The Poor Victims - Injuries

[Geddy2112]

Hi all, hope you all are well.

A couple of points if I may. For kick off I'm not a surgeon.

1) During the Mitre Square murder in very dark conditions the killer managed to remove a kidney without much damage to the other organs through the front. My dads cousin in the 1970s was one of the first people in this country to have a kidney transplant done from the front. I presume the operating theatre had somewhat better lighting conditions than Mitre Square in 1888. So in such a short space of time, how did Jack manage to do this?

2) As far as I'm aware and I'm probably wrong but I can't find any evidence in the reports of Mary Kelly's rib cage being broken. How did Jack remove her heart without breaking open her rib cage? Did he manage to reach in underneath the diaphragm and pull it out then cut the blood vessels?

Sorry for the gore.. just curious.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all, hope you all are well.

A couple of points if I may. For kick off I'm not a surgeon.

1) During the Mitre Square murder in very dark conditions the killer managed to remove a kidney without much damage to the other organs through the front. My dads cousin in the 1970s was one of the first people in this country to have a kidney transplant done from the front. I presume the operating theatre had somewhat better lighting conditions than Mitre Square in 1888. So in such a short space of time, how did Jack manage to do this?

2) As far as I'm aware and I'm probably wrong but I can't find any evidence in the reports of Mary Kelly's rib cage being broken. How did Jack remove her heart without breaking open her rib cage? Did he manage to reach in underneath the diaphragm and pull it out then cut the blood vessels?

Sorry for the gore.. just curious.

As I have previously stated many times I do not believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scene but that were removed at the mortuaries before the post mortems were carried out.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi all, hope you all are well.

A couple of points if I may. For kick off I'm not a surgeon.

1) During the Mitre Square murder in very dark conditions the killer managed to remove a kidney without much damage to the other organs through the front. My dads cousin in the 1970s was one of the first people in this country to have a kidney transplant done from the front. I presume the operating theatre had somewhat better lighting conditions than Mitre Square in 1888. So in such a short space of time, how did Jack manage to do this?

2) As far as I'm aware and I'm probably wrong but I can't find any evidence in the reports of Mary Kelly's rib cage being broken. How did Jack remove her heart without breaking open her rib cage? Did he manage to reach in underneath the diaphragm and pull it out then cut the blood vessels?

Sorry for the gore.. just curious.

Hi Geddy,

You have raised a couple of excellent points. Like yourself, I am not a surgeon, and would go as far as to say I have an aversion to the whole subject of surgery. However, my daughter has a nursing degree and post graduate qualifications in midwifery, and has participated in many abdominal hysterectomies. While she has no knowledge, or interest, in the JtR murders, I asked her to look at the Chapman and Eddowes autopsies. Her opinion was that the Chapman mutilations exhibited the skill level of a butcher, and could have been completed in, roughly, the time constraints specified by Phillips. She then commented that she had seen many highly skilled surgeons nick the bowel during the hysterectomy conducted on a surgical table with the accompanying lighting and assistance, and that to remove the uterus through the abdomen, while kneeling in the dark, without damage to surrounding organs within the time frame prescribed was not realistically possible, by a considerable margin. Her final comment was a question, which was: "Is there any theory that proposes that these two murders were committed by a different suspect?".

So if we are to take these professional medical comments on board, what deductions can we consider?

1. The Chapman and Eddowes murders were by a different hand?

2. Both murders were by the same hand but the organ extractions were by a different hand?

It seems to me that option 2 does not discount Trevor's theory as being unworthy of consideration.

I have looked at the Chapman case and found that there was a break in the chain of custody of the body between 29 Hanbury St and the arrival of the doctor at the mortuary. I have not observed any such break in the chain of custody in the movement of Eddowes body from Mitre Sq to the autopsy bench, but the records are thin.

On your second point, there was evidence that there was a failed attempt to gain access to the heart via the rib cage, but that the heart was actually removed from the peritoneum via the abdomen. The peritoneum is the fibrous sack that contains the heart, and the peritoneum was still in place. So it wasn't a matter of reaching under the diaphragm and pulling out the heart in a slash and grab. The removal of the heart from the peritoneum was a rarely taught surgical technique by Dr Virchow, among whose students was Francis Thompson.

Apologies for the lengthy (rambling?) reply. Please use this information to form what ever opinions you may seem are applicable.

Cheers, George

[Geddy2112]

Thanks Trevor and George, fascinating insight. All taken on board. Much appreciated.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Geddy,

You have raised a couple of excellent points. Like yourself, I am not a surgeon, and would go as far as to say I have an aversion to the whole subject of surgery. However, my daughter has a nursing degree and post graduate qualifications in midwifery, and has participated in many abdominal hysterectomies. While she has no knowledge, or interest, in the JtR murders, I asked her to look at the Chapman and Eddowes autopsies. Her opinion was that the Chapman mutilations exhibited the skill level of a butcher, and could have been completed in, roughly, the time constraints specified by Phillips. She then commented that she had seen many highly skilled surgeons nick the bowel during the hysterectomy conducted on a surgical table with the accompanying lighting and assistance, and that to remove the uterus through the abdomen, while kneeling in the dark, without damage to surrounding organs within the time frame prescribed was not realistically possible, by a considerable margin. Her final comment was a question, which was: "Is there any theory that proposes that these two murders were committed by a different suspect?".

So if we are to take these professional medical comments on board, what deductions can we consider?

1. The Chapman and Eddowes murders were by a different hand?

2. Both murders were by the same hand but the organ extractions were by a different hand?

It seems to me that option 2 does not discount Trevor's theory as being unworthy of consideration.

I have looked at the Chapman case and found that there was a break in the chain of custody of the body between 29 Hanbury St and the arrival of the doctor at the mortuary. I have not observed any such break in the chain of custody in the movement of Eddowes body from Mitre Sq to the autopsy bench, but the records are thin.

On your second point, there was evidence that there was a failed attempt to gain access to the heart via the rib cage, but that the heart was actually removed from the peritoneum via the abdomen. The peritoneum is the fibrous sack that contains the heart, and the peritoneum was still in place. So it wasn't a matter of reaching under the diaphragm and pulling out the heart in a slash and grab. The removal of the heart from the peritoneum was a rarely taught surgical technique by Dr Virchow, among whose students was Francis Thompson.

Apologies for the lengthy (rambling?) reply. Please use this information to form what ever opinions you may seem are applicable.

Cheers, George

You never ramble George; your posts are always excellent, measured, thoughtful and interesting to read.

RD

[The Rookie Detective]

I would suggest the technique used for the extraction of MJK's heart was an extremely skilled process...that would need to have been practiced before.


Cue the Torso killer?


RD

[John Wheat]

I would suggest the technique used for the extraction of MJK's heart was an extremely skilled process...that would need to have been practiced before.


Cue the Torso killer?


RD

But MJK wasn't dismembered?

[GBinOz]

I would suggest the technique used for the extraction of MJK's heart was an extremely skilled process...that would need to have been practiced before.

RD

Hi RD,

I agree with your conclusion, but I am troubled with reconciling such skill with the savagery of the accompanying injuries.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

But MJK wasn't dismembered?

Ah no, please allow me to clarify...

I was referring to the idea that because the killer took MJK's heart through a means by which only a person with knowledge of where and how to cut and remove; I am suggesting the possibility that the reason why he knew how wasn't because he was necessarily a skilled surgical physician but rather; he had cut into women many, MANY times before; ergo, the Torso killer would have had some knowledge of how to cut, remove and dismember.
I believe it is the only way to explain how such an advanced technique was implemented with Kelly.

I'm other words I don't believe he was a therotically assured surgeon with anatomical knowledge gathered through learning surgical techniques, but rather that he knew how to take MJK's heart in such a specialised and advanced manner (relatively) because he had cut lots of women up before.

Let's also consider 2 keys points...


Similar to Chapman and Stride; Eddowes was virtually decapitated. That perhaps shows intent to take the head and initiate a form of dismemberment.


Most; if not all the surgeons that were involved with the case as a whole did not have the practical skills to perform the technique used by the Ripper to take out Mary's heart.

Consider that for a moment.


It's not just what he did; it's how he did it that seems to me the more relevant point.


We know that Francis Thompson had at least bore witness to that technique and had awareness of said technique; that at the time was pioneering and somewhat maverick in its approach.

So the question is... Why did the Ripper not just stick to the conventional tried and tested approach and open up her rib cage?
Perhaps he never had the correct implement and had to improvise?
I don't buy that personally.
I think he went there with the weapon he wanted and needed and had planned to take her heart in just the way he did.

What does that tell us about the killer?


Or rather; what does it tell us about HOW the killer wanted to be perceived by those following the case?


RD

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

I agree with your conclusion, but I am troubled with reconciling such skill with the savagery of the accompanying injuries.

Cheers, George

I agree George and you make an excellent point.


For me the slaying of MJK feels conflicted.


Its like the Ripper methodically and precisely removed her heart through a careful and relatively skilled use of the blade, but then he hacks and slices her face through what looks like sheer rage.

I am not sure what that says about the man; but it does feel like he had a personal affliction with her.

I have always held true to a particular hypothesis regarding the killer's personality...

I think he MAY have had a form of Dissociative Identity Dissorder or 'DID' (multi personality disorder)

That may explain why it appears that one minute the Ripper is a skilled anatomist and the next he is nothing more than a frantic slash and hack lunatic.

It may also explain why there is still a dispute regarding what hand the killer used... perhaps he used either hand depending on which "personality" was dominant at the time.

Although surrounded in controversy; it is a scientific fact that particular personality disorders do exist and are not simply a modern construct to explain away anti social behaviour.

Over the decades the discussion of what hand he used, how much anatomical knowledge he had, how skilled he was with the knife etc...

...but what if he was all of the above and yet none of the above all at the same time?

In practical terms it may have been possible for the killer to have exhibited different personalities and in theory it would be possible for the man who killed MJK to have appeared as calm, charming, friendly etc...

...but its more than that...

An individual with a clinical diagnosis of 'DID' could exhibit scores of different personalities; each with their own individual characteristics....from having a different walk; perhaps with an awkward gait, to speaking in different accents and dialects.

Imagine if you will; the man who was the Ripper as a shell in which multiple "individual personalities" live and co-exist.

(it's different from Schizophrenia; where an individual is the same individual person, but suffers from delusions, paranoia and a sense of false reality)


It's a controversial topic, because quite frankly, it's an area of mental ill health that is hardly known about.

It's only an hypothesis, but it COULD explain a lot as to why so many aspects of the murders seem to counter each other.



RD

[Kattrup]

Her opinion was that the Chapman mutilations exhibited the skill level of a butcher, and could have been completed in, roughly, the time constraints specified by Phillips. She then commented that she had seen many highly skilled surgeons nick the bowel during the hysterectomy conducted on a surgical table with the accompanying lighting and assistance, and that to remove the uterus through the abdomen, while kneeling in the dark, without damage to surrounding organs within the time frame prescribed was not realistically possible, by a considerable margin. Her final comment was a question, which was: "Is there any theory that proposes that these two murders were committed by a different suspect?".

So if we are to take these professional medical comments on board, what deductions can we consider?

1. The Chapman and Eddowes murders were by a different hand?

2. Both murders were by the same hand but the organ extractions were by a different hand?

Hello George

no disrespect to your daughter, but there was damage to other organs, i.e. the bladder was partly cut through? The method of removing the uterus was entirely different from a modern hysterectomy, large parts of the abdomen was cut away to provide access. Philips remarked that the killer removed the intestines in order to better access the pelvic area. It was getting light when Chapman was killed, not so dark (I'm aware that there's considerable discussion about the time of death).

I therefore do not think the answers to your questions can be anything else but:

1. No, they were definitely by the same hand
2. No, the murderer extracted the organs.

[c.d.]

Its like the Ripper methodically and precisely removed her heart through a careful and relatively skilled use of the blade, but then he hacks and slices her face through what looks like sheer rage.

I am not sure what that says about the man; but it does feel like he had a personal affliction with her.

I don't see anything personal in what was done to her but even if it was "personal" it needn't have stemmed from him knowing her or having some sort of relationship with her. It could have resulted from something she might have said or done and he took it "personal."

c.d.

[John Wheat]

Ah no, please allow me to clarify...

I was referring to the idea that because the killer took MJK's heart through a means by which only a person with knowledge of where and how to cut and remove; I am suggesting the possibility that the reason why he knew how wasn't because he was necessarily a skilled surgical physician but rather; he had cut into women many, MANY times before; ergo, the Torso killer would have had some knowledge of how to cut, remove and dismember.
I believe it is the only way to explain how such an advanced technique was implemented with Kelly.

I'm other words I don't believe he was a therotically assured surgeon with anatomical knowledge gathered through learning surgical techniques, but rather that he knew how to take MJK's heart in such a specialised and advanced manner (relatively) because he had cut lots of women up before.

Let's also consider 2 keys points...


Similar to Chapman and Stride; Eddowes was virtually decapitated. That perhaps shows intent to take the head and initiate a form of dismemberment.


Most; if not all the surgeons that were involved with the case as a whole did not have the practical skills to perform the technique used by the Ripper to take out Mary's heart.

Consider that for a moment.


It's not just what he did; it's how he did it that seems to me the more relevant point.


We know that Francis Thompson had at least bore witness to that technique and had awareness of said technique; that at the time was pioneering and somewhat maverick in its approach.

So the question is... Why did the Ripper not just stick to the conventional tried and tested approach and open up her rib cage?
Perhaps he never had the correct implement and had to improvise?
I don't buy that personally.
I think he went there with the weapon he wanted and needed and had planned to take her heart in just the way he did.

What does that tell us about the killer?


Or rather; what does it tell us about HOW the killer wanted to be perceived by those following the case?


RD

I disagree that MJK was a victim of the Torso Killer though.

[GBinOz]

Hello George

no disrespect to your daughter, but there was damage to other organs, i.e. the bladder was partly cut through? The method of removing the uterus was entirely different from a modern hysterectomy, large parts of the abdomen was cut away to provide access.

Hi Kattrup,

There was damage to Chapman's bladder, but Eddowes bladder was intact. Vaginal hysterectomies are the modern norm, but I am advised that abdominal hysterectomies are still performed when circumstances require that method.

There is a very good summary of the Eddowes injuries in Trevor's video, starting around the 19 minute mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=1015s&ab_channel=dickcopy

Cheers, George

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

There was damage to Chapman's bladder, but Eddowes bladder was intact. Vaginal hysterectomies are the modern norm, but I am advised that abdominal hysterectomies are still performed when circumstances require that method.

There is a very good summary of the Eddowes injuries in Trevor's video, starting around the 19 minute mark:

Ah, sorry, you mentioned Chapman in the quote, so I assumed you were talking about her.

As I see it, Eddowes also suffered damage to other organs, so again I think the idea that killer removed the uterus without damage to other organs is mistaken. For instance, Eddowes liver and pancreas were damaged, and the uterus was not completely removed.

Whichever way one does a modern hysterectomy, I am quite certain it does not involve cutting out large areas of abdominal skin, opening the abdomen all the way to the sternum and removing the intestines before attempting to cut out the uterus.
My point being, that a comparison about what is possible with a modern operation on a live patient seems of limited use?

I am afraid I find Trevor Marriott’s video completely useless and misleading.
He keeps informing his experts that Eddowes was mutilated in total darkness, when we know for a fact that there was light enough for the killer to do it.