Ripper Facts

[Robert]

Hi Craig

I can't seem to post attachments on Casebook any more, but if you PM me your email I'll send you the years you need.

The entries seem to be on a five-yearly pattern. I had to click as far as 1920 before I saw a mention of M division.

[Robert]

Simon, maybe MJK was last minute revision?

[Craig H]

Thanks Simon & Robert
That looks like the one.
Robert - thanks for offering to email attach. I’ve emailed / PM’d you.
Crsig

[Michael W Richards]

If JTR had had some surgical experience, I'd have expected to see more consistency, both in the way he opened up his victims and in how the organs were removed. As it is, there was quite some variation on both fronts.

Depending on your samples there can be some consistency there Sam. If you lump murders with obvious lack of skill with ones that are arguably skilled, then you get gigo.

[Sam Flynn]

Depending on your samples there can be some consistency there Sam. If you lump murders with obvious lack of skill with ones that are arguably skilled, then you get gigo.

I think the skill level was pretty consistent, Micheal - i.e. pretty crude throughout.

I was actually referring to lack of consistency in what he actually did - e.g. one or two throat-cuts; one long cut to open the abdomen, or several cuts/flaps; where to cut through the vagina in order to free the uterus; how to avoid cutting through the bladder.

[Wickerman]

In an earlier discussion I suggested there had been indications of medical knowledge by the killer.
I base this view on some specifics provided by Prosector (Weston-Davies?), summarized below.



1 - Where a section of colon was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum.

Our surgeon explained that this is precisely what surgeons & pathologists do when they have to remove the descending colon. Which is done to stop faeces from oozing back into the abdominal cavity.

2 - The careful removal of a kidney, located at the rear of the body and enveloped within a fatty membrane is something that comes with experience.

Removing the descending colon in order to access this organ is not the kind of procedure that comes to someone who has no medical training.

3 - In any normal procedure for accessing the abdominal cavity by using a midline incision the normal practice is to skirt the cut around the umbilicus (belly button) but to the right.

This is standard practice for a surgeon when he is expected to sew up the patient after the operation or autopsy. The umbilicus is too tough to sew up so it is avoided and always to the right.
This is what we see done by the killer.

Conclusion, whoever killed and mutilated those women was no stranger to the medical profession.

I do understand that Prosector had a suspect of his own, so he was not totally impartial. What matters though is whether the facts provided in those points are correct, and as yet I have learned nothing to suggest they are not.

[Sam Flynn]

1 - Where a section of colon was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum.

Our surgeon explained that this is precisely what surgeons & pathologists do when they have to remove the descending colon. Which is done to stop faeces from oozing back into the abdominal cavity.

I'd rather hope that surgeons, in particular, would use a clamp, rather than fold the rectum in on itself, exposing the cut end to contamination by fæces.

2 - The careful removal of a kidney, located at the rear of the body and enveloped within a fatty membrane is something that comes with experience.

Removing the descending colon in order to access this organ is not the kind of procedure that comes to someone who has no medical training.

But it might occur to someone who wanted to get things out of the way.

3 - In any normal procedure for accessing the abdominal cavity by using a midline incision the normal practice is to skirt the cut around the umbilicus (belly button) but to the right.

That is interesting, not least because in the previous evisceration murder (Chapman), part of the abdominal wall including the umbilicus was removed by the killer and was missing from the scene. However, the means of opening Chapman's abdomen was different in that the abominal flesh was removed in three pieces, not via a midline incision as in the case of Eddowes.

Again we see an inconsistency in approach, which a practiced hand seems unlikely to have made, especially given that Chapman was killed under much better lighting conditions than Eddowes. Why resort to such a haphazard and sloppy technique of opening the abdomen when the light was comparatively good?

I do understand that Prosector had a suspect of his own, so he was not totally impartial.

Wasn't it a medical suspect?

[Michael W Richards]

My point Sam was that in September, after Annies murder...(who was almost certainly killed by the same person as the one that killed Polly), they sought medical practitioners and students out. This was the only time they did so. Which backs my thinking that only those 2 murders warranted that kind of consideration.

[Sam Flynn]

That's possibly because of what Bagster Phillips, Wynne Baxter and The Lancet said about Annie's murder, which was somewhat overblown. The doctors who examined Eddowes were less inclined to attribute surgical skill to the killer; which may be significant, given that Eddowes' eviscerations were more extensive than any that had gone before.

[Wickerman]

I'd rather hope that surgeons, in particular, would use a clamp, rather than fold the rectum in on itself, exposing the cut end to contamination by fæces.

The point Prosector was making is that a random killer would not think to restrict the flow of faeces by manipulating an organ in such a way.
Likewise, we can't expect the killer to carry around surgical clamps in order to do a professional job.
Prosector did explain that a surgeon in his own environment would more likely use a stitch to hold it closed, and in place.
I think you will agree, that was not a viable option either.

That is interesting, not least because in the previous evisceration murder (Chapman), part of the abdominal wall including the umbilicus was removed by the killer and was missing from the scene. However, the means of opening Chapman's abdomen was different in that the abominal flesh was removed in three pieces, not via a midline incision as in the case of Eddowes.

Removed in three pieces yes, but this removal had to be subsequent to a 'first cut'.
Where does Phillips describe a first cut to the torso?
In the Telegraph we read:
"Witness then detailed the terrible wounds which had been inflicted upon the woman,..."
Not providing any specific details like Dr Brown did in his report to the inquest.
Abdominal portions can still be removed after the torso was sliced down the middle.

[Wickerman]

In the Lancet, we read:
"...It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open;..."

Isn't this the only comment that describes Chapman's open torso?
Could it mean the same as was done to Eddowes?

[Sam Flynn]

In the Lancet, we read:
"...It appears that the abdomen had been entirely laid open;..."

Isn't this the only comment that describes Chapman's open torso?
Could it mean the same as was done to Eddowes?

Not according to reports of Phillips' testimony in the papers, which show that at least three flaps of flesh were cut from Chapman's abdomen, primarily on the right hand side. There was no single, longitudinal cut in Chapman's case.

[packers stem]

Not according to reports of Phillips' testimony in the papers, which show that at least three flaps of flesh were cut from Chapman's abdomen, primarily on the right hand side. There was no single, longitudinal cut in Chapman's case.

Can't see that in the inquest reports .
Care to reproduce it Sam ?

[packers stem]

That's possibly because of what Bagster Phillips, Wynne Baxter and The Lancet said about Annie's murder, which was somewhat overblown. The doctors who examined Eddowes were less inclined to attribute surgical skill to the killer; which may be significant, given that Eddowes' eviscerations were more extensive than any that had gone before.

Why do you feel the Lancet piece was overblown ?
Pretty clear that Phillips felt it was the work of an expert .
The dissenting voices you talk about were Sequeira , a newly qualified GP with little or no surgical experience and Saunders who I've mentioned at length recently , the one who was at pains to deny that Eddowes had brights disease ... and yet we know he was wrong about that

[Wickerman]

Not according to reports of Phillips' testimony in the papers, which show that at least three flaps of flesh were cut from Chapman's abdomen, primarily on the right hand side. There was no single, longitudinal cut in Chapman's case.

When Phillips describes what was removed, he is describing something that happened after a 'first cut'.
Phillips does not provide the same detail as Dr Brown did at the Eddowes inquest.
What was the nature of the cut which preceded the removal of portions of the abdomen?