organs

[thehood]

Hello everybody,

I have some question about the removed organs and mutilations:
did the stomach still attached to the intestins? it's not so clear for me on the coroner's report.
JTR made hole/holes through the ribs or between the ribs. Are there some cuts? To see the lung? To take the heart? It's not clear as I'm not a doctor, and I'm French...
how JTR removed the heart?
Did he try to 'check' the lungs by destroying the right one? Or it was just accidental or violent purposeless action?

Mmmh I hope nobody is eating while reading this post!
Bye
Thehood

[Jon Guy]

Hello The Hood ,

Yes, the stomach was still attached to the intestines.

The interesting thing regarding the removal of the heart was that the killer had opened the pericardium ( the membrane sac that encloses the heart ) and taken out the heart. Possibly another indication of some basic anatomical knowledge ?

I believe the lung was collatoral damage, however I`m sure all aspects of the "operation" was of great fascination and interest to our boy.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi, The Hood.

Dr Bond refers to the "remains of the stomach still attached to the intestines", which almost certainly means that the stomach had been partly cut and that only a portion of it was still attached to the intestines (the other part presumably being attached to the oesophagus). The fact that bits of a partly-digested meal was found in the abdominal cavity indicates that the stomach had been cut or split open, and that its contents had spilled out onto what was left of Mary's abdomen.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

The pericardium might simply have been cut in order to allow the killer to get at the heart and pull it out. The fact that he found a way around this obstacle doesn't necessarily imply he had foreknowledge that the obstacle would be there.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Sam

It may not necessarily imply foreknowledge,but it still could imply foreknowledge.Considering the mess made of Kelly there seems to be a certain amount of care taken with the removal of the heart. Why not just grab the whole thing and cut it out, but the extraction of the heart from the sac is done within the body.
It is very similar to Eddowes where the kidney is extracted with care despite all the slashing to open her up,and again, the previous removal of the uteri shows some very basic knowledge.

I may well be wrong but if we take into account the care shown when encountering and extracting the heart, the kidney and the uteri it does point to basic anatomical knowledge.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Jon!

I think, that this thing would imply to a random knowledge of anatomy!

I remember reading, that the books of anatomy were pretty easily available in the LVP times.

All the best
Jukka

[thehood]

heart

Hello guys,
Thanks for the answers everyone.
About the heart. How could he take it? I mean he cut the little sac but through the intercostal holes or those holes were there only to look inside? Then he took the heart itself through the abdomen hole? What you think?

I think this last murder is the more interesting as JTR had al his time to do what he wanted.
Cheers,
Thehood

[diana]

He opened the abdomen and then tunnelled upward (superiorly) into the thorax (chest), removing and tossing aside the liver when it got in his way. He must have cut the diaphragm to get past it and then, having arrived at the mediastinum (cavity in the center of the chest containing pericardium, heart, and parts of esophagus) he opened the pericardium and removed the heart. This would have involved cutting or tearing the aorta, the superior and inferior vena cava and the pulmonary veins and arteries.

I believe the intercostal spaces would have been too narrow for him to get his hand into or to drag the heart out through. Since we are not told that the ribs were broken or that the sternum was split he had to tunnel up from the abdomen, reaching into the rib cage inferiorly (from the bottom).

[Sam Flynn]

Good observations, Diana. Also, note that "The lower part of the [right] lung was broken and torn away... the left lung was intact" (Dr Bond). The "intactness" of the left lung - and the fact that only the lower part of the right was damaged - suggests that the intercostal cuts did not penetrate so far as to damage the lung tissue on either side of the thorax. This in turn suggests that the killer didn't attempt to clear the lung tissue out of the way so as to get a look at the heart.

[thehood]

It makes sense!
I just wonder why he made those incisions in the intercostal zone... Do you think it may use those holes to see inside the chest while he was cutting the pericardium? I'm not a doctor but I can imagine that costal bones are quite hard to cut or broke and that's why it would be more convenient to do so...
What you think?

Thehood

[Sam Flynn]

It makes sense!
I just wonder why he made those incisions in the intercostal zone... Do you think it may use those holes to see inside the chest while he was cutting the pericardium?

The lungs would've got in the way, Hood. The layers go something like this, with approximate relative thickness suggested by the separation of the "bars":

|| --- Skin --- || ---- Muscle ---- || - PL1 - || - PL2- || --------------- Lung -------------- || - PC - || --------- Heart --------- ||

Where "PL1" and "PL2" = Pleural membranes lining the chest and lungs, and "PC" = Pericardium

Given that the lungs were intact (apart from the lower portion of the right one), it doesn't appear that the incisions penetrated much further than the pleura, therefore the killer would have needed X-Ray eyes to have been able to see through the remaining tissue to get a view of the heart. Perhaps that was his intention, but he hadn't bargained on so many obstacles being in the way, and was forced to adopt a different tack by approaching the heart from below via the diaphragm. If so, this is further suggestive evidence - if any more were needed - that the killer's knowledge of anatomy was rudimentary in the extreme.

[Jon Guy]

this is further suggestive evidence - if any more were needed - that the killer's knowledge of anatomy was rudimentary in the extreme.

Hi Sam

Unless, as in the previous cases he went straight into the abdomen and worked from there as his fancy took him, like with the Eddowes kidney. If rudimentary has the same meaning as basic, that is what Doctors Phillips and Brown agreed.

[thehood]

Thanks Sam Flynn! Your explanation is perfectly clear to me.
I should work on anatomy's skill then!

Cheers,
Thehood

[Bailey]

Just because it seems relevant - for those who want a more detailed understanding of the interior of the human body and who have a strong stomach, I'd suggest a look at Gunther Von Hagen's DVDs - Anatomy For Beginners being the good entry point. These are actual dissections of human bodies, so not for the faint hearted, but fascinating, and there were more than a few times watching them when something Ripper-related clicked into place and made more sense than it previously had.

B.

[perrymason]

.... Since we are not told that the ribs were broken or that the sternum was split he had to tunnel up from the abdomen, reaching into the rib cage inferiorly (from the bottom).

Hi Diana,

When I read the above it occurred to me to ask you if you would categorize the removal of a kidney through the front of a body in similar fashion....as being an inferior choice? Its just that I saw some symmetry there for a moment where I didnt expect to find any.

Id be interested in your thoughts.

My best regards.