Eddowes by a different hand?

[FrankO]

Interesting discussion about the knife cuts. I've learned things I've never even thought about before.

But what does Jack slicing through clothing on Eddowes and lifting their clothing to slice Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman say about whether it's the same hand or not?

If a person was killing just in order to mutilate, and liked the feeling of the skin and being better able to control what and where he was cutting, would he really then cut through Eddowes clothing?

For what possible reason would he cut through the clothing instead of lifting the clothing?

Hi Velma,

I’ve only spotted your post just now. You raise some interesting and good questions.

Based on the actual cuts in her clothes (in 'The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner) I’ve always pictured the Ripper cutting Eddowes’ waistband and then raise her skirts up to her chest, not cutting through her clothes and opening up her abdomen that way. A tight waistband may have hindered him raising the clothes, so he cut through it, then lifted her clothes and started his abdominal mutilations.

If we look at the surviving evidence, there is no suggestion that Eddowes’ killer mutilated her through her clothes. Her clothes were mentioned a couple of times by 3 persons, but none of them suggested that he had mutilated Eddowes through her clothes. It seems odd to me that it wasn’t mentioned, especially by Dr. Brown, if he thought it had probably happened that way.

Furthermore, if he had cut her open through her clothes from chest to pubes, then it seems the cuts in her clothes would have been longer than 10.5 inches, probably rather something like 15 inches (or even longer, it not being a straight cut).

Also, from the killer’s perspective, it wouldn’t just be more practical to cut the bare skin, it would also have satisfied him far more. As you say, he must have liked the feeling of the skin and being better able to control what and where he was cutting.

All the best,
Frank

[Errata]

And to some degree this might apply to Eddowes especially if his knife passed through clothing at the start of the mutilations.

Regards, Jon S.

Actually sawing through cloth dulls a knife like nobodies business. Scissors are different, and the different action protect their sharpness to a greater degree. Two things on a renaissance festival site go on walkabout at a ridiculous frequency. Staple guns and scissors. So every time I have had to adjust stage curtains, emergency hem garments, cut cloth ties, cut rope, cut clothing off someone with heatstroke, whatever... I've had to use a knife. If you start to cut through a boned corset (at least four layers of tightly woven cotton like duck) with a knife, you will have to switch knives before you can get through the corset. We would buy a box of 50 little Pakistani four inch knives at the beginning of the run, and at the end of the run, you couldn't even cut through a block of cheddar with most of them.

I have often wondered how Jack managed with only one or two knives, and the best I can come up with is that they were double edged. He would cut until it dulled, and then turn the knife around and continue. And even then I think he would still need two knives. Or he had a bag of an assortment of blades. The problem with that theory is that at this point, the only double edged knives around were daggers, and less available than kitchen knives. If he had been military, it would have been much easier. Otherwise he probably would have had to prowl pawn shops and outdoor markets for daggers, and that might make him stick out a bit. Certainly all the pawn shop guys around here know me as the only girl coming in for all their swords.

[lynn cates]

grinding

Hello Jon. Well, I can think of at least one former butcher who kept his knife "well ground down."

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Looks almost like a journeyman butcher in the first 2 cases but a rank tyro here.

Funny you should say that, where Dr. Ind referred to a "lurking Butcher" he was passing a comment at myself as we had been exchanging views on the subject of knife wounds.
Speaking as an ex-butcher's apprentice, what seems to have gone largely unnoticed is that a butcher is required to sharpen his knife rather frequently once he starts cutting up a carcass.

Considering the time suggested for the killer to have spent cutting up Mary Kelly a butcher might expect the knife to have lost its edge rather quickly.
Not knowing what type of knife was being used it is hard to say for certain. One could always suggest he brought several knives, I don't know, but unless the knife had a tempered blade I would imagine there being more 'ripping' going on than cutting. And to some degree this might apply to Eddowes especially if his knife passed through clothing at the start of the mutilations.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Hello Errata.

"my dad felt like Jack kept trying to cut through the mesenteries only enough to rip it free, and so there was a sequence of tug, cut, tug, cut that splashed feces about rather more than was technically necessary."

I think your dad was an extremely acute observer. This kind of "hack job" is how I envision Kate's murder. That contrasts with the neat, clean, surgical cutting in the first two cases and what led some of the examiners to refer to it as "unskilful."

Cheers.
LC

The irony is, if I understand this correctly (and I may not) as people age, or as people deteriorate due to ill health, connective tissues lose their elasticity. So he may very well have been able to tear Chapman's uterus free of the connective tissue (after severing the more substantial connections like arteries) but was defeated by Eddowes more robust mesenteries.

Or he was severely rattled by Eddowes's face, and just couldn't shake it off even after he mutilated her.

My dad is actually a very dim observer. But he is an OB/GYN, and reproductive surgery was his big field for awhile. Switching his focus to teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases just in to make me and my sister's adolescence one long embarrassing tour of the nether regions of hell. I'm not bitter.

[lynn cates]

journeyman

Hello Errata.

"my dad felt like Jack kept trying to cut through the mesenteries only enough to rip it free, and so there was a sequence of tug, cut, tug, cut that splashed feces about rather more than was technically necessary."

I think your dad was an extremely acute observer. This kind of "hack job" is how I envision Kate's murder. That contrasts with the neat, clean, surgical cutting in the first two cases and what led some of the examiners to refer to it as "unskilful."

I think a similar situation would obtain if I were called on to carve a fowl. There would be nothing but miniscule pieces cut against the grain. But some people can perform this task well.

Looks almost like a journeyman butcher in the first 2 cases but a rank tyro here.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Oh, no contest I take your word for it.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

So, the funny part is, What Dr. Ind said is almost exactly what my dad said, except my dad felt like Jack kept trying to cut through the mesenteries only enough to rip it free, and so there was a sequence of tug, cut, tug, cut that splashed feces about rather more than was technically necessary.

We all know that an abusive childhood is something common in serial killers. And if you look at serial killers who have some things in common with Jack the Ripper (Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Andrei Chikatilo, Ed Kemper, etc.) all had extremely unhealthy relationships with their mothers. Relationships that to a great extent dictated victim selection, signature and motive. If you think about the kind of mother both Ed Gein and Henry Lee Lucas had, incestuously dominantly abusive, and take into consideration the extreme importance the uterus had for Jack (but not say, the external genitals), it paints a sort of disturbing picture as to why Jack may have seen his mother examined. Maybe he was spying because he was curious, maybe he never saw anything. But it would make sense for Jack the Rippers mother to be abusive, and very disturbed.

[Wickerman]

It is all speculation, and it probably is over analyzing. But I really don't think that Chapman fell that way. I think he arranged her legs that way, while Nichols and Eddowes were essentially mutilated in the same position that they fell. And the posing of Chapman is uncomfortably similar to that of a GYN exam. And I can't think of any other reason to pose her like that. So this is just an explanation that makes sense to me. I mean, we will never know, so I'm totally willing to be wrong. But it explains a few other things for me as well, so I'm willing to operate under this assumption for awhile.

Certainly you don't have to

Oh, no contest I take your word for it.

I've read something similar to this before, it took a while to dig this out. Back in Jan 2000 we were fortunate to have a medical professional on the boards who took a particular interest in Eddowes mutilations, among his comments we read:

"Most hysterectomies involve removing the corpus (main body) and the cervix (neck). Although I must add that there is a small current trend for women to request that their cervix is left behind in the unfounded theory that it contributes to orgasms. Some involve removing the ovaries as well and others do not.

The danger in performing a hysterectomy include damaging the vessels of the pelvic side wall and the ureters (tube connecting the kidneys to the bladder). In most non-cancerous cases this is avoided by keeping the excision close to the uterus as well as identifying the above structures. Do we know from the post mortems if there was any damage to the ureters during the uterine excisions or damage to the other structures on the pelvic side wall? These structures are the external iliac vein and artery, the internal iliac vein and artery, the obturator nerve and vessels, the psoas muscle and the genitofemoral nerve.

To remove the cervix you need to mobilise the bladder caudally. If you do not it is almost inevitable that you will also remove part of the bladder. This is what JTR did during Chapman’s hysterectomy."
Dr. Thomas Ind.
Senior Registrar in Gynaecological Oncology Surgery at the Royal Hospitals Trust in London (Barts & the Royal London Hospitals).

This was just a brief quote from his lengthy post, if you like to see it all I can post it in full.
Dr. Ind then concludes his post with two observations:

"Two final comments.
When I perform a hysterectomy I often have to change the blade of my knife during the operation (surgeon’s use knives not scalpels). Especially in Kelly’s case a very sharp knife would be required. As blood and debris deposited on the knife if would become less sharp and more difficult to use. Did JTR use more than one knife? A butcher lurking on this site may be able answer this question. For example, how often would a butcher have to sharpen his knife while preparing a carcass?

Thinking of Eddowes. If I was surgically removing a left kidney and uterus is would take me a few hours. However, If I was to open an abdomen, lift the small bowel off the mesentry and place it over the right shoulder with no regard for haemostasis; excise the left kidney and remove the uterus I could do it very quickly and could achieve this in minutes. It would be easier for me as a right handed person to stand on the woman’s right. With my right hand I could make the abdominal incision with one manouvre. Lifting out the small bowel would be slippery and to lift it off the mesentery would be made much easier by incising it rather than riping it off. In a thin woman the kidney would then be easily located and excised as long as the adrenal gland was attached. I would grasp the uterus with my left hand and be able to excise the uterus with one sweep of the knife from left to right. JTR could have performed these excisions in minutes without any surgical knowledge."
Dr. Thomas Ind.

Best Wishes, Jon S.

[Errata]

Wouldn't that be a little too technical for the average doss-house dweller to know?
In making your suggestion you seem to be saying the killer must have been of above average intelligence (medical knowledge), yet the favourite hypothesis seems to be that he was "of their own kind".

It is very easy to over analyse that which most of us are not too familiar with.

Regards, Jon S.

Well, yes and no. It is far too technical for the average doss dweller to know in terms of it's diagnostic value. But it is something the average doss dweller may have seen, as it is also a diagnostic tool during pregnancy, to ensure the mucus plug was intact, or the check dialation during labor. The question then becomes how would that have been explained. And likely it would have been explained quite bluntly, as the midwive would have been talking to pregnant woman, and not to anyone else in the room.

Certainly husbands were either banished from, or fled these examinations. But children often weren't, especially in cases of single mothers. My great grandfather in Victorian Scotland was taught by the midwife to deliver his younger sister after his father died, in case the midwife couldn't get there in time. Good thing too because the midwife didn't make it.

It is all speculation, and it probably is over analyzing. But I really don't think that Chapman fell that way. I think he arranged her legs that way, while Nichols and Eddowes were essentially mutilated in the same position that they fell. And the posing of Chapman is uncomfortably similar to that of a GYN exam. And I can't think of any other reason to pose her like that. So this is just an explanation that makes sense to me. I mean, we will never know, so I'm totally willing to be wrong. But it explains a few other things for me as well, so I'm willing to operate under this assumption for awhile.

Certainly you don't have to

[Wickerman]

... The way a GYN (sorry about this guys) checks the cervix is to insert two fingers and press the cervix up towards the abdomen, and palpitates the cervix from outside. I think thats how he located the uterus. I think he inserted a finger and pressed upward, which would make the cervix visible above the pubic arch. I think he then cut above his finger, which would be right at the cervix.

Wouldn't that be a little too technical for the average doss-house dweller to know?
In making your suggestion you seem to be saying the killer must have been of above average intelligence (medical knowledge), yet the favourite hypothesis seems to be that he was "of their own kind".

It is very easy to over analyse that which most of us are not too familiar with.

Regards, Jon S.

[sleekviper]

Hello curious.
Yes, I am aware how some may view the events of that night.

[Errata]

The upper part of Chapman's vagina was missing. That, along with the uterus and part of the bladder were removed with 'one sweep of the knife'. Her killer basically cut out a wedge like cutting a piece of melon and took it all as one piece. Phillips was amazed that the rectum was avoided in the process; thus his conclusion of anatomical knowledge or skill. What he seemed to not contemplate (he'd never faced anything like this before) was the reason for the removal of the viscera, which was unnecessary to just remove the uterus.

This, of course, was done to Eddowes and Kelly as well. The way Kelly's abdominal flaps were removed was similar to what was done to Chapman.

Well, less the upper portion of her vagina as much as her cervix. Which I think is revealing. And this may be total girl reasoning. Chapman was found in a position that closely mimics that of a woman getting her annual pelvic. The way a GYN (sorry about this guys) checks the cervix is to insert two fingers and press the cervix up towards the abdomen, and palpitates the cervix from outside. I think thats how he located the uterus. I think he inserted a finger and pressed upward, which would make the cervix visible above the pubic arch. I think he then cut above his finger, which would be right at the cervix.
He also took part of the bladder, so it seems that keeping the uterus intact was pretty important. Eddowes vagina was severed lower down, I think.


Removing the viscera is not necessary to remove the uterus, but it makes it easier to sever the mesentaries, if that's what he did. It's a little unclear. And if I were him, and I had perhaps punctured an intestine, I'd get it out of the way, cause thats quite a smell. I also don't know what happened to the ovaries of anyone, and that's something worth knowing.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

In Rob House's recent book it mentions "two small stabs to the private parts" of Nichols. This was apparently in the report of Inspector J. Spratling. Rob also emphasizes the Victorian taboo of mentioning private parts and how such references were often left out of newspaper reports so as not to offend the sensibilities... I'm not sure of any such stab wounds on Chapman but Tabram certainly had similar cuts in that region. Again, one can deduce escalation but obviously there are other interpretations....

Greg

The Victorian nomenclature for this particular area would be "thighs". Which I imagine is close enough. Although the coroner's report on Eddowes is remarkably candid.

I really can't speak to the information in Rob House's book, which I admit I have not read.

The coroner does not account for such an injury, and I have to be blunt here, I cannot imagine that a Constable is going to be examining the external sexual organs of a disemboweled woman, especially with the guy who is supposed to be doing such checks right there with him.

But maybe he was a hobbyist. What I think may be more true is that she had two stab wounds below the navel, which would be well within Victorian "private parts". Certainly visible without ahh... a gynecologist's eye view.

But again that may also not be true. Just because I don't think a Victorian cop is going to focus on her nethers doesn't mean he didn't.

[Hunter]

The upper part of Chapman's vagina was missing. That, along with the uterus and part of the bladder were removed with 'one sweep of the knife'. Her killer basically cut out a wedge like cutting a piece of melon and took it all as one piece. Phillips was amazed that the rectum was avoided in the process; thus his conclusion of anatomical knowledge or skill. What he seemed to not contemplate (he'd never faced anything like this before) was the reason for the removal of the viscera, which was unnecessary to just remove the uterus.

This, of course, was done to Eddowes and Kelly as well. The way Kelly's abdominal flaps were removed was similar to what was done to Chapman.

[GregBaron]

Not the first time...

Hi Errata,

In Rob House's recent book it mentions "two small stabs to the private parts" of Nichols. This was apparently in the report of Inspector J. Spratling. Rob also emphasizes the Victorian taboo of mentioning private parts and how such references were often left out of newspaper reports so as not to offend the sensibilities... I'm not sure of any such stab wounds on Chapman but Tabram certainly had similar cuts in that region. Again, one can deduce escalation but obviously there are other interpretations....

Greg