The Poor Victims - Injuries

[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

[Geddy2112]

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

[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

[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

[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.