Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[c.d.]

Does anybody know if the kidney was taken out in and of itself or is it possible that the killer removed a hunk of tissue which contained the kidney and was later able to remove the kidney itself? Or is that simply not possible?

c.d.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Does anybody know if the kidney was taken out in and of itself or is it possible that the killer removed a hunk of tissue which contained the kidney and was later able to remove the kidney itself? Or is that simply not possible?

c.d.

Interesting, but in contradiction with the post mortem: "The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it."

[c.d.]

Ok. That settles that. Thank you, Sir John.

c.d.

[AlanG]

I think the wording "carefully removed" is really interesting. That does perhaps suggest 'sadistic' over frenzied?

[SirJohnFalstaff]

I think the wording "carefully removed" is really interesting. That does perhaps suggest 'sadistic' over frenzied?

If you read the rest of the post mortem, it says that some random cutting/picquering was done in the abdomen. Then the carefully removed kidney.

Probable the adverb is there for the contrast effect.

[The Good Michael]

It looks to me that Kelly would have been a step up from Eddowes. If the kidney was so difficult to remove, and we might lay the butchery aside for a minute, how difficult would it have been to open the pericardeum and remove the heart? He removed the breasts, cut open the breastbone, and removed the heart. This sounds like an elevation of a process, to me, again, dicounting the other butchery that went on.

Mike

[lynn cates]

tyro

Hello Rocky. Try this.

http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Sheep/Sheep.htm

One big difference: Annie's killer did it--as in the pictures--flawlessly (no rupture). Kate's killer fouled up and cut in the wrong place, thus making a mess.

Pro vs tyro?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

1/2

Hello Sir John.

"Probable the adverb is there for the contrast effect."

Yes, BIG contrast. Kate was, overall, an amateurish hack and mangle job. But the kidney looks professional.

Anyone care to give Trevor half his hypothesis?

Cheers.
LC

[RockySullivan]

Hello Rocky. Try this.

http://www.leafpile.com/TravelLog/Romania/Farming/Slaughter/Sheep/Sheep.htm

One big difference: Annie's killer did it--as in the pictures--flawlessly (no rupture). Kate's killer fouled up and cut in the wrong place, thus making a mess.

Pro vs tyro?

Cheers.
LC

Thanks LC! Smart! Makes sense also how the killer would know how to slaughter without getting blood on him. I never seen anything like that before jebus!

[lynn cates]

attention to detail

Hello Rocky. Thanks.

Small thing but VERY important.

And, in my humble opinion, this is HOW one solves a crime--attention to detail.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

It also shows that a good butcher can do wonders, and would know that after the throat cut and the heart stops, it is relatively safe, blood-wise, to start on the meat.

Mike

[markmorey5]

I have spent a bit of time on farms and the process used is exsanguination, and exsanguination is something that doctors are familiar with. In terms of these murders the vocal cords were severed which made it impossible for the victim to utter a noise, and mutilation could then commence even though the victim may not yet be dead, or in other words the victim would be bleeding to death and blood pressure would be low.

The slaughtering of the sheep on the ground is not comparable to cutting the throat of the murder victims. With the sheep in the pictures the cut is under the throat so the initial aterial blood spurt is against the ground. With the Whitechapel murders the cutting of the throat was unexpected when the victim was standing (or else noise would most likely have been made while the murderer was trying to drag the victim to the ground). One possibility is to press the head down hard with the free hand while cutting the throat, thereby minimising or eliminating the initial blood spurt. So a sudden slash of the throat similtaneous with pressure on the head, and you have no noise, little or no spurt and bleeding to death in less than a minute. Mary Kelly excepted because there was blood spurt with her murder.

On farms if you're slaughtering for home consumption then you shoot the animal first. That prevents suffering. In abbotoirs they use a stun gun.

[lynn cates]

factor

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Quite true. Of course, in Polly and Annie's cases, the partial strangulation also was a factor.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

point

Hello Mark. Thanks.

"The slaughtering of the sheep on the ground is not comparable to cutting the throat of the murder victims."

Not supposed to be. The link was posted ONLY to illustrate intestinal removal and why/how it was done.

Cheers.
LC

[SirJohnFalstaff]

With the Whitechapel murders the cutting of the throat was unexpected when the victim was standing (or else noise would most likely have been made while the murderer was trying to drag the victim to the ground).

I think there was some consensus* to the fact that the victim were strangled until unconscious and then, on the ground, the cutting of the throat happened.

*if any such thing as a consensus is possible.