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

[Sam Flynn]

Cornoner's Summary:the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill... There are no meaningless cuts... no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations... It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room.

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.

[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

[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?

[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]

Well said DW.