Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (31 page)

One of my main tasks is to eviscerate a body in preparation for the Pathologist to attend. He will then closely examine the organs and will attempt to establish a cause of death. Evisceration is the removal of all internal organs using skilled surgical techniques. The normal procedure is to open the body with an incision along the midline from the Adam’s apple to the pubic bone. The sternum or breastbone is also removed. This is done to make as large as possible opening to examine and then remove the organs. Without doing this it would be extremely difficult to remove organs
.

When removing vital organs great care needs to be taken at all times. I use surgical scalpels and other very sharp instruments; generally I use a 4-inch blade knife that is as sharp as a scalpel. I find this easier to use in tight confined spaces when eviscerating. Internal organs can be easily damaged if handled in a rough manner. There are many different ways organs are removed, either singularly or in one block. Some organs are very difficult to locate because of their position in the body. The kidneys are a prime example as they are at the rear of the abdominal cavity and encased in their own protective layer of renal fat
.

As an experienced eviscerator I have been asked to examine the official records and post-mortem reports appertaining to three specific murder victims of the Whitechapel murders of 1888, which were attributed to a killer known as Jack the Ripper
.

These three victims were Catherine Eddowes, Annie Chapman and Mary Kelly. I have reviewed the post-mortem reports trying to ascertain the level of expertise required to carefully remove the organs so soon after death. The other aspect of these murders I have been asked to comment on is whether the organs could have been removed by the killer at the crime scene or whether they could have been removed at another location by person or persons unknown prior to the post-mortems being carried out
.

I will firstly comment on the murder of Annie Chapman. She was described in the post-mortem report as showing signs of great deprivation. I mention this as in my opinion evisceration is more difficult in a person with a poor covering of body fat. When a person is very thin the skin at autopsy loses its elasticity. It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched. Surgeons use a retractor to make the opening as big as possible. Surgeons need as much room as possible but would work internally in what would seem to the layperson as an impossibly small opening. The skin is very elastic and a small incision can be stretched to make it quite large
.

Chapman’s abdomen was laid open. For someone with anatomical knowledge and experience the small intestines are the easiest to remove from the mesenteric attachments. I would imagine the original pathologist is referring to the small intestines. With great skill and practice it is easy to remove the small intestine from its mesenteric attachments with one cut if speed was of an essence. But it does take skill and many years of practice
.

I am right-handed and I would suggest the perpetrator to have been right-handed as the neck wound indicates that and the fact that the organs removed from the abdominal cavity were placed at the head of the body
.

A piece of stomach was found on the left shoulder. This could have been cut and removed accidentally during the frenzied attack as the intestines, and in particular the large intestine were removed and placed to one side
.

An interesting point is the removal of the pelvic organs. The report states that the uterus and its appendages and the upper portion of the vagina, and parts of the bladder had been entirely removed. To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of a blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite a skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today’s methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum. These specific organs are in very close proximity to each other and at post-mortem are removed by a mixture of blunt dissection and sharp knife. Even doing this carefully it is still possible to damage some of the surrounding organs and tissues. There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus
.

It is stated that a knife of at least five to six inches long was used. It may be possible under normal modern-day hospital conditions but would have been almost impossible given the amount of mutilations and the fact that it was dark
.

This brings me back to the signs of great deprivation. I would imagine that the deceased was very emaciated. This could have made the abdominal opening much tighter to work in to delicately remove the pelvic organs. The organs would have been covered in blood and probably faeces and make it difficult to see where to cut and handle the organs. The organs do not bleed but they ooze blood, and faeces would also have come out of the cut sections of the bowels. I also note that the original reports show that when the body was discovered both her legs were drawn up, indicating this is how the killer left the body. With the legs in those positions it would have been a hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen
.

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
.