To Womb It May Concern

[Sam Flynn]

Let's look at the doctor's partial words: "...whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri..."

Strictly speaking, Mike, wasn't that the word of the Lancet? They're often attributed directly to Phillips himself, but as far as I'm aware we don't know that.

A side issue, but one of some minor importance perhaps - not least because, in those papers who chose to print more details of Phillips' inquest deposition than others, it's apparent that the large intestine (if not explicitly the rectum) was, in fact, cut.

In my mind I see myself as a child removing photos from magazines in order to make a collage for a school project. I want to get the information quickly, but I don't want to damage a distinct component. I therefore make a clipping in a swath around the exact image I want because I am in a hurry and so I don't damage that particular image. I use my scissors quickly and effectively so the cutting isn't jagged and doesn't tear anything. In essence, it is a clean cut. I am not a scissors expert. I am not cutting clothing in a precise pattern that i will sew together. Yet, I am still tidy and efficient.

Good analogy. That's how I see it too.

PS: Stanley lived about 400 metres away from my house - albeit across the valley! - and that other great Victorian adventurer, Alfred Russel Wallace, lived literally down the road from me, a mere 5 minute walk away... both of them long before my time, of course

[Sam Flynn]

That works with Mary Janes murderer...he obviously had no anatomical training or knowledge, and certainly no surgical skills. Slashing his way around is most apt for that murder.

It takes no less "slashing around" to cut the pericardium and remove the heart than it does to cut the peritoneum to remove a kidney. In fact, it's a darn sight trickier - and much more fiddly than removing a womb. Don't forget that we have no info from Bond as to how cleanly he excised Kelly's uterus either. It might have been a perfect, stumpless cut for all we know.

[Scott Nelson]

...more and more readers warming to the theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes or Chapman at the crime scene !!!!!!!!!

I think he did. But still unexplained is the lack of blood-stained handprints and fingerprints at any of the crime scenes.

[perrymason]

It takes no less "slashing around" to cut the pericardium and remove the heart than it does to cut the peritoneum to remove a kidney. In fact, it's a darn sight trickier - and much more fiddly than removing a womb. Don't forget that we have no info from Bond as to how cleanly he excised Kelly's uterus either. It might have been a perfect, stumpless cut for all we know.

Hi Gareth,

On that last point you may be right, in which case a completely intact and cleanly excised uterus might have been left behind. Needless to say, thats highly improbable for a killer who may have killed for that very organ his second.... and perhaps also attempted it with his first, victims.

Im sure that removing a kidney under the conditions that existed in Mitre Square required some skills, but finding a heart to take when youve removed everything else in the area doesnt seem exceptionally savvy to me.

In Mitre Square even a partial uterus was worthy of theft...in Bucks Row and in Hanbury Street it may have been the reason for the killings,.. but not in Dutfields Yard, nor in Millers Court.

Cheers Sam

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,
I understand your theory naturally, however the murder in millers court , had many organs removed at the scene by the killer I presume...
If of course your assumptions are correct , that would add more fuel to many, that Kelly was a copycat murder , and committed by someone who was acting out what he had read in the newspapers, but if the previous murders had not been reported correctly, surely then suspects such as Fleming, Barnett, and ex lovers, or aquaintances of kelly cannot be dismissed.
In other words the only JTR murder that showed real sickening mutilation was Kelly, the others were just a rip or two.
Intresting...but...??
Regards Richard.

I like many others have grave doubts about Kelly being killed by the same killer as Eddowes and Chapman, Likewise Strides murders i would suggest was the work of a totally different killer to the aformentioned three

[Trevor Marriott]

It takes no less "slashing around" to cut the pericardium and remove the heart than it does to cut the peritoneum to remove a kidney. In fact, it's a darn sight trickier - and much more fiddly than removing a womb. Don't forget that we have no info from Bond as to how cleanly he excised Kelly's uterus either. It might have been a perfect, stumpless cut for all we know.

Sam you have this fixation for slashing I would be the first to agree that the killer did slash the victims but in the course of the mutilations and as part of the frenzied attack. There is no way on this earth that a killer could remove those organs by means of slashing. Even a modern day surgeon would not be able to remove for example a kidney by your slashingmethod.

A modern day consultant gynecologist has stated that in the case of Eddowes the uterus and its attachments were removed almost intact and would appear to have been taken in a way consistent with being remobed for medical research. Time for a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[perrymason]

I like many others have grave doubts about Kelly being killed by the same killer as Eddowes and Chapman, Likewise Strides murders i would suggest was the work of a totally different killer to the aformentioned three

Its always good to see someone else put the logical ideas forward, although Im referring only to the above encapsulation, and not all of what you personally feel is the most probable time organs were taken Trevor.

I believe that the evidence suggests that victims 1 and 2 were killed so that the killer could obtain what was only successfully taken in his second attempt....that victim # 3 was only murdered almost immediately following a witnessed altercation with a man in the street, victim #4 was killed in almost the identical manner but clearly with a different objective or focus than the killer of victims 1 and 2 had, and that the killer in room 13 attempted to utilize the fear and reputation generated by the alleged Ripper to disguise a murderer from within Marys personal circle.

I think thats what the existing evidence suggests....and story that ties all 5 to one man is just that....a story.

Cheers Trevor

[Sam Flynn]

On that last point you may be right, in which case a completely intact and cleanly excised uterus might have been left behind. Needless to say, thats highly improbable for a killer who may have killed for that very organ his second.... and perhaps also attempted it with his first, victims.

Whatever the aim, Mike - which is something we'll never know - and despite my speculating about the cleanness (or otherwise) of Kelly's hysterectomy, the salient facts are these:

1. Despite what the Lancet might have said, the Ripper made a truly awful mess of Annie Chapman's body;

2. If it takes a certain amount of determination (I won't use "skill") to remove a womb, it certainly takes more to remove a kidney and a womb, and yet more again to remove a womb, two kidneys, a liver, a spleen, the entire intestinal system, a stomach, two breasts, a heart... and a womb.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam you have this fixation for slashing

It comes to us all with age, Trevor

Time for a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Always glad for one of those, Trevor - but in this case I was just replying to, and quoting, someone else.

[perrymason]

Sam, it isnt what the Lancet said thats the crux...its how the data was interpreted and summarized by the physicians attending the victims.

And Bond said the man in room 13 had no skill or knowledge. Since he only saw her first hand, thats all he can really speak to with any authority....despite his wave of the hand dismissals of his peers conjectures about the women that they were in charge of.

All the best SF

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, it isnt what the Lancet said thats the crux...its how the data was interpreted and summarized by the physicians attending the victims.

...which detail we don't have, apart from the Eddowes and Kelly case, because the records are missing. From such details as do survive, however, I find it touching (actually, laughable) that anyone still has faith in Bagster Phillips' - alleged - view of the "neatness" of the Ripper's work on Annie Chapman. She was foully mutilated, have no doubt about it - her side was scooped open in three slabs of flesh, and her womb was certainly crudely removed, taking out a chunk of the bladder and cutting the colon in the process. Messy, messy stuff.

[Hellrider]

then again, he had absolutely no time to waste in Chapman's case and had to get right down to "business" (sorry if that seems tasteless).

[Jon Guy]

Absolutely, Hellrider.

It is easily missed but Dr Phillips uses the phrase "in consequence of haste" a couple of times whilst giving his evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

then again, he had absolutely no time to waste in Chapman's case.

The same was true of the Eddowes murder - and the result was the same: intestines shoeved out of the way, followed by crude disembowelment and evisceration, but at least in Eddowes' case he succeeded in leaving the bladder intact!

The idea that there was more "skill" exhibited in the Chapman murder compared to the rest is simply not borne out by the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you saying he got lucky with Eddowes and with your cut and slash theory managed to avoid any damage to the bladder. Hmmmmmmmmm and in almost total darkness.

You cannot cut and slash in any way shape or form and remove a kidney by that method. Also impossible using a six inch bladed knife. (proven)

Sam I am sorry to say it just didnt happen. Accept it move on !!!!!!