The cut around the umbilicus

[Monty]

I was listening to Podcast 13, that Neil Bell talks out of his...when I heard Jana Oliver make an excellent point I didnt follow up on.

She states that the jagged wound up Eddowes abdomen is very akin to a post mortem cut. The fact that it goes around the umbilicus, as opposed to a straight up rip (excuse my crudeness) shows some degree of insider medical knowledge.

Any views?

Monty

[Mascara & Paranoia]

That is an interesting thought.

I never thought of it like that; I always assumed it was where he botched her up a bit whilst in a rush after having spent time on the facial mutilations before opening her up in a haphazard kind of way.

[The Grave Maurice]

The first time I saw this theory was in E.J. Wagner's 2006 book, The Science of Sherlock Holmes. The author says, at p. 10, when discussing standard postmortem procedures in the late 19th century:

The initial incision was made from the chin down, over the throat, across the chest, around the navel, to the pubis.

In my review of the book, I pointed out that this might have significance, but the comment was lost in last the crash of these boards.

[Suzi]

Hi all
Just typed in Post Mortem abdominal cuts into Google (as you do!) and found an interesting link...On Google Book results I found 'Post Mortem Technique Handbook' by Michael T. Sheaff* and Deborah J Hopster...(it's about 3 results down).

Interesting read re abdominal post mortem work and also tantalisingly mentions kidneys somewhat excessively....Worth a look

Suz
* Interestingly Michael Sheaff work at The London Hospital Whitechapel in the 'morbid anatomy' dept! !!!

[Sam Flynn]

It bends slightly to the left...

Can you Adam'n'Eve it? People into "body modification" actually pay to have autopsy-type scars carved into their bodies! I found a photo of a chap after having had this "mod" done, a link to which I post below.

WARNING: Don't click on the link below if you're of a queasy disposition.

http://news.bmezine.com/2007/04/07/autopsy-scar-sans-autopsy/

[Suzi]

Blimey!!!

This round the navel thing seems to be 'the norm ' though- have become obsessed with this PM book on Google books- your for a mere £115!!! On further reading through- there's a lot of concentration on 'abdominal flaps ' etc etc....hate to say it but this is bringing on a slight 'rethink' on the old Doctor Jack front.....

Erghfffffff!!! I just clicked on the 'skin removal' link Hmmmmmmmm....is it me???? and the 'comments' under the Y-Job made me feel a tad 'uncomfortable' when you get to the 'Can't wait to see what it's like when it's healed' bits! Aaaaaaaaaaagh!!!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

Just wanted to say that my experts have also passed the same comment based on their re examination of the records.

The more this topic is discussed the more doubt there is surrounding the original theory

So now we are left with only two theories regarding the removal of the organs.

1. Was JTR an experienced medical man ? because that process could not have been carried out by just anyone reading a medical book or a slaughterman, and as i have continued to state everything connected to the murders of Eddowes and Chapman is against the killer being able to remove the organs at the scene

2.The second theory is were the organs removed prior to post mortem at the locations where the bodies were left by someone with more than a reasonable amount of medical knowledge

If i were a betting man i know where my money is going

[perrymason]

It is not established whether Kate Eddowes was killed by anyone nicknamed "Jack the Ripper", so at this point any skill or knowledge that is or is not demonstrated with Kate can be used comparatively with prior and forthcoming victims but not to establish "Jack the Rippers" skill levels.

In that vein, the cut seems to me to be a result of pulling the blade up against the skin, causing it to slightly fold and bunch at the leading edge, resulting in a jagged line. I doubt that it represents anything along the lines of post mortem training. These were not skillfully executed cuts.

I think there are valid reasons for the opinion of Kates murder by one physician, that there was no visible evidence of skill or training by her killer.

Cheers all

[Trevor Marriott]

Perry
If you are not a medical expert then please refrain from trying to give expert opinion on medical matters. Leave it to the experts.

[Sam Flynn]

Just wanted to say that my experts have also passed the same comment based on their re examination of the records.

The more this topic is discussed the more doubt there is surrounding the original theory

So now we are left with only two theories regarding the removal of the organs.

1. Was JTR an experienced medical man ? because that process could not have been carried out by just anyone reading a medical book or a slaughterman

It rather depends on how one views the process, Trevor. The way I see it, the process consisted of crudely cutting someone open, shoving their entrails aside, and hacking out wobbly bits from their insides. I rather think that humans were able to do that millennia before medical books, or indeed slaughtermen, ever existed.

[Archaic]

Perry
If you are not a medical expert then please refrain from trying to give expert opinion on medical matters. Leave it to the experts.

Mr. Marriott, these are public forums.

Every member has a right to comment as they see fit- even you.

Best regards, Archaic

[Monty]

Perry
If you are not a medical expert then please refrain from trying to give expert opinion on medical matters. Leave it to the experts.

Does the same go for comments made on menstrual cycles and aprons?

The cut on Eddowes is far from expert, any person can see when comparing Eddowes sketch and photo Gareth provided.

Then again its not as if expertise was needed.

Monty

[perrymason]

Perry
If you are not a medical expert then please refrain from trying to give expert opinion on medical matters. Leave it to the experts.

Hi Trevor,

I did allude to a contemporary professional opinion on the matter that coincides with my own take on the skill exhibited. Its not my theorizing...I just happen to agree with it.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

The chicane around the navel is certainly thought-provoking, however we don't see the same thing happen in the other murders. Both Kelly's and Chapman's abdomens were opened up via three panels of flesh - more or less regular, it seems, in the case of Kelly; somewhat irregular in Chapman's case. Indeed, Chapman's navel - far from being neatly circumnavigated - was missing from the scene, together with a hunk of belly wall. We have no detailed information about Nichols, but from what little we know it seems that her abdomen was irregularly "skated over" with the knife.

From this it appears that, if the Ripper had any knowledge of post-mortem abdominal opening at all, he seems to have learned it after Hanbury Street, only to revert back to the "three flaps" method after Mitre Square. In other words, Eddowes seems to have been a one-off in this regard, and the fact that the navel was left on a promontory of skin might have been purely accidental. Whether it was or it wasn't, there's about as much skill on display as there is consistency of technique between murders.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
The way you see it and the way it is from an experts view are miles apart . No disrespect but i think that you and the remaning small group who subscribe to the original theory should really re examine everyhting surrounding the new theory. You dont become a medical experts by reading the Lancet every month. Practical experience is what is required. Both you and I have discussed this before you do have some medical knowledge from reading up on topics but the truth be known you do not have any surgical experience and I suggest you are not qualified to commnet on any of the medical issues her. Your use of medical terms is however very impressive.

As to Eddowes murder and what could be very important point on the removal of organs you now back down slightly inferring that could be a one off.It can only be a one off if Eddowes and Chapman were kiled by different people. Again I repeat the killer of Chapman would not have needed to remove the intestines to extract the uterus. However if the killer in a frenzy riped out the intestines and did not remove the uterus, then that in itself must give some creedence to the suggestion that the same killer killed both Chapman and Eddowes and mutilated them in a frenzy but did not remove the organs at the scene. Ripping out the intestines in the frenzied attack.

The other thing we dont know is that if the organs were removed at the mortuarys bu another how much addittional cutting did that person do in order to extract the organs. If that happened it now puts a different light on everything

I also wonder how many of this minority group have studied the new medical evidence.? At a rough guess I would say none. Its a shame that these regular posters want to dismiss outright new evidenec without even bothering to look at it. "Shame on you "