Different Killers

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi batman
Agree. Plus for those who don't think chapman and eddowes were killed by the same person-both had their intestines pulled out and draped over their shoulder.
I'd like to see them try and explain that one away.

Well anyone with anatomical knowledge would know that a uterus can be accessed and easily removed without the need to take out the intestines. So if the killer had a design of the uterus of Chapmans why go to the trouble of taking out the inestines

However cutting the abdomen in the way the killer did is likely to have resulted in the intestines recoiling out in any event

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[chrismasonic]

So there was still a serial killer called the Ripper, then?

I don't know what his name was...

[chrismasonic]

I still think there was others involved...

[Trevor Marriott]

I still think there was others involved...

If you believe the main suspect list there were in excess of 100 of them !

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Completely agree. Looks like someone had read up on surgical techniques but was a tyro.

Cheers.
LC

Sure, maybe.
But also maybe the critical mistake wasn't about experience or anatomical knowledge. For example, maybe the killer murdered her, took a quick look around, and suddenly realized that the square has like, twice as many openings as he had initially thought, making him extremely exposed and vulnerable. Now he has to work from an angle where he can see an approach from all the alleyways, making him paranoid, preoccupied, and physically uncomfortable. I mean, there's a reason they don't put tvs in surgical theaters. They need to keep their eyes on the field. Not periodically glancing up to check the scores or whatever.

Or maybe in keeping with the driving metaphor, he realized that he doesn't have to come to a complete stop at every stop sign, turn signals are more suggested than mandatory, and that h needs to keep his eyes on the road, but no harm no foul. In other words, impeccable work is nice, but as long as the job gets done it doesn't matter.

Or maybe her anatomy was different. An inverted cervix is not unheard of. It's technically abnormal, but doctors see it all the time. It's unusual, but fairly common. Common enough not to warrant description in an autopsy. But if the killer was used to having the cervix as guide, and it was inverted, it would have thrown him off. There could have been ovarian cysts, scarring from endometriosis, a lot of things that would have been very weird to him, and when he removed the uterus, there would have been no trace of these things for a coroner to see. But if all he had seen til that point was normal anatomy, it would have been a shock.

There are a lot of reasons why things looked different. Anything from a different killer to different weather. We just don't know.

[chrismasonic]

If you believe the main suspect list there were in excess of 100 of them !

others as in more than one individual involved in each attack...

[Wickerman]

Well anyone with anatomical knowledge would know that a uterus can be accessed and easily removed without the need to take out the intestines. So if the killer had a design of the uterus of Chapmans why go to the trouble of taking out the inestines

However cutting the abdomen in the way the killer did is likely to have resulted in the intestines recoiling out in any event

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We had a surgeon here who gave reason for the intestines being pulled out.

"For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus."

"What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field."

It is probably true to say that you need experience in the field to appreciate why the intestines were removed.

[Trevor Marriott]

We had a surgeon here who gave reason for the intestines being pulled out.

"For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus."

"What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field."

It is probably true to say that you need experience in the field to appreciate why the intestines were removed.

Well it just goes to show that experts don't always agree because I had a consultant gynecologist who stated that to remove the uterus you don't need to remove the intestines.

If you go to my website www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=185

you will see a photo showing the uterus and where it lies in the abdomen, you can see it can be removed without the need for the removal of the intestines

[Wickerman]

Well it just goes to show that experts don't always agree because I had a consultant gynecologist who stated that to remove the uterus you don't need to remove the intestines.

Well that is true, but there are three different ways to remove a uterus, and two of them do not involve the intestines. So what your gynecologist said is still true, depending which method was used.

The opinions I offered came from a Prosector. If you are not familiar with the experience of a Prosector, then..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosector

[Ausgirl]

Rather, it is a comment on the neatness of the knife wounds--some are adept at cutting, others not.

How do we know a single killer's proficiency wasn't dulled now and then by alcohol or drugs (personally, I doubt this), particularly powerful delusions, uncontrollable psychopathic rage, or some other factor?

We don't.

But we can speculate on it -- or pretend such a thing couldn't possibly happen.

As to what Eddowes was doing there, we don't know that either. It's easy to assume she was selling herself, having drunk all her money away on a bender. Perhaps she was just wandering by, who knows. But she is very probably the woman seen by Lawende and co talking to a man.

Ten minutes later, at 1.44, she's found ripped apart. Was she lured there? Followed there (ie, the man asking after a man and woman)? Bumped into him there? We don't know.

But I do think the killer knew the timing of the police beat very well, and used it to his advantage. I currently suspect the location was not random. And I really do not think it an accident that the Goulston St. graffito appeared that same night, outside a jewish establishment, with a piece of Eddowes' apron. Why? Who the heck knows. Maybe some reason that wouldn't make sense to anyone but the killer.

Chris, re "more than one" - did you mean at once? I'm not violently opposed to that idea because:

"c.1:30am
James Blenkinsop, nightwatchman overseeing roadworks in St James Place, claimed a respectably dressed man approached him,asking, "Have you seen a man and woman go through here?" Blenkinsop said he had seen some people pass, but that he had not paid any attention to them."

..and I've wondered if the women were followed.. and if so, whether it was a team at work, one in a passive role (as these things usually go). Not impossible. It's not high on my list of possible scenarios, but it's on it. I tend to think this was more probably someone from the vigilance committee or something.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well that is true, but there are three different ways to remove a uterus, and two of them do not involve the intestines. So what your gynecologist said is still true, depending which method was used.

The opinions I offered came from a Prosector. If you are not familiar with the experience of a Prosector, then..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosector

The quickest way is not the one postulated by prosector

Of course it all comes down to whether you believe the killer removed the organs or not if you believe he did then you will go with intestines removal in the way you suggest because it fits that belief

That specific removal method as you say required a great deal of skill and I would suggest a fair amount of light the latter was certainly lacking

[Harry D]

Hello J.

"What makes you think that the Killer of Polly Nichols was more 'skilled' than the killer of Kate Eddowes?"

George Bagster Phillips.

Cheers.
LC

Hello, Lynn.

Didn't Nichols & Chapman both have their skirts pulled up by the killer, whereas Eddowes' dress had been torn open? That might explain why the cutting appeared 'less skilled' than the previous murders.

[chrismasonic]

...or if the killers proficiency was actually improved by alcohol or drugs...

[lynn cates]

location

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

When could one have worked at the Met "shed"? Surely not adequate for surgery?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

what and how

Hello Abby.

"I'd like to see them try and explain that one away."

Once again, WHAT was done was similar; HOW it was done is not.

Cheers.
LC