Elizabeth Jackson-Abortion related or not?

[Debra A]

I wish I could find it because when I found it I thought it was important enough and that action of someone may have given us a clue as to the death. I will continue to look.

"A vaginal incision is a surgical cut through the vulva and vaginal region, generally for performing a hysterectomy, episiotomy or a corrective operation to restore prolapse of the uterus, bladder or vaginal canal. During surgeries involving a vaginal incision, tissue between the anus and vagina are spliced open while the patient is under anesthesia. At that point, the doctor is able to access the inner pelvic region for the purpose of adjusting or removing a baby, fibroids, a diseased uterus or a bladder"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

WiseGEEK to the rescue, eh?

FYI - episiotomy is an incision into the muscle between vagina and anus, carried out during difficult childbirth and is not a 'vaginal wall' incision. The vaginal wall forms a passage leading from the vulva to the cervix and uterus.

The Rainham torso had the uterus of someone who had never borne children Dr Hebbert tells us, and Dr Biggs tells confirms that there are observable differences between the uterus of a woman who has had children and one who hasn't, in terms of size and shape, confirming that Dr Hebbert was well within his capability in saying she had never borne children just by measurement of the uterus.
The fact that she had never borne children makes it also unlikely (but not totally impossible) that she had a prolapse of the uterus that needed correction, taking into account the predicted age range she fell into.
It is also a fact that none of these procedures required 'back street' work and if genuine problems, would all have been done in reputable hospitals or infirmaries.

[Debra A]

I have now received back some clarification on other matters I raised with Dr Biggs. The first was in relation to the cut uterus of Jackson. I am going to post what he says but as usual you will no doubt reject it in favour of your own explantion !

Q "The Uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut 6 in long through the left wall; inside uterus were the placenta, cord and membranes.

Any thoughts ?

A. I would suggest that there are two possibilities: either somebody was deliberately trying to open the uterus to get to the foetus, or the uterus was inadvertently cut open during whatever other dismemberment / mutilation / etc. was going on. Either are possible, and I don’t think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury… let alone reading someone else’s description of it"

The I posed the question regarding the ensiform cartilage the answer to which I think is already known but I wil post it in any event.

A. The ‘ensiform’ cartilage (or process) is another term for the xiphisternum, which is the little protuberance at the bottom of the front of the ribcage in the midline. So the cut described is essentially an opening up down the middle of the front of somebody’s abdomen from as far as you can go at the top (the bottom of the ribcage) to as far as you can go at the bottom (the top of the pelvis).

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you Dr Biggs.

So, Trevor. What 'intent' have you seen me ascribe to the opening of the uterus and removing the foeutus?

On the other hand, isn't it you that has been claiming it is some sort of obstetric procedure?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I don't mind admitting when I make a blooper.
Part of the bladder and upper portion of the vagina was still attached to the uterus though-I didn't imagine that one.

I have now received back some clarification on other matters I raised with Dr Biggs. The first was in relation to the cut uterus of Jackson. I am going to post what he says but as usual you will no doubt reject it in favour of your own explantion !

Q "The Uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut 6 in long through the left wall; inside uterus were the placenta, cord and membranes.

Any thoughts ?

A. I would suggest that there are two possibilities: either somebody was deliberately trying to open the uterus to get to the foetus, or the uterus was inadvertently cut open during whatever other dismemberment / mutilation / etc. was going on. Either are possible, and I don’t think you can really determine intent with any degree of confidence by looking at the injury… let alone reading someone else’s description of it"

The I posed the question regarding the ensiform cartilage the answer to which I think is already known but I wil post it in any event.

A. The ‘ensiform’ cartilage (or process) is another term for the xiphisternum, which is the little protuberance at the bottom of the front of the ribcage in the midline. So the cut described is essentially an opening up down the middle of the front of somebody’s abdomen from as far as you can go at the top (the bottom of the ribcage) to as far as you can go at the bottom (the top of the pelvis).

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Yes, I don't mind admitting when I make a blooper.

I for one can think of someone who should learn from that.

But that would predispose that he was able to realize when he is wrong.

Which in it´s turn means that he would need to be able to tell correct information from faulty information.

Farewell, hope!

[Debra A]

Sorry, Errata, but the "one sweep of the knife" thing was never there in Hebberts text. Debra explained that earlier in the thread.

The similarity of the portions that went missing from Chapman and Jackson as regards the uterus and it´s surroundings is nevertheless striking.

Yes, I don't mind admitting when I make a blooper.
Part of the bladder and upper portion of the vagina was still attached to the uterus though-I didn't imagine that one.

[Fisherman]

Which makes it unlikely that the fetus in a jar was hers. Such a cut would be unlikely to result in an intact fetus of that age.

Sorry, Errata, but the "one sweep of the knife" thing was never there in Hebberts text. Debra explained that earlier in the thread.

The similarity of the portions that went missing from Chapman and Jackson as regards the uterus and it´s surroundings is nevertheless striking.

[Errata]

So the uterus and part of the bladder was secured "with one sweep of the knife"...

Which makes it unlikely that the fetus in a jar was hers. Such a cut would be unlikely to result in an intact fetus of that age.

[Debra A]

Found it

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uORiCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=1887+torso+incision+into+vaginal+wall+cartilage&source=bl&ots=2qJ0RoEb4K&sig=PcJuTx6INZSP5laySBSrnJzwLFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjehc329ojNAhVMK8AKHelkBmAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=1887%20torso%20incision%20into%20vaginal%20wall%20cartilage&f=false

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,I replied on the other thread about Hebbert.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

What could be the arguments for no escalation in the murder of Kelly? Could you please give some?

Sorry Pierre i assume the typo, it was meant to read "to Kelly", not "on Kelly."
as confused you.

i gave my reasons for not considering it an escalation compared to Kelly following that.

So you think that the substantial significance in the concept escalation induced from the mutilations of Kelly is not so strong. OK. Interesting.

If you compare the mutilations it is easy to see that the mutilations on Kelly were much more extensive than on the others. So I think in that dimension the concept is strong. But maybe you see some other problems with the concept? For example the applicability on the series of murders? I think that is what you might mean, since you compare to McKenzie and say that this case implies a de-escalation.

So it seems that the concept can be used for comparing individual mutilations in a series. But we can not postulate that it must be an ascending scale including the last victim. And perhaps the de-escalating indicates the end of the killing spree?

The original suggestion from you was that Jackson was an escalation on Kelly, which is what I was questioning. The next possible case, one which we both agree on i think is Mackenzie, that is a definite de-escalation on Jackson, so one cannot rule out your last point, However and this is off topic, so lets not debate it here, Pinchin Street which you also believe to be by the same killer would be a de-escalation.

But compared to an hypothesis about abortion or dissection - in those two cases, wouldn´t the ID of Jackson have been hidden by those who disposed of the body parts? Or perhaps they were just lazy.

Not necessarily, it depends on how you look at it, is the dismemberment done primarily for disposal of to hide the Id ?
While missing heads might suggest id was an issue, with modern id by dental work certainly, however this did not exist. It could just be that such were not found by chance.

Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;383053

Yes but 2 and 3 need not link specifically to JtR

is 2 really an escalation on Kelly? that is open to personal opinion surely.

Hi Steve,

What could be the arguments for no escalation in the murder of Kelly? Could you please give some?

Kelly is certainly more horrific, Jackson appears more clinical. indeed some do argue it is clinical, which I do not by the way.
you then have a de-escalation to Mackenzie.

so while I accept you can use it in an argument it is not that strong.

So you think that the substantial significance in the concept escalation induced from the mutilations of Kelly is not so strong. OK. Interesting.

If you compare the mutilations it is easy to see that the mutilations on Kelly were much more extensive than on the others. So I think in that dimension the concept is strong. But maybe you see some other problems with the concept? For example the applicability on the series of murders? I think that is what you might mean, since you compare to McKenzie and say that this case implies a de-escalation.

So it seems that the concept can be used for comparing individual mutilations in a series. But we can not postulate that it must be an ascending scale including the last victim. And perhaps the de-escalating indicates the end of the killing spree?

on 3, the argument only works if you accept he knew who they were surely, If he did not know who he killed why did it matter?

But compared to an hypothesis about abortion or dissection - in those two cases, wouldn´t the ID of Jackson have been hidden by those who disposed of the body parts? Or perhaps they were just lazy.

Again you can use it as supporting evidence/data, when taken with your own comments on 4 and 5. it seems clear to me that the hypotheses without the letter is weak.

Steve

And that is a good point.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

And you are certain it isn't the 'incision from ensiform cartiledge to pubes' you were noting originally? You do mention cartiledge in the note.

Found it

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uORiCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT17&lpg=PT17&dq=1887+torso+incision+into+vaginal+wall+cartilage&source=bl&ots=2qJ0RoEb4K&sig=PcJuTx6INZSP5laySBSrnJzwLFQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjehc329ojNAhVMK8AKHelkBmAQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=1887%20torso%20incision%20into%20vaginal%20wall%20cartilage&f=false

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And you are certain it isn't the 'incision from ensiform cartiledge to pubes' you were noting originally? You do mention cartiledge in the note.

I wish I could find it because when I found it I thought it was important enough and that action of someone may have given us a clue as to the death. I will continue to look.

"A vaginal incision is a surgical cut through the vulva and vaginal region, generally for performing a hysterectomy, episiotomy or a corrective operation to restore prolapse of the uterus, bladder or vaginal canal. During surgeries involving a vaginal incision, tissue between the anus and vagina are spliced open while the patient is under anesthesia. At that point, the doctor is able to access the inner pelvic region for the purpose of adjusting or removing a baby, fibroids, a diseased uterus or a bladder"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

No I definitely read it but for the life of me I cant now find where it came from.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you are certain it isn't the 'incision from ensiform cartiledge to pubes' you were noting originally? You do mention cartiledge in the note.

[Trevor Marriott]

Is it something Dr Biggs pointed out to you?

No I definitely read it but for the life of me I cant now find where it came from.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

My best guess, Trevor is that your source is actually the mention that there was an incision made from 'ensiform cartilage to pubes'.
That's an external cut from the bottom of the sternum (ribs) to the external pubic area according to my big book of anatomy for middle aged, female dummies and not an incision into the vaginal wall.

I guess I must have misunderstood the meaning of 'ensiform cartiledge' if this came from Dr Biggs and is related to the pelvic area instead.