The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[The Rookie Detective]

I think that it is very likely that the poor light must have affected the eviscerations. Also, the experience of the first attempt might have suggested a slightly different approach the next time. A slaughterman would be experienced at cutting up animals, but not humans, so he would be learning.

Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Definitely not a surgeon, agreed. However, even some doctors involved in the case at the time didn't believe it was the work of a slaughterman. Indeed, there's not even any consistency in the way that the victims' abdomens were cut open... Chapman, for example, had three differently-sized asymmetric "panels" of flesh cut from her abdomen, with a bias to one side. This hugely inefficient evisceration has all the hallmarks of improvisation, rather than the assured work of an experienced hand.

I think that it is very likely that the poor light must have affected the eviscerations. Also, the experience of the first attempt might have suggested a slightly different approach the next time. A slaughterman would be experienced at cutting up animals, but not humans, so he would be learning.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

Well they would have known of the activities of body dealers and how they were allowed to acquire bodies and body parts legally and illegally but could not admit that the bodies had been tampered with before the post-mortems so it was easier to assume the killer removed the organs.

There is a lot of evidence to show that mortuary attendants were complicit in allowing organs to be taken from dead people

There was no evidence from the crime scenes save for Kelly that the organs had been removed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It was the swift evisceration that slaughtermen practised and not the neat organ removal of a surgeon.

Definitely not a surgeon, agreed. However, even some doctors involved in the case at the time didn't believe it was the work of a slaughterman. Indeed, there's not even any consistency in the way that the victims' abdomens were cut open... Chapman, for example, had three differently-sized asymmetric "panels" of flesh cut from her abdomen, with a bias to one side. This hugely inefficient evisceration has all the hallmarks of improvisation, rather than the assured work of an experienced hand.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi George

We must also not forget the degree of difficulty for a killer in having first to locate the organs in almost total darkness, and then be able to grip slippery wet bloodied organs to remove them in double quick time.

Another pointer to the killer not removing the organs is that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus from both victims.

It is well-documented that there was an illegal acquisition of bodies and body parts from mortuaries.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Thank you for posting the letter. I have not seen that before.

As I said in my post, removing organs with one sweep of a knife, was a description that I read in regard to the removal of Chapman's uterus, but was accompanied by collateral damage such as the cutting of the bladder. In Eddowes case the uterus was removed without nicking the bladder, which is located in front of the uterus.

A difference with the evisceration of animals by a butcher and that of the ripper victims is that the animal carcasses are hanging so that gravity assists with the removal of the internals and the blood. With the bodies on the ground the internals have to be removed by hand from a cavity with a blood pool.

Cheers, George

Agreed. He would have found the evisceration a little more difficult and more bloody.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Indeed, but I see little in the way of dexterity in any of the Whitechapel murders.

Perhaps not, but we have evidence of skill with a knife, and a job done swiftly, in poor light by someone with a clear purpose, and all done in a manner similar to the slaughterman's m.o., starting even with the method of throat slitting. It was done swiftly by someone who knew exactly what he was doing because he had done it before.

It was the swift evisceration that slaughtermen practised and not the neat organ removal of a surgeon.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Doc,

Thank you for posting the letter. I have not seen that before.

As I said in my post, removing organs with one sweep of a knife, was a description that I read in regard to the removal of Chapman's uterus, but was accompanied by collateral damage such as the cutting of the bladder. In Eddowes case the uterus was removed without nicking the bladder, which is located in front of the uterus.

A difference with the evisceration of animals by a butcher and that of the ripper victims is that the animal carcasses are hanging so that gravity assists with the removal of the internals and the blood. With the bodies on the ground the internals have to be removed by hand from a cavity with a blood pool.

Cheers, George

Hi George

We must also not forget the degree of difficulty for a killer in having first to locate the organs in almost total darkness, and then be able to grip slippery wet bloodied organs to remove them in double quick time.

Another pointer to the killer not removing the organs is that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus from both victims.

It is well-documented that there was an illegal acquisition of bodies and body parts from mortuaries.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I think that it is obvious that Baxter got his facts wrong. The medical opinion was of anatomical knowledge and not surgical skills which are totally different. Over the various inquests we have the opinion expressed that the necessary skill and knowledge would be possessed by someone used to cutting up animals like a hunter or a butcher, and who was accustomed to removing organs with one sweep of a knife. That seems to point to a butcher/slaughterer. Swanson advised the Home Office in October 1888 that 76 butchers and slaughterers were visited as part of their enquiries, so that message was conveyed to the police in very clear terms. Conan Doyle wrote that Brown told him that the cuts were those of a butcher.

Some may be unaware of the following letter sent to the police in October 1888 by R Hull of Bow -

From the age of 14 years till past 30, I was a butcher so that I can speak with some authority. Doctors, I think, but little know how terribly dextrous a good slaughterman is with his knife. There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark.It is not known perhaps to the medical fraternity that a slaughterman is a dexter handed man. Consequently doctors are misled. And as to the time taken by the murderer to do the most difficult deed done as yet, I think it would be reduced to about one third of the time stated by them if done by a practical man, which according to their own evidence it must be or someone connected to their own craft. I cannot think that inexperienced men could do it.
I have never seen the inside of a human being, but I presume there is little difference between such and a sheep or pig. I could when in the trade, kill and dress 4 or 5 sheep in one hour. Then as to the blood, do not be misled, if done by a butcher he will not have any or very little upon his person. I have many a time gone in to the slaughterhouse and killed several sheep or lambs and scarcely soiled my clothes, that is when the weather has been fine and the skins have been dry.
It likewise occurs to me, that if done by a butcher he would know his work too well to attempt to cut the throat of his victim while standing up, but when they had laid down for an immoral purpose, then with one hand over the mouth and the thumb under the chin, then with what is known in the trade as a sticking knife, which is a terrible weapon in the hands of a strong butcher, in the twinkling of an eye, he has cut the throat, then turning the head to one side, like he would a sheep, the body would bleed out while he did the rest of his work, from which the blood would flow. The only fear of making a mess would be the breaking of a gut or intestine and that would not be done by one knowing his business.

He then goes on to describe the knives used, and said that the sticking knife was 6-8 inches long - exactly as the murder weapon was described by the police surgeons.

That letter demonstrates, I believe, that the modus opperandi of JtR was identical to that of a butcher/slaughterer, and that the knife was likely to be a sticking knife. It also reveals that the slaughterman could use a knife in either hand, which explains, perhaps, the suspicion that some cuts might have been made with a left hand. It also shows that an experienced slaughterer could work in poor light, and work much more quickly than medical opinion believed.

Just because it could be relevant, a butcher would be likely to carry chalk in his pocket for marking meat prices on his board in the shop, so he would be able to chalk up items the GSG if he wished ....

I am expecting JtR to have probably been a butcher/slaughterer more than any other job.

Hi Doc,

Thank you for posting the letter. I have not seen that before.

As I said in my post, removing organs with one sweep of a knife, was a description that I read in regard to the removal of Chapman's uterus, but was accompanied by collateral damage such as the cutting of the bladder. In Eddowes case the uterus was removed without nicking the bladder, which is located in front of the uterus.

A difference with the evisceration of animals by a butcher and that of the ripper victims is that the animal carcasses are hanging so that gravity assists with the removal of the internals and the blood. With the bodies on the ground the internals have to be removed by hand from a cavity with a blood pool.

Cheers, George

[Sam Flynn]

little know how terribly dextrous a good slaughterman is with his knife.

Indeed, but I see little in the way of dexterity in any of the Whitechapel murders.

[Sam Flynn]

I read somewhere (but now can't find it) that her organs were removed with one sweep of the knife.

That was an editorial in The Lancet, often misrepresented as Bagster Philips' opinion. Again, it reeks of sensationalism and over-dramatisiation. Chapman's organs - and those of the other JTR evisceration murders - were extracted clumsily and with much collateral damage. Even allowing for haste, this doesn't offer much in the way of support for Baxter's assertion that "considerable anatomical skill" was in evidence.

[Patrick Differ]

Well said DW.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think that it is obvious that Baxter got his facts wrong. The medical opinion was of anatomical knowledge and not surgical skills which are totally different. Over the various inquests we have the opinion expressed that the necessary skill and knowledge would be possessed by someone used to cutting up animals like a hunter or a butcher, and who was accustomed to removing organs with one sweep of a knife. That seems to point to a butcher/slaughterer. Swanson advised the Home Office in October 1888 that 76 butchers and slaughterers were visited as part of their enquiries, so that message was conveyed to the police in very clear terms. Conan Doyle wrote that Brown told him that the cuts were those of a butcher.

Some may be unaware of the following letter sent to the police in October 1888 by R Hull of Bow -

From the age of 14 years till past 30, I was a butcher so that I can speak with some authority. Doctors, I think, but little know how terribly dextrous a good slaughterman is with his knife. There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark.It is not known perhaps to the medical fraternity that a slaughterman is a dexter handed man. Consequently doctors are misled. And as to the time taken by the murderer to do the most difficult deed done as yet, I think it would be reduced to about one third of the time stated by them if done by a practical man, which according to their own evidence it must be or someone connected to their own craft. I cannot think that inexperienced men could do it.
I have never seen the inside of a human being, but I presume there is little difference between such and a sheep or pig. I could when in the trade, kill and dress 4 or 5 sheep in one hour. Then as to the blood, do not be misled, if done by a butcher he will not have any or very little upon his person. I have many a time gone in to the slaughterhouse and killed several sheep or lambs and scarcely soiled my clothes, that is when the weather has been fine and the skins have been dry.
It likewise occurs to me, that if done by a butcher he would know his work too well to attempt to cut the throat of his victim while standing up, but when they had laid down for an immoral purpose, then with one hand over the mouth and the thumb under the chin, then with what is known in the trade as a sticking knife, which is a terrible weapon in the hands of a strong butcher, in the twinkling of an eye, he has cut the throat, then turning the head to one side, like he would a sheep, the body would bleed out while he did the rest of his work, from which the blood would flow. The only fear of making a mess would be the breaking of a gut or intestine and that would not be done by one knowing his business.

He then goes on to describe the knives used, and said that the sticking knife was 6-8 inches long - exactly as the murder weapon was described by the police surgeons.

That letter demonstrates, I believe, that the modus opperandi of JtR was identical to that of a butcher/slaughterer, and that the knife was likely to be a sticking knife. It also reveals that the slaughterman could use a knife in either hand, which explains, perhaps, the suspicion that some cuts might have been made with a left hand. It also shows that an experienced slaughterer could work in poor light, and work much more quickly than medical opinion believed.

Just because it could be relevant, a butcher would be likely to carry chalk in his pocket for marking meat prices on his board in the shop, so he would be able to chalk up items the GSG if he wished ....

I am expecting JtR to have probably been a butcher/slaughterer more than any other job.

[Patrick Differ]

The Doctors were veteran Medical professionals of their time and that shows in their post mortem narratives. However, they had also never seen anything like this before outside the confines of a mortuary or teaching environment. It seems natural that they would gravitate to the requirements of their profession. In this case they put themselves into the shoes of the killer to ascertain what skills were needed to kill these women. They identified a pointed blade, extremely sharp, 6 to 8 inches long, possibly longer. Possibly not found in a surgical kit but it could have been a Liston amputation knife although it's width was too narrow. A slaughtererss knife well ground was not discounted. The point is extreme sharpness or fine tuned in modern terms.
My final thought here is that speed may have been less haste than knowledge. Whether it was a Surgeon or Butcher I think narrows that field. I do not believe any other profession would grant the repeatable skill illustrated on the victims. Itvwas not luck. Whether it was a human or animal that was the forerunner probably matters not. Once the intestines were removed the left kidney would be exposed. Strangling of the victim and cutting of the throat shows strength and knowledge of bleeding out the victim. Witnesses used the word stout to describe this killer. The upper body strength and strong developed hands were certainly typical for Butchers who handled meat carcasses daily. That does not mean a Surgeon would not have considerable or need much strength to strangle a victim, especially using a wall as leverage.
Have we narrowed the field?

[GBinOz]

Please note that it was the Coroner (a lawyer with no medical qualifications) who said all these things. What Phillips actually said was "there were indications of anatomical KNOWLEDGE" - not skill, and certainly not "considerable skill". If one reads Phillips' description of how Chapman was cut up, there were plenty of meaningless cuts to her body and collageral damage to the internal organs. As I see it, Baxter grossly exaggerated what was actually presented in testimony and, in keeping with his flamboyant and larger-than-life personality, was rather dramatic in how he said it.

Hi Sam,

I did include Phillip's testimony in my post, but I do agree that Baxter over-ruled the medical opinion in several regards.

The autopsy report did show there was collateral damage to Chapman. I read somewhere (but now can't find it) that her organs were removed with one sweep of the knife. More indicative of a butcher, whereas in Eddowes case the uterus was removed without damaging the bladder - more indicative of surgical competence. Different techniques by the same killer, or different killers, or same killer but different mortuary extractors?

Cheers, George