Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (33 page)

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
.

In respect of the piece of apron and whether it was used as a sanitary towel or not, it is quite possible that even in Victorian times women in their late forties would still be menstruating and may well have used this piece of rag as a sanitary towel. Blood spotting is a part of the female menstrual cycle. I have not been shown a photograph of the apron piece, which shows the blood spotting as described. I therefore cannot give a definitive answer as whether the blood spotting on the apron piece is consistent with the menstrual cycle
.

I have provided a photograph of a surgical swab showing the effect of wrapping a recently removed normal sized uterus from a live donor. (Picture 7). This clearly shows a heavy concentration of oxygenated deep-red blood, which has heavily stained the swab
.

Annie Chapman

My comments above on the removal of the uterus will again apply. I note that in this case it is reported that the appendages were removed. In addition the uterus and cervix were removed, the transverse incision cutting through the vagina. However, in this case a portion of bladder was also removed
.

Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done) this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However, I note that in this case it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation
.

I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish
.

Conclusions

As to the time and feasibility of undertaking these procedures in semi-darkness, the doctors’ assessment at the time of the inquest was probably around about right. To my mind the various stab wounds noted in the livers would again support my theory that the blade was stabbed in through the abdominal wall and drawn upwards rather than a surgical type incision from the outside. The uterus would be fairly easy to remove with a modicum of knowledge by pulling up hard and cutting down the sides and across the bottom. It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it. It should also be noted that an anatomist would know that there would be no need to take out the intestines in order to remove a uterus
.

PAUL LANGFORD

In pursuit of further corroborative evidence I obtained an additional statement from a master Butcher. Many people still suggest that the killer could have been a butcher or slaughterman despite this theory being negated in the murder of Annie Chapman. I therefore interviewed Paul Langford a master butcher whose statement is set out below.

I am a master butcher having worked in the meat and butchery trade for 35 years. In my early years I worked in abattoirs where I was involved in the removal of the internal organs from the carcasses of recently killed cattle, sheep and pigs
.

The organs in these types of animals are located in almost similar parts of the carcass to that in a human. There is direct comparison between a human and a pig whereby the organs of a pig are almost identical in size to human organs
.

In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called “cut and slash” The dead carcass is hung upside down by the legs and then slit from top to bottom allowing full access to the animals internal organs making it easier to remove the various organs by the “cut and slash” process
.

I have been asked if I could remove a uterus and a kidney from recently deceased human body “carefully” having regard to my experience in removing the same organs from animals
.

I would probably be able to facilitate the removal of the organs but I would need there to be sufficient light and it would need to be a controlled situation and time would be needed to complete the removal. In removing a uterus from a human body I would not need to take out the intestines, as I know the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove the kidney
.

I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen. This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were in relation to where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand
.

The new evidence obtained from the aforementioned experts and the experimental removals they performed together with photographic evidence supports and adds even more weight to my original theory that the killer did not remove the organs from the victims, and in the case of Eddowes did not take away those organs in an apron piece cut from her own apron.

It should also be noted that Dr. Calder casts a doubt about where and when some of the victim’s abdominal injuries were carried out. This corroborates a doubt raised previously where I suggested that some of the abdominal injuries noted by the doctors at the post-mortem could have been caused when the organs were removed at the mortuary and in order to effect those removals.

Not forgetting the Anatomy Act 1832 I previously mentioned. If we look again at the victim Chapman, Mr. Neale states the way the uterus was removed is consistent with it being removed for experimentation, and that the uterus from Eddowes was removed in a totally different way. So if both of those victims were killed by the same person and that person removed the organs, then why were they removed in different ways? It should also be noted the method of entry into the abdomens of both these victims is also different.

This to me goes even further to suggest that the organs of both of these victims were removed by two different people at the two separate locations where the bodies were taken and left for many hours unattended before the post-mortems were carried out.

Furthermore many people, who subscribe to the theory that the killer removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman, heavily rely on the fact that the intestines were taken out and placed in a way, which would have allowed the killer easy access to the organs. It has already been documented that anyone with anatomical knowledge would know that there would be no need to remove intestines to facilitate the removal of a uterus.

Staying with the originally accepted theory that the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes it should be noted that in the case of Chapman her legs were both drawn up. Presumably this is how the killer left the body. If that was the case it would be an almost impossible task to perform surgery and organ removal with her legs in that position. In the case of Eddowes one of her legs was also described as being drawn up so the same must apply in her case also.

I have stated previously that in my opinion the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene of either Chapman or Eddowes. Take the case of Chapman at her inquest Dr. Phillips stated that to have performed the mutilation on her and removed the uterus it could have taken him a surgeon up to twenty minutes. Now with Eddowes in addition to removing her uterus the killer is supposed to have removed her left kidney, which is a far more difficult organ to locate and to remove, given the conditions at the crime scene.

On a final note regarding the removal of the organs and in particular those from Eddowes; I refer back to the letter sent to George Lusk chairman of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on 16th October. With this letter was half of a human kidney, which had been contained in a preservative. The writer of the letter (the killer) was suggesting that the kidney was from Eddowes. The kidney was examined by Dr. Oppenshaw who found that the kidney bore signs of Bright’s disease. Eddowes was also found to be suffering from the same disease. Although some researchers suggest that the letter is a genuine letter from the killer as is the kidney.

Others subscribe to the belief that the letter is a hoax and it was sent with the kidney by a medical student. If the latter is the case I would suggest this adds further corroboration to the theory that the organs could have been removed by one of a number of bona fide medical person’s i.e. medical student in the way I have previously suggested and sent as a prank.

CHAPTER NINE

THE ANARCHIST THEORY

I would from time to time receive letters and emails from members of the public offering further information in relation to my investigation. Others would furnish me with the information in relation to departed distant relatives who they believed were Jack the Ripper. As a professional investigator you learn never to disregard any information without assessing and evaluating the content. Sadly most of the information forwarded to me in good faith by these persons turned out to be nothing more than wild speculative uncorroborated theories. I will however elaborate and highlight many of these at a later stage. However, I will mention one in particular at this stage.