Disemboweled?

[emlodik]

Can someone clear this up for a newbie like me? If the autopsy report stated that Mary Ann Nichols had various gashes and stab wounds on her abdominal area, why is it that that so many documentaries and books state that that she had been "disemboweled" and the Michael Caine mini-series even goes as far as to claim that she had her uterus and kidneys removed. Am I missing something here? How do abdominal wounds qualify as flat out disembowelement? Also, were Nichols' genitalia also violated by the Ripper, or was it just her abdomen and throat? Oh, and is it true that her throat was actually cut down to her vertebrae? I can't even imagine how much force it could take to make such a horrific incision...

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Emlodic,

Nichols did have stabs in the lower abdominal area but she was also opened up with a rip, although not as severe as on Chapman and Eddowes. None of her organs were taken but the rip was severe enough for the intestines to protrude so it was definitely an attempt to open her up.
Her throat was also cut very deep down to the vertebra but not fully as deep as in Chapman's case, where the head was nearly totally severed from the body.
Nichols mutilations showed pretty much the same characteristics as in the later murders, but not to the same severe extent. The killer could have been interrupted or he just hadn't practiced enough. Or both.

All the best

[emlodik]

Wait... Annie Chapman's head was completely severed from her body?! That's the first time I hear of that... I thought that the damage to her throat was identical to Mary Ann's... At least she looks intact on her mortuary photograph. And yes, Mary Ann Nichols' murder looks like an obvious training ground for the savagery that Annie Chapman endured a week later.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hold on Emlodik,

I said NEARLY severed. It was Doctor Philips' own words - he came to the conclusion that there had been an apparent attempt to severe the head from the body so obviously the throat cut was extremely deep, with only the spine holding the head in its place. It was almost as powerful as in Nichols' case (which was deep enough), although a bit deeper.

All the best

[emlodik]

But was there also damage to her genitals or just the throat and the abdomen?

[Dan Norder]

Nichols was cut severely in the abdominal region, but no police man or doctor checked her lower body at the crime scene. When Cross and Paul found her it was quite dark and her dress was up, but they did not see the wounds there and moved her dress back down before they left to find a policeman. The intestine wasn't seen to be intruding until after they had carted the body off to the makeshift morgue. With a wound that size there's no reason to believe that the killer pulled her intestines out himself. It's very likely they protruded for the simple reason that she had a huge hole in her body where they could spill out.

The idea that Nichols was disemboweled by her killer is just another one of those assumptions about the case that most people took at face value for so long that they don't think about it realistically. Similarly, the idea that her killer was after her organs and interrupted or otherwise incapable of completing his task is also unproven and unknowable.

[Mitch Rowe]

But was there also damage to her genitals or just the throat and the abdomen?

There isnt any specific mention that I know of off hand but in the inquest its mentioned that there were several wounds to abdomen wich were begun by a deep stab.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well, no one has said that the killer tried to pull out the intestines - the intestines were found to be protruding when the body was further examined, menaing they could perfectly well have done so during the transport to the morgue or at any other time.
The point is, that the rip was big enough for the intestines to protrude, in addition to the other wounds.

That the killer may have been interrupted is of course speculation bit not an unreasonable one, if one consider the possibility that he may have intended to create a bigger cut. But we will never know. Since this may have been his first attempt to open up a victims' body, he could just as well have lacked the experience.

All the best

[Bailey]

Hey Emlodik

I just watched the Caine miniseries again, having not seen it for a few years, during which time I have learned a great deal more about the case, and as much as it's still a very entertaining watch, I think I noted an average hit rate of one factual error per minute (estimated, and with tongue in cheek) , the misrepresentation of the removal of bits of Annie Chapman being one of the more serious, along with the handy plot device of assorted ear mutilations to tie in with the letters. That said, I do still love the miniseries - it's a great piece of entertaining melodrama, and it's what sparked my interest in the case. As a source of factual information, however, despite its creator's claims, it's not so good.

And by the way, as per your comment in another thread, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Suzi, I thought the term "glamour skank" - while certainly not flattering - was an ideal description for how Ms Graham portrayed MJK.

Cheers,
Bailey

[emlodik]

Well, no one has said that the killer tried to pull out the intestines - the intestines were found to be protruding when the body was further examined, menaing they could perfectly well have done so during the transport to the morgue or at any other time.
The point is, that the rip was big enough for the intestines to protrude, in addition to the other wounds.

That the killer may have been interrupted is of course speculation bit not an unreasonable one, if one consider the possibility that he may have intended to create a bigger cut. But we will never know. Since this may have been his first attempt to open up a victims' body, he could just as well have lacked the experience.

All the best

Actually, the tour guide that I take the Ripper Walk with back in May claimed that the Ripper DID attempt to pull out her intestines, but I found a lot of her "info" suspicious...

[emlodik]

Hey Emlodik

I just watched the Caine miniseries again, having not seen it for a few years, during which time I have learned a great deal more about the case, and as much as it's still a very entertaining watch, I think I noted an average hit rate of one factual error per minute (estimated, and with tongue in cheek) , the misrepresentation of the removal of bits of Annie Chapman being one of the more serious, along with the handy plot device of assorted ear mutilations to tie in with the letters. That said, I do still love the miniseries - it's a great piece of entertaining melodrama, and it's what sparked my interest in the case. As a source of factual information, however, despite its creator's claims, it's not so good.

And by the way, as per your comment in another thread, at the risk of incurring the wrath of Suzi, I thought the term "glamour skank" - while certainly not flattering - was an ideal description for how Ms Graham portrayed MJK.

Cheers,
Bailey

Same with me! Even though I saw the mini-series at a very young age and always thought it was the most historically accurate movie out there, but I recently bought the DVD after not seeing the film for more than fourteen or fifteen years and was shocked at just how FICTIONALIZED the whole story was, especially the wild claims that Mary Ann Nichols had organs missing and that Liz Stride was mutilated after her throat was slit... But, what was so inaccurate about Annie Chapman's murder scene, other than showing the police taking a photo of the body, which never happened. Did I miss something? By the way, did you listen the commentary track on the DVD? It's a hoot! To this day, the filmmakers claim that their solution is the correct one and they're yet to see proof that shows otherwise... All of this based only on the fact that Dr. Gull's death certificate was signed by his son-in-law...

[Bailey]

D'oh, my bad, I meant the removal of bits of Nicholls, not Chapman. Apologies!

I did chuckle at the scene of the photo being taken, thought that was followed by a certain wistful regret that it wasn't the case.

As for the commentary, I haven't listened to it since first buying the DVD a few years back, but I do recall it being entertaining just how adamant he was about his accuracy.

Cheers,
B.

[FrankO]

Hi Evgueni,

But was there also damage to her genitals or just the throat and the abdomen?

In a detailed summary report, dated 19 October 1888, Chief Inspector Swanson wrote: "Dr. Llewellyn of 152 Whitechapel Road was sent for, he pronounced life extinct and he describes the wounds as, - throat cut nearly severing head from body, abdomen cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of stomach, there the wound was jagged: the coating of the stomach was cut in several places and two small stabs on private parts,..."

All the best,
Frank

[DVV]

Hello all,
A report from J. Spratling, 31 aug 1888, refers to "two small stabs on private parts".
Amitiés,
David

[emlodik]

Thanks for the great answers, guys. For some reason, there are so many varied accounts regarding the Nichols murder... I guess it probably all started with Dr. Llewlyn's diagnosis that there were no wounds on the body besides the but throat.