and not mistaken--I wonder whether this is what he meant by "skilful mutilations" upon Polly and Annie and "unskilful ones" upon Kate?

It strikes me that, given the many additional mutilations upon Kate, as well as the extra organ extraction, the disparity in time estimates (5 minutes for Kate; 15 for Annie) can be well accounted for by the disparity in knife skill.

Of course, the medicos could have meant something else or just plain have been mistaken.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hello Chris. Yes, that is quite plausible.

Do you think there is any chance that he knew he was taking an internal organ but was not sure which one it was? Perhaps also with the kidney?

Hi Lynn,

I believe in each of the cases where organs were extracted, the murderer (whether it be the same individual in all or not) knew what he was looking for. But I see no reason for any special skill in any of the cases. There may have been, but the mutilations and extractions only show- at best- that some basic knowledge was acquired and that would be easy to do if someone was motivated. We just don't know what that motivation was or the mental capacity of the murderer in each case.

The uterus is an organ unlike any other that a simple 'layman' might be familiar with- such as a heart, liver, lungs...etc. Someone has to know specifically about the female reproductive 'tract' to some degree. Believe me, I saw 'experienced' hunters mistakingly bring in the bladder of doe deer at checking stations instead of the uterus, which lay just below it. They were participating in a program for game biologists to determine if the doe had been successfully bred during the fall 'rut' and had been given illustrated instructions beforehand to detail the procedure.

If one disregards Dr. Phillips' opinion for a moment and just looks at the way the extraction was described and what was excised as described in the Lancet, in regards to the Chapman case, for instance, the murderer just 'cored' the relevant section out; much like one would core out the heart of a watermelon to get to the good part. He was after the uterus for some reason, but probably not for the reason originally speculated and certainly not with any particular skill displayed. What Philips saw as a purposeful circumvention of the cervix and the rectum may have been nothing more than by accident than by design. In other words, her killer got what he was after, but wasn't too concerned what went with it or what was left behind.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Greg,

It all comes down to whether or not people want to believe in the mythical Jack the Ripper with his lightning surgical skills and split-second timing.

If people do, then of course Jack had more than ample time in Mitre Square, and could probably have done it all standing on his head.

If people don't, they rightfully explore other possible scenarios.

As to experts, money has nothing to do with it. The formula is simple. There is a ready acceptance of those experts who fall in with any aspect of the myth and an instant dismissal of those who don't.

Jack the Ripper had no foundation in fact. He existed simply because people believed he existed.

Regards,

Simon

[GregBaron]

No organ grinder...

9 minutes enough? I'll bet it would be.

You must realize Henry that Trevor is attempting to bolster his theory that the organs were taken elsewhere. He's well aware that the time slot for Kate (assuming viability of the Lawende sighting) is 5 minutes. If someone states it takes more time than that, his hypothesis is reinforced.


You're right about one thing, with enough cash, an expert will state anything...


Greg

[lynn cates]

One shall be taken, the other left.

Hello Chris. Yes, that is quite plausible.

Do you think there is any chance that he knew he was taking an internal organ but was not sure which one it was? Perhaps also with the kidney?

Cheers.
LC