The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks David.I am certainly suspicious about Dr Bond"s role in the Rose Mylett case.I think he may have had his arm twisted.
Cheers
Norma

[DaveMc]

- Let's exercise caution and avoid semantic meandering here. If you describe an actor as having "no great talent" or a curry as having "no great flavour", you're expressing negativity. The actor's crap and the curry tastes of nothing is what you're saying, in essence. Saunders, Sequeira and Phillips were clearly unimpressed by the anatomical "knowledge" displayed by Eddowes' mutilator.

Ben,

These aren't candy salesmen sitting around the park.
Not two old dads at the fishing hole.

They are surgeons testifying in a criminal case.

The semantics in this instance matter.

The lack of "great anatomical knowledge" means that they don't think anyone as skilled as a surgeon made the cuts.

"No particular design on any particular internal organ" means that no particular incision was made with respect to any one organ.

It was a general incision, not a specific one, and the killer might have taken any organ in the cavity.
Why he chose to take any particular organ, they can't say.
What they can say, is that it doesn't appear to be someone with medical skill.

If someone can't understand that then it can't be explained any further.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Eddowes' missing left kidney and part of her uterus were not noticed by the doctors in Mitre Square.

If, as you say, the kidney ["easily overlooked" and "covered by a membrane"—Doctor Brown] cannot be found by fumbling around, then whoever took it knew exactly where to find it and how to partially extract it.

Brown agreed, replying to the coroner's question of "would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill" that the perpetrator had "a good deal of knowledge as to the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and how to remove them".

This suggests that the internal organs were removed in Mitre Square.

But if there was sufficient light in "the darkest corner of the square" to allow the murderer to see what he was doing, why couldn't the doctors see what he had done?

I think you're onto something.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

The semantics in this instance matter

Exactly, which is why it pays dividends to avoid foisting unacceptable and misleading interpretations onto standard English phraseology. There is no evidence that Drs. Saunders, Sequeira and Phillips considered Eddowes' mutilator to have been anything other than the rankest of amateurs in terms of anatomical knowledge. If they thought that the murder evinced any "skill" beyond that of an average Joe, i.e. skill that would enable the investigating authorities to narrow down potential suspects, it was encumbant upon them to state as much in plain terms.

"No particular design on any particular internal organ" means that no particular incision was made with respect to any one organ.

It most assuredly means no such thing. How can anyone honestly think this? The observation clearly means that the killer, in the opinion of Sequeira and Saunders, was not looking for any particular organ, which carries the attendant inescapable conclusion that the killer, in their opinion, chanced upon the kidney largely by accident without necessarily knowing what it was.

Why he chose to take any particular organ, they can't say

They did say. Saunders and Sequeira opined that the killer did NOT "chose" to take a "particular" organ.

[Tom_Wescott]

But if there was sufficient light in "the darkest corner of the square" to allow the murderer to see what he was doing, why couldn't the doctors see what he had done?

Because that's why God made mortuaries. The doctors are not going to dig around inside a corpse in a dark square, nor should anybody expect them to. Come on, Simon, you know this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hi Trevor,

Eddowes' missing left kidney and part of her uterus were not noticed by the doctors in Mitre Square.

If, as you say, the kidney ["easily overlooked" and "covered by a membrane"—Doctor Brown] cannot be found by fumbling around, then whoever took it knew exactly where to find it and how to partially extract it.

Brown agreed, replying to the coroner's question of "would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill" that the perpetrator had "a good deal of knowledge as to the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and how to remove them".

This suggests that the internal organs were removed in Mitre Square.

But if there was sufficient light in "the darkest corner of the square" to allow the murderer to see what he was doing, why couldn't the doctors see what he had done?

I think you're onto something.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon, Trevor, all,

Indeed, as I posted earlier..the cuts THROUGH the different materials Eddowes was wearing doesn't match the cuts to her body..especially the undergarment, the chemise, with only a 5 inch cut.
Surely, it must mean that the kidney was NOT taken from the body in Mitre Square.?

From looking at the cuts made to the body, that material would be ripped from top to toe. It doesn't make sense at all.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

So, when Dr. Gordon Brown (not Foster, as everyone keeps saying) made his colorful sketch on the scene in Mitre Square, and recorded her intestines over her shoulder, he was just having a laugh? Come on, guys. This is proof positive that the Ripper went a'diggin' in Eddowes' open cavity with a purpose.

Trevor's idea is very clever, there's no doubting that. But not only is their not one iota of evidence to support it, there is irrefutable evidence that completely demolishes the theory before it gets off the ground. I applaud Trevor for keeping his mind open and pursuing avenues of investigation that no one has thought of before, but I do not applaud him (or anyone) who gets prematurely married to such an idea. This one just doesn't pan out. The organs were, in fact, taken by the killer at the scene.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

I am not married to the idea, but I can see no logic in the cuts through the material. If THEY don't match the cuts to the body (remember the length of the cut UP Eddowes body) then how else do you explain that removal?

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

The Ripper killed Eddowes, lifted her clothes, cut her open, and took her kidney away. The cut you're referring to (which was something like a 'Z' shape) is one of many other cuts to her that don't appear to serve a practical purpose. That doesn't mean it didn't serve a purpose to the killer, but it certainly is not an indicator that he didn't remove the organs. Again, the Brown diagram proves he did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

I agree, they dont serve a purpose...but they cannot be made if there isn't room in the cut of the material can they? I only ask? Is it possible to cut that body up without cutting the material directly above the body?
Its very odd.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Phil,

speculations on the garments are interesting, it's worth discussing, indeed.
But not to deny the obvious fact that Eddowes has been mutilated in Mitre square.

Would you disagree with Hunter ?

Foster's drawing and the inquest testimony shows that 2 feet of intestines were cut out and layed between Kate's left arm and her body, so there was removal of organs left at the site. No, that it not a kidney or uterus but it shows the killer had the incentive to remove something. The drawing also shows the pubic area cut up so if the uterus was removed later it would have probably been quite worthless.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

That drawing against the inquest testimony, with specific cut lengths of EACH material? I repeat, and would really welcome an plausible explanation to my previous questions... namely..

Those cuts cannot be made if there isn't room in the cut of the material can they? I only ask? Is it possible to cut that body up without cutting the material directly above the body?

I feel that this is important.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Would you disagree with Hunter ?

Absolutely not. To do so would be suicide.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

That drawing against the inquest testimony
Phil

I wouldn't say so, Phil.
To me, it's the drawing and the inquest testimonies - from all those who were at the crime scene and testified that the body was ripped up like a...etc etc.

As pointed out by Hunter, who would buy an uterus in such a state ?

As to the cuts in her garments, well, I haven't thought of this so far... I don't know the implications (I'm peacefully waiting for your thoughts my friend), but I sincerely doubt anything can prove Eddowes hasn't been mutilated at the crime scene.

Even if one accepts - for the sake of discussion - Trevor's theory, do these cuts make suddenly more sense ?

Amitiés,
David

[DaveMc]

Hello Simon, Trevor, all,

Indeed, as I posted earlier..the cuts THROUGH the different materials Eddowes was wearing doesn't match the cuts to her body..especially the undergarment, the chemise, with only a 5 inch cut.
Surely, it must mean that the kidney was NOT taken from the body in Mitre Square.?

From looking at the cuts made to the body, that material would be ripped from top to toe. It doesn't make sense at all.

best wishes

Phil

I'm guess I'm having trouble catching on to your meaning.

The cuts demonstrated in the postmortem photo and diagram aren't all from the attacker.
The examiner would have completed the incision to access the chest cavity.

The killer's incision is between the sternum and the belly button at it's height, according to the other descriptions.