Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

Positively stunning.

Not difficult to see why some medical men attempted to tone down the 'medical expertise' angle, they knew far more than they were telling, and therefore, so did the police.

[Sally]

It's very interesting.

'Medical knowledge' could indicate a person involved in more than one profession, I'd think.

Kate's killer sounds like someone who had picked up some medical skills. Could one learn this from a book or in consultation?

Lynn - I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to learn from a book in theory: but then you're probably still looking at somebody who had access to anatomy books - which again, probably narrows it down.

So this would be what? Medical doctor, vetinary surgeon, butcher?

[Hunter]

As far as the Eddowes murder is concerned and what the medicos there had to say, it all tied into the astonishing accusation made by Wynne Baxter just four days before the "double event" during his summary at the Chapman inquest. He had impugned the medical profession and went on to say that Chapman's killer was not unfamiliar with the autopsy room. Whether he was right or wrong in that assessment he was way out on a limb with his anatomical specimen theory.

And this is what most students of this case have misunderstood - the reason for the questions and answers to and by the physicians at the Eddowes inquest. These doctors felt they needed to set the record straight and broadened the categories of men who could have done this. When Sequeira stated that the murderer had no design on a particular organ, he meant for the purpose Baxter had suggested for Chapman's murder - anatomical specimens. Leaving the cervix behind here, rendered Eddowes' uterus useless for that purpose. It did not mean that the medicos didn't recognize the killer went after these organs for some reason, they just didn't know what that reason was. You don't slash and grab taking out a uterus and a kidney. And its no accident that the uterus was removed in three of these murders and kidneys in two. Both of these organs by their very nature and location had to be deliberately targeted.

Gordon Brown probably would have preferred to be as defensive as his colleagues Sequeira and Saunders were, but he had to provide the exact details of the medical evidence to the court and answer specific questions relating to what was actually done. He had to give a straightforward and direct opinion on the evidence itself. What he related captivated and stunned everyone present.

Unlike the previous murder inquests presided over by Baxter, Langham had postponed his inquest for several days to give the police and the medicos time to identify the victim, make inquiries and even conduct experiments. They had managed to keep the fact that organs had been removed under wraps for the most part, despite rumors and suspicions that such might be the case.

Brown was the last witness called on that first day; Sequeira and Saunders weren't called until the last session. The City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, had carefully maneuvered Brown through his testimony, allowing him to explicitly detail the injuries first, and then build upon that with the final line of questions regarding what may be determined about the murderer himself. By the time Brown had concluded, all you could hear were gasp from those present and the hastily scribbling pencils of the reporters.

A high water mark was reached here concerning this series of murders and the validity of forensic science would take a giant leap forward as a result with a combination of techniques and their application becoming more commonplace.

[lynn cates]

Trevor

Hello Sally. Thanks.

"Lynn - I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to learn from a book in theory."

Very well. And that would seem to go along with his obvious lack of knife skills.

Of course, the uterus was only partly removed (one end). That doesn't look skilful.

A thought occurs to me. You know how Trevor is on about someone killing Kate but not taking the organs, their being removed later by an attendant?

I daresay that this is grist for his mill.

"So this would be what? Medical doctor, veterinary surgeon, butcher?"

If the technique is as Prosector describes, that might rule out a butcher. But the sloppy knife cuts seem to rule out a doctor.

Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Thomas Haynes Cutbush. Got to be.

[curious]

Maybe he gutted fish for a living.

perhaps he was an offal dresser.

[Errata]

Of course, the uterus was only partly removed (one end). That doesn't look skilful.


Cheers.
LC

I don't think it indicates lack of skill, I think it indicates lack of knowledge. Since he cut in from the front we know that he is looking at the uterus in relation to to the bladder. If he reaches in to where the uterus attaches to the bladder, it would be natural to assume that everything above that point is the uterus. So he would cut there. But that leaves about 3/4 of an inch of the uterus still attached to the vagina. Had he come in from behind and cut from where the uterus attaches to the colon, he would have gotten all of it.

It's interesting to note that the place where the colon was severed is on the same line or plane as the connection between the bladder and the uterus.

[Prosector]

Yes Lynn, that's exactly what I think. It may come as no surprise that I have someone in mind (who has never been mentioned before). His father was a semi-professional anatomist (ie he did public dissections) and I believe that his son may either have started out as a medical student or at least have watched his father and had access to his medical library.

Prosector

[Prosector]

The uterus lies behind the bladder but covers the top of the bladder if the latter is empty. During hysterectomy, especially for cancer, part of the bladder is often removed in conjunction with the uterus. the fact that he didn't suggests a reasonable degree of skill (or luck). The uterus is not attached to the colon at all; they are separated by the Pouch of Douglas. There is no way in which you can come at the uterus from behind (the sacrum is in the way). The only ways are from above, as he did, or from below as in vaginal hysterectomy.

Prosector

[Prosector]

I believe that Jack did intentionally remove the uterus from Eddowes and Chapman and the kidney from Eddowes, to show that he could. As I have had said before, I think his main motivation was to connect the killings as being the work of a single man and if people thought that man was a doctor, so be it. He didn't have time to make a perfect job of it even if he had the capability. He simply wanted people to know that one man was responsible. Typical signature killings in other words.

Prosector

[Prosector]

I think this is a very good point. I think that Phillips in particular was ashamed lest people think that his profession was involved. When Baxter asked him if the knife used was of the sort that might be found in a set of post mortem instruments he dissembled. He said ' I don't think that the typical post mortem set would contain such an instrument' (or words to that effect). Had the coroner asked if the typical operating set or amputation set had contained such an instrument he would have had to say yes. The point being that amputations are not normally performed as part of a post mortem and therefore the sets do not contain amputation knives which is almost certainly what Jack used. I believe that a great deal of Phillips 's reticence was due to his reluctance to face the possibility that JTR might be a member of his own profession. Not exactly covering up but deeply disturbed by the thought.

Prosector

[Wickerman]

...Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again...

Out of interest, from a medical perspective, would anyone working in a mortuary be required to know this procedure, or is it something unique to the operating room in the 19th century?

I ask because although we know Whitechapel had no permanent mortuary, the City apparently did, and may have had a regular staff.
Could we expect this procedure be known by anyone familiar with an autopsy, other than the surgeon?

[Prosector]

Hi Wickerman

1) Yes, I think he may have used his left hand. Doesn't necessarily make him left handed though. Most surgeons (and I'm not suggesting that he was one) have to learn to be pretty much ambidextrous according to circumstances.

2) I agree. I don't think he went back and studied the books and practiced on a few more cats (although he might have done). I think it was chiefly increasing confidence, more opportunity (maybe why he chose the back yard rather than the open street) and maybe old skills returning after a period of not having practiced (suppose he had been a medical student 20 or so years before).
3) I would forget battlefield surgeons. Other than a few colonial skirmishes the last major war was the Crimea in 1854/5. Even there, surgeons did not operate actually on the field of battle. Casualties were evacuated by stretcher bearers to a mile or so behind the lines and although surgeons worked quickly in order to clear the backlog they probably worked no faster than their civilian counterparts. Also, as I have already pointed out, abdominal surgery was virtually unknown in 1888 so no-one had experience of doing lightening nephrectomies or hysterectomies.

Prosector

[Prosector]

Hi Wickerman again.

Yes, I think that anyone doing post mortems would be familiar with this technique in 1888. Surgeons on the other hand wouldn't, except as part of their medical school training which included carrying out post mortems (I had to do 12 whilst I was a medical student). Abdominal surgery on living patients involving resection of the colon hadn't been invented in 1888.

Prosector

[c.d.]

I am still not real clear on this and not even sure how to phrase my question but let me give it a try. If a trained surgeon removed a uterus, would it look essentially like a uterus that Jack removed? I am assuming that a trained surgeon would remove the uterus and the uterus alone. Is this essentially what Jack did or would it be more accurate to say that he removed a section of abdominal tissue that contained the uterus?

Hope that makes sense.

c.d.