The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[DVV]

"Les éléments de l'information ne permettent pas de supposer que le meurtrier avait des connaissances anatomiques, mais plutôt que la pratique l'avait rendu habile."
Robert Desnos, 1928

[DirectorDave]

"Another puzzling feature which has now become apparent. Looking at he mortuary photo inlayed by SGH is the fact that the wounds to the lower abdomen of Eddowes were all on the right side. The killer is suposed to have removed the left kidney which we know is difficult to locate and difficult to remove due to in being behind the liver.

Surely if the killer was intent on removing the left kidney he would have had a much greater task to locate it from the right side. The right kidney would have been an easier option."

And would also be difficult for your mortuary guy too. I presume the person you think removed the organs in the mortuary would have anatomical knowledge and be acquainted with removing organs....yet if we are to believe your theory he took the difficult option?

Another little detail that makes your theory even less likely…..unless of course it was your mortuary guys first time?…..or perhaps he took the left one because it would be missed less?…..or perhaps he was ordered to take the left Kidney?

[Hunter]

Pop quize time.

What victim of this series had the most organs removed ? I'll give you a moment while the Jeopardy music plays........

That's right! Mary Jennette Kelly. She had more organs removed than the others put together... and I can count because my shoes are off. Now, I don't know why Jack didn't tote all of them home with him; maybe when he got outside he found that a homeless person had stolen his shopping cart. Or, maybe he got tired of mortuary assistants taking things and he getting the blame for it, so he thought he would fix 'em up good this time. Now I know common sense doesn't stack up to professional analysis, but wouldn't this show that Jack the Ripper, Leather Apron, the Whitechapel Murderer, whoever he was had intention and ability to remove organs? And, in Mary's case both kidneys were removed by the killer . And guess what, the uterus was also removed by the killer.

Whether some victims were posed has been brought up and since we were told not to go there I believe I will. A kidney, the uterus and a breast was placed under Mary's head. I don't think he did it to make her comfortable.

Back to Chapman. The reproductive organs were not taken out from the body cavity. They were cored out, like cutting a wedge. That's why part of the vagina, which is an external organ, went with the rest. Phillips was impressed that the rectum was missed.

If someone could sit on the steps at 4:30 and see well enough to cut on his boot, I would think that someone could see well enough at 5:30, with sunrise only a few minutes away to cut up a women. By the way, did I mention that Dr. Sequeira said that there was enough light in Mitre square for the killer to do what obviously was done because there's a crime scene drawing of it all? He obviously had time to do what was shown in the drawing no matter how long everyone estimates it would have taken.

Now I know my little quote, below, talks about theories when evidence is lacking, but everything mentioned above is evidence.

[DVV]

He obviously had time to do what was shown in the drawing no matter how long everyone estimates it would have taken.

Hi Hunter,

agreed.
But not only "obviously"; I'd rather say : "indisputably".

Amitiés,
David

[DaveMc]

"Les éléments de l'information ne permettent pas de supposer que le meurtrier avait des connaissances anatomiques, mais plutôt que la pratique l'avait rendu habile."
Robert Desnos, 1928

But the evidence COULD suggest that it might have been done by a doctor who finished last in anatomy class.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello DaveMc!

Or rather by someone, who wasn't even let in in the first place!

A possible option is, that he could have been a wanna-be-doctor!

All the best
Jukka

[DaveMc]

If someone could sit on the steps at 4:30 and see well enough to cut on his boot, I would think that someone could see well enough at 5:30, with sunrise only a few minutes away to cut up a women. By the way, did I mention that Dr. Sequeira said that there was enough light in Mitre square for the killer to do what obviously was done because there's a crime scene drawing of it all? He obviously had time to do what was shown in the drawing no matter how long everyone estimates it would have taken.

Well, Sequeira had the benefit of police lanterns.
Another indisputable fact is that the killer had enough light to do it.

The timing, though, is a vital part of the killer's ability to evacuate a scene and not get caught still hovering over his victims.

Unfortunately, his victims were practiced and primed masters at providing that time.

[mklhawley]

Pop quize time.

What victim of this series had the most organs removed ? I'll give you a moment while the Jeopardy music plays........

That's right! Mary Jennette Kelly. She had more organs removed than the others put together... and I can count because my shoes are off. Now, I don't know why Jack didn't tote all of them home with him; maybe when he got outside he found that a homeless person had stolen his shopping cart. Or, maybe he got tired of mortuary assistants taking things and he getting the blame for it, so he thought he would fix 'em up good this time. Now I know common sense doesn't stack up to professional analysis, but wouldn't this show that Jack the Ripper, Leather Apron, the Whitechapel Murderer, whoever he was had intention and ability to remove organs? And, in Mary's case both kidneys were removed by the killer . And guess what, the uterus was also removed by the killer.

Whether some victims were posed has been brought up and since we were told not to go there I believe I will. A kidney, the uterus and a breast was placed under Mary's head. I don't think he did it to make her comfortable.

Back to Chapman. The reproductive organs were not taken out from the body cavity. They were cored out, like cutting a wedge. That's why part of the vagina, which is an external organ, went with the rest. Phillips was impressed that the rectum was missed.

If someone could sit on the steps at 4:30 and see well enough to cut on his boot, I would think that someone could see well enough at 5:30, with sunrise only a few minutes away to cut up a women. By the way, did I mention that Dr. Sequeira said that there was enough light in Mitre square for the killer to do what obviously was done because there's a crime scene drawing of it all? He obviously had time to do what was shown in the drawing no matter how long everyone estimates it would have taken.

Now I know my little quote, below, talks about theories when evidence is lacking, but everything mentioned above is evidence.

The killer did not touch the rectum. When hunters skin their prey they make sure they do not touch the rectum. Hmmm. Hunter, where were you at the night of the murders?

Mike

[DVV]

When hunters skin their prey they make sure they do not touch the rectum.
Mike

Hi Mike,

it's their right, I must say.

Amitiés,
David

[mklhawley]

Hi Mike,

it's their right, I must say.

Amitiés,
David

Any other way would just stink.

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer did not touch the rectum. When hunters skin their prey they make sure they do not touch the rectum. Hmmm. Hunter, where were you at the night of the murders?

Mike

What hunters do with their prey is totally irrelevant to this issue. All you ate trying to do is muddy the waters yet again.

OH DEER It seems we have now gone through the list from doctors-medical students-butchers down to hunters.

I dont think there were to many deer roaming wild in Whitechapel in 1888.

We only need the baker and the candlestick maker and the list will be complete.

[mklhawley]

What hunters do with their prey is totally irrelevant to this issue. All you ate trying to do is muddy the waters yet again.

OH DEER It seems we have now gone through the list from doctors-medical students-butchers down to hunters.

I dont think there were to many deer roaming wild in Whitechapel in 1888.

We only need the baker and the candlestick maker and the list will be complete.

Guilty as charged Trevor, but David made me do it.

Mike

[Hunter]

All that I posted before was evidence in the case. No matter what the killer's background was he had to have some basic anatomical knowledge and he could have obtained that in many ways. The fact that he did remove organs from Mary Kelly shows that he had the inclination and the ability to do it. I don't believe it's a leap of faith to conclude that he could do the same to Chapman and Eddowes.

Dave and Dave, hunters core out the rectum with their knife then pull the colon back up through the body cavity. That way no feces gets on the meat.
I'm disapointed that there's no deer in Whitechapel; guess I''ll have to cancel that huntin' trip there.

Has anyone ever fed a dog a piece of bolony with the rind still on it? Some folks call it bologna, I call it balony( a little Karl Childress there-i.e.- Sling Blade ). When the dog tries to pass it,and because it wasn't digested, the rind is still there and hanging out of his rear end. He scoots across the ground on his butt, trying to get rid of it. Then, he gets up and snaps at it, but can't reach it. He goes around in circles thinking he can reach it that way, but it doesn't work. Before the dog has a fit, you get up from your 5 course meal of balony, cheese and crackers and R C cola and moon pie and walk over there and pull it out of his rear end. That's all I'm doing here; pulling a balony rind out of a dog's rear end because he can't pass it.

Tom, your question about how the doctors reached their conclusions about alcohol consumtion (or lack of) of the victims is a good one and deserves its own thread. I wish I had these guys doing a sobriety test on me in my younger days after I had left the beer joint on a Saturday night. Would have saved some money and grief.

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

The fact that he did remove organs from Mary Kelly shows that he had the inclination and the ability to do it

Inclination certainly, but Bond's inference was that that no special "ability" was required to excise the organs in question - not even that of a butcher, and that there was certainly never any contemporary medical consensus that some sort of minimum degree of knowledge was required to carry out the mutilations. The majority of evidence suggested the reverse.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
I am mindful of yours and Rob"s excellent research into the case of Rose Mylett.
I have long held an interest in this case myself and I accept a number of both your conclusions.However,the bit I posted above about the mark around Rose Mylett"s neck was new to me. It was a mark that DR Bond claimed was not "visible" four days after her death.But in your article you state that William Randall,assistant to Courtain Chivers,fastened down the lid of Catherine"s [aka Rose"s] coffin,seventeen days after Catherine was found dead and noticed a mark around her neck still clearly "visible" about aquarter of an inch deep with a bruise to the left of it.Why such disparity ---if Dr Bond had examined her corpse so many times?
With regards to the number of doctors quoted I included Dr Phillips because he commented on the case,believing her to have been murderd.That makes a total of five doctors who believed Catherine aka Rose Mylett ,had been murdered.

Ben,The above discrepancy is important and as Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow"s book "Scotland Yard Investigates" reveals, they are very critical of DR Bond"s "findings" which include those concerning his baffling change of mind over Rose Mylett above.
Well worth informing yourself of these criticisms,Ben .Both authors are ex policemen,which may interest you since you state the police at the time disagreed with the Police-Surgeon- in -Chief and four other doctors[ie including Dr Phillips]that Rose was murdered.