The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[DaveMc]

No, I'm not.

From Dr. Sequeira's testimony as reported by the Daily Telegraph on the 12th October 1888:

"I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

Hello Ben,

How do you equate "any great anatomical skill" to having NO anatomical skill?
And how does Bond's removed viewing of records put him a position to supersede the doctor's who performed the autopsies with their own hands?

and to this:

It was observed that an attempt had been made to "seperate the bones of the neck". The killer clearly failed in that endeavour, which doesn't strike me as being terribly consistent with the actions of a professional butcher.

That is more the work of a meat cutter in any case,
but it only means that he didn't accomplishment.
That could have been caused by a reluctance to make any more mess on his clothing or by interruption.

You appear to be viewing this through a very restricted tube,
even to the point of insulting the competence of the other Doctors.

I think you're intention is defend some other point rather than to engage the subject.

[Hunter]

why would an anatomically skillful ripper deliberately choose the hardest route to access the kidneys when he knew that time was of the essence? It makes no sense.

Kate was lying on her back. Once the entrails are removed the kidneys are easy to access. I have field dressed a lot of wild game in the moonlight sometimes and unless a deer's kidneys are in a different spot, it is not that hard and can be done quickly.

Many people at that time could have done the deed. There were slaughterhouses all over the place and many inhabitants had come to London from a rural background where it was common to slaughter one's own animals for food.

Philips probably based his belief in anatomical skills on Chapman because he may have never seen a murder/mutilation of that sort before. By the Eddowes murder, when it became more apparent as to what kind of killer they were dealing with he had realized his earlier assumtion could have been incorrect, but wouldn't admit it for fear of being discretited, so he said the mutilations were different. Wouldn't be the first time someone protected their ego.

Sequeira said at the inquest that there was enough light in that part of the square to perform the eviscerations.

[DirectorDave]

I think we have to consider that light was not the medium......temperature could have been.

Organs like the Kidney, Liver and heart have higher blood content than mere muscle and thus are warmer.

So Jack opens his victims up, fishes around for something warm and removes it.

[Phil Carter]

Ben,

Thanks,... but as I say I cannot speak with certainty. I would however like to hear some sort of confirmation from a qualified medical person associated with these boards on this point.

Again speaking personally, I find the comments of the medical personell singular, to say the least, as there are differences of opinion that I find strange. For me, it does little to give a safe feeling about their individual or combined medical expertise. I am left with an uneasy feeling.

best wishes

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

Namely that removal of a kidney from the front even in the best of light has its own problems, because apparently the organ is surrounded and covered in a mass of fatty tissue, making it more difficult to locate.

Interesting stuff, and I've little doubt that what your contact says is true. That being the case, why would an anatomically skillful ripper deliberately choose the hardest route to access the kidneys when he knew that time was of the essence? It makes no sense. What does make sense is an anatomically unskilled operator not knowing where the kidneys are located (and the best way to access them) and discovering one by chance.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Sorry Ben but in this instance it is Dr BROWN"S autopsy report that carries weight----not Dr Sequeira"s.Dr Brown was the senior police surgeon in this matter

It carries weight, of course, but you seem to be suggesting that the opinion of one medical official carries more weight than those of the three other medical officials who disagreed with him, and all because of Brown's "seniority". Was Dr. Brown more "senior" than Dr. Phillips who considered Eddowes' killer to have been unskilled, and whose opinions on the Chapman murder you're inclined to treat as gospel? No. I'm afraid what you're doing - with respect - is coming up with weak excuses to cherry-pick whatever minority-endorsed contemporary opinions you can find to champion a pre-decided opinion.

Its not a bad idea to re-read some of the views of surgeons we have had on the case here.Nick Warren is one surgeon who has written extensively and very knowledgeably on the JtR case

No offense to the gentleman, but he also said that Mary Kelly's legs were split with an axe and that Jeremy Beadle was responsible for the Maybrick diary hoax. And unless you're arguing that the organs were removed at the mortuary, and not by the killer at the crime scene, I don't think Trevor was "confirming what you're saying" either.

Back to the Inquest testimony: Are you sure you are not quoting reporters rather than what is written in the inquest testimony itself?

Norma, how do you think the "inquest testimony itself" was recorded? By someone attending the inquest and committing what s/he heard to paper. Just so with the reporters, so out if the window goes any real justification for dismissing the Daily Telegraph inquest transcripts.

Three doctors did not "disagree with him"and this can be easily settled .

Yes, they did. They disagreed. That's an irrefutable fact, and I conclusively demonstrated as much.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I am far from being knowledgable in this area to form a certain opinion, however, speaking personally, there is one thing that I was told many years ago by a surgeon, that I have kept in mind. Namely that removal of a kidney from the front even in the best of light has its own problems, because apparently the organ is surrounded and covered in a mass of fatty tissue, making it more difficult to locate.

Whether this is completely correct or not, I do not know, but think that IF true, it might add some weight, of some degree, to the discussion.

Having said that. I find the doctor's comments throughout this case to be extraordinary, with much disagreement between supposedly well qualified men.

best wishes

Phil

[Natalie Severn]

Sorry Ben but in this instance it is Dr BROWN"S autopsy report that carries weight----not Dr Sequeira"s.Dr Brown was the senior police surgeon in this matter.
Its not a bad idea to re-read some of the views of surgeons we have had on the case here.Nick Warren is one surgeon who has written extensively and very knowledgeably on the JtR case.The issue of the way the kidney was extracted is very instructive indeed to anyone familiar with surgery,as it requires skill to extract even in optimum circumstances which was certainly not the case in Mitre Square-[see above post by Trevor which confirms what I am saying].
Back to the Inquest testimony: Are you sure you are not quoting reporters rather than what is written in the inquest testimony itself? Three doctors did not "disagree with him"and this can be easily settled .So ,Ben,why not provide their verbatim comments "in full" all the three doctors you are referring to from their actual inquest testimony which we have?Although I read it right through two hours ago,I may well have missed something.

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

My apologies if my cage seemed rattled or if my response was unnecessarily combative, but no, I can assure you that the doctors were not in agreement. Three of them were, but Brown's opinion that a specific organ was deliberately targetted was simply not shared by the three other doctors who attended the autopsy. I don't know quite why you keep reinforcing the seniority of Dr. Brown, but if it's to enable the inference that his opinion carries more weight that the three doctors who disagreed with him, I'm afraid it won't work. They all saw the same things in the same conditions, and there's no evidence that Brown was the most competent of the four.

They therefore allow for him to have had "anatomical skill"-if not "great

But whenever people usually resort to the phrase "X or Y has no great...(whatever)" the central bullet point of their observation is that X or Y is deficient in whatever field or category that X or Y is supposed to be "not great" at. It's a negative observation. Blimey this is "cannot be ruled out" all over again!

Best regards,
Ben

[Trevor Marriott]

Another point you should consider in weighing up the facts surrounding the removal of the organs from Eddowes and in particular the kidney.

It should be noted that the kidney removed was from the left side. This kidney is far more difficult to remove than the right due to the liver being in close proximity.

So if the killer was looking for an organ specifically or just feeling around, surely the right kidney would have been much easier than the left.

One should also consider that bona fide persons as previoulsy mentioned i.e medical students/trainee doctors, or anatomists would have limited skill in removing organs and if any of them removed the organs at the mortuary this would reflect when the doctors did the actual post mortem.

The fact is that whoever removed the organs would have had to have
a. some idea where the organs were located
b.how to remove them.

Several little snippets to tip the scales a little bit more in my favour i would suggest

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
Dr Sequeira only gave a few words in answer to the coroner ,very briefly .It is ridiculous to assert that his contribution was in any way comparable to Dr Brown"s.
Dr Brown was in charge of the post mortem examination and wrote the report and his conclusions in a lengthy, detailed written contribution.

The coroner pressed Dr Sequeira thus:
"Judging from the injuries inflicted,do you think he was possessed of GREAT anatomical skill?
He replied simply "No I do not"
And this is an understandable response from someone who arrived first on the scene to see the mess of blood and entrails surrounding the corpse in Mitre Square.Neither did he think the ripper had any design on a particular organ-----understandable perhaps------in the context of what he witnessed , innards everywhere in a chaotic mess.The difference being he was not the doctor instructed to analyse in detail the results of the post mortem which Dr Brown had been authorised to do.


Dr Sanders was a public analyst,not a police surgeon-but the inquest papers state here :
He was present throughout the post mortem examination.Having had ample opportunity to see the wounds inflicted he AGREED WITH DR BROWN AND DR SEQUEIRA that they were not inflicted by a person of GREAT anatomical skill.

By inference and connotation this means that all three doctors thought the person may have had anatomical skill but not GREAT anatomical skill.It is not true to say they thought he had no anatomical skill-no GREAT anatomical skill is all they ever said in the inquest papers which are fully preserved and count far more than any report in the Daily Telegraph Ben.
Best
Norma

Ben,
Before launching an attack such as the one above on my post,can you please read what I am saying-in context.By splitting up my posts you destroy the meaning.I did not say in the above post that the three doctors were wrong.If you read it again you will see I said they were all in agreement!They all believed the Ripper did not have any "great"anatomical skill.They therefore allow for him to have had "anatomical skill"-if not "great".
Dr Brown was the "POLICE SURGEON -IN- CHARGE" of the Catherine Eddowes AUTOPSY.It was he who believed after a thorough investigation that the ripper had both surgical and anatomical skill----not "great" but skill in both areas.
My apologies for using the word "ridiculous".Maybe thats what rattled your cage?

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

It is ridiculous to assert that his contribution was in any way comparable to Dr Brown"s.

And it's contemptibly absurd and recklessly irresponsible to assert that one medical official's views carries more weight than those of three others who were essentially united in their disagreement with that one medical official's view. Sequeira's views are just as valid as Brown's, and the idea that the individual who has the most to say must automatically have the greatest analytical ability is so obviously preposterous.

He replied simply "No I do not" And this is an understandable response from someone who arrived first on the scene to see the mess of blood and entrails surrounding the corpse in Mitre Square.

No, it isn't. It's an understanable response from a medical professional who examined the corpse and arrived at an informed conclusion accordingly. You've made the inference that Sequeira's professional judgement must have been impaired by the blood and gore, but Brown's wasn't (being "better", presumably?), and I find that quite unacceptable.

Neither did he think the ripper had any design on a particular organ-----understandable perhaps------in the context of what he witnessed

It's understandable in the context of both his professional credentials and experience, and the fact that he was present at the autopsy along with three other medical professionals, two of whom agreed with his conclusions and not with Brown's. All four witnessed precisely the same injuries in precisely the same conditions, and there's no evidence whatsoever that Brown had the monopoly on analytical ability.

He was present throughout the post mortem examination.Having had ample opportunity to see the wounds inflicted he AGREED WITH DR BROWN AND DR SEQUEIRA

Well, we know that's wrong.

So it can be dismissed as worthless.

Brown believed that the killer targetted a specific organ. Sequeira thought it was found be chance. That's not agreement. That's polar opposite views. Brown thought that the extraction evinced considerable knowledge, and "considerable" can be used as a synonym of "great". Sequeira disagreed - again, and both Saunders and Phillips agreed with him.

By inference and connotation this means that all three doctors thought the person may have had anatomical skill but not GREAT anatomical skill

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.

which are fully preserved and count far more than any report in the Daily Telegraph Ben.

That's also nonsense, regrettably. The Daily Telegraph provided inquest transcripts that would have been provided by a reporter who attended the inquest in person. The idea that the official transcripts "count far more" is only valid if it can be demonstrated that the individual who compiled them was "better" at recording information that the newspaper representative.

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
Dr Sequeira only gave a few words in answer to the coroner ,very briefly .It is ridiculous to assert that his contribution was in any way comparable to Dr Brown"s.
Dr Brown was in charge of the post mortem examination and wrote the report and his conclusions in a lengthy, detailed written contribution.

The coroner pressed Dr Sequeira thus:
"Judging from the injuries inflicted,do you think he was possessed of GREAT anatomical skill?
He replied simply "No I do not"
And this is an understandable response from someone who arrived first on the scene to see the mess of blood and entrails surrounding the corpse in Mitre Square.Neither did he think the ripper had any design on a particular organ-----understandable perhaps------in the context of what he witnessed , innards everywhere in a chaotic mess.The difference being he was not the doctor instructed to analyse in detail the results of the post mortem which Dr Brown had been authorised to do.


Dr Sanders was a public analyst,not a police surgeon-but the inquest papers state here :
He was present throughout the post mortem examination.Having had ample opportunity to see the wounds inflicted he AGREED WITH DR BROWN AND DR SEQUEIRA that they were not inflicted by a person of GREAT anatomical skill.

By inference and connotation this means that all three doctors thought the person may have had anatomical skill but not GREAT anatomical skill.It is not true to say they thought he had no anatomical skill-no GREAT anatomical skill is all they ever said in the inquest papers which are fully preserved and count far more than any report in the Daily Telegraph Ben.
Best
Norma

[Ben]

It makes little difference, Norma.

The ability to compile an autopsy report doesn't confer Brown with any more analytical prowess than Sequeira. As such, it would be irresponsible to use the existence of a report to claim that Brown's opinion carries any more weight than the three colleagues who also examined the body and happened to disagree with him.

It is also seems surprising that Dr Sequeira did not appear to have picked up its significance with regards to the skill required to remove it

How is the Lusk letter even vaguely relevant to "the skill required" to extract a kidney or Sequeira's inquest contributions? The letter and accompanying kidney may not even be genuine, and even if they are, it doesn't remotely strengthen the argument that a kidney was deliberately sought and removed with skill.

"It is also seems surprising that Dr Sequeira did not appear to have picked up its significance the skill required to remove it"

It's not a question of a failure to "pick" anything up. He simply disagreed with the view that the kidney was both deliberately targetted and removed with skill, and in that respect he appears to have echoed the sentiments of the majority of doctors who examined the corpse of Eddowes. We know what Brown thought, and we know what he included in his report. I'm just pointing out that his colleagues didn't appear to endorse some of his conclusions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
First of all,it was Dr Gordan Brown who led the autopsy on Catherine Eddowes and wrote the most thorough,detailed and extensive account for the inquest in the entire case, covering many pages of testimony.Dr Sequeira was not required to write any autopsy report.

The reason I pointed out the 16th October Lusk letter is because,the kidney removed by the killer from Catherine Eddowes,has been the focus of many debates about the killer"s skill.It is also seems surprising that Dr Sequeira did not appear to have picked up its significance with regards to the skill required to remove it -in the way it was removed.

This is what Dr Brown who conducted the autopsy wrote:

"The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed.The left renal artery was cut through.I should say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

In his detailed report Dr Brown concludes the killer possessed both anatomical and surgical skill and he bases this assumption on his understanding of the injuries Eddowes sustained regarding her kidney,which he believed the killer set out to extract.