Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files (32 page)

(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
.