Eddowes by a different hand?

[Trevor Marriott]

That is an excellent point, Errata, and you are absolutely correct. What Brown said doesn't make sense there.

My take on why the injuries were described as such was because of the controversy that Coroner Baxter started just a few days before with his specimen theory at the end of the Chapman inquest. It was a hot topic at the time of the double event. I believe Brown was discounting (and the others concurred) that in Eddowes' case because it was believed that if the killer had designs on a 'particular organ' for that reason, the entire uterus, including the cervix, would be necessary for a proper specimen. In other words, the cut would have been made as close to the vaginal opening as possible. Thus, if the uterus was extracted for specimen purposes, it was a sloppy way of doing it in the medicos' minds and was of no use.

We can remember that Phillips' observation on Annie Chapman, as reported in the Lancet of Sept. 29, said:
'...the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.'

I also believe that is what led to the seemingly different conclusions on the physicians' parts about the extent of anatomical knowledge of the killer. When Sequeira said the killer had no 'design on any particular organ', he was debunking the notion of procuring the uterus for a specimen, considering its condition after removal. Certainly, this killer had some 'design' for it because he took it. It was just probably for a reason they had yet to understand until Dr. Bond reviewed the case and proposed a perverted sexual motive for the removal of the uterus in the 3 cases that it occured.

Nevertheless, that is an astute observation on your part.

It has to be remembered that the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were taken to two different mortuaries. The incosistency shown in the removal of the organs from both of those victims I suggest could be down to the fact that they were removed by two different people in the way i have previoulsy suggested.

[Hunter]

That is an excellent point, Errata, and you are absolutely correct. What Brown said doesn't make sense there.

My take on why the injuries were described as such was because of the controversy that Coroner Baxter started just a few days before with his specimen theory at the end of the Chapman inquest. It was a hot topic at the time of the double event. I believe Brown was discounting (and the others concurred) that in Eddowes' case because it was believed that if the killer had designs on a 'particular organ' for that reason, the entire uterus, including the cervix, would be necessary for a proper specimen. In other words, the cut would have been made as close to the vaginal opening as possible. Thus, if the uterus was extracted for specimen purposes, it was a sloppy way of doing it in the medicos' minds and was of no use.

We can remember that Phillips' observation on Annie Chapman, as reported in the Lancet of Sept. 29, said:
'...the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.'

I also believe that is what led to the seemingly different conclusions on the physicians' parts about the extent of anatomical knowledge of the killer. When Sequeira said the killer had no 'design on any particular organ', he was debunking the notion of procuring the uterus for a specimen, considering its condition after removal. Certainly, this killer had some 'design' for it because he took it. It was just probably for a reason they had yet to understand until Dr. Bond reviewed the case and proposed a perverted sexual motive for the removal of the uterus in the 3 cases that it occured.

Nevertheless, that is an astute observation on your part.

[Errata]

The same could be said about Catherine Eddowes, whose uterus was not so skilfully removed with a portion of the stump remaining with the body.

Is there a set of notes, or an official document of the autopsy using specific medical language somewhere? Because this doesn't make sense. The only "stump" in conjunction with the uterus at all is the cervix, and removing the uterus while leaving the cervix intact would not have been considered an incomplete excision. Medically at that point, when performing hysterectomies they did not take pains to preserve the cervix that they do today, so in a living person it would be considered an incomplete medical procedure. But in a dissection it would be considered a perfectly normal cut. And anyway, the cervix is about an inch and a half long, so with a 3/4 inch "stump" that still means half the cervix went with the uterus.

So if cutting the uterus above the cervix is not unusual, what on earth is this stump? It says the vagina and cervix were uninjured, but cutting away the upper portion of the uterus does not leave a "stump". It makes a sort of floppy cup. So is stump the wrong word? When saying the cervix was intact, was he only speaking of the closure at the neck of the vagina? I don't know if it's important, but it's kind of irritating not knowing.

[Hunter]

There was no evidence that any of Kelly's organs were removed with any precision. To confirm that I would refer to the part in Para 1 above where you refer to her being butchered well for once I agree thats exactly what happened to her body.

Thank you, Trevor, for your response.

Indeed, there is no evidence that Mary Kelly's organs were removed with precision; but removed they were. And the uterus held some kind of significance for her killer to excise it in whatever way and place it under her head. As has been discussed before, the kidneys are easily overlooked since they lie against the back of the vertebra and ribs connection and are covered by fatty membrane. The murderer found them, either by accident or design. The same could be said about Catherine Eddowes, whose uterus was not so skilfully removed with a portion of the stump remaining with the body.

Despite what Dr. Phillips concluded about Annie Chapman, her uterus was removed with the upper portion of the vagina and part of the bladder, all in one piece. Her killer did not take great pains to excise it carefully as a single unattached unit. Although he must have known what and where it was, there was no surgical skill displayed in this method. He simply cored the whole thing out.

The weight of evidence from various press articles adds to the belief that no organs were taken away.

There were a couple of contemporary reports about missing organs from Mary Kelly, but for the most part, the police effectively kept a tight lid on the evidence pertaining to her murder. Dr. Thomas Bond's post mortem report does specify that the heart was missing.

If that be the case then you can argue that if it were the same killer then clearly he didn't remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes otherwise he had the opportunity woth Kelly to fill his store cupboard with body parts.

Once again, the heart was reported missing by Bond. That the killer did remove the uterus and kidneys (along with other organs) shows that he had the propensity to do so, whether he took them from the scene or not.

As to Mueller it was not my idea to have him part of the programme. I have no faith in Criminal Pyscologists,or Profilers. However he was entitled to give his opinion and I stress it was only an opinion.

That explains the oddity of his presence that conflicted with the theories that you were proposing. I'm not entirely convinced by some profilers either. However, Mueller's theory about the murderer rehearsing his actions by fantasizing about what he would do many times beforehand was intriguing and has been admitted by some other known serial killers.

It nice to know you keep watching the programme shows it must have been made well

Despite what I may disagree with about it, I thought it was well produced and you presented yourself very well. More than a few believe that this murderer could have been a merchant seaman of some kind.

If there is any other expert help and advice I can help you with please feel free to write

Thank you for that generous offer; even with the little icon at the end. I was genuinely disappointed that you were not able to procure the unredacted Special Branch ledgers. It was a valid and noble effort on your part. Maybe, due to that effort, they will still be produced in the near future and provide some interesting information.

[Steven Russell]

On another point regarding Eddowes in particular she was subjected to a ferocious attack as the whole spectrum of the wounds suggest. So here we have a killer carrying out a frenzied attack in the first instance and then it it suggested suddenly switches to being cool calm and collective and removes the organs in such a way and all of this in less than 9 minutes.

Come on people stop kidding yourselves.

I don't think this at all likely, but would it not be possible for a surgically-skilled killer to extract the kidney carefully then go nuts with the mutilations, perhaps in an effort to disguise his skill? Rubbish, I know but JUST possible?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is a good question. Could someone instill such a frenzied attack and extricate organs too? Well, that's exactly what happened to Mary Kelly. She was literally butchered, and yet, her killer specifically excised her uterus and placed it under her head, along with one breast. And, amongst all the wreckage of her abdomen, he extricated a kidney and placed it under her head also. Whether one believes this is the same killer or not, it was done to Mary Kelly, who was mutilated even more extensively than Catherine Eddowes.




Dr. Thomas Mueller, a criminal psychologist from your documentary The German Connection gave an explanation in the documentary. He stated that the killer could do it because he was acting out a repetitive fantasy. "He's doing it blind," like " typewriting without looking at the machine."
Mueller also said that the murderer was serving a sexual need and it included "replacing body parts."

You still want to go toe to toe with me well that fine by me.

There was no evidence that any of Kellys organs were removed with any precison. To confirm that I would refer to the part in Para 1 above where you refer to her being butchered well for once I agree thats excatly what happened to her body.

The weight of evidence from various press articles adds to the beleif that no organs were taken away.

If that be the case then you can argue that if it were the same killer then clearly he didnt remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes otherwise he had the opportunity woth Kelly to fill his store cupboard with body parts.

As to Mueller it was not my idea to have him part of the programme. I have no faith in Criminal Pyscologists,or Profilers. However he was entitled to give his opinion and I stress it was only an opinion.

It nice to know you keep watching the programme shows it must have been made well

If there is any other expert help and advice I can help you with please feel free to write

[lynn cates]

it's probable

Hello Colin. My impression of probability is that it can be represented by some real number k, such that, 0 < k <1. (If k = 0, then it is impossible; if k = 1, it is certain.)

Now, it this is not incorrect, I'd love to be able to assign values to a "likely event." k > .51? I honestly don't know. Hence, I am not relying on probability.

Let's both have a Pepsi--Phil Carter will buy (and he always has plenty of those about to spare.)

Now, let's return this thread to Greg. I am fascinated by the discussion of Kate. It is LONG overdue.

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

Well, the only evidence that remains after 123 years is circumstantial. So:

1. Given ALL the suspects, which ones are listed as dangerous?

2. Given ALL the suspects, which one carried a well ground butcher's knife?

3. Given ALL the suspects, which one wandered the streets of London in the early morning hours, autumn 1888?

4. Given ALL the suspects, which one kept trinkets (think: brass rings) thinking they were valuable?

5. Given ALL the suspects, which one was known to have sexual problems (approach/avoidance--"I wear white in my buttonhole because I am all purity.")?

6. Given ALL the suspects, which one was caught choking a female?

I submit that, if even two of these items could be pinned to a major suspect (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) there would be cries of "Case Closed."

My point, Lynn, was that in the absence of any tangible evidence, your case for Isenschmid having committed the murders of Nichols and Chapman must rely heavily upon a perceptual 'probability', i.e. a perceived likelihood.

You have confirmed this by 'weighing-in' Isenschmid's candidacy, in the manner in which you have, on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

So, again, ...

I would contend that you are placing a great deal of faith in 'probability', in this particular instance.

I still predict that, once the truth becomes known, this whole affair will look silly.

Do you, perchance, owe me a pint of bitters?

I'll have a pint of lager, Lynn.

[Hunter]

If the killer or killers were targeting the organs then would they have attacked and mutilated the abdomen in such a way that those actions would likely as not damage any internal organs and make it very difficult to remove them with precision.

That is a good question. Could someone instill such a frenzied attack and extricate organs too? Well, that's exactly what happened to Mary Kelly. She was literally butchered, and yet, her killer specifically excised her uterus and placed it under her head, along with one breast. And, amongst all the wreckage of her abdomen, he extricated a kidney and placed it under her head also. Whether one believes this is the same killer or not, it was done to Mary Kelly, who was mutilated even more extensively than Catherine Eddowes.

On another point regarding Eddowes in particular she was subjected to a ferocious attack as the whole spectrum of the wounds suggest. So here we have a killer carrying out a frenzied attack in the first instance and then it it suggested suddenly switches to being cool calm and collective and removes the organs in such a way and all of this in less than 9 minutes.
Come on people stop kidding yourselves.

Dr. Thomas Mueller, a criminal psychologist from your documentary The German Connection gave an explanation in the documentary. He stated that the killer could do it because he was acting out a repetitive fantasy. "He's doing it blind," like " typewriting without looking at the machine."
Mueller also said that the murderer was serving a sexual need and it included "replacing body parts."

[Errata]

Really? cut through six layers (maybe more) of fabric on her abdomen?

would that even be possible?

Let's count 'em -- the layers.

So, for sure 6 layers and perhaps 8 and someone was trying to cut through all this?

He was going to take organs, but started cutting cut through all those layers? Is that believable? or even possible?

Great thread.

I now know what I believe about the question.

Well, It doesn't exactly break down like that. If we assume that her coat was open, she would have had three layers of cloth on her torso, and four at her waist. And we know he cut her skirts to open them up to be pushed up to her armpits, but he only need a few inches to get the play he needed. So it's not like he cut them off or anything.

Her tops are a problem. And I realize that. I know the clothing of the period, and I know that you can't just shove them up like you could a t-shirt. I know that the tops would likely end about an inch below the navel (except for maybe the chemise). I doubt he took the time the undo her tops, but they would have been in the way for that abdominal cut. The crime scene sketches do not show any open garments besides the coat, but I don't know if that means anything. There is no mention of cuts to those garments. The buttons appear to have been intact.

So she is wearing fitted tops that were neither undone nor cut, however clearly were no longer covering her upper abdomen when she was discovered, but do not appear to have been opened. All of these things cannot be true. He cut the skirts, I think he cut the tops. He appears to have started at the sternum, and he appears to have been attempting a straight line cut until about the navel, at which point he veers off to the right, and cuts down to the pubis from an angle. And it is not a cut that avoids his target organ. It makes sense to me that the abdominal cut is such a wreck because he kept hitting buttons. But there is no way he keeps a sharp knife doing this. So I think he had spares.

It is possible to cut through multiple layers of cloth with a knife. I've done it many times. There is a sort magic number where it gets easier. One layer is kinda hard, 8 layers is impossible, 3-5 seems to provide an appropriate tension. Certainly once you stab through the layers, the sawing is comparatively easy. So it's possible. Is that what happened? I don't know. It works for me at this point.

Ironically the easiest thing for him to do would have been to cut through her tops starting at the neckline and just cutting them open. But he doesn't appear to have done that. I don't know why.

[lynn cates]

let the evidence show . . .

Hello Colin.

"you are "convinced", Lynn, that Isenschmid was guilty of having committed the murders of Nichols and Chapman, even though there is not a shred of tangible evidence that can 'connect' him to either of those atrocities?"

Well, the only evidence that remains after 123 years is circumstantial. So:

1. Given ALL the suspects, which ones are listed as dangerous?

2. Given ALL the suspects, which one carried a well ground butcher's knife?

3. Given ALL the suspects, which one wandered the streets of London in the early morning hours, autumn 1888?

4. Given ALL the suspects, which one kept trinkets (think: brass rings) thinking they were valuable?

5. Given ALL the suspects, which one was known to have sexual problems (approach/avoidance--"I wear white in my buttonhole because I am all purity.")?

6. Given ALL the suspects, which one was caught choking a female?

I submit that, if even two of these items could be pinned to a major suspect (Druitt, Kosminski, Tumblety) there would be cries of "Case Closed."

I still predict that, once the truth becomes known, this whole affair will look silly.

Do you, perchance, owe me a pint of bitters?

Cheers.
LC

[Colin Roberts]

"And I think there's very little chance that more than one person committed these crimes."

I put little faith in probability.

Yet, ...

I am convinced that, after Isenschmid was sent to Grove Hall, others "took over his work" for their own purposes.

... you are "convinced", Lynn, that Isenschmid was guilty of having committed the murders of Nichols and Chapman, even though there is not a shred of tangible evidence that can 'connect' him to either of those atrocities?

I would contend that you are placing a great deal of faith in 'probability', in this particular instance.

And, what of your statement, ...

... I fully believe that, by 2015, mention of "Jack the Ripper" will be met with guffaws and cries of, "How could people have ever fallen for that one?"

..., which was made within a post that you entitled "I predict . . ."?

Would you care to make a wager?

[Wickerman]

sounds to me as though he was slicing through the green skirt and managed to cut through the waistband of blue skirt below below -- but no blood. So was he trying to loosen her clothing?

Some of her clothing may have been lifted up over her chest as he thrust the knife into her breast and run it downwards. If the knife cut through where her clothes were folded some cuts in her clothes will be longer than others when the clothes were eventually opened out.

And something even stranger that I noticed: Frank's number 9: her apron is listed as being in her possessions as as though perhaps she was not wearing it at the time.

They only noticed that she was wearing an apron when her body was laid out at the mortuary, the piece still attached to her was hidden in the folds of her clothes.
So she was wearing an apron.

Regards, Jon S.

[curious]

Thanks Frank,

I had seen this before, but didn't run across it again when I was counting layers.

Very strange.

To me, it reads almost as though he cut the layers separately. Does it read like that to anyone else?

chintz skirt -- bloodstained 6.5 inch cut
brown linsey bodice 5 inch "Clean-cut" at bottom

could these maybe be one cut? if so, why no blood on bodice?

grey petticoat bloodstained 1.5 inch cut

could this be part of the two above cuts?

then what appears to be a three-layer cut: green alpaca skirt and blue skirt with lining both -- cut 10.5 inches in a downward direction

sounds to me as though he was slicing through the green skirt and managed to cut through the waistband of blue skirt below below -- but no blood. So was he trying to loosen her clothing?

And something even stranger that I noticed: Frank's number 9: her apron is listed as being in her possessions as as though perhaps she was not wearing it at the time.

Until I processed that, I had considered that Eddowes killer had taken part of the apron for a specific purpose, but if Kake was carrying pieces of her apron as she was also carrying 2 large handkerchiefs, 12 rags, and numerous other pieces of fabric, perhaps he just grabbed a piece of cloth without knowing it could be matched to any of the other pieces. I believe there's a previous thread that debates whether Eddowes was wearing her apron or not . . .

Anyway, Eddowes certainly had more possessions than poor Annie and more layers.

would that be a reason that the clothing was cut?

[FrankO]

Hi LC,

It shouldn't surprise you when I say that what you gave me here was just a very little piece of that much bigger picture. Now, I'm not going to promise you that I'll agree with your bigger picture, but I'm surely interested in knowing more about it, so I can actually see the complete bigger picture you refer to and form an opinion.

Cheers,
Frank