The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

I believe that JTR had to have some knowledge, because the uterus and the kidneys could be overlooked by someone with none.

I would respectfully beg to differ, and would suggest instead that it would have been nigh on impossible for the uterus to have escaped notice once the intestines had been case aside. As for the kidney, it's worth remembering that the killer was only working within the confines of a small woman's abdominal cavity, which meant he couldn't have had very many options to choose from or visceral avenues to explore. As such, anything was capable of being chanced upon by accident if the perpetrator was, as Martin Fido would have it, "a completely unskilled ghoul cutting and removing whatever he came across that appealed to him in the abdomen"

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Eddowes' Inquest—

Mr Crawford: "Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill?"

Doctor Brown: "A good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them."

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Simon.

Of course, doctors Sequeira and Saunders gave a different response when the same question was posed to them:

From Sequeira's evidence:

Mr. Crawford. - Have you formed any opinion that the murderer had any design with respect to any particular part? - I have formed the opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.

Mr. Crawford. - Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of great anatomical skill? - No, I do not.

He was followed by Dr. Saunders:

By Mr. Crawford. - He was present during the whole of the post mortem examination. Having had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds inflicted, he agreed with Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira that they were not inflicted by a person with great anatomical skill. He equally agreed that the murderer had no particular design on any particular internal organ.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Hi Ben,

Anything is possible in this case. I base my opinion on the fact that the kidney is an organ that is not easily fished for. Eddowes' liver was cut on the left side and the spleen was detatched and moved, indicating to me that the kidney was tageted. I've never claimed that this individual had to have medical skill, just some knowledge and I don't know how that would apply to anyone's particular suspect as none of us knows anyone's complete history.

Trevor, in your interview on this site, you claim that you believe the killer of Kelly is the same as Chapman and Eddowes. My statement about Phillips and Brown having to notice the missing uteri at the scene is not from any statement by them. Phillips didn't want to talk about it at all. Its from basic common sense that he would have to notice the vagina and its attachments missing from Chapman as it was in plain view. Brown had to look closely at Eddowes to determine no connexion and in his notes this was done at the site as well.
If female organs are removed in 3 victims I would think that it is more that just conjecture that the killer targeted the victim's sexuality. It is a rational deduction.
As far as the abdomen being filled with blood, that would not necessarily be the case as I have experienced.

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

The kidneys are not easily fished for in an environment which calls for their meticulous evisceration, certainly, but if the individual doing the eviserating was simply hacking around in the corpse for anything that took his fancy, the chances of him encountering any organ are necessarily high given the limited range offered by the small region encompassing Eddowes' abdomen. The injuries sustained by the spleen and liver, as described by Dr. Brown, amounted to superficial cuts that appeared to serve no other purpose other than to injure the organs themselves. They didn't seem to be a means to any particular end beyond generalized mutilation.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Nobody is claiming that the Ripper donned a white coat and surgical mask to "perform operations" in a darkened corner of Mitre square or in Hanbury Street back yard.
Nobody is suggesting either that he gave a damn about what doctors thought about it in post mortems.

The Ripper"s victims were all murdered in a heck of a hurry in open air places under the cloak of night.

And his aim? The death and mutilation of his victims.Most certainly NOT the performance an "operation" conventional or otherwise.

So whoever he was and whatever his skills- or otherwise-one thing is certain: he was not doing any of this in the practice of medicine or to bring about a "cure" for his victims-which is the reason most operations are performed.
If he was a doctor,he may well have tried to obscure any evidence of skill in case it might lead to his discovery and the noose.
So its essential to incorporate the backdrop of the savage brutality of these murders into attempts, by armchair theorists today, when trying to evaluate the findings of the medical men of 1888.The context is murder most foul- not " palliative care".
I am really grateful here for hunter"s expert analysis.

[Natalie Severn]

Eddowes' Inquest—

Mr Crawford: "Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill?"

Doctor Brown: "A good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them."

Moreover,Dr Brown wrote the lengthy autopsy report which is clearly a highly professional and erudite description of the injuries sustained by Catherine Eddowes.

[Ben]

Moreover,Dr Brown wrote the lengthy autopsy report which is clearly a highly professional and erudite description of the injuries sustained by Catherine Eddowes.

Indeed he did, just as Dr. Bond wrote a highly professional and erudite description of the injuries sustained by Mary Kelly, appended to which was the conclusion that the killer possessed no anatomical knowledge.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Doctor Brown also said that the left kidney was "carefully removed", so ain't it odd that Doctor Sequira agreed with Brown "in every particular", but Sedgwick Saunders "agreed with Doctor Brown and Doctor Sequira that they [the mutilations] were not inflicted by a person of great anatomical skill"?

The mutilations either were or were not inflicted by a person with anatomical skill. There's no two ways about it, and it's crazy that the medical inquest evidence allows us to indulge in this exchange.

Putting on my jaunty conspiratorial hat for a brief moment, the only reason I can see for such obfuscation is that it fudges matters and disguises, for whatever reason, the fact that the perpetrator did have anatomical skill. Though why they couldn't all have agreed on "no anatomical skill" to start with is beyond me.

Odd, too, that the Coroner didn't demand a definitive opinion, and also dodged the issue in his summing up.

There, I've now taken off my jaunty hat.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Simon,

Doctor Brown also said that the left kidney was "carefully removed", so ain't it odd that Doctor Sequira agreed with Brown "in every particular", but Sedgwick Saunders "agreed with Doctor Brown and Doctor Sequira that they [the mutilations] were not inflicted by a person of great anatomical skill"?

The discrepency is rather odd, I agree, although I wonder if it could be attributed to an awkward sense of allegience and courtesy to fellow medical professionals? For instance, before imparting his own views on the issue of anatomical knowledge, Sequeira was at pains to observe that he entirely agreed with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown with regard to the position of the body when found, possibly with the view to to softening the blow of his subsequent disagreement with Brown's other conclusions.

It's clear that they disagreed, but there may have been a certain amount of skirting around the issue to avoid appearing disrespectful to their colleagues.

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Indeed he did, just as Dr. Bond wrote a highly professional and erudite description of the injuries sustained by Mary Kelly, appended to which was the conclusion that the killer possessed no anatomical knowledge.

But then Ben,we have to offset Dr Bond"s input with what we learn about the goings on at MIllers Court on November 9th and Dr Bond"s" autopsy report" and "profile" produced the very next day---November 10th. For Dr Bond been led to Miller"s Court by Anderson, who had just returned from "his absence abroad understood "from [reports of] house to house searches done by police...that the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were low class Polish Jews; "
So we have here some proof that Anderson had arrived at his conclusion of who the Ripper was by November 1888 and the the date of Dr Bond"s autopsy report [November 10th 1888]-and which, btw, contradicted Dr Phillips"s findings.
Now Dr Bond also wrote his "Profile" of the canonical five on the very same day Nov 10th 1888.
Dr Bond"s "Profile" concluded that the Ripper "probably lived among respectable persons who knew his character and habits and entertained suspicions they were unwilling to communicate to the police for fear of trouble or notoriety.

How very convenient all this is for Sir Robert Anderson"s premature conclusions about who the Ripper was and where he lived, certainly he was no doctor this "low class Polish Jew" for goodness sake!
And Dr Bond understood.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Norma,

With Robert Anderson having been in Room 13 ["blood was everywhere"] I'm amazed MJK's death wasn't reported as a suicide.

Seriously, though, I want to know how and where the 23-year old insane Polish Jew Aaron Kosminski learned to write English in a good schoolboy hand, remove Chapman's uterus, "carefully" remove Eddowes' left kidney and eviscerate MJK.

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

I'm stuggling to understand what you think "offsets" the medical notes of Dr. Bond. We have no proof whatsoever that Robert Anderson had already subscribed to the "low class Jew" theory by November 1888. All we learn from his 1910 Blackwoods article is that at some point subsequent to his return from abroad, he came to that conclusion. On what evidence do you base your assumption that he formed the theory immediately upon his return?

How very convenient all this is for Sir Robert Anderson"s premature conclusions about who the Ripper was and where he lived, certainly he was no doctor this "low class Polish Jew" for goodness sake!
And Dr Bond understood

Again with the serious and unwarranted accusations of misconduct based on a misreading of Anderson's Blackwood article. No evidence whatsoever that Anderson's conclusions were "premature". And what do you mean "Bond understood"? Understood what? That it might be a clever idea to fabricate his medical findings, putting more lives at risk in the process, in order to accomodate a theory that Anderson hadn't even formed yet?

Conspiracy theories are fun, and sometimes turn out to be true, but this one simply doesn't work, and the idea that Phillips wore a white hat and Bond wore a black one is one of those irritating factoids of ripperology that really needs dispensing with, and fast. It might be argued that Anderson may have been influenced, to some extent, by Bond's findings, but to argue the reverse makes no sense.

Best regards,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

There's more to Millers Court than meets the eye.

Daily Telegraph, 10th November 1888—

Doctor George Bagster Phillips met CB [Charles Beilby] Stuart-Wortley, under-secretary for the Home Office at the House of Commons on the evening of November 9th 1888.

Echo, 10th November 1888—

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived, Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

ECHO, 12th November 1888—

It is asserted that the Home Secretary's offer of a pardon to any accomplice was mainly at the instigation of Dr. G. B. Phillips, the Divisional Surgeon of the H Division, who pointed out to the authorities at the Home Office the desirability of such a step being taken.

Daily Telegraph, 14th November 1888—

It is in the power of the Attorney-General to apply to the High Court of Justice to hold a new inquest, if he is satisfied that there has been rejection of evidence, irregularity of proceedings, or insufficiency of inquiry. This course is improbable, as it is stated that Mr. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of police, with whom the coroner consulted in private, has had a commission from the Home Office for some time, and he does not consider himself a "free agent" . . .

Interesting that Doctor Phillips left the local cops out of the information loop. What could have been the nature of his "commission" from the Home Office?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Let's say you are right about the later organ removal. Why would the thief take them from such high profile victims? Would it be because the assumption would be the Ripper took them and the real thieves would never be caught?

Again, if you are right, what help is it in the identification of JTR?

Cheers,

Mike

I cannot say whether the organs were taken lawfully or unlawfully. I have pointed out that bona fide persons had unlimited access to bodies at mortuaries.

Looking at the mortuaries first. I would suggest that at any one time there was more than one body laying around and therfore the bona fide persons who each morning did the rounds of the mortuaries to lawfully acquire body parts were spolit for choice. Especially as the abdomens of Chapman and Eddowes were full exposed and open.

At 8 or 9am whatever time the mortuaries were accessible to these people perhaps the victims were not regarded as high profile bodies. perhaps its as you say they took the organ/organs thinking that the missing organs when discovered would be put down to the killer.

But is it strange dont you think that out of all the victims including Tabram.Coles. Mckenzie no attempt was made to remove organs at the crime scene. Now some will say thats because the killer was disturbed, Well pethaps that was the case but as we know the locations were seculed and dark and lacking in members of the public. So for a killer to be disturbed on 4 occassions out of 6 he was real unlucky.

I have left out Stride and Kelly on purpose. (Serious doubt about them being victims)

Taking those points into contention I would urge you to also consider the fact that those victims had minor abdominal wounds which had not deeply penetrated the abdominal cavitys. So therefore when they they were taken to the mortuaries it would have been difficult for their organs to be removed without detection.

Furthermore the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were coincidenatlly left alone for that 12 hour period between murder and post mortem.

It should also be noted that the entry into the abdominal cavity of Eddowes has been described as identical to that which would be perfomed at a post mortem. In the case of Chapma this was totally different. Suggesting two different people.

As to the identity of JTR we cannot say or certain who he was but what we are able to say is who he wasnt from the list of likely suspects.