The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Patrick Differ]

Grays Anatomy has been the Bible for Surgeons and Med Students since the First Edition in the mid 1860s. By 1888 they were already up to the 11th Edition. They are now up to somewhere in the mid 40's in terms of Editions.
I was pretty shocked at the level of detail in these early editions but it paints a more clear picture of the technical jargon used by all of the Doctors involved with these victims.
It makes sense to me that these learned Doctors would want to get specific because that is how they were trained. Indeed the Mortuary assistants had to be able to write and keep clear notes so the Doctors could craft a final report.
When Chapman was evicerated it was also getting light and once the intestines were removed the Uterus and organs in the Pelvic area would be exposed. One thought here is whether it was ALL of the intestines with regard to Chapman. It appears her stomach was also extracted. Removing all of the intestines would expose the left kidney. If the killer saw this in emerging daylight then it would have given him the knowledge of kidney extraction on Eddowes. Removing ALL intestines would provide this. Removing a 2 foot long piece and placing it between the arm and body sounds like it could have been the large intestine that covered the left kidney.
it is curious that these Doctors were divided over the skill but it appears they may not have been convinced a Surgeon necessarily performed these murders. All but Mary Kelly and Tabrum were murdered and evicerated in less than 10 minutes. Would a medically trained Surgeon be able to perform this in under 10 minutes. They themselves did not believe so.

[The Rookie Detective]

Grays Anatomy has been the Bible for Surgeons and Med Students since the First Edition in the mid 1860s. By 1888 they were already up to the 11th Edition. They are now up to somewhere in the mid 40's in terms of Editions.
I was pretty shocked at the level of detail in these early editions but it paints a more clear picture of the technical jargon used by all of the Doctors involved with these victims.
It makes sense to me that these learned Doctors would want to get specific because that is how they were trained. Indeed the Mortuary assistants had to be able to write and keep clear notes so the Doctors could craft a final report.
When Chapman was evicerated it was also getting light and once the intestines were removed the Uterus and organs in the Pelvic area would be exposed. One thought here is whether it was ALL of the intestines with regard to Chapman. It appears her stomach was also extracted. Removing all of the intestines would expose the left kidney. If the killer saw this in emerging daylight then it would have given him the knowledge of kidney extraction on Eddowes. Removing ALL intestines would provide this. Removing a 2 foot long piece and placing it between the arm and body sounds like it could have been the large intestine that covered the left kidney.
it is curious that these Doctors were divided over the skill but it appears they may not have been convinced a Surgeon necessarily performed these murders. All but Mary Kelly and Tabrum were murdered and evicerated in less than 10 minutes. Would a medically trained Surgeon be able to perform this in under 10 minutes. They themselves did not believe so.

Excellent post.


I think overall, the timing impacts negatively on the 'killer surgeon' theory.


Outside of emergency room situations, the vast majority of invasive surgical procedures aren't about speed; they're about accuracy.
Elective surgery is also not practiced under the same parameters as emergency procedures.

When we look at the killer's skill set, there are 4 specific areas that need to be assessed.


Anatomical knowledge
Skill with a knife
Accuracy
Speed


Now the question as to whether the killer had the first 3 attributes on that list, is a subjective argument, depending on the views of the various experts and professionals at the time.

However, "Speed" is something that would be difficult to argue against.

In other words; regardless of whether the killer knew or didn't know where and/or how to cut and where/what to look for, the key irrefutable point, is that the killer worked with extreme speed.

And so the question is...


What kind of killer could achieve the wounds upon his victims, in the relatively short time that he had to do so?

[GBinOz]

Excellent post.


I think overall, the timing impacts negatively on the 'killer surgeon' theory.


Outside of emergency room situations, the vast majority of invasive surgical procedures aren't about speed; they're about accuracy.
Elective surgery is also not practiced under the same parameters as emergency procedures.

When we look at the killer's skill set, there are 4 specific areas that need to be assessed.


Anatomical knowledge
Skill with a knife
Accuracy
Speed


Now the question as to whether the killer had the first 3 attributes on that list, is a subjective argument, depending on the views of the various experts and professionals at the time.

However, "Speed" is something that would be difficult to argue against.

In other words; regardless of whether the killer knew or didn't know where and/or how to cut and where/what to look for, the key irrefutable point, is that the killer worked with extreme speed.

And so the question is...
What kind of killer could achieve the wounds upon his victims, in the relatively short time that he had to do so?

Hi RD,

From the Inquest for Annie Chapman:

Coroner: Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

Cornoner's Summary: The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming.

It appears to me that Tabram's attacker had no real anatomical skills. With Nicolls, Stride, McKenzie and Coles there seems to have been a suggestion that interruption may have curtailed further injuries, but there was a skill exhibited in knowing where to cut the throat to secure silence.

For Chapman and Eddowes there was some frantic slashing, but also skills which were that of a practiced hand in a dissection room. For Kelly, there was a great deal of slashing, but the removal of the heart and it's attachments from the pericardium via the abdomen required a skilled newly developed surgical technique.

I am inclined to agree with Baxter, that there was involvement by - "some one accustomed to the post-mortem room", but I don't know whether that involvement was at the murder site or afterwards in the post-mortem room. If the former, then I would think about someone like Thompson.

Cheers, George