autopsy notes

[Debra A]

By the conclusion of the inquests in July however, the remains of the pelvis containing lower vagina and cervix showed conclusively that no vaginal delivery had occurred,

I meant to say- by examining the lower portion of the vagina and surrounding area found in the pelvis and further examination of the condition of the cervix, which were all undamaged.

[Debra A]

Thanks for that.

The finding of the foetus of Elizabeth Jackson would not be essential.

My reading of Hebbert and Bond is that there was a theory of death by illegal abortion, but the only one who was even pregnant was Liz, and thus the theory was dispatched at the time.

Originally, after the finding of the uterus and flesh parcel containing the placenta, it was reported in the press that Elizabeth's death was thought by Bond to be as the result of an 'illegal operation'. This observation was guided by the contents of the Horsleydown parcel specifically.
By the conclusion of the inquests in July however, the remains of the pelvis containing lower vagina and cervix showed conclusively that no vaginal delivery had occurred, which is what an illegal abortionist would be out to achieve- an early vaginal delivery. In his inquest evidence, on record, Bond concluded that no illegal operation had taken place, there had been no sign of instrument use or violence and that the foetus had been removed after death by an incision in to the uterus.

The four cases were treated and investigated as separate events.

The Whitehall torso had the whole of the pelvis and pelvic viscera missing so no conclusion could be made in that case as the uterus was never found. The victim in the Pinchin St case had recently menstruated and her uterus was found to be in its normal state with no sign of pregnancy or recent birth. The Rainham case also involved a woman whose uterus was in a normal state, not pregnant and had not recently delivered. Doctors Bond and Hebbert concluded she had never borne children.

Hebbert was of the opinion that these four cases were linked because of the method employed to disarticulate the joints. He argued that a doctor or physician would not be able to perform these disarticulations as well as a butcher or hunter who regularly used the technique. Surgeons not usually amputating through the joints.

[kjab3112]

Thanks for that.

The finding of the foetus of Elizabeth Jackson would not be essential.

My reading of Hebbert and Bond is that there was a theory of death by illegal abortion, but the only one who was even pregnant was Liz, and thus the theory was dispatched at the time.

[Debra A]

I agree the uterus was removed from the pelvis but hadn't seen the statement that it was included with the abdominal walls but that would explain where it was.

The uterus was described as six to seven months, but given Elizabeth's precarious social set up the foetus may well have been small for dates and I believe was described as not provable rather than not being hers (correct me if wrong).

If you open up the abdomen down the midline, a twenty plus week uterus would have been obvious, a fact postmortem Caesarean sections relies upon. To remove the foetus from the left lateral wall would thus be odd if in situ, why bother to hide the cut yet leave the placenta!?

Late nineteenth century text books do describe tests on the stomach for poisons, including how to suture the stomach so as not to spill its contents so I doubt there was a missing toxin but can't be proven.

Of interest one and three of the series were found without a heart and lungs, whilst Jackson's cause of death could not even be ascertained (despite being the freshest corpse, the only one positively identified and effectively only missing head, neck, heart, lungs and intestine). The only one missing a uterus completely in the 1887-9 series also lacked a pelvis so that might explain the lack (Whitehall).

Paul

Bond and Hebbert don't mention the foetus at all and the uterus was measured and corresponded to a size larger then the foetus found, so the foetus being smaller on account of Elizabeth's lifestyle wouldn't have a bearing there?
I believe it is my own words that say Bond and Hebbert were undecided about the origin of the foetus? Actually, they made no comment, which is something I probably should correct.

http://www.casebook.org/victims/jackson.html

[kjab3112]

I agree the uterus was removed from the pelvis but hadn't seen the statement that it was included with the abdominal walls but that would explain where it was.

The uterus was described as six to seven months, but given Elizabeth's precarious social set up the foetus may well have been small for dates and I believe was described as not provable rather than not being hers (correct me if wrong).

If you open up the abdomen down the midline, a twenty plus week uterus would have been obvious, a fact postmortem Caesarean sections relies upon. To remove the foetus from the left lateral wall would thus be odd if in situ, why bother to hide the cut yet leave the placenta!?

Late nineteenth century text books do describe tests on the stomach for poisons, including how to suture the stomach so as not to spill its contents so I doubt there was a missing toxin but can't be proven.

Of interest one and three of the series were found without a heart and lungs, whilst Jackson's cause of death could not even be ascertained (despite being the freshest corpse, the only one positively identified and effectively only missing head, neck, heart, lungs and intestine). The only one missing a uterus completely in the 1887-9 series also lacked a pelvis so that might explain the lack (Whitehall).

Paul

[Debra A]

Hi Fisherman and Debra

My interpretation was that the flesh parts were not explicitly stated to include the uterus, but the pelvic section explicitly stated it was not (hence my statement presumably with the abdominal section), thanks for clarifying.

As far as the anatomical relations, the pregnant uterus would have been behind the bladder (in fact part of the rear bladder wall was described as being with the uterus) and by that point be above the belly button. Thus there would have been no direct association with the abdominal flaps or reason to package together. There are though missing organs: sternum opened (only time he bothered from Hebbert's notes) and heart and lungs removed (and not listed in the found organs); same is true for most of the intestine which would be made easier by removing the uterus.

There is one other oddity though, that of the missing foetus (although one was found in the river of the right approximate age). Current medical practice would open the uterus either across at the thinnest part at its bottom or lengthways through the muscle (classical caesarean). Torso did neither, opening the uterus from the side, which would be difficult if in situ.

If I missed any other part of the question please restate and I'll look again.

Paul

Thanks very much for this , Paul. Just to clarify; are you agreeing that from the description, the uterus appears to have been removed from the body and parcelled up with two section of flesh taken from the abdominal wall?

The found foetus was of 5 months gestation and going from memory the general consensus was that the pregnancy was advanced between 6 and 7 months. The size of the uterus is given and it seemed to correspond to the 6/7 month size given in medical texts of the time, remembering old research I did and I think I'm right in saying it would not have reduced in size had the foetus been removed after death as concluded by Hebbert and Bond?

Do you think the uterus was removed and the foetus removed subsequently?

It was because the lungs and part of the windpipe were missing that it couldn't be determined if Elizabeth had swallowed some noxious substance and the missing heart has always been of interest.

[kjab3112]

Hi Fisherman and Debra

My interpretation was that the flesh parts were not explicitly stated to include the uterus, but the pelvic section explicitly stated it was not (hence my statement presumably with the abdominal section), thanks for clarifying.

As far as the anatomical relations, the pregnant uterus would have been behind the bladder (in fact part of the rear bladder wall was described as being with the uterus) and by that point be above the belly button. Thus there would have been no direct association with the abdominal flaps or reason to package together. There are though missing organs: sternum opened (only time he bothered from Hebbert's notes) and heart and lungs removed (and not listed in the found organs); same is true for most of the intestine which would be made easier by removing the uterus.

There is one other oddity though, that of the missing foetus (although one was found in the river of the right approximate age). Current medical practice would open the uterus either across at the thinnest part at its bottom or lengthways through the muscle (classical caesarean). Torso did neither, opening the uterus from the side, which would be difficult if in situ.

If I missed any other part of the question please restate and I'll look again.

Paul

[Fisherman]

Yes, that's why I posted it and asked Paul those earlier questions. It would be good to get a professional opinion on this. Marriott describes the Horsleydown parcel as a 'torso', as does Trow as far as I remember, but that isn't a correct description. It was two portions of abdominal flesh and a uterus, so unless the uterus is somehow attached to the abdominal flesh in a way I have never heard of before, the uterus must have been cut from the body also? as evidenced by the division of the vagina? I would have thought? but then again I am not medically trained so who knows!

I am as little medico as you are, Debra, but we are working from the same assumption - that parcel was the result of the killer cutting out the reproductive organs from Jackson, wrapping them up in the two large slips of abdominal wall, and floating them down the river. I believe it was the second parcel found in the case.

This is a description from a medical page on the net:

The uterus is attached to broad bands of ligaments, bundles of nerves, and networks of arteries and veins. Regardless of whether the hysterectomy is “total” or “partial,” all of the ligaments, nerves, and blood supply attached to the uterus must be severed to remove it.

To me, this strongly suggests that the uterus of the Whitehall torso had also been removed by the killer.

[Debra A]

Thanks for outlining this. The reason I posted is that kjab3112 seems to think that the uterus was found within Jacksons body.

Yes, that's why I posted it and asked Paul those earlier questions. It would be good to get a professional opinion on this. Marriott describes the Horsleydown parcel as a 'torso', as does Trow as far as I remember, but that isn't a correct description. It was two portions of abdominal flesh and a uterus, so unless the uterus is somehow attached to the abdominal flesh in a way I have never heard of before, the uterus must have been cut from the body also? as evidenced by the division of the vagina I would have thought? but then again I am not medically trained so who knows!

[Fisherman]

Wynne Baxter originally opened an inquest at Wapping on June 5th on just the uterus and skin flaps taken from the abdominal wall found at St George Stairs, Horselydown. As further remains were found in Battersea and the West End the inquest was completed at Wapping and a burial order in the name of Elizabeth Jackson issued. The inquest on the largest part of the body was then transferred to Battersea where Braxton Hicks was the coroner. Elizabeth has her death registered in two different districts, Stepney, which covers the Wapping find and Wandsworth, which covers Battersea.

Thanks for outlining this. The reason I posted is that kjab3112 seems to think that the uterus was found within Jacksons body.

[Fisherman]

I can't give you examples, Fish, and I've already said why. In case you missed them, here are those reasons again: "(a) none of us has a 100% encyclopedic knowledge of every murder that ever occurred; and (b) not every detail of every such murder makes its way into print"

Sorry for the repetition, but it seems to be something I often find myself having to do in the context of these discussions.

Yeah, I am really, really thick. However, I have sought high and low for parallels, and I have spoken to a criminologist with great anatomical interest and insight, and it seems that thosw who ought to be in the knbow concur that this is a more or less unique thing.

So frankly, much as I accept that a full encyclopedic knowledge is not there in any case (but if the interest is there, a search can be made), and that details like these are not always spelt out for various reasons, there is no other thing I can do but to say that it DOES take evidence to bolster any suggestion that many cases are pie-crust cases.
And as long as I donīt see any evidence at all of such cases, my stance remains the same: this is a VERY odd matter.

And to be fair, Gareth, letīs look at things from a less than fundamentalist view:

Killers are not very common.

Serial killers are very, very much rarer.

Serial killers who eviscerate are very much rarer that serial killers per se.

Serial killers who take away the abdominal walls in large flaps, are rarer than henīs teeth.

And no matter how we look upon things, we have TWO such killers working in the same city at the same time, in an era when serialists are freakishly poorly listed.

Why would we NOT accept that a common identity is the reasonable suggestion? All "butīs" applied.

[Sam Flynn]

I am still going to need examples, not just an unsubstantiated idea that it probably happened.

I can't give you examples, Fish, and I've already said why. In case you missed them, here are those reasons again: "(a) none of us has a 100% encyclopedic knowledge of every murder that ever occurred; and (b) not every detail of every such murder makes its way into print"

Sorry for the repetition, but it seems to be something I often find myself having to do in the context of these discussions.

[Debra A]

The uterus and two large slips of the abdominal wall were NOT found in the body of Jackson. It was washed up as a bundle, containing also the placenta and cord.
Debra asks a number of things about it. I would value your opinion.

Wynne Baxter originally opened an inquest at Wapping on June 5th on just the uterus and skin flaps taken from the abdominal wall found at St George Stairs, Horselydown. As further remains were found in Battersea and the West End the inquest was completed at Wapping and a burial order in the name of Elizabeth Jackson issued. The inquest on the largest part of the body was then transferred to Battersea where Braxton Hicks was the coroner. Elizabeth has her death registered in two different districts, Stepney, which covers the Wapping find and Wandsworth, which covers Battersea.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Hebbert's report clearly describes Liz Jackson's uterus and even the placenta, but it was presumably in the abdominal not pelvic section of her corpse. However, her chest had been opened with the heart and lungs removed as well as a long part of intestine. Given the report was signed off by Bond in the Westminster Hospital Report I would suggest the description is accurate.

Paul

The uterus and two large slips of the abdominal wall were NOT found in the body of Jackson. It was washed up as a bundle, containing also the placenta and cord.
Debra asks a number of things about it. I would value your opinion.

[Fisherman]

The point about the pie-crust method is that it's a reasonably obvious method for exposing the contents of the pie, if I can put it that way. Given this "obviousness", I wouldn't be particularly surprised if others had adopted the same method entirely independently, nor that other examples did exist, either in the LVP or at other times. The problem is (a) none of us has a 100% encyclopedic knowledge of every murder that ever occurred; and (b) not every detail of every such murder makes its way into print.

I am still going to need examples, not just an unsubstantiated idea that it probably happened.