The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[David Monaghan]

The anatomical knowledge for such butchery could equally be from the skill of gralloching, the field art of cutting the innard from a killed deer. You have to be good with a knife, and work quickly on the chilled countryside:
‘the rule is for the huntsman to go in as soon as he can,
or dare, and cut the deer’s throat with his knife’. Walsh, John Henry.
Manual of British Rural Sports (O. Routledoe & Co., 1856).
‘Ah, that plunging of your man’s long knife into his chest,
which is followed by such a
stream of blood, is a very kind one indeed.’ The deer, after having been
thus bled, was opened and gralloched. ‘Eli, look to the white-puddings,
sir, and see till the fat in his brisket and inside, and just pass your hand
over his haunches. Lord, what a deer!’ Scrope, William. The Art of Deerstalking (J. Murray, 1839: p. 68).
Deer-stalkers were expected to
know the placement of internal organs to extract treats for their dogs;
‘sportsmen are accustomed to give their dogs portions of the deer’s liver
when he is gralloched’ is the way William Scrope put it.

The idea the Ripper may have been a deer stalker familiar with gralloching has been floated before in the sugestion Duke of Clarence was the killer.

I had been unconvinced. But I had not understood that, for some, hunting and sexual gratification become entwined. My suspect, Walter, author of My Secret Life, was a hunter. He horribly describes the linkage between blood sports and pursuing street prostitutes: ‘I went
to stay with my mother to be nearer my game, and nightly I hunted the girl’, then graduates to a self-description as a "c**t hunter"
He saw his pursuit as a stalk: ‘there was difficulty in getting
at the girl unobserved, but nothing stood in my way when c**t-hunting’.


David Monaghan
Author
Jack the Ripper's Secret Confession

[Hunter]

"...for some, hunting and sexual gratification become entwined."



Interesting. Now I know why my wife lets me go huntin' instead. LOL

[Trevor Marriott]

The anatomical knowledge for such butchery could equally be from the skill of gralloching, the field art of cutting the innard from a killed deer. You have to be good with a knife, and work quickly on the chilled countryside:
‘the rule is for the huntsman to go in as soon as he can,
or dare, and cut the deer’s throat with his knife’. Walsh, John Henry.
Manual of British Rural Sports (O. Routledoe & Co., 1856).
‘Ah, that plunging of your man’s long knife into his chest,
which is followed by such a
stream of blood, is a very kind one indeed.’ The deer, after having been
thus bled, was opened and gralloched. ‘Eli, look to the white-puddings,
sir, and see till the fat in his brisket and inside, and just pass your hand
over his haunches. Lord, what a deer!’ Scrope, William. The Art of Deerstalking (J. Murray, 1839: p. 68).
Deer-stalkers were expected to
know the placement of internal organs to extract treats for their dogs;
‘sportsmen are accustomed to give their dogs portions of the deer’s liver
when he is gralloched’ is the way William Scrope put it.

The idea the Ripper may have been a deer stalker familiar with gralloching has been floated before in the sugestion Duke of Clarence was the killer.

I had been unconvinced. But I had not understood that, for some, hunting and sexual gratification become entwined. My suspect, Walter, author of My Secret Life, was a hunter. He horribly describes the linkage between blood sports and pursuing street prostitutes: ‘I went
to stay with my mother to be nearer my game, and nightly I hunted the girl’, then graduates to a self-description as a "c**t hunter"
He saw his pursuit as a stalk: ‘there was difficulty in getting
at the girl unobserved, but nothing stood in my way when c**t-hunting’.


David Monaghan
Author
Jack the Ripper's Secret Confession

Please dont you start as well we have gone through this with Davy Crockett as he wishes to be referred to aka Hunter. Were you Hans Christian Anderson in a previous life ?

[Hunter]

Well , please entertain ole' Davy one more time. In reference to whether Phillips saw the missing organs at the Chapman murder site I will quote from the inquest itself.



[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? -

[Phillips] I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? -

[Phillips] No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? -

[Phillips] I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -

[Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

As you see, Phillips did notice the missing organs at the scene. when he later arrived at the so called mortuary for the autopsy the body had been stripped.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well , please entertain ole' Davy one more time. In reference to whether Phillips saw the missing organs at the Chapman murder site I will quote from the inquest itself.



[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? -

[Phillips] I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? -

[Phillips] No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? -

[Phillips] I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -

[Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

As you see, Phillips did notice the missing organs at the scene. when he later arrived at the so called mortuary for the autopsy the body had been stripped.

Sorry but I think you wil find he was referring to the bits and pieces that were outside of the body. He could not have been refering to the missing organs in the plural in any event as we know there was only one organ singular removed from Chapman.

If they had been taken at the time why would the question have been asked could they have gone missing in transit

Nice try

[Hunter]

Trevor,

They were talking about the missing uterus and parts of the vagina and bladder. The intestines that were removed were still attached to the body. That was what the whole line of questions were about. Phillips was just trying to be as discrete as he could about the details.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

They were talking about the missing uterus and parts of the vagina and bladder. The intestines that were removed were still attached to the body. That was what the whole line of questions were about. Phillips was just trying to be as discrete as he could about the details.

You are wrong in his evidence he makes no mention of missing organs when he attends the crime scene. He then goes onto say he went to conduct the post mortem and it is there he notices the organs missing.

The only thing he tries to be discreet about is the horrible mutilations to the body.

[DVV]

The uterus and its appendages were removed all still attached to each other. That suggests removal for research or experimentation that what my consultant gynecologist states.

Could your gynecologist pass the acid test, Trevor ?

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

Could your gynecologist pass the acid test, Trevor ?

Amitiés,
David

Well he passed his driving test first time

[DVV]

Congrats.

[Hunter]

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? -

[Phillips] No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

He mentions absent portions. The intestines were there as they were still attatched. The coroner is questioning him as to what he saw at the site.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -

[Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

He is now being asked if the organs were lost in transit and he states that they weren't because he saw them missing, them covered the body with her clothing. It is plain to see that they were talking about the missing uterus as that was the issue here. I can post the entire transcripts if you want but I don't think its necessary.

You mention people with "blinkers" on; you really need to take your's off. This is credible evidence Trevor. I'm sorry.

[Trevor Marriott]

He mentions absent portions. The intestines were there as they were still attatched. The coroner is questioning him as to what he saw at the site.




He is now being asked if the organs were lost in transit and he states that they weren't because he saw them missing, them covered the body with her clothing. It is plain to see that they were talking about the missing uterus as that was the issue here. I can post the entire transcripts if you want but I don't think its necessary.

You mention people with "blinkers" on; you really need to take your's off. This is credible evidence Trevor. I'm sorry.

I suggest you read it again and interpret it correctly.

At the inquest Phillips makes no mention of finding the uterus missing at the crime scene. It is when he is giving evidence in relation to the post mortem that he mentions the missing organs.

If he had found them missing at the scene he would have mentioned them, and as stated would not have been asked if they could have gone missing in transit. Now what part of that do you still not understand.

As to your suggestion he was being discreet by not mentioning these at the post mortem, what he does try to do is not mention the full extent of the mutilations in relation to the cause of death.

Before i finally leave this thread once and for all i would mention the misinterpretation in relation to Dr Sequiras statement.

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.

He is agreeing with the condition and state of the body at the crime scene only

By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.

By this he is stating that the killer had sufficient light to carry out the murder and the mutilations, not the removals

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

By this he was stating that the way the murder was carried out and the severe mutilations inflicted didnt suggest the killer carried the murder out with a view to targeting organs.

The truth is still out there but getting ever closer !!!!!!!!

[Hunter]

This is getting like the guy who keeps trying to pick up a turd by the good end.

At the inquest Phillips makes no mention of finding the uterus missing at the crime scene. It is when he is giving evidence in relation to the post mortem that he mentions the missing organs.

If he had found them missing at the scene he would have mentioned them, and as stated would not have been asked if they could have gone missing in transit. Now what part of that do you still not understand.

Once again, from the inquest-

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? -( he meant at the crime scene)
[Phillips] No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -
[Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Absent and excised means taken away. Not there. As I've pointed out, this had to be at the scene because Annie was undressed when Phillips arrived at the mortuary. In fact, the coroner wouldn't have even asked him if the organs were lost in transit if they weren't missing before the body arrived at the mortuary.

As to your suggestion he was being discreet by not mentioning these at the post mortem, what he does try to do is not mention the full extent of the mutilations in relation to the cause of death.

He mentions the mutilations in detail is his first testimony.

[Phillips] On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six. I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard. The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen. The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder.

By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.

By this he is stating that the killer had sufficient light to carry out the murder and the mutilations, not the removals

He meant the entire deed, including the removal of the organs that Brown had mentioned.

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

By this he was stating that the way the murder was carried out and the severe mutilations inflicted didnt suggest the killer carried the murder out with a view to targeting organs.

He meant that he thought the killer took the organs at random, without a predisposed intention at any particular ones. Once again, the coroner wouldn't have even asked that question if he didn't think something was taken away. He was asking the doctor his opinion as to why they were taken.

As I've stated before, there is no doubt that the killer did removed organs from Kelly, proving that he had the desire and capacity to do so. You stated in your interview on this site that you believed Kelly was a Ripper victim.

If a murderer could disembowel and remove intestines, and even flaps of skin, he could certainly remove anything else he wanted, and did. You should have studied the evidence more carefully before developing a theory instead of the other way around.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is getting like the guy who keeps trying to pick up a turd by the good end.



Once again, from the inquest-

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? -( he meant at the crime scene) No he didnt
[Phillips] No; the absent portions being from the abdomen. referring to finding them missing when he did pm
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -
[Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised. He was refering to intestines and part of the stomach
Absent and excised means taken away. Not there. No it means takewn out but not taken away As I've pointed out, this had to be at the scene because Annie was undressed when Phillips arrived at the mortuary. In fact, the coroner wouldn't have even asked him if the organs were lost in transit if they weren't missing before the body arrived at the mortuary. What difference did it make whether she was dressed or undressed


He mentions the mutilations in detail is his first testimony.

[Phillips] On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six. I found the body of the deceased lying in the yard on her back, on the left hand of the steps that lead from the passage. The head was about 6in in front of the level of the bottom step, and the feet were towards a shed at the end of the yard. The left arm was across the left breast, and the legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side, and the tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips; it was much swollen.[B] The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder. [/B] So where does he mention the uterus missing

He meant the entire deed, including the removal of the organs that Brown had mentioned. Thats conjecture on your part

He meant that he thought the killer took the organs at random, without a predisposed intention at any particular ones. Once again, the coroner wouldn't have even asked that question if he didn't think something was taken away. He was asking the doctor his opinion as to why they were taken.

As I've stated before, there is no doubt that the killer did removed organs from Kelly, proving that he had the desire and capacity to do so. You stated in your interview on this site that you believed Kelly was a Ripper victim.

If a murderer could disembowel and remove intestines, and even flaps of skin, he could certainly remove anything else he wanted, and did. You should have studied the evidence more carefully before developing a theory instead of the other way around.

[B]I think it is you that need to read the inquest reports and re interpret them your answers here are a mish mash of both murders

What i first "believed" about Kelly may well not be what I now believe a lot of investigative work has gone on since then. I am now in posession of new facts about the case which i was not privvy to at the start which now casts a doubt about her being killed by the same killer, However one learns to still keep an open mind and deal with facts only and not get carried away with opinions. As i have said before far to many opinions about this case have been flying around for over 120 years and people have paid to much emphasis on them.

[DVV]

Hi Trevor,

Mary is a Ripper victim.
As much as Parsifal is a Wagner composition.

Amitiés,
David