Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files

by Marriott, Trevor

  The second report I will comment on relates to the murder of Catherine Eddowes. The injuries inflicted on the face and neck has been well documented and most of the other injuries to the face, neck and lower body occurred after death. There is no doubt she was subjected to a frenzied attack. The report states that the abdomen was opened from the xiphoid process to the pubic bone. This seems to be a much smaller incision to the one made at post-mortem allowing access to the abdominal organs.

  There is difficulty in ascertaining how much elasticity remained in the deceased’s tissues for the kidney and uterus to be removed. As I have previously stated deceased persons who have very little body fat covering tend to have very tight skin coverage especially over the abdomen thus making it difficult to enter the abdominal space. In Eddowes’ case looking at Picture (3) taken before the post-mortem. This clearly shows a much smaller jagged incision than is described in the post-mortem report. An interesting side point about the abdominal wound is how it circled the umbilicus. The umbilicus or belly button is cartilaginous in nature and is not cut through during the initial post-mortem incision today. An experienced anatomist would have known this.

  In my experience this would have made it extremely difficult for the killer to investigate the abdominal cavity and to remove any organ easily especially in almost total darkness especially if the killer was in a rush and trying to work quickly.

  For the left kidney to be easily removed a person would need to be on the right side of the body as this gives easier access to the left kidney. What cannot be underestimated as briefly mentioned in the post-mortem report is the amount of blood and faecal matter that would have been present around and in the abdominal cavity. The liver was stabbed and almost cut through; this would have undoubtedly let a lot of blood into the abdominal cavity. A newly deceased does not bleed in the normal sense of the word but there is a lot of seepage of blood from the tissues and organs. This makes it even more difficult to remove organs carefully. Standard post-mortem procedures involve wearing gloves that give more of a grip when dealing with blood and body fluids. It would have been difficult for a person to grip warm and very messy organs in order to remove them carefully so soon after death.

  The kidneys are situated at the back of the abdominal cavity surrounded by their own protective covering and the renal capsule and surrounding fat. The post-mortem report states that about 2 feet of the colon was removed. If the colon was removed from the left-hand side of the transverse colon and the descending colon, access to the kidney is somewhat easier. To remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge.

  The uterus was also removed without damaging any underlying tissue. This is also very difficult especially as the report says that the sigmoid colon was invaginated into the rectum very tightly. It would be difficult with a six-inch knife to carefully remove the uterus. I use surgical scalpels and have also become quite adept with a very sharp knife with a 4” blade. We have in the post-mortem room “daylight lighting”. In view of the levels of light available and the time available it would have made it more difficult to remove the organs carefully, especially given the crime scene location and the level of light required. As I have stated previous if the killer was targeting specific organs for removal, as with the murder of Chapman the killer would not have needed to remove the intestines to remove the uterus.

  I also note that the original reports show that when the body was found one leg was drawn up. I again refer to my previous comments with regards to the position of the body of Chapman and the hindrance having a leg drawn up when trying to access and remove organs from the abdominal cavity.

  I am aware that an apron piece belonging to the victim was found a short distance away that same morning. This was described as being wet, and showed signs of blood spotting, and also contained traces of faecal matter. It has been suggested that the killer cut this apron piece for one of either three purposes. The first was to take away the uterus and the kidney from the crime scene. The second being was that he cut the piece from the apron in order to clean his hands taking it with him and then discarding it. Thirdly to clean the knife used in the murder.

  I would have expected freshly removed organs such as the kidney and uterus to leave more than blood spots on a piece of material i.e. the apron. The report does say that the right kidney was bloodless and pale it is not uncommon for organs to look very pale after serious blood loss. There would still be blood within the abdominal cavity. Along with this the perpetrator would have had very messy hands covered not only in blood but also faecal matter. I would have expected the blood on the apron piece to be quite significant.

  To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six-inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened levels of awareness and the prospect of being caught makes this even more difficult. The emphasis is on carefully because only a person with an expert knowledge of anatomy would be able to remove the organs in the manner described and would find it very difficult if not impossible in almost total darkness.

  In an effort to prove or disprove this we conducted a number of controlled experiments in the post-mortem room. Dr. Calder was able to provide a Victorian surgeon’s knife with a 6-inch blade (Picture 2). Having performed an initial post-mortem incision similar to the wound seen on Eddowes, we found it was an impossible task in attempting to remove a kidney using that size knife. The difficulty is shown in the following pictures.

  (Picture 3) shows the abdomen filled with blood and the difficulty in using the six-inch bladed knife. As far as the opening of the abdomen in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman there would have been even more blood than is shown in the abdomen due to the fact that the victims had only just died.

  (Picture 4) shows the kidney inside the abdomen encased in renal fat.

  (Picture 5) shows the size of the kidney after removal. This was removed from a deceased person who had been dead for several days. It should also be noted the blood staining on the cloth following the removal. There is no sign of blood spotting on the pillowcase. In the case of a kidney removed from a recently deceased donor i.e. Eddowes there would have been much more fresh blood from that kidney and therefore even more blood staining than is shown in the picture.

  I have seen the results of another controlled experiment conducted by another medical expert Mr. Neale who performed a hysterectomy and removed a uterus from a living donor. He also wrapped that uterus in a white swab leaving it for a short time and then photographing the results (Picture 6). Those results are identical to the experiment I and Dr. Calder conducted with the kidney. The results of both experiments in my opinion clearly show that Eddowes’ white apron piece could not have contained the organs as has been suggested if they had then the apron piece would have been heavily bloodstained.

  Dr. Calder and I also carried out our own experiment with regards to photographing and removing a uterus and its appendages from a deceased female.

  (Picture 7) shows the fallopian tubes attached to the uterus, which is shown in the centre. The fallopian tubes are described in the post-mortem reports of Chapman and Eddowes as “appendages”. After removing the uterus and its appendages it was photographed. In this instance it was not wrapped due to this part of the experiment having already been conducted and photographed previous.

  (Picture 8) shows the uterus and its location in the abdomen. (Picture 9) shows the uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached after removal. Referring back to the case of Chapman Dr. Phillips states that the person removing the uterus of Chapman showed a high level of medical expertise. The Doctor went on to say that it would have taken him between fifteen and sixty minutes to carry out the removal of the uterus from her body. Therefore with regards to the removal of the uterus and the kidney from Eddowes extra time must be added to complete the removal of two different organs if it is to be accepted that
the killer removed them.

  In my opinion I do not believe that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes was responsible for removing their organs at the crime scene. Even for a highly skilled medical man given all the circumstances it would have been a daunting task which given the level of expertise of surgeons in Victorian times would also make it a lengthy process for such a person in any event. In my opinion the killer could not have removed those organs in the time known to have been available to him.

  The Third report I will comment on relates to Mary Kelly. The injuries to Kelly are also horrific in nature she also had been subjected to a frenzied attack. The wounds to the extremities are well documented. The injuries to the abdominal area are of interest. The post-mortem report states that the surface of the abdomen was completely removed.

  Removing this would give unhindered access to the abdominal organs. For some reason the perpetrator had gone as far as to remove the surface skin and tissue of the thighs. I would imagine this to be the front of the thighs. Cutting down this far would have exposed the pelvic contents quite significantly. In some cases the uterus is quite prominent and would be relatively easy to remove for someone who knew what they were looking for. Again we must remember that there would be a lot of blood and faecal matter, as the intestines had been removed, to make the actions more difficult.

  The report does not state whether the whole of the bowel was removed. The intestinal tract is comprised of small and large bowel. The small bowel can be removed quite easily to an experienced dissector. The report also does not state that the stomach was damaged. To remove the large bowel using a knife it is quite easy to puncture the stomach. If the large bowel were removed it would make it easier to see and remove the spleen, which is hidden on the left side of the body.

  The liver can be easily pulled out of its position. However, this would cause damage to the liver structure and underlying arterial structure. The report does state though that the right lung’s lower lobe was broken and torn away. Perhaps the perpetrator had used enough force in ripping out the liver to tear the diaphragm on the right side and the right lung which could have been adherent to the diaphragm. These can take a great deal of force to remove.

  The report does not say whether the kidneys had been carefully removed had they been so I would have expected this to be documented. In a newly deceased body the kidneys with their protective renal fat can be pulled out of position and wrenched off the aorta snapping the renal arteries and veins.

  As far as the murder of Mary Kelly and the removal of her organs, which were all apparently accounted for at the crime scene. There is nothing in the report to suggest that a high degree of medical expertise was used to remove these organs or to perform the mutilations. In fact as I have previously stated the report tends to suggest that some of the organs could have been ripped out manually. It does indicate that the perpetrator must have had some human anatomical knowledge to be able to locate and remove the organs. However, in the absence of any expertise used as is suggested in the murders of Chapman and Eddowes I would suggest that if those victims’ organs were removed as has been suggested by their killer, then perhaps a different killer murdered Kelly. But as previously stated my professional opinion is that the organs were not removed from Eddowes and Chapman at the crime scenes.

  I have discussed the removal of the organs from the victims in great detail and in concluding I would say that if the killer was a person with medical knowledge and expertise and his intention was to murder the victims for the purpose of removing the organs surgically and skilfully, then I would not have expected him to mutilate the abdomens of the victims in such a way that it would have made his task much more difficult than it was.

  IAN CALDER

  I am a Fully Registered Medical Practitioner and Consultant Pathologist. I have the basic qualifications of bachelor of Medicine and bachelor of Surgery from the University of St. Andrews. I have the additional qualifications of Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Science, Membership of the Royal College of Physicians, Fellowship of the Royal College of Pathologists, Fellowship of the College of Pathologist of Hong Kong, Fellowship of the Faculty of Occupational Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians, Diploma in Medical Jurisprudence and Diploma in Medical Disability Assessment. I have approximately twenty-eight years of investigating sudden and unnatural deaths. I have also been involved in basic research in pathology. I have no idea as to the number of autopsies I have carried out but it must be in the tens of thousands.

  I have been asked to express my opinion relating to the evisceration and mutilation of the bodies of Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. Evisceration requires considerable experience and an overall awareness of anatomy, especially human anatomy. In my opinion experience in eviscerating animals requires an entirely different technique, so as a basic premise it is mercenary to consider a person with practical experience in human anatomy and/or surgery. Even in those experienced in evisceration it is not a technique, which can be done ‘blind’, and would have to be carried out under direct visual observation. Organs at autopsy and in fact surgery are slippery, which can cause technical problems, unless gloves are used.

  In considering Catherine Eddowes, from the autopsy report it does appear she was subjected to a “frenzied attack”, with injuries both post-mortem and ante-mortem distributed over the body.

  The autopsy report states that the abdomen had been opened from the bottom of the sternum as far as the pubis. It is interesting to observe that this incision appeared to be irregular, which could suggest the use of a slightly blunt knife. However the incision had avoided the umbilicus (which is more difficult to incise), and this would perhaps be supportive evidence that the assailant had knowledge of this from past experience.

  The kidneys are in the upper posterior of the abdomen, and are not easy to locate as they are behind major organs. In view of this the usual surgical approach is by an incision in the loin. To remove the left kidney an approach from the right side would be ergonomically easier. Technically it would be easier with visceral organs removed. However, to carry this out in the dark would be almost impossible without producing damage to other organs. This lends support to the fact that to achieve such there needed to be not only knowledge of anatomy, but experience in applying it.

  To remove the uterus without adjacent damage is technically very difficult, even with a sweeping motion of a knife, even when pulling the uterus out of the bowl of the pelvis. An anatomist would not need to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of a uterus.

  It is difficult to explain the piece of cloth, which was part of an apron, which had faecal staining and blood spotting. There have been put forward three possible uses for this - cleaning the assailant’s hands, wiping a knife or as wrapping material for a kidney. A kidney removed from a fresh cadaver would have a considerable amount of blood.

  In the case of Annie Chapman she was a sparse female, and would suggest that the abdominal wall was without much fat and possibly lean. To remove the bowels would require expertise and experience.

  The pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues. This would be technically very difficult, as the organs are down in the bowl of the pelvis, and would require continuous observation, so as to avoid the complicated local anatomy.

  Conclusion

  From the evidence considered if the assailant did remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman, he would not only to have had knowledge of anatomy, but experience in using it. Even in the experienced, such evisceration would have to be carried out by observation in a well-lit area. Therefore there has to be a doubt about the removal of these organs at the crime scenes. I also suggest that there is a doubt about when and where all the abdominal injuries to the victims occurred. In my opinion the killer could not have removed the uterus and kidney within the time frame suggested available to him at the crime scene.

  I have also looked at the reports relating to the removal of the organs from Mary Kelly.
In my opinion these removals do not appear to have been made by someone with specific medical anatomical knowledge.

  EDMUND NEALE

  I have been a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist for almost 16 years. I am a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and a senior examiner for them.

  I have viewed the post-mortem reports of the victims, Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. I have looked at them from the perspective of a modern-day gynaecologist, but have tried to extrapolate back to practice in 1888.

  In both cases I note the severity and depth of the fatal neck wounds, suggesting an extremely sharp blade was used, as it marked the anterior surface of the vertebrae.

  Catherine Eddowes

  In addition to the post-mortem report I have also seen a drawing and a photograph of the body prior to the post-mortem.

  I am first struck by the jagged appearance of the abdominal wound. This does not look like a surgical incision. The irregular nature of it, and some of the minor wounds to underlying organs suggests to me that possibly the knife entered the abdomen which was then opened by pulling the knife upwards as opposed to a surgical incision where one would press down with the blade on the skin. In other words the irregular line suggests the abdomen was opened from inside out rather than outside in.

  Someone with anatomical knowledge could accomplish the removal of the uterus quite quickly once access has been obtained. Traction on the organ would allow division of the tissues on either side with one sweep of the knife. The only task that would then remain would be to cut horizontally to remove the organ. In the case of Catherine Eddowes, I note the cervix of the uterus was left behind. Today this would be seen as an integral part of the uterus and therefore I would have expected it to be removed as well if the organ was required for experimentation. However, I have no knowledge of Victorian anatomists’ view of the cervix.