The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Lewis C]

With all due respect my friend, your logical progression does not conform to scientific principles. You pose your questions, answer them yourself and ascribe a 100% outcome based entirely on your opinions.

To ascribe some alternatives:

1. My research suggests a minimum time required of 15 minutes. Phillips (who was there and was the most experience police surgeon of his time) quoted this time in the Chapman case, and there was more done to Eddowes than to Chapman. Bond's "expert" came up with a time of 5 minutes, but it was not stipulated whether he was talking about just the organ extractions or the whole procedure, or under what conditions he conducted his experiment. Was it conducted in a theatre with full lighting? Bear in mind that he still managed to nick the bladder. The experiment would have been conducted on a cadaver so the blood in the abdominal cavity would not have been comparable.

2. There is no need to involve Lawende and friends to deduce a time available of 14 minutes, +/- 2 minutes. Police beat time was considered more reliable that that of casual observers. Of course, this excludes the possibility of Watkins skiving.

3. The killer(s) exhibited both butchering and dissection room knowledge and experience, the latter more so in the case of Eddowes (and Kelly). This is obvious from the injuries and techniques recorded at the autopsies. To say that the killer(s) had time to visit these injuries upon their victims because that is what happened is a logical fallacy.

The Time Conundrum is a focal point of this mystery. If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.

JMO.

[Bolding added.]

Hi George,

I suggest that a person could have had the skills or knowledge that the Ripper needed to have without us knowing that he had those skills, and that a person could have had the skills/knowledge even if his occupation didn't require it. If we were to eliminate all named suspects that weren't butchers or trained as surgeons and aren't ridiculous for other reasons, I think that would mean eliminating all named suspects except Levy, Chapman, and Thompson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. It was known at the time that Watkins said that he walked through the square at about 1:30 and discovered the body at about 1:44. If that wouldn't have allowed the killer enough time to remove the organs, that wouldn't have gone unnoticed.

If anyone were able to prove that it would have required more than 20 minutes to remove the organs (and do everything else the killer did in the square), I would consider it far more likely that Watkins lied or was mistaken about his 1:30 walk through the square than that the organs were removed in the mortuary prior to the post-mortem.

So would I Lewis. Look at PC Harvey. He supposedly went to the end of Church Passage and looked into Mitre Square at 1.40 and saw nothing. Does it seem likely that he could have missed seeing a body lying up ahead? After all, it can hardly be likely that the body wasn’t there at 1.40 then the killer and victim enter with the ensuing murder and mutilation to be found by Watkins just 4 minutes later. Ten months later Harvey was dismissed from the Force for unknown reasons.

So can we be totally certain that Watkin searched the square properly at 1.30? Is it possible that he could have walked up to Kearney and Tonge and just waved his bullseye in the direction of the corner where Eddowes was lying? From memory, isn’t it the case that those lamps weren’t very bright. From Bishopsgate Station to Mitre Square is around 7 minutes I believe; let’s say 10. Is it impossible that the ripper murdered her at around 1.10 and both Harvey and Watkins, through a mixture of cutting corners/expediency and a not very bright lamp missed her body lying in the shadows? I’m not making that claim but far stranger things have happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The Time Conundrum is a focal point of this mystery. If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.

JMO.

One of the issues that we would have to consider though George is that we couldn’t always be certain who might or might not have acquired that knowledge. We could only really say that there are many suspect that we have no evidence of having medical knowledge….which is the majority (Kosminski, Druitt, Bury, Kelly etc) Then we would talk of those who ‘might’ have acquired such knowledge/skill and you would get someone like me suggesting the son of a surgeon.

[GBinOz]

[Bolding added.]

Hi George,

I suggest that a person could have had the skills or knowledge that the Ripper needed to have without us knowing that he had those skills, and that a person could have had the skills/knowledge even if his occupation didn't require it. If we were to eliminate all named suspects that weren't butchers or trained as surgeons and aren't ridiculous for other reasons, I think that would mean eliminating all named suspects except Levy, Chapman, and Thompson.

Hi Lewis,

While I do agree, I think that such a person would also need the experience provided by repetition. The three names you put forward are good candidates.

Cheers. George

[GBinOz]

One of the issues that we would have to consider though George is that we couldn’t always be certain who might or might not have acquired that knowledge. We could only really say that there are many suspect that we have no evidence of having medical knowledge….which is the majority (Kosminski, Druitt, Bury, Kelly etc) Then we would talk of those who ‘might’ have acquired such knowledge/skill and you would get someone like me suggesting the son of a surgeon.

That is the issue that Lewis suggested, and I would concur with your elimination list with the possible exception of Kosminski who I suspect may have been responsible for Stride only.

With regard to the son of the surgeon, I dare say that the fact of his being a practising barrister and cricket tragic, he may have had some theoretical knowledge but little time for repetitive practical experience in a dissecting room. An interesting suspect, never the less.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That is the issue that Lewis suggested, and I would concur with your elimination list with the possible exception of Kosminski who I suspect may have been responsible for Stride only.

With regard to the son of the surgeon, I dare say that the fact of his being a practising barrister and cricket tragic, he may have had some theoretical knowledge but little time for repetitive practical experience in a dissecting room. An interesting suspect, never the less.

Hi George,

This might be a frustrating situation for us because we might have here a genuine way of narrowing down the suspect list massively but we can only take it as far as ‘we have no evidence that x had any such knowledge/experience.’

[FrankO]

Trevor has a point when he observes that the techniques used on Chapman and Eddowes were quite different, ...

Hi George,

While Trevor may have a point there, it doesn't mean that the uterus in these cases were cut out by different persons. If we assume that the Ripper did it, then there's no reason to think he needed the specimen to be excised in the same way as he wasn't, as far as we can tell, interested in selling the specimen; he was just interested in cutting them out & taking a souvenir. Furthermore, different circumstances may have further contributed to different modes of excising the organ.

Cheers,
Frank

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

While Trevor may have a point there, it doesn't mean that the uterus in these cases were cut out by different persons. If we assume that the Ripper did it, then there's no reason to think he needed the specimen to be excised in the same way as he wasn't, as far as we can tell, interested in selling the specimen; he was just interested in cutting them out & taking a souvenir. Furthermore, different circumstances may have further contributed to different modes of excising the organ.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I quite agree. but with so many unknowns and so many contradictions, can we justify dismissing any theories addressed at providing possible solutions? There may have been more than one perpetrator, and Trevor provides a theory that relieves the ripper from having to possess advanced dissection techniques. I don't know that we are so amply provided with hard facts as to enable us to dismiss theories out of hand.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Why all this talk of surgical techniques? In Victorian times, what we now think of as basic surgery didn't even exist, or was in its absolute infancy. In 1887 the first successful appendectomy was performed to treat acute appendicitis in which the patient survived! However, butcher/slaughterers in 1888 could kill and eviscerate pigs and sheep at the rate of four or five an hour, day after day. They must have developed their own techniques and found out the quickest and easiest ways to remove organs. By this time they had developed and mastered their necessary techniques for each task, and who is to say that some of these techniques were not similar to, or even more or less identical to more modern surgical techniques. They were doing these things first, for a long long time, and by the thousand.

I wouldn't dream of asking a butcher/slaughterer about advanced surgical techniques, as that would be ludicrous, but for some reason modern surgeons and pathologists are regarded as experts on what an experienced butcher/slaughterer could do.

Once again, I repeat a letter from an experienced butcher, R. Hull of Bow, written to the police on 8th October 1888.

"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 a 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 blood on his person. I have many a time gone into 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 have laid down for 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 on one side, like he would a sheep, the body would bleed out whilst 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. The slaughterman's knives consist of a set of three ..."

He then concludes by describing the knives, the significant one being the sticking knife, "6 or 8 inches long in the blade", which corresponds with the known murder weapon.

That letter makes several points very clear. Firstly, a butcher/slaughterer reckons that JtR was one of his kind. It takes one to know one, they say! But it also makes other points too. Poor light would not be a problem, he could use both left and right hands, the time taken would be far less than the doctors' estimates, there would probably have been little or no blood on his person, the description of the modus opperandi is convincing, and he would know how to avoid making a mess etc.

Although we can never be certain, this is the best guide I have seen to who JtR probably was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why all this talk of surgical techniques? In Victorian times, what we now think of as basic surgery didn't even exist, or was in its absolute infancy. In 1887 the first successful appendectomy was performed to treat acute appendicitis in which the patient survived! However, butcher/slaughterers in 1888 could kill and eviscerate pigs and sheep at the rate of four or five an hour, day after day. They must have developed their own techniques and found out the quickest and easiest ways to remove organs. By this time they had developed and mastered their necessary techniques for each task, and who is to say that some of these techniques were not similar to, or even more or less identical to more modern surgical techniques. They were doing these things first, for a long long time, and by the thousand.

I wouldn't dream of asking a butcher/slaughterer about advanced surgical techniques, as that would be ludicrous, but for some reason modern surgeons and pathologists are regarded as experts on what an experienced butcher/slaughterer could do.

Once again, I repeat a letter from an experienced butcher, R. Hull of Bow, written to the police on 8th October 1888.

"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 a 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 blood on his person. I have many a time gone into 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 have laid down for 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 on one side, like he would a sheep, the body would bleed out whilst 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. The slaughterman's knives consist of a set of three ..."

He then concludes by describing the knives, the significant one being the sticking knife, "6 or 8 inches long in the blade", which corresponds with the known murder weapon.

That letter makes several points very clear. Firstly, a butcher/slaughterer reckons that JtR was one of his kind. It takes one to know one, they say! But it also makes other points too. Poor light would not be a problem, he could use both left and right hands, the time taken would be far less than the doctors' estimates, there would probably have been little or no blood on his person, the description of the modus opperandi is convincing, and he would know how to avoid making a mess etc.

Although we can never be certain, this is the best guide I have seen to who JtR probably was.

Good post Doc.

These people focused on speed and they would have removed more kidneys in their lives than any surgeon would have had to.