The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Hunter]

hi Billy,

Glad to see someone with rural experience. Maybe we can convince some skeptics that large mammals' internal organs and humans' are located in the same general areas.
You do have to be careful not to cut the intestines when opening up the abdominal cavity.

[Toofew]

With reciprocal respect, Billy, it simply isn't the case that the intestines would be cut in half (?) if an amateur was responsible for opening the abdominal cavity. Even when dealing with a rabbit, it is incredibly easy for an amateur to pierce the skin and flesh without severing the intestines, and we humans are made of tougher stuff that that. It's rather a moot point here, in any case, since we know they suffered injury and evisceration in the case of Eddowes. Nothing remotely indicative of anatomical knowledge beyond that of a layman as far as the intestines go.

All the best,
Ben

Ben, I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that point (sorry for the lousy simile) but as I have been the knife holder while skinning a rabbit, there is a great deal of loose skin.

My contentionn was basically started out as Trevor's "recoil" theory was wishful thinking but, having thought about the margin of error while cutting the abdominal wall I wondered.

It's not enough to put out a special edition, only my thoughts/opinion.

Sheesh, if we keep on respectfully disagreeing, we might add a touch of civility to the forum!

Best of wishes,

Billy

[Ben]

Hi Billy,

The salient point here is that the large intestines were damaged. An entire segment was cut away, and for all we know, one of the initial cuts could easily have been a by-product of the initial cuts to the abdominal wall. Whoever the killer was, he was certainly not someone who meticulously avoided any injury to the intestines, which neatly explains why no doctor ever highlighted this issue, less still advanced it as evidence of supposed anatomical knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

[Hunter]

From Brown's notes at the scene-

...' the intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder; they were smeared with some feculent matter; a piece of about 2 feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design'...

Fecial matter was found on the piece of apron in Goulston St, so the murderer must have not been too careful in that regard. The organ removal is another story.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Toofew,

there were 2 feet of intestines cut, and placed between her arm and her body.
As the sketch shows, btw.

Amitiés,
David

I dont want to sound to disrecetful to some posters on here but I really think some need to take of the blinkers and take their head from out of their backsides.

1. You cannot really beleive that the killer of Eddowes murdered her and in addition to murder his other motive was to remove oragns as a trophies.

This idea falls flat for many reasons

1. If he was intent on organs then he would not have carried out the abdomoinal mutilations, that would make it even more difficult to find and remove the organs. Dr Brown describes deep wound to the abdomen made after death. Surely he would have just cut her throat and made a straight cut to the abdomen.

2. For those who say he put his hands into the abdomen and felt for whatever he could and removed it as an afterthought, sorry but thats complete rubbish.

3. To remove a uterus anyone with a little antaomical knowledge would know you dont have to remove the intestines.

4. There was no evidence that the kidney was removed by any other means than being cut out. Where the kidney sits and where the left kidney is located you cannot cut it out with a long bladed knife and is even more difficult to remove due to it being behind the liver.

5. i obtained a statment from a master butcher who started his career as a slaughterman at an abbatoir he refutes the suggestion that a butcher could carry out the organ removals given the conditions at the crime scene.

6.Everyone is agreeing to disagree on the anatomical issue however there can be little doubt that whovever removed the organs knew where they were located and how to remove them whether those removals were as professional as others may have been is an arguable point. .i.e a medical student would not have as much skill as a trainee doctor who inturn would not have as much skill as a surgeon.

7. Finaly there are the timings as far as the Eddowes murder is concerned. I refer to Pc watkins and his statement about entering and leaving Mitre Square before and after the murder. If his time are accurate the killer could hahave had no more than 5 mins with Edowes in the Square, Not enough time, for them to enter the square, go to the murder site, for the killer to murder her mutilate her and then perform surgery. Dr Brown states that it would take 5 mins to make the abdominal wounds alone. Sorry didnt happen.

One final point i have again read the inquest report of Eddowes and i cannot see where any witness mentions the intestines, Dr Brown is quoted somewhere as saying the intestines were place over the shoulder. that statement is pure conjecture how did he know they had been placed.

[Debra A]

Thanks Debs and Ben,
You are both aware I am sure that Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow in their book,newly published in 2006,entitled " JtR, Scotland Yard Investigates" examine in some significant depth, the role played by Dr Bond within the overall context of the East End Murders of 1888. They look very closely at the role played by Dr Bond in the death of Rose Mylett.Two ex-policemen who have put many years into trying to evaluate evidence as it appeared in 1888/89.

Of course I am Norma! An excellent well written book that I thoroughly enjoyed. Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelows conclusion about Anderson putting pressure on Bond to change his mind in the Mylett case is a very persuasive one, but one I personally still have some doubts about after spending nearly two years studying the Mylett case in depth from contemporary sources, along with Rob.

Thanks Rob and Ben for your input.

[Phil Carter]

Is Foster's drawing a hoax?

Hello Hunter,

One drawing herewith. The title is interesting, is it not?
"From a sketch taken at the Mortuary by Mr F W Foster
3.45a.m. Sunday Sept 50th 1888"

2 or three things..


This drawing is taken FROM a sketch by Mr F W Foster indicating it wasn't him that drew THIS drawing.

Someone doesn't know how many days there are in the month. Compare the 3 in 3.45 and the "3" in 30th...the "3" in 30th is a 5.....

Right click, and zoom in....somewhat revealing, isn't it?

Compass anyone?

best wishes

Phil

[Debra A]

These men were trained in medicine and surgery and in the assessment and appraisal of injury to the tissue of the human corpse-not in some weird gang magic that allegedly went on in India for goodness sake-sorry Debs-it just sounds like gobbledegook that one!

From Coroner Baxter's summing up, The Times and The Daily News 10th January 1889

Dr. Bond stated that if this was a case of strangulation he should have expected to find the skin broken, but it was clearly shown, on reference being made to the records of the Indian doctors in the cases of the Thug murders, that there were no marks whatever left. Other eminent authorities agreed with that view.

Looks like they used gobbledegook to counter Bond's findings then!

[Trevor Marriott]

From Coroner Baxter's summing up, The Times and The Daily News 10th January 1889

Dr. Bond stated that if this was a case of strangulation he should have expected to find the skin broken, but it was clearly shown, on reference being made to the records of the Indian doctors in the cases of the Thug murders, that there were no marks whatever left. Other eminent authorities agreed with that view.

Looks like they used gobbledegook to counter Bond's findings then!

We seem to be muddying the waters again with all this talk about Rose Myletts murder.

The overall fact about her murder and the others is that "none" of the doctors testimony can safely be relied upon

[Debra A]

Yes, sorry, Trevor, I felt some points brought up needed responding to though. I've certainly said I'll I'm going to say on Catherine Mylett's murder now anyway.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, sorry, Trevor, I felt some points brought up needed responding to though. I've certainly said I'll I'm going to say on Catherine Mylett's murder now anyway.

Better out than in you sleep better at night then

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,

One drawing herewith. The title is interesting, is it not?
"From a sketch taken at the Mortuary by Mr F W Foster
3.45a.m. Sunday Sept 50th 1888"

2 or three things..


This drawing is taken FROM a sketch by Mr F W Foster indicating it wasn't him that drew THIS drawing.

Someone doesn't know how many days there are in the month. Compare the 3 in 3.45 and the "3" in 30th...the "3" in 30th is a 5.....

Right click, and zoom in....somewhat revealing, isn't it?

Compass anyone?

best wishes

Phil

A few zoom ins for you all to peruse over... Right click, and zoom in....somewhat revealing, isn't it?

[Natalie Severn]

From Coroner Baxter's summing up, The Times and The Daily News 10th January 1889

Dr. Bond stated that if this was a case of strangulation he should have expected to find the skin broken, but it was clearly shown, on reference being made to the records of the Indian doctors in the cases of the Thug murders, that there were no marks whatever left. Other eminent authorities agreed with that view.

Looks like they used gobbledegook to counter Bond's findings then!

Quite the contrary, the dispute was not about INVISIBLE MARKINGS or Thug murders but whether marks of strangulation were in fact VISIBLE.
Out of FIVE doctors who examined the evidence,
FOUR decided Rose Mylett was murdered by strangulation,the marks of which were apparent to them.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Natalie Severn;124227]Thanks Debs and Ben,
You are both aware I am sure that Stewart Evans and Don Rumbelow in their book,newly published in 2006,entitled " JtR, Scotland Yard Investigates" examine in some significant depth, the role played by Dr Bond within the overall context of the East End Murders of 1888. They look very closely at the role played by Dr Bond in the death of Rose Mylett.Two ex-policemen who have put many years into trying to evaluate evidence as it appeared in 1888/89.


Is this what you are calling "old hat" Ben?

see pages 245 and 246:




Debs,
By quoting the above out of context as you did today above,it looks as though I was addressing yourself over your opinion on the "conclusions" reached by Evans and Rumbelow.I wasnt.I was addressing Ben.I went on to discuss something with you quite separately.
I realise,though, that by initially addressing you both in the post,this may not have been clear to you but I was not suggesting that you yourself might consider Evans and Bond"s criticisms of both Dr Bond"s findings "old hat".
I was pointing out however,that as their critique was one that appeared only a few years back it was highly relevant to ANY discussions about the death of Rose Mylett and moreover was one that I myself attach a lot of significance to,particularly as both are ex-policemen and as it was the police ,initially, who thought Rose Mylett"s death was an accident.
Best
Norma

[Phil Carter]

A few zoom ins for you all to peruse over... Right click, and zoom in....somewhat revealing, isn't it?

All quiet on the Western front?

best wishes

Phil