Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Hebbert says in 'A System of Legal Medecine';

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room"

Dr Hebbert was not present after the initial examination and when the room was revisited by the other doctors and police. So what he writes is hearsay in any event.

But if he was at the 'reassembly' autopsy the next day, he'd be in a pretty good position to know.

He wasnt !!!!!!!

Echo 10 Nov
"The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended"

[Fisherman]

I would add that Dr Calder points out that, "an anatomist would not need to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus." (Marriott, 2013). This would appear to lend weight to your argument.

How does that work? Do not Calders patients have intestines over their uteri?

Perhaps what Calder tries to say is that an anatomist would easily be able to remove the uterus without first clearing the intestines out of the way.

[Sam Flynn]

I would add that Dr Calder points out that, "an anatomist would not need to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus." (Marriott, 2013). This would appear to lend weight to your argument.

Thanks JG. That's a most interesting point, particularly in view of what happened with Chapman, and what might have been in store for Polly Nichols, had her killer made a "better" job of opening up her abdomen.

[John G]

Chapman's intestines were "bagpiped" over her shoulder as well, but no kidney was removed in her case, even though - and you'll love this! - the light was definitely better in 29 Hanbury Street than it was in Mitre Square. This very strongly suggests that he was cutting things out opportunitistically, and finding his way as he went along. This is supported by the fact that, when he had more time and a safer milieu in Miller's Court, he didn't make do with a crummy womb or kidney, but took the opportunity to run off with an even more impressive prize.

I would add that Dr Calder points out that, "an anatomist would not need to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus." (Marriott, 2013). This would appear to lend weight to your argument.

[John G]

Then why do you argue that Kelly was an unskilled murder whereas Chapman and Eddowes were skilled murders, John?

Ah, Fisherman, that's what the medical records suggest, however, I don't necessarily agree with the conclusions (for instance, I believe Dr Phillips, or at least the Lancet article, exaggerated the level of skill demonstrated by Chapman's killer.)

Nonetheless, I think it abundantly clear that both Chapman and Eddowes were eviscerated with a great deal more skill than Kelly; which is strange if there was a single perpetrator: in the case of Kelly the killer obviously had more light to work with-emanating from the fire-and was under far less time pressure as she was murdered indoors.

[DJA]

If the murders were because of Mary Kelly, as reported by a Nun,perhaps the women were blackmailing their medical officer.

[elleryqueen74]

This is supported by the fact that, when he had more time and a safer milieu in Miller's Court, he didn't make do with a crummy womb or kidney, but took the opportunity to run off with an even more impressive prize.

To determine why he took certain parts you need to know the motive. So far no one knows this. Why he took certain organs at certain times and not others is not really indicative of his level of skill, but more of the motive to the killings.

[Sam Flynn]

If somebody goes through the trouble of "bagpiping" the intestines over the right shoulder, moving on to cut away part of the colon, thereby offering up easy access to the left kidney, one can reason that it seems that somebody was very intent on carving out that kidney.

Chapman's intestines were "bagpiped" over her shoulder as well, but no kidney was removed in her case, even though - and you'll love this! - the light was definitely better in 29 Hanbury Street than it was in Mitre Square. This very strongly suggests that he was cutting things out opportunitistically, and finding his way as he went along. This is supported by the fact that, when he had more time and a safer milieu in Miller's Court, he didn't make do with a crummy womb or kidney, but took the opportunity to run off with an even more impressive prize.

[Fisherman]

Even easier to get at the left kidney if you remove a couple of feet of colon....
Although maybe a bit messier.

If somebody goes through the trouble of "bagpiping" the intestines over the right shoulder, moving on to cut away part of the colon, thereby offering up easy access to the left kidney, one can reason that it seems that somebody was very intent on carving out that kidney.
Nota bene that the colon section must have been cut in two places, making it a seemingly VERY intended act. Also note how the section was laid out alongside the body in a manner that convinced the doctor that it had been placed there by design.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think that a surprisingly large percentage of people would have known where the kidneys were; even if they didn't, it would have been fairly easy to find out. As to method of removal, I suspect that most people would assume that they should be taken out from the front.

Besides, if you're confronted by an emptied abdominal cavity, with the intestines bagpiped over the shoulders, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and kidneys*. And there's little choice except to remove them from the front.

* Edit: I'll add to that, by saying that if the intestines are bagpiped over the right shoulder, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and LEFT kidney. And guess what happened in Mitre Square?

Even easier to get at the left kidney if you remove a couple of feet of colon....
Although maybe a bit messier.

[Sam Flynn]

That remains written in the stars. There are arguments to the contrary...

Yes, and we've discussed them elsewhere. As that's a tad off-topic for this thread, and has a tendency to go a bit "kudzu", let's not open up that can of worms here, Fish.

I don't want to piss off the neighbours, you see. Nothing personal

[Fisherman]

I suspect that a surprisingly large percentage of people would have known where the kidneys were; even if they didn't, it would have been fairly easy to find out. As to method of removal, I suspect that most people would assume that they should be taken out from the front.

Besides, if you're confronted by an emptied abdominal cavity, with the intestines bagpiped over the shoulders, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and kidneys. And there's little choice except to remove them from the front.

That remains written in the stars. There are arguments to the contrary. For example, since it was dark and since the abdominal cavitites would have been strewn with blood and to a degree faeces, the kidneys may have been easily overlooked under that membrane.
I agree that a fair amount of people would have been aware of the existence of the kidneys and their general placement within the body. Itīs just that they do not offer themselves up like for example the uterus.

The idea that a killer who takes out a kidney will have been looking for it specifically makes a lot of sense to me. Your idea that most people would have thought that they were excised from the front does the same.

A man versed in anatomy by means of literature and wax cabinets meets my take on the killer perfectly. He would also answer to your take that the killer would have known little about how to open up the belly. That part is always taken care of by the books and wax models.

[Sam Flynn]

That is an interesting thought. The problem is that we donīt have all the medicos assessing all the victims in the same way - it would have been truly useful!

Apart from the Nichols murder, the evidence is reasonably full and well-preserved. Certainly, between the official records and the more decent press reports, we have plenty of data to work with.

[Sam Flynn]

And the evidence said that BOTH Kelly and Eddowes had kidneys taken out from the front. Ergo, in that respect, they were both subjected to a killer who either possesed knowledge about the placement of the kidneys...

I think that a surprisingly large percentage of people would have known where the kidneys were; even if they didn't, it would have been fairly easy to find out. As to method of removal, I suspect that most people would assume that they should be taken out from the front.

Besides, if you're confronted by an emptied abdominal cavity, with the intestines bagpiped over the shoulders, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and kidneys*. And there's little choice except to remove them from the front.

* Edit: I'll add to that, by saying that if the intestines are bagpiped over the right shoulder, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and LEFT kidney. And guess what happened in Mitre Square?

[Fisherman]

Interestingly, Fish, Bond appears to have conducted a meta-analysis of the evidence... which is probably a much more sensible approach than picking off one murder (or opinion) at a time.

That is an interesting thought. The problem is that we donīt have all the medicos assessing all the victims in the same way - it would have been truly useful! After the Mylett business, I have never felt all that reassured by Bond... If anything, Phillips is my man.