The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,
Thanks for the description of duty from Quarterly review, Monty,however I remember that Stewart Evans,when he spoke at last years UK conference ,cautioned us against assuming every Police Officer would always have stuck to his beat to the letter.So if we take this as a pretty likely state of affairs,probably many did exactly keep time ,but some did not, PC Harvey therefore "probably" arrived at the end of church passage somewhere between 1.35 and 1.40.?No doubt Trevor will confirm?
I must admit too that Trevor"s time allowance for the removal of certain "appendages" makes sound sense.I have always been unconvinced by the rushed timings given from time to time ,especially it being so dark in Mitre Square and Kate wearing so many layers of clothing.And ofcourse the half hour scenario suggested by Trevor throws into question the alleged Lawende sighting of the Ripper at 1.30. I believe Kate was dead by then,and the ripper already fled.

[perrymason]

And yet, he did it in under 10 minutes.

The diference being that a skilled surgeon has to be careful not to damage anything in the course of an operation.

Not just in under ten minutes mariag, by my estimation if Lawende in fact saw Kate, then he likely had 6 minutes tops, strictly for cutting and wounding.

I know that youve mentioned surgical timings that have been as quotes, or based on some research Trevor, and I do believe that they are fair, until adding in mariag's factor of freeform surgery.

Yet, if Lawende saw Catherine, and there is no doubt she would be be found dead with everything done and killer gone by 1:44am, then the killer has a few minutes between negotiating the victim to the best site nearby, subduing her so he can lay her down to cut her throat,... and the cutting and apron section theft and departure to make his escape. Minutes only.

My inclination based on the above is that there is a very real possibility Lawende didnt see Catherine, or he had the time wrong by accident or on purpose.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

If fully accreditted and competent surgeons would take approx 15-30 minutes to complete the acts in a controlled and well lit area, does the killers awesome ability to do the same kind of surgery in the dark while being cautious about the murder he committed less than an hour earlier, mean he was skilled?

I dont think so....the less time he had to cut, the less likely it is that we have accurate timings or sightings by witnesses, the answer is not " because he was a highly skilled man".

If Lawende was wrong, he may have already been in the square with Kate by that time.

Best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

A surgeon is interested in preserving life, and doing as little damage as possible, Trev, hence he takes his time. A skilled butcher could do all that in one minute or so, I daresay - but then he has a commercial interest in keeping the flesh as neat as possible. However, for a man who was neither interested in preserving life, minimising damage or maintaining the carcase in a saleable condition, no such constraints applied. Such a man was the Ripper, and a few minutes would have been enough for him to do what he did.

Edit: Maria, our posts crossed. Good point.

Nick Warren,a qualified surgeon,has written extensively on the crimes of Jack the Ripper and suggested the evidence pointed very much to the ripper having used a "surgical knife"- [ a post mortem knife at that]- and in the case of Mary Kelly,additionally, an axe .I cant see any report from any of the doctors present at the time that supports some mad cap" two minute murder" inclusive of a throat slit,mutilation and the rearrangement of a number of objects and organs ,after the removal of clothing ,as well as a kidney removal.

[perrymason]

FAO Perry Mason
The way the uterus and its appendages were removed from Eddowes suggest someone with medical knowledge thats not just come from me that from a consultant gynecologist who has reviewed the caee papers and removes uteri on a dail basis so i would suggest his expert opinions should not be dismissed lightly just for the sake of you who still covet the theory that the killer removed the organs because that theory is now fading fast i would suggest

Hello Trevor,

Im not sure why you phrase things the way you do, antagonistically, but so its clear, you nor anyone else has done anything to re-write what is believed to be the case regarding the killers skill, or the use of the cloth....nor have your baseless conclusions re-written the potential for organ theft as "some" of the Canonicals motivations.

Some facts you should keep in mind:

1. I personally believe the killer had some anatomical knowledge and knife skills, I have said so from my first posts here.
2. I also believe that suggesting a man possessing the same skills could do what was done to Kate in that location, in 6 minutes or less, is bordering on nonsense.
3. Your surgical friend who tests 6 inch knives on cadavers to see how effective he can remove uteri is performing crude and distasteful uncontrolled experiments, and he is almost as off putting as you in that he believes such experiments constitute evidence of any kind usable in Ripperology.
4. In case you havent noticed......not one person here has jumped aboard your "solved the problem" experiments and lauded them with any of the fanfare you have.

I have no idea who you are, some here apparently do, but if you have it in your head that you are advancing any solutions here, you are wrong.

You have arguments, "experts", and guesses,... just like all of us do, and to be frank, you seem to think you have answers we have all missed.

So, your either a keener, a dreamer or a weiner. The jurys out.

Regards.

[Ben]

The way the uterus and its appendages were removed from Eddowes suggest someone with medical knowledge thats not just come from me that from a consultant gynecologist

But there was never any suggestion that the uterus removal indicated medical knowledge, Trevor. The eviscerator completely botched the job, only partially removing it. If you wanted to find an example of medical knowledge evinced by the eviscerations, the uterus removal was the very worst one you could possibly have picked.

[Trevor Marriott]

now come on people lets get the estimated timings right if we are going to argue.

There is no way anyone surgeon or otherwise could have removed the uterus and the kidney in 6 mins or less. you have to be looking at a min of 20 mins.

The cut and slash scenario doesnt apply as the uterus was removed with its appendages and would have been difficult to grip and remove carefully and with difficulty in almost total darkness a cut and slash approach is not even worth considering.

The doctors reported at her pm that the uterus and its appendages were removed that could not have been done in its entirety with a cut and slash.

Furthermore if it was the killers intention to kill for the organs why stab and mutilate the abdomen surley he would know that this action would make it harder for him to get at the organs and the fact that his actions might damage them. i would be interested to here view fromn cloud cukoo land on that aspect

[Monty]

Hey Norma,

Hi All,
Thanks for the description of duty from Quarterly review, Monty,however I remember that Stewart Evans,when he spoke at last years UK conference ,cautioned us against assuming every Police Officer would always have stuck to his beat to the letter.So if we take this as a pretty likely state of affairs,probably many did exactly keep time ,but some did not, PC Harvey therefore "probably" arrived at the end of church passage somewhere between 1.35 and 1.40.?No doubt Trevor will confirm?
I must admit too that Trevor"s time allowance for the removal of certain "appendages" makes sound sense.I have always been unconvinced by the rushed timings given from time to time ,especially it being so dark in Mitre Square and Kate wearing so many layers of clothing.And ofcourse the half hour scenario suggested by Trevor throws into question the alleged Lawende sighting of the Ripper at 1.30. I believe Kate was dead by then,and the ripper already fled.

Yes I do remember Stewarts words of caution not only at the conference but some months before that when we met privately. However, it must be stressed that Stewart was merely, and quite correctly, expressing a valid point and not a belief. Don Rumbelow feels it was Watkins who 'missed' that part of his beat and not Harvey, there are many variables.

At the end of the day Harvey had a duty and unless anyone can provide real evidence supporting that he did indeed lie (intentionally or not) then his statements must be taken as read....though not as gospel.

20 minutes eh Trevor?

Wow, that throws into doubt Watkins, seeing as he had an uneventful beat until the locating of Eddowes body.

Also condradicts the timings and opinions of the medical experts who actually viewed the body bot in situ and at the mortuary. I guess their opinions are invalid.

Cheers

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Cloud Cuckooland

now come on people lets get the estimated timings right if we are going to argue.
There is no way anyone surgeon or otherwise could have removed the uterus and the kidney in 6 mins or less. you have to be looking at a min of 20 mins.
The cut and slash scenario doesnt apply as the uterus was removed with its appendages and would have been difficult to grip and remove carefully and with difficulty in almost total darkness a cut and slash approach is not even worth considering.
The doctors reported at her pm that the uterus and its appendages were removed that could not have been done in its entirety with a cut and slash.
Furthermore if it was the killers intention to kill for the organs why stab and mutilate the abdomen surley he would know that this action would make it harder for him to get at the organs and the fact that his actions might damage them. i would be interested to here view fromn cloud cukoo land on that aspect

'Cloud Cuckooland' responding - A forensic pathologist who studied the Eddowes reports stated that her wounds were 'very crudely' done and that the whole operation could have been affected in about two minutes. Of course, the killer did not entirely remove her 'uterus and its appendages', in fact 'The womb was cut through horizontally leaving a stump of 3/4 of an inch, the rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments.' The vagina and cervix of the womb had been left in the body and were uninjured. The body had been 'laid open from the breast bone to the pubes' thus making access to the internal organs much easier.

[Trevor Marriott]

i wil refer to inquest testimony of Dr Brown

[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long. ( results of tests show impossible to remove a kidney using a six inch knife)

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them. (This tends to rule out the cut and slash theory if someone was targeting specific organs do you not think they would have taken more all round care firstly by not mutilating the abdomen and also in the removal of the organs)


[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane. ( this shows some anatomical knowledge again negates cut and slash)

[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes. ( Modern day master butches states he would be able to remove the organs from a human in normal daylight conditions but states he would have great difficulty in effceting those removals in the dark probing around with a sharp knife in a blood filled abdomen)

[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry. (Again he doesnt even hazard a guess at the length of time.

You have to go back to Chapmans murder where the doctor told the court it would have taken him at leats 15 mins or more to remove her Uterus given the same conditions. So as i said and will continue to say for someone to have removed those organs at the scene of the crime would have taken them a min of 20 mins thats not allowing for the time the kiler took in effecting the murder itself.

[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in. (Note time to make the wounds no mention of time needed to remove the organs)

As is always the case experts will agree to disagree, several on here have quoted from other experts which is fine but of course its a far cry from someone reading a report and giving an opinion from that to actually putting the theories to a practical test.

[The Good Michael]

Practical knowledge with regards to anatomy, may come from simply having to periodically kill and butcher an animal. Anyone who has ever hunted, farmed, or wanted to simply split the cost of a whole pig with another family, would have understood where organs were. There's no evidence that JTR knew what he was taking, only that he was taking something. The coroner is speaking from the point of view of an educated man who maybe can't fathom some common killer knowing, without medical training, what a trained medical man might know. There seems to be an assumption by the coroner that specific organs were targetted, and that doesn't have to be the case. A cut and grab shouldn't be a problem for even the most rudimentarily educated. For anyone , who has ever had to do any butchering, and this might be nearly everyone in the East End, the taking of random items should have been a breeze.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Absolutely, Mike.

The salient point here is that he did have experience of butchery - he'd certainly "butchered" other human beings before the Eddowes attack, and probably attacked others before that. The majority of killers are not ready-made products, but rather learn on the job, and I don't see why JTR shouldn't belong in the latter catergory.

Hi Trevor - Thanks for those extracts. The problem with quoting Brown exclusively is that he was actually in the minority as far as the "skill" attributed to Eddowes' killer went, with Saunders, Sequeira and Phillips arguing for a considerably less knowledgable operator. You were speaking of the skill in which the uterus was extracted, but the most conspicuous aspect of that eviseration is that it was botched and imcomplete, as Stewart point out. A more telling example of "slashing and grabbing" would be difficult to find.

Best regards,
Ben

[Stewart P Evans]

Random

( results of tests show impossible to remove a kidney using a six inch knife)
(This tends to rule out the cut and slash theory if someone was targeting specific organs do you not think they would have taken more all round care firstly by not mutilating the abdomen and also in the removal of the organs)

[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane. ( this shows some anatomical knowledge again negates cut and slash)

( Modern day master butches states he would be able to remove the organs from a human in normal daylight conditions but states he would have great difficulty in effceting those removals in the dark probing around with a sharp knife in a blood filled abdomen)

[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry. (Again he doesnt even hazard a guess at the length of time.

You have to go back to Chapmans murder where the doctor told the court it would have taken him at leats 15 mins or more to remove her Uterus given the same conditions. So as i said and will continue to say for someone to have removed those organs at the scene of the crime would have taken them a min of 20 mins thats not allowing for the time the kiler took in effecting the murder itself.

[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in. (Note time to make the wounds no mention of time needed to remove the organs)

As is always the case experts will agree to disagree, several on here have quoted from other experts which is fine but of course its a far cry from someone reading a report and giving an opinion from that to actually putting the theories to a practical test.

The Home Office pathologist who stated that it could be done in as short a time as two minutes had experience of doing hundreds of autopsies. His reference to the reports was merely to ascertain the details of the mutilation - which anyone may do from the reports.

There is no proof that the killer was targeting any internal organ other than the uterus. On delving into the lower abdomen the first object to be encountered would be the relatively hard uterus. Random cutting in the body may take longer if being deliberately replicated but, as random cutting and slashing, would not have taken very long. Cutting through the membrane may well have revealed the kidney so the killer removed that too. But this was no careful dissection by any means and could easily be done in the dark by feel.

[Trevor Marriott]

well if he wasnt targeting any other organ why did he go to such great length to remove the kidney which is one of the most difficult organs to locate and remove.

A simple way of "quickly" removing the kidney to someone who knows the anatomy would be to physically take hold of the renal fat which holds the kidney and rip it out by hand the killer could have then left the scene with the kidney stil intact there would have been no need to worrt about cutting.

and Stewart when you see the photos tomorrow you will see that your last sentence is way off track

[Natalie Severn]

The murder of Catherine Eddowes being in the City of London meant ofcourse that it was Dr Brown, the City police surgeon ,whose testimony was the most important on this occasion.I have just reread his report and it concurs with what Trevor is maintaining. Moreover, both Drs Sequeira and Sedgewick-Saunders agreed with him:

viz:-from inquest

Mr Crawford:Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill?
Dr Brown:A good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them.
Mr Crawford:You have spoken of the extraction of the left kidney.Would it require great skill and knowledge to remove it?
Dr Brown:It would require a great deal of knowledge as to its position to remove it.It is easily overlooked.It is covered with a membrane.

He goes on to say he thought at least five minutes would be required to"inflict all these wounds" and draws attention to the fact that he bothered to" nick the lower eyelids"---which,had he been in a great hurry he would have been unlikely to have done.
Dr Brown also replied that the knowledge the ripper possessed would have been likely to have been possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals.

Dr Sequeira stated that he "entirely agreed with Dr Brown"s evidence".However,when asked if he thought the ripper possessed any "great" anatomical skill" he said he did not think so.
Dr Sedgewick Saunders,[next] stated that having had ample opportunity to see the wounds inflicted,he agreed WITH DR BROWN AND DR SEQUEIRA that they were not inflicted by a person of "GREAT anatomical skill".
Therefore, I read this as simply a "follow on " from the earlier medical observation of Annie Chapman"s injuries by Dr Phillips,who thought the ripper showed surgical skill in his extraction of the uterus---which in turn lead him to wonder whether the ripper was wanting to collect wombs for medical purposes.Therefore Mr Crawford is pressing these three doctors for their view on whether or not this has happened again with this particular murder.All three doctors agree that they do not think organs have been extracted for any " professional purpose"------and this seems to have been the main purpose of Mr Crawford"s questioning in this particular instance.


But we are still left with Dr Brown"s considered opinion:

viz: that though the mutilations ,did not reveal "GREAT" anatomical SKILL" the removal of the organs in the abdominal cavity and THE WAY OF REMOVING THEM" and the removal of the KIDNEY -"being covered with a membrane",required "A GREAT DEAL OF anatomical KNOWLEDGE to remove it".