The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Abby Normal]

I think the question should be...


Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

(We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.

hi rookie
good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.

[Indian Harry]

If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.

I am with you on this.

Now that you mention horse slaughteres... I sometimes ponder the possibility that Nichols was done in by one of the slaughterers employed right there in Bucks Row. For subsequent murders the culprit was smart enough to operate a little further from his place of employment to avoid drawing attention.

[FISHY1118]

On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rule them out from what exactly ?

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the question should be...


Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

(We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George , Some interesting points you make for sure , and like all things in this JtR world, its always subject to heavy debate . Having said that tho George ,given the language and the exact technical wording Dr Phillipps uses , i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

In my opinion, if ever there were grounds for a case for supporting a Surgeon or Doctor as a legitimate suspect, this one description from Dr Phillipps has to surely carry weight for that arguement . I dont see how anyone could effectively debate such a person would be ''less'' likely than a butcher or abattoir worker , given Dr Phillipps wording.

Forgive me if i dont share your view on different killer/s for the C5 victims , Im comfortable with all the evidence and inquest testimony, that for me points to a single same killer. Just my opinion of course. Cheers.


P.s Any thought on the jfk files?

On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Depends on which medical man your referring to Baron.

[The Baron]

i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

You might want to add: a medical man who descended into madness, there Fishy!



The Baron

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

That is pretty much how a butcher would remove these body parts - with one sweep of a knife and without regard to collateral damage to these organs. To a butcher these were waste products.

For Eddowes the uterus was removed leaving the bladder in place and undamaged. I wonder if a butcher had ever practised this procedure...why would he when these waste products could be removed with a sweep of his knife?

For Chapman and Eddowes it was not noted if the organs were or were not missing at the crime scene. However, Prosector noted that the practice of lifting the small intestines out of the abdomen gives a clearer view, and Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). This was an intended procedure as anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

In the case of Eddowes, Prosector stated As far as I am aware he never accidentally perforated the small intestine (and few surgeons even today could say that). The only time that he cut into the bowel was when he deliberately removed a section of Eddowes’s descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney. The descending colon however contains semi-solid faeces so although there was a little contamination it was nothing like what would have happened if he had perforated the small intestine.

He needed anatomical knowledge to know that the left kidney lay behind the descending colon and even then it would have been difficult to find and excise because it is completely covered by the posterior peritoneum (the ‘membrane’ that Dr Frederick Brown talked about at her inquest).

So while the is no evidence as to whether or not the organs were still present at the crime scene, it appears that the above preparations indicated, at least, an intention to do so. The question still remains as to whether it was possible in the time available and under the conditions. Prosector comments:
It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary. I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part.

For MJK, there is no doubt that all the organs were extracted at the scene. The heart was removed via the abdominal cavity using an incision in the pericardium to access the heart, which was removed leaving the pericardium in place - a technique taught by Virchow.

My current opinion is that Nicolls and Chapman were the victims of a butcher, Stride was murdered by Kosminski and became Anderson's suspect, Eddowes and Kelly were murdered by someone who knew them (facial attacks), that person being very practiced in the dissecting room - someone like Thompson, without necessarily being Thompson.

JMO

Cheers, George

Hi George , Some interesting points you make for sure , and like all things in this JtR world, its always subject to heavy debate . Having said that tho George ,given the language and the exact technical wording Dr Phillipps uses , i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

In my opinion, if ever there were grounds for a case for supporting a Surgeon or Doctor as a legitimate suspect, this one description from Dr Phillipps has to surely carry weight for that arguement . I dont see how anyone could effectively debate such a person would be ''less'' likely than a butcher or abattoir worker , given Dr Phillipps wording.

Forgive me if i dont share your view on different killer/s for the C5 victims , Im comfortable with all the evidence and inquest testimony, that for me points to a single same killer. Just my opinion of course. Cheers.


P.s Any thought on the jfk files?

[GBinOz]

Dr. George Bagster Phillips Report following the post mortem examination:

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

I think Dr Phillipps opinion is often overlooked .

Hi Fishy,

That is pretty much how a butcher would remove these body parts - with one sweep of a knife and without regard to collateral damage to these organs. To a butcher these were waste products.

For Eddowes the uterus was removed leaving the bladder in place and undamaged. I wonder if a butcher had ever practised this procedure...why would he when these waste products could be removed with a sweep of his knife?

For Chapman and Eddowes it was not noted if the organs were or were not missing at the crime scene. However, Prosector noted that the practice of lifting the small intestines out of the abdomen gives a clearer view, and Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). This was an intended procedure as anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

In the case of Eddowes, Prosector stated As far as I am aware he never accidentally perforated the small intestine (and few surgeons even today could say that). The only time that he cut into the bowel was when he deliberately removed a section of Eddowes’s descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney. The descending colon however contains semi-solid faeces so although there was a little contamination it was nothing like what would have happened if he had perforated the small intestine.

He needed anatomical knowledge to know that the left kidney lay behind the descending colon and even then it would have been difficult to find and excise because it is completely covered by the posterior peritoneum (the ‘membrane’ that Dr Frederick Brown talked about at her inquest).

So while the is no evidence as to whether or not the organs were still present at the crime scene, it appears that the above preparations indicated, at least, an intention to do so. The question still remains as to whether it was possible in the time available and under the conditions. Prosector comments:
It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary. I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part.

For MJK, there is no doubt that all the organs were extracted at the scene. The heart was removed via the abdominal cavity using an incision in the pericardium to access the heart, which was removed leaving the pericardium in place - a technique taught by Virchow.

My current opinion is that Nicolls and Chapman were the victims of a butcher, Stride was murdered by Kosminski and became Anderson's suspect, Eddowes and Kelly were murdered by someone who knew them (facial attacks), that person being very practiced in the dissecting room - someone like Thompson, without necessarily being Thompson.

JMO

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

We all know the answer to that question but what relevance has that in relation to my previous post ?

I think I know what you are trying to infer but I will say that the organs were simply hacked out of Kelly and no anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal whereas with the previous murders some degree of anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal, and the killer if harvesting Kellys organs could have emptied the body of all the internal organs.

I am glad you mentioned mutilation because in my opinion in all of these murders, the motive was murder and mutilation and not organ harvesting

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good, ive got you on record as ""YES to that question.

Its relevant simply because you have no way of knowing or proving that kellys organs were "hacked " out and were indeed mutilated in the removal process . The killer could have removed them in much the same way as he did in the other murders . That fact is you don't know , which means the killer could just as easily performed the same technique in the same time frame as Eddowes and Chapman.

You also go on about two different techniques for the organ removal. Again how do you know the killer didn't just experiment in different ways on different victims ? . You can't possibly know that .

Your whole theory Trevor is based on to much guesswork and circumstantial evidence to be taken seriously .

The murder , mutilation and organ removal of Mary Kelly will alway be the Achilles heal to your theory.

Now tell me your answer to my other question regarding Dr Phillips and his post mortem comments .?

[Trevor Marriott]

No !!! The fact that the organs were removed in different ways - and very crudely and messily at that - points in precisely the opposite direction from which which you're arguing. In each and every case, the evidence points overwhelmingly to someone improvising as he went along, in poor light and under time-pressure. This isn't remotely what one would expect from practised hand of a butcher, slaughterman or even a mortuary attendant.

But the uterus and the fallopian tubes were removed intact from Chapman that doesn't indicate someone improvising as he went along and under time pressure, so if the same killer killed Eddowes why does he then change to a totally different method of extraction and why would he take the same organ a second time?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok once more with the intent to get a proper and straight forward ,less running around and around the mulberry bush answer trevor , did the killer remove the organs from mary kellys body and place them around the room and around her mutilated corps ????? YES OR NO ?

We all know the answer to that question but what relevance has that in relation to my previous post ?

I think I know what you are trying to infer but I will say that the organs were simply hacked out of Kelly and no anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal whereas with the previous murders some degree of anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal, and the killer if harvesting Kellys organs could have emptied the body of all the internal organs.

I am glad you mentioned mutilation because in my opinion in all of these murders, the motive was murder and mutilation and not organ harvesting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I have no idea of the level of skill or anatomical knowledge a body dealer or a mortuary attendant would have had but it goes to show that if the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes then we should have seen the organ extractions carried out the same way

No !!! The fact that the organs were removed in different ways - and very crudely and messily at that - points in precisely the opposite direction from which which you're arguing. In each and every case, the evidence points overwhelmingly to someone improvising as he went along, in poor light and under time-pressure. This isn't remotely what one would expect from practised hand of a butcher, slaughterman or even a mortuary attendant.

[FISHY1118]

I don't ignore that fact, but what point are you trying to make? I know what the doctor's report says that the heart was absent from the pericardium it doesnt say the heart was missing from the room having been taken away by the killer. Insp Reid in his interview can now clarify that ambiguous statement by the doctor by saying the body was complete and no organs were missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok once more with the intent to get a proper and straight forward ,less running around and around the mulberry bush answer trevor , did the killer remove the organs from mary kellys body and place them around the room and around her mutilated corps ????? YES OR NO ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Again you deflect trevor , im not taking about whether the organs were taken out of the room, only that they were taken out of mary kellys body !!!!! which is a fact you want to ignore . Your the one doing the huffing and puffing not i .

I don't ignore that fact, but what point are you trying to make? I know what the doctor's report says that the heart was absent from the pericardium it doesnt say the heart was missing from the room having been taken away by the killer. Insp Reid in his interview can now clarify that ambiguous statement by the doctor by saying the body was complete and no organs were missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk