Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, London police surgeon called in at the murder, arrived at Mitre Square around 2:00 AM. His report is as follows..... Something doesn't quite add up with the following parts of the good Dr browns post mortem.''The cause of death was hemorrhage from the left common carotid artery''. ''The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted AFTER DEATH.I believe the wound in the throat was first inflicted. I believe she must have been lying on the ground''.SO IF EDDOWS WAS LYING ON THE GROUND WHEN HER THROAT WAS CUT , SHE SURLY WOULD HAVE BEEN RENDERED UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE THAT EVENT TOOK PLACE , [ OTHER WISE SHE WOULD HAVE SCREAMED ] JTR WOULD HAVE TO STRANGLE HER TO RENDER HER UNCONSCIOUS, WHY THEN IS THIS NOT MENTIONED IN THE POST MORTEM OF DR BROWN. Remember cause of death was hemorrhage from the left common carotid artery, not strangulation, and death was immediate. Then this ''The throat had been so instantly severed that no noise could have been emitted''. This implys she was conscious and probably standing up when her throat was cut . And this....''We looked for superficial bruises and saw none '' SURLY SHE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME BRUISING AROUND HER NECK HAD SHE BEEN STRANGLED , SUPERFICIAL OR OTHERWISE. Im beginning to think that dr browns post mortem raises more questions than gives answers.

To kill by manual strangulation requires a few minutes, but unconsciousness occurs in about 15 seconds. So, strangulation to unconsciousness would prevent screams but means it is still the throat cutting that killed her. If she was standing when her throat was cut the front of her clothes would be covered in blood, rather than a large pool of blood right beside her neck. Some have suggested use of a ligature, and that the throat cutting obscures the ligature mark, though personally I find that a bit hard to believe (once maybe, but in every case?). There are some bruises mentioned I believe, and I think some have suggested they could be the signs of strangulation that you're looking for. I'm sure some have examined the autopsy for such information, and they would be better placed to go into it. But, strangulation doesn't always leave visible signs. Particularly if the throat cutting results in the bruised blood draining out.

Anyway, yes, this is a topic that has been focused on before so you can expect some well researched answers - with just as many opinions I'm sure!

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

How do you know that?



given the kidney was taken away, how do you know it was not damaged when he cut through the membrane?



How much time are you saying JtR had?

- Jeff

You have to take into account Dr. Phillips who states that the person removing the uterus of Chapman showed a high level of medical expertise. The Doctor went on to say that it would have taken him between fifteen and sixty minutes to carry out the removal of the uterus from her body.

So he is saying a minimum of 15 minutes just to remove the uterus.

As has been stated the kidney is covered by a membrane and encased in renal fat

The photo posted show the position of the kidney in the renal fat. First notice the size of the kidney compared to the pointing finger. It is an organ that sits flush in the renal fat, you cannot simply put you hand into an abdomen and take hold of it and cut it out. Anatomical knowledge is needed to be able to know where to locate the organ, and then to be able to remove it from the renal fat.

If the motive in both the chapman and Eddowes murder was organ harvesting why murder someone in almost total darkness to harvest an organ and risk damaging it through speed and being in the dark with no light? and why would he want to take the same organ a second time after all he had the complete set with Chapman not only the uterus but the fallopiain tubes still attached

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Yer Trevor i tried that one too about Dr Phillips 15 mins for just the uterus and didn't get anywhere, they always seem to have an answer , no doubt they'll have one again. But not a very good one. Thanks Jeff ill give you a reply shortly.

[packers stem]

Yes, the membrane was cut. But how do you know the kidney wasn't damaged when that was done, meaning how do you know it was done carefully? If the kidney was damaged, like so much of the other surrounding tissues and organs, I would argue it was not done carefully, but rapidly and with disregard for whether or not he damaged other tissue.

The cut in the membrane may be clean, but it's a membrane. And yes, I know Dr. Brown says carefully, but as the kidney wasn't available to determine whether it was damaged (so not careful) means that opinion must be considered in that light.



Well, if you think there are no time pressures in murdering and mutilating a body in public while police are patrolling every 12-14 minutes, you have a very different idea of pressure and time constraints than I do.

- Jeff

Browns words would have been due to the cuts required to remove the kidney , renal artery and that none of the kidney remained .
It must have been clear to him .
As for time constraints , they only apply if you have convinced yourself that it was possible to carry out this procedure in situ .
I'm perfectly content that it wasn't

[packers stem]

The amount of blood on the ground was tiny compared to the stream of blood that flowed from Stride (the one we really know was killed in situ)
Before anyone goes on about how strangulation first reduces the bloodflow and that there would be little from the neck after death , you first have to explain the change in MO for Stride as there was plenty of blood there(if the killer was disturbed as many believe that would not alter the way he dispatched the victim ie whether he strangled then cut the throat hence the blood level from Eddowes and Chapman should be the same as stride .... it wasn't , nowhere near) and then explain the blood flow from the neck of the pinchin street torso and the arm found in the Thames .
She was not killed where found in my opinion ,it just wasn't possible

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

You have to take into account Dr. Phillips who states that the person removing the uterus of Chapman showed a high level of medical expertise. The Doctor went on to say that it would have taken him between fifteen and sixty minutes to carry out the removal of the uterus from her body.

So he is saying a minimum of 15 minutes just to remove the uterus.

As has been stated the kidney is covered by a membrane and encased in renal fat

The photo posted show the position of the kidney in the renal fat. First notice the size of the kidney compared to the pointing finger. It is an organ that sits flush in the renal fat, you cannot simply put you hand into an abdomen and take hold of it and cut it out. Anatomical knowledge is needed to be able to know where to locate the organ, and then to be able to remove it from the renal fat.

If the motive in both the chapman and Eddowes murder was organ harvesting why murder someone in almost total darkness to harvest an organ and risk damaging it through speed and being in the dark with no light? and why would he want to take the same organ a second time after all he had the complete set with Chapman not only the uterus but the fallopiain tubes still attached

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you've misread/misremembered Dr. Phillips' statement. His 15 minutes were not for the removal of the uterus, but to perform all the injuries he described. And the 60 minutes was him saying if he "had done it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, ..." (though I think there he's just being a bit dramatic as I'm sure he's not implying that strangulation and throat cutting/attempts at decapitation are things a surgeon would do, rather, talking about performing surgery, opening up the gut cativity, surgically performing a hysterectomy, and so forth). Also, in A-Z they provide a composite of details from The Times and the Lancet with regards to Dr. Phillips testimony, and it's important to remember what the evidence actually is as Dr. Phillips indicated that JtR must have anatomical knowledge and skill in order "...to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife." It was this one sweep of the knife to remove the uterus (which is what he's talking about at that point in his testimony) that allowed him to estimate the length of the knife as at least 6". So yes, the consensus among medical professions (and between you and I) is that JtR in all likelihood had anatomical knowledge. And the medical professions state that sufficient anatomical knowledge would be gained by cutting up animals, it did not show specific medical knowledge. And surgeons don't remove organs with "one sweep of the knife" but a slaughterman might because they aren't trying to treat anything but simply remove things. So from Dr. Phillips testimony we can see that the act of removing the uterus would take about 2 seconds (once he got to that point of course) because it's not an operation - it's just cutting out bits. And in the dark, doing one sweep of the knife with Eddowes, and working very fast, led to .... damaging the bowel, only getting 2/3rds of it, and other errors. And don't forget, he damaged Annie Chapman's bladder in his one sweep technique as well, and he had light by that time.

And slaughterman would be well aquaited with how kidney's are located, and how to get them out quickly because, again, their skill set is not about performing surgery, but how to remove the viscera and organs.

I've got no idea why JtR would want to take bits home with him of any sort, but he did. And he removed them quickly, showed skill with a knife, appears to have knowledge of where to find various organs, and knowledge of how to remove, if not operate upon, viscera.

But, those are my estimations of time.

Are you going to tell me the minimum time you think JtR required to perform the murder and mutilations in Mitre Square? Or are you suggesting it would have taken him an hour?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Yer Trevor i tried that one too about Dr Phillips 15 mins for just the uterus and didn't get anywhere, they always seem to have an answer , no doubt they'll have one again. But not a very good one. Thanks Jeff ill give you a reply shortly.

Well, that's because Dr. Phillips said to perform all the injuries he described would take 15 minutes, not just the removal of the uterus, which he described as being taken out with one sweep of the knife (his words, not mine). So unless you think JtR moved slower than cold molasses going uphill, it didn't take him 15 seconds to remove the uterus, let alone 15 minutes.

But those sorts of details are easy to forget. I know I've made some whoppers by relying on what I remember things to have said rather than going back and re-reading it to verify.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Browns words would have been due to the cuts required to remove the kidney , renal artery and that none of the kidney remained .
It must have been clear to him .
As for time constraints , they only apply if you have convinced yourself that it was possible to carry out this procedure in situ .
I'm perfectly content that it wasn't

Once the membrane is cut open, you pull out the kidney and cut the cord (renal artery). Cutting a cord with a sharp knife will give you no indication of how carefully or not it was done. The only thing he could base anything on would be how clean and straight the membrane was cut, but he can't really be sure it was done "carefully" as the knife may very well have damaged the kidney in the process - but as the kidney was taken we don't know (so I'm not saying it was damaged for sure, as clearly I don't know that it was anymore than we know that it wasn't, but given all the other collateral damage I would be surprised if it was done carefully enough not to damage it. But maybe I would have been surprised? Who knows? But again, if your objective is to just get through to the kidney are remove it, rather than preform a surgical procedure, it's a slice, grab, pull, and cut. It's not a 10 minute job.

- Jeff

[packers stem]

Once the membrane is cut open, you pull out the kidney and cut the cord (renal artery). Cutting a cord with a sharp knife will give you no indication of how carefully or not it was done. The only thing he could base anything on would be how clean and straight the membrane was cut, but he can't really be sure it was done "carefully" as the knife may very well have damaged the kidney in the process - but as the kidney was taken we don't know (so I'm not saying it was damaged for sure, as clearly I don't know that it was anymore than we know that it wasn't, but given all the other collateral damage I would be surprised if it was done carefully enough not to damage it. But maybe I would have been surprised? Who knows? But again, if your objective is to just get through to the kidney are remove it, rather than preform a surgical procedure, it's a slice, grab, pull, and cut. It's not a 10 minute job.

- Jeff

The giveaway would have been the positioning and length of the cut to gain access to the kidney.
There's no escaping the fact that it was 'carefully removed'
Something gave this away to Brown .Don't forget , you and others are trying to claim it was carried out in complete darkness to boot .
Slash and grab ? Just remove a piece of spleen .
Cutting membrane , removing the most difficult of organs to locate from the front = not slash and grab but expertise

[FISHY1118]

No i don,t think ill let Dr brown off that easy . We know what he said was the cause of death, and that Eddows was lying on the ground when her throat was cut, he does not make any mention what-so ever about her being strangled or any ligature marks or bruises , which would have been very evident during the post mortem. you cant hide ligature marks at the back of the neck nor for that matter finger and palm marks cant be covered by a cut throat . He doesn't mention them because they weren't there. Therefor she was not unconscious when her throat was cut.And from there we all know what should have happened SCREAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. by his own words Dr browns hangs himself PACKER STEM IS CORRECT ,EDDOWS WAS NOT KILLED WHERE SHE WAS FOUND . ILL SAY IT AGAIN . WORK OUT WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND GO FROM THERE .

[FISHY1118]

Were debating whether the killer had completed all the injuries to eddows in 5 mins, are you suggesting chapmans injuries were worse than eddows ?..... Dr. Phillips said to perform ALLLLLLL the injuries he described would take 15 minutes,

[JeffHamm]

The giveaway would have been the positioning and length of the cut to gain access to the kidney.
There's no escaping the fact that it was 'carefully removed'
Something gave this away to Brown .Don't forget , you and others are trying to claim it was carried out in complete darkness to boot .

It was dark, but we're not talking in a cave dark, so he's not working as if his eyes are closed.

Slash and grab ? Just remove a piece of spleen .
Cutting membrane , removing the most difficult of organs to locate from the front = not slash and grab but expertise

It's not that hard to find if you've got anatomical knowledge of gutting and cleaning animals, and removing it from the front is exactly how they would do it.

Look, I know this isn't quite the same thing, but if you're not squeamish, here's a video of a hunter field dressing a deer. He removes all the guts, including lungs, in about 30 seconds, and he's not working all that fast. In fact, in some ways, the fact that JtR didn't remove everything in one big pile might even suggest he had little actual experience even dressing animals, but then a deer (for example) lays on its side while a human on their back, and generally animals are hung to be dressed, which makes it quicker too, so there's enough specific differences to perhaps suggest caution on that last bit (the may not have had any real experience). But regardless, I think people are grossly over estimating how much time is required. Also notice, despite the fact he's got his hands way up inside the deer's chest cavity, in the end he's got relatively little blood on him. Certainly a piece of apron would be more than sufficient to wipe his hands enough to make it fairly unnoticeable. Also, note the comparison with the Kelly murder scene.

Here's the link to the deer field dressing video. Again, if you are squeamish, might be best to avoid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kElOUVkSSPI

Notice the cuts begin around anus/genitals, then there's one long cut up to the breast bone (one cut). And after that, removal of the internals can be done fairly quickly (and in fact a lot cleaner than JtR did, but again mind you, JtR is under time pressure and in the dark, and of risk of hanging). The JtR cuts look like someone doing what is done to dress an animal, but not what a surgeon would do. And it doesn't take long at all, even to get the lungs and heart out. JtR did even less, but then, getting a fully clothed body on it's side to remove the visera this way would not be easy, particularly given the difference in shape between how a deer lays on it's side, but a human body on its back. But if JtR dressed animals, he would have the anatomical knowledge of where the kidneys were and the knowledge of how to open up the gut cavity in this way.

I'm starting to understand why some of the medical opinion was for just 2 or 3 minutes and not even 5. But watch a few of these videos, and you'll see just how much can be done in a minute or two by someone with a sharp knife and the knowledge and expertise for what they are doing. There's videos of butchers, for example, fully breaking down a carcus into various roasts and chops in about 6 minutes using only knives (ok, that's not removing the internals, and they do have different knives for different jobs, like a clever to split the carcus in half along the spine - that took less than a minute by the way, and he wasn't working quickly).

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

One glaringly obvious solution to the argument about how long these injuries would take, including the walk to the spot....is if Lawende did not see Kate Eddowes and the killer and prey were in the square at the time Sailor Man and someone were sighted outside the square. That would satisfy those who think the whole operation would be hard pressed with a timing of approx. 8 minutes, and those who would be content with anything slightly less, or more, than that as well.

What it also would allow for is interesting, did the killer work within the passes of the constables? Did he know their beats and times, or had he watched them prior to Kates arrival? Its interesting in connection, with my opinion, to the Post Office robbery taking place that same weekend. Were there lookouts being used by the men breaking into the office that might have been noting beats, were the men that Kate went to meet among that group?

Was the fact that.. as Ive pointed out quite a few times, no less than 7 policemen, active and retired, were the closest people known to be in the specific location of the murder an indication that the Police may have been acting on a tip that the robbery, or a robbery, was to take place that weekend? Its my understanding that the plates used to print money were shipped via mail at times, might a robbery of that nature create the buzz worthy of investigation?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

No i don,t think ill let Dr brown off that easy . We know what he said was the cause of death, and that Eddows was lying on the ground when her throat was cut, he does not make any mention what-so ever about her being strangled or any ligature marks or bruises , which would have been very evident during the post mortem. you cant hide ligature marks at the back of the neck nor for that matter finger and palm marks cant be covered by a cut throat . He doesn't mention them because they weren't there. Therefor she was not unconscious when her throat was cut.And from there we all know what should have happened SCREAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM. by his own words Dr browns hangs himself PACKER STEM IS CORRECT ,EDDOWS WAS NOT KILLED WHERE SHE WAS FOUND . ILL SAY IT AGAIN . WORK OUT WHAT DIDN'T HAPPEN AND GO FROM THERE .

Ok, from Dr. Brown's testimony. Is there any signs of strangulation? Well, we're looking for bruising around the neck that would be consistent with hands (I'm not sold on the ligature idea either). And here's what he reports "On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium ... under the left ear." (ellipses in text, where a question from the corner to be more specific about the location was asked). And, if you've grabbed someone by the throat to strangle them, under the ear is where bruising/abbrasions will occur.

Also from his testimony, "No spurting of blood on the pavement or bricks around" and "No blood on the front of the clothes", so no throat cutting while standing. And no carrying of dead bodies with open gut cavities and split throats - that tends to leak blood everywhere.

And "There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck, round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction." So, she bled out where she lay, and the blood came out there. She died from her throat being cut, and the blood from her throat came out on the pavement right beside where her neck was. So the physical evidence tells us, she was laying down when her throat was cut, and that was what killed her. She was not killed elsewhere and placed there. (oh, and I'm pleased to see I did recall reading that the pool by her right shoulder was serum after all! )

And finally, "After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger.", which sounds like a defensive wound, meaning she fought back trying to get his hands off her throat (i.e. think ramming her hands up against his wrists so hard they bruised).

And Fishy, it's not polite to shout. If you want to emphasize something, just select the text and click the B above for bold.

- Jeff

[Sam Flynn]

"On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium ... under the left ear."

And, if you've grabbed someone by the throat to strangle them, under the ear is where bruising/abrasions will occur.

But not, I'd have thought, on the left cheek. This would be more consistent with the killer's clamping a hand over her nose and/or mouth, or with his holding the head steady with the left hand whilst inflicting cuts with a knife held in the right. I'm not averse to the idea of strangulation, or inducing brief insensibility by restricting carotid flow, but I think these specific abrasions on the cheek might have come about by other means.