2/3 of the bladder removed....

[emlodik]

I'm sorry, I my be ignorant when it comes to anatomy, but how does one remove "2/3" of a bladder? I mean, isn't it like a balloon? How can one just cut out a portion?

[joelhall]

yes it is hollow, but with a good knife its like cutting through any other organ id imagine, though i suppose the killer could just have removed the large upper part (i.e. above the urethral sphincter). thats probably around 2/3, depending of course how much fluid it contained at the time

[emlodik]

yes it is hollow, but with a good knife its like cutting through any other organ id imagine, though i suppose the killer could just have removed the large upper part (i.e. above the urethral sphincter). thats probably around 2/3, depending of course how much fluid it contained at the time

So, the remaining 1/3 would've looked like a couple of fleshy shreds?

[joelhall]

'The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.'

this is the relevant part of the chapman inquest.

it appear that the bladder was sliced, removing the 2/3 directly in front of the uterus, therefore it would leave a front 'flap' (for want of a better word) like a third of a football, attached to the urethra, and the lower part of the vagina.

sort of like two tubes, the thinner, short one in front, widening to the top with a saucer-shaped piece of muscle at the end, with its outer edge visible from the front (if that makes sense? ) curved backwards, as if youd sliced a golf ball on a tee to the same proportions.

not great analogies ill grant you haha.

joel

[emlodik]

'The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.'

this is the relevant part of the chapman inquest.

it appear that the bladder was sliced, removing the 2/3 directly in front of the uterus, therefore it would leave a front 'flap' (for want of a better word) like a third of a football, attached to the urethra, and the lower part of the vagina.

sort of like two tubes, the thinner, short one in front, widening to the top with a saucer-shaped piece of muscle at the end, with its outer edge visible from the front (if that makes sense? ) curved backwards, as if youd sliced a golf ball on a tee to the same proportions.

not great analogies ill grant you haha.

joel

If there's one thing about Jack that deserves applause is that he sure as hell had unique ways of leaving a signature...

[protohistorian]

[QUOTE=emlodik;43038]I'm sorry, I my be ignorant when it comes to anatomy, but how does one remove "2/3" of a bladder? I mean, isn't it like a balloon? How can one just cut out a portion? [/ A ballon has greater pressure on the inside than the outside when inflated Like deflated balloon, internal and external pressure are in equilibrium.

[diana]

The bladder wall has several layers. The outer layer is continuous with the lining of the abdomen (peritoneum). The middle is a layer of muscle (the detrusor muscle). The detrusor empties the bladder by contracting. The inner layer is called the mucosa.

So the wall of the bladder is thicker than a balloon.

http://www.ivy-rose.co.uk/Topics/Urinary_Bladder_Urethra_Female.php

[bobsnow]

Speaking of Dr. Phillips' report, does anyone know the source for the quote: "The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain, but they had nothing to do with the cause of death. The stomach contained little food, but there was not any sign of fluid. There was no appearance of the deceased having taken alcohol, but there were signs of great deprivation and he should say she had been badly fed. He was convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days. He was of the opinion that the person who cut the deceased throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right. He thought it was highly probable that a person could call out, but with regard to an idea that she might have been gagged he could only point to the swollen face and the protruding tongue, both of which were signs of suffocation."

[Sam Flynn]

Speaking of Dr. Phillips' report, does anyone know the source for the quote

The Times, 14th Sept 1888. And it's not strictly a "quote" as such, but a third-person (journalist's) paraphrase of what Phillips said at the inquest. Although the papers often published detailed reports, the original, official transcripts from the Chapman inquest have not survived.

[bobsnow]

Thank you Sam, I appreciate the help. Bob Snow