Is this a realistic theory?

[Sam Flynn]

Neither of you addressed specifically viability of the Chapman comments made by the man that examined her

I actually quoted the man who examined her, who records that Chapman's belly was scooped away on one side, and her colon cut through.

you just dismissed them, with laymans views on what transpired.

Please, don't classify me as a layman when it comes to matters anatomical or biological. I may not have a degree in those specific subjects, but that doesn't negate the fact that I've been steeped in them for some 35 years now... which is more than can be said for Wynne Baxter, whose dangerous lay-speculation is so often misapplied as fact.

I think Ill buy you both some machine oil next year...

... better make sure it's crude, Mike - in memory of Polly's, Annie's, Kate's and Mary's eviscerations

[lynn cates]

gestalt switch

Hello Mike. Funny you should mention mental gears. I just finished my family's annual jigsaw puzzle. Whilst doing so, I noticed that sometimes a piece viewed close up doesn't seem to fit. But when we walk around to the other side, we experience something of a gestalt switch and the piece works after all.

Needless to say I applied this to my study of Jack. Sometimes we just need a gestalt switch. Else, we end up like the old saying:

"Keep on doing what you've always done,
and you'll keep on getting what you've always gotten."

The best.
LC

Neither of you addressed specifically viability of the Chapman comments made by the man that examined her,...you just dismissed them, with laymans views on what transpired.

Im a layman and Ive read medical books on anatomy and I have very sharp knives of all sizes and shapes.....and aside from the lack of any interest I have in killing anyone or cutting into them, if I was to attempt to do so in the dark and while under great stress, I wouldnt know one organ from another. I wouldn't be able to do anything the doctor might refer to as "clean".

You might reply, so he must have cut up animals in his job....ok, then he has some anatomical knowledge and knife skills based on his work with animals...he is not suddenly devoid of skill because he was sloppy.

Either way, a novice didnt cut into Annie, one might have cut Mary to bits though.

The argument that some Canonical Murders dont show skill or knowledge doesnt then mean that the one man who did them showed that he could be skilled then inept...its more likely representative of the probable answer that one man didnt kill all the women.

Some were killed and mutilated with some skill, some werent, and one didnt have a cut into her after the throat. Instead if trying to assess how one man is skilled then suddenly not his next murder, wouldnt it be more prudent to separate the ones that do show some skill that was attributed by the attending physicians, from the ones that clearly....even in laymans eyes... do not?

That makes a Canonical Group.. depending on your own views... of 1-3 women, Liz and Mary's killers can then be excused from the Ripper defendant box.

My best Sam and Ben, and Best Wishes and Merry Xmas to both of you stubborn friends of mine.

(I think Ill buy you both some machine oil next year for Xmas to unlock those mental gears of yours........)

[Sam Flynn]

But what about all the other mutilations exacted upon the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes that were not indicative of knowledge or skill, Mike? Chapman’s uterus was not taken “cleanly”. The bottom cut avoided the rectum...

...actually, he didn't miss the rectum, Ben - or at least the large intestine connected to it. Recall that it was left to the papers' discretion whether or not to print Bagster Phillips' testimony in respect of Chapman's wounds? Thankfully, some of them did print it:

London Echo, 19th September 1888

Dr. Phillips: "The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting. I removed the intestines as I found them in the yard. The mesentery vessels were divided through. The large intestine remained in situ, but cut through with a keen incision transversely."


Apart from the sliced intestine, we also have Jack excavating Chapman's belly messily and somewhat asymmetrically, like a child ploughing a spoon into his birthday blancmange.

[Ben]

“There are contemporary opinions that state Annies uterus was taken cleanly and by someone with some knowledge, and that Kates killer showed that he could "skillfully" remove her kidney in the manner that he did in near complete darkness.”

But what about all the other mutilations exacted upon the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes that were not indicative of knowledge or skill, Mike? Chapman’s uterus was not taken “cleanly”. The bottom cut avoided the rectum, but the top cut hacked into the bladder, leaving two thirds of it adhering to the extracted organ. Not only is that far from a “clean” extraction, it is utterly at odds with the suggestion that the pelvis organs were removed with “one sweep of the knife”, which is nigh on impossible. The failed attempt to sever the spinal column is most assuredly indicative of ignorance on the subject of skeletal dismemberment, and in Eddowes’ case, the perpetrator completely botched the removal of the uterus. Very few of the mutilations evinced skill, and most of them a pointed in the opposite direction.

“You can of course find contradictory opinions, like Bonds, someone who saw just 1 of the 5 victims...the one that obviously was killed by someone unskilled medically or surgically...and who used that supposition to directly contradict the men who did examine the women he didn’t”

I don’t need to rely on Bond to support the hypothesis for a medically inept killer; since his views already reflected the majority-endorsed medical opinion by the time he made them. The majority of medical professionals who examined the body of Kate Eddowes came to the conclusion that the person who killed her did not have discernable anatomical knowledge, let alone skill. I therefore feel quite at ease in rejecting the suggestion that the killer was surgically “skilful” since I’d be rejecting the minority view.

By rejecting the “surgical skill” hypothesis, that doesn’t mean I categorise the offender as a “bloodthirsty fiend” who was incapable of understanding the extent to which he imperilled his life with his murderous activity, but like most killers, one might reasonably surmise that he persisted in spite of those dangers. Luck did play a significant role, however, unless the killer was capable of anticipating (and timing!) the bowel movements of Albert Cadosche, for example. The loathsome Andrei Chikatilo was organised and reasonably intelligent, but he was also a “bloodthirsty fiend” with no medical skill, who nonetheless stole organs from his victims and cannibalised them.

Best regards,
Ben

I will concede that many people seem to dismiss the medical testimony with the sweep of a hand.....these are not the only comments that Ive seen in this vein,...but just so there is no confusion about how far I'm willing to go to "convince" anyone to accept what is clearly already part of the existing evidence......there is no way I will ever see the 2 "surgeries" I mentioned as being performed by someone without prior knowledge of anatomy and knife use. The only medical opinion that has no worth at all in my view is the opinions made about the first 4 Canonicals by someone who saw and examined NONE of them.

So....I accept that we differ... in polar terms.... on this issue. And thats my sign-off on this particular question. I dont see the point of these desperately long discussions on points that both sides clearly will not concede.

And I wish you well on your search for this unskilled field surgeon.

Best regards

"Testing himself" certainly isnt what I had in mind to explain why he "operates" in the way the he does on Kate...and the fact that he uses the least preferable access site to go after the kidney relates to how he positioned the victims C1 and C2,.... flat on their backs and unable to fight back or scream out. Its clear in those 2 murders that the preference shown by the killer is to have his victims face up, with their legs spread, so when he completes the sequence that gets him to the point that he can commit to abdominal mutilations with Kate, she is in the same position,...because he follows the same steps. In sequence.

There are contemporary opinions that state Annies uterus was taken cleanly and by someone with some knowledge, and that Kates killer showed that he could "skillfully" remove her kidney in the manner that he did in near complete darkness.

You can of course find contradictory opinions, like Bonds, someone who saw just 1 of the 5 victims...the one that obviously was killed by someone unskilled medically or surgically...and who used that supposition to directly contradict the men who did examine the women he didnt..., but I dont really need a physician to tell me that to tell me that removing internal organs from a victim you have just murdered in public is stressful. And that to extract organs intact and "skillfully", while in the dark, suggests skills that a very high percentage of the local population wouldnt have.

I guess if you assume the killer was just a bloodthirsty fiend, as you Ben and you Don seem to.....then its easier to suppose he just fumbled his way through and was incredibly fortunate.

I think sheer dumb luck and uncertainty have very little to do with any Ripper crime myself. Only a person who was incapable of understanding the danger he was putting himself in before he kills might fit that description.

And I think even Kosminski might have figured that one out.

Best regards chaps

[Ben]

Exactly, Don.

The knife "skills" he honed on the job, whereas the mutilations were largely the result of exploration and improvisation.

How nostalgic I feel for the days when Roebs and Supes reigned supreme on quiz night!

Best regards,
Ben

[Supe]

Ben,

The idea that a surgeon deliberately tested himself by targetting the kidneys from the front as opposed to the rear is so obviously outlandish.

Good point, "Roebling" my old friend. Anyone with real surgical skill and anatomical knowledge would, I'm sure, balk at a ventral kidney extraction. But someone who just slices, gropes and grabs--well who knows what he may wrestle free. Jack knew how to kill and slit throats but the rest of his knife work was pretty much Amateur Hour.

Don.
PS: Editing is still here, as I just used it to add this.

[Ben]

mutilations and mutilations

Mutilations and eviscerations, I meant.

Can we have the editing facility back?

[Ben]

He was an Internal Medicine Specialist, with some specific and general knowledge he shared with us and with me privately, he was of the opinion that to have accessed the kidney through her front under those circumstances would be a real test for a surgeon.

Well, with all due respect to Tutto, we have no way of knowing his full medical credentials, whereas the same cannot be said of the three out of four medical officials who examined the corpse of Kate Eddowes and came to the conclusion that the mutilations and mutilations evinced no appreciable medical skill. The idea that a surgeon deliberately tested himself by targetting the kidneys from the front as opposed to the rear is so obviously outlandish. Phillips was very obviously wrong in attributing Eddowes and Chapman to different killers, and it naturally follows that he could have been equally wrong about the skill he attributed to Chapman's killer, especially when there was no second opinion in that case as there was with Eddowes.

What could conceviably be explained as a medically competent offender acting making mistakes in haste could far more plausibly be explained by an anatomically inept operator slashing and grabbing, and the prepoderance of medical evidence from the time would suggest that the killer did precisely this.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Mike,

Again, I can't stress enough the fact that the supposed "skill" evinced by the Eddowes eviscerations was only detected by one out of four examining medical professionals. Phillips, Sequeira and Saunders did not detect any skill, leaving Brown effectively outnumbered. I go with the majority in this case. The killer certainly wouldn't have been a "newbie" in the strictest sense, since his earlier victims would have afforded him at least some experience with both the knife and the female body.

The ability to perform quickly in the dark is not an indicator of professional experience for the simple reason that no professional doctor or butcher is ever trained or encouraged to rush through the process in darkened conditions, and as far as the Chapman murder is concerned, I would reiterate the caution I urged earlier. Considering that Phillips was almost certainly in error in assigning Eddowes and Chapman to different killers, it's more than possible that the inordinate amount of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer could have been equally errant.

Reciprocal good wishes!

Ben

Remember Tutto? The jovial Spaniard who was with us for a while when I first joined in 06? He was an Internal Medicine Specialist, with some specific and general knowledge he shared with us and with me privately, he was of the opinion that to have accessed the kidney through her front under those circumstances would be a real test for a surgeon. Yes...this "surgeon" made a mess of things, severing her colon for one.....but when you consider that Phillips comments regarding the skill shown with Chapman were "more or less" present due to the circumstances and the conditions...those conditions were much different in Mitre Square.

I think since Kates location had to be far darker....its forgivable that we see sloppiness there.

I do believe that Annie Chapman by far is THE most likely victim of the man they called Jack the Ripper...and I do believe that in that murder, evidence is shown that leads to suspicions of a killer or killers with some medical knowledge. Its why they sought the 3 deranged med students out in September.

Cheers pal

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Again, I can't stress enough the fact that the supposed "skill" evinced by the Eddowes eviscerations was only detected by one out of four examining medical professionals. Phillips, Sequeira and Saunders did not detect any skill, leaving Brown effectively outnumbered. I go with the majority in this case. The killer certainly wouldn't have been a "newbie" in the strictest sense, since his earlier victims would have afforded him at least some experience with both the knife and the female body.

The ability to perform quickly in the dark is not an indicator of professional experience for the simple reason that no professional doctor or butcher is ever trained or encouraged to rush through the process in darkened conditions, and as far as the Chapman murder is concerned, I would reiterate the caution I urged earlier. Considering that Phillips was almost certainly in error in assigning Eddowes and Chapman to different killers, it's more than possible that the inordinate amount of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer could have been equally errant.

Reciprocal good wishes!

Ben

I disagree, Mike.

We're not talking about a huge array of evisceral options here, but rather a very small region encompassing a petite woman's torso and abdomen. Once the abdominal cavity had been emptied of the intestines and uterus, it wouldn't have been particularly difficult to chance upon a kidney after further fumblings. If he was intent upon cannibalism, like other serial killers who have harvested body parts, then a plausible case can be advanced that he reached around for something both solid and easily transportable - the liver and intestines being too large and conspicuous for concealment.



Again, it depends what purpose he had for the organs. It could also have been an exploratory process, reaching around inside the abdominal cavity out of perverted and morbid curiosity, perhaps with the intention of "improving" upon his earlier explorations of Chapman's innards. If so, his behaviour would be quite consistent with that of his serialist successors.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The one thing I would never agree to is that whomever killed Kate Eddowes, her killer wasnt just "exploring". Its too much to accept that he "skillfully" excises an organ he had no experience with and one he happened upon. I can accept that Jack may have done this or even someone with some similar knife skills and anatomy background, but not an ill informed "newbie" without some skill.

And Annies uterus was taken "cleanly"....those 2 acts could perhaps be duplicated by someone with no experience and no knowledge, but not outdoors, not in the dark, and not in what some experts believed was in short order. And not under the extremely stressful situations the killer was in at those times.

Best regards again Ben...and fair warning...Im not the pit bull Fisherman is, so if I cant get you to accept the terms the contemporary medical men themselves suggest about the operations performed on at least those 2 women....I will consider you a lost member of the flock, and let this go with my good wishes.

[Ben]

I disagree, Mike.

We're not talking about a huge array of evisceral options here, but rather a very small region encompassing a petite woman's torso and abdomen. Once the abdominal cavity had been emptied of the intestines and uterus, it wouldn't have been particularly difficult to chance upon a kidney after further fumblings. If he was intent upon cannibalism, like other serial killers who have harvested body parts, then a plausible case can be advanced that he reached around for something both solid and easily transportable - the liver and intestines being too large and conspicuous for concealment.

I would think he either grabs the first thing he can grab if he is the type of man you suggest,...which would not be her left kidney, ...or he gets what he wanted to get with time to spare.

Again, it depends what purpose he had for the organs. It could also have been an exploratory process, reaching around inside the abdominal cavity out of perverted and morbid curiosity, perhaps with the intention of "improving" upon his earlier explorations of Chapman's innards. If so, his behaviour would be quite consistent with that of his serialist successors.

Best regards,
Ben