The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Ben]

On the other hand Mike,if you were discussing the literary merits of Dick Francis and Marcel Proust,you might say that Dick Francis as a writer of detective fiction had some literary abilit

You might indeed, Norma, but if you wanted to single out a bad writer, you might observe that the writer in question has "no great" literary ability, and the same may be said of doctors wishing to draw attention to the anatomical incompetence of a murderer and mutilator.

the crucial bit of information has always been that the murderer knew how to subdue his victims rapidly and without struggle or sound

Hey may have learned how to achive this better, certainly, most likely as a result of his criminal activity. Most serial killers hone their grisly craft on the job, rather than being a ready-made product. If he was responsible for the Wilson and Millwood attacks, as I suspect he was, it is clear that he wasn't wholly competent at subduing his victims at that early stage. I'm uncomfortable with this "theory" of strangulation. "Maybe if I squeeze tightly enough, my defenceless petite female victim might expire?" is not a hypothesis that requires any great "theorizing". There is no evidence that the killer knew "the function of the carotid artery". Annie Chapman's throat was severed all the way down to the bone, so how could he possibly have missed the carotid artery?

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi all,

a wanna-be doctor, a wanna-be medical student, or again a wanna-be butcher are imo more likely than a genuine doctor, medical-student, butcher.

Any individual with murderous tendencies would ask, read and observe things about murder/techniques of killing, etc. Hence, perhaps, his knowledge of the function of the carotid, for example.
No professional experience needed, imo.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Well the answer to the question of whether or not the Ripper had surgical skill is certainly not cut and dried.There were certainly signs that alerted trained doctors to clues about the killers anatomical and or surgical knowledge.In the case of Annie Chapman,who was killed,very, very, quietly,in a back yard in daylight,killed quickly apparently too,with her uterus removed very efficiently -which surprised Dr Phillips given this was a case of the most extraordinary murder and brutality.
Liz Stride was also subdued,it was believed,prior to killing,possibly by a tourniquet method-usually used to stop bleeding but in this case to strangle prior to the throat cutting injury.
Catherine Eddowes was killed very rapidly,very quietly, in the dark and yet the method of extracting her kidney was careful and indicative of skill-more especially since the conditions on the ground were difficult.
Mary Kelly"s murder is in a league of its own.

On balance,it appears to me the killer matched his circumstances to the extent of his mutilations and always avoided capture.There is confidence here and I believe he had been trained either as a surgeon or as a soldier.

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

There were certainly signs that alerted trained doctors to clues about the killers anatomical and or surgical knowledge

And yet these supposed "signs" were clearly insufficient to prevent the majority of medical opinion from giving the effective thumbs-down to the premise that the killer was medically or anatomically competent.

In the case of Annie Chapman,who was killed,very, very, quietly,in a back yard in daylight

It wasn't "very very quietly". A neighbour in the adjoining yard heard both conversation and the possible exclamation "No" as well as a thud against the fence. It was scarcely "daylight" at 5:30am on a September morning in the shadow-ensconced corner of a back yard surrounded by buildings. It was the impression of Dr. Phillips that the uterus was removed "very efficiently", just as it was the impression of Phillips (as endorsed by Wynne Baxter) that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people. It wasn't secured with "one sweep of the knife", by the way, just in case you're being led astray by that phrase, and unless the killer deliberately wanted to extract two thirds of the bladder, it's clear that one the "knife sweeps" was botched in the extreme.

the method of extracting her kidney was careful and indicative of skill

That was just Brown's view, which was contradicted by the other three doctors who examined the body. I go with the 75% majority in this case.

Best regards,
Ben

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Norma,

It was the impression of Dr. Phillips that the uterus was removed "very efficiently", just as it was the impression of Phillips (as endorsed by Wynne Baxter) that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people. It wasn't secured with "one sweep of the knife", by the way, just in case you're being led astray by that phrase, and unless the killer deliberately wanted to extract two thirds of the bladder, it's clear that one the "knife sweeps" was botched in the extreme.

Best regards,
Ben

The suggestion that they were killed by different people is quite feasable if we go back to the two different methods of entering the abdominla cavitys of both victims. But of course they werent killed by two different people it was just two different people removing the organs from the two different mortuaries.

i have also attached a photo taken at a post mortem this shows the kidney encased in the renal fat. Clearly it cannot be found by fumbling around in the dark. It would be possible to take hold of the renal fat and rip it out and then remove the kidney but as we know that didnt happen so someone had to have some anatomical knowledge.

One pic is worth a thousand words. perhaps some may now change their point of view on this topic as to who did actually remove the organs, becasue there is no way Eddowes kidney was removed at the crime scene.

[DirectorDave]

That is a picture of the Kidney with perirenal fat.....not the renal capsule.

The perirenal fat has a consistancy of thick wallpaper paste.

[Ben]

Hi Trevor,

Bear in mind that the ripper was working within the confines of a very small region encompassing the abdominal cavity of the diminutive Kate Eddowes. It wasn't as though he was spoiled for choice. As such, virtually any organ was capable of being "found" by accident providing the rummaging was determined and inquisitive enough.

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

The Lancet re The CONSENSUS in the MEDICAL profession

" The Lancet "was and is the major journal of the medical profession.It was
unequivocal in its statement about surgical skill/anatomical knowledge:

On the injuries you comment on as being "botched in the extreme" here is what the medical profession had to say:


"The Lancet" 29 Sept 1888

----"obviously the work of an expert----of one,at least,who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife"-----

Certainly not your conclusion, as a "layman" Ben, as being "botched in the extreme"

Moreover Doctor Phillips believed that "there would have been greater evidence ofanatomical knowledge if the murderer hadnt been acting in great haste"




THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE EXAMINING DOCTORS IS THAT THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER had both surgical and anatomical skill.The Lancet

[DirectorDave]

Hi Ben,

I agree, the Liver is a large clumsy organ to grab, he had also cut through it....if he is looking for a hand sized organ to "grab" the Kidney is a good one....it's membrane is made of tough fibrous tissue and is surrounded (mainly at the rear) with the perirenal fat that could be separated by clawing.

Once his hands feel the Renal capsule which would be warm, he would then find the renal gland and then be able to remove the kidney it by cutting the Blood vessels and ureta.

It should also be noted that at the post mortem it was stated that the Kidney was not removed for any "professional purpose"

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Dave. Good observations.

" The Lancet "was and is the major journal of the medical profession

Ah yes, you must be referring to the unsigned article in The Lancet that wasn't so much offering its own views on the murders, but merely summarizing Phillips' stance on the Chapman murder. You've clearly misconstrued this as an independent brand new stance on the extent of skill displayed, as opposed to what it really is - a report of the latest medical opinion as expressed by Phillips, but never mind.

"obviously the work of an expert----of one,at least,who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife"

It is not possible to secure all that the killer took away with "one sweep of the knife", since the uterus adheres to the rest of the body in two locations. The "top" cut left two thirds of the bladder adhering to the organ, and here we have to ask ourselves if the ripper specifically desired that portion of the bladder. The above quotation is both misleading and liable to catch out the real "layman" who may be inclined to treat a particular statement as gospel without considering its implications.

Moreover Doctor Phillips believed that "there would have been greater evidence ofanatomical knowledge if the murderer hadnt been acting in great haste"

Moreover, Doctor Phillips believed that Eddowes was killed by an unskilled immitator. Do you agree with this? I would hazard a guess at no, so why the uncritical acceptance of the accuracy of the above quoted opinion?

THE CONSENSUS AMONG THE EXAMINING DOCTORS IS THAT THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER had both surgical and anatomical skill.The Lancet

This is just nonsense. Firstly, the doctors couldn't even agree on how many victims the "Whitechapel murderer" was responsible for, let alone how much skill he had. Secondly, the Lancet article appeared before at least three-ripper attributed murders even took place. Stride, Eddowes and Kelly needed to happen before any "consensus" could become even remotely valid.

In fact, wait a moment - where did you find this quote that you're attributing to the Lancet? I can't find it anywhere in the 29th Sept article.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ben,

I agree, the Liver is a large clumsy organ to grab, he had also cut through it....if he is looking for a hand sized organ to "grab" the Kidney is a good one....it's membrane is made of tough fibrous tissue and is surrounded (mainly at the rear) with the perirenal fat that could be separated by clawing.

Once his hands feel the Renal capsule which would be warm, he would then find the renal gland and then be able to remove the kidney it by cutting the Blood vessels and ureta.

It should also be noted that at the post mortem it was stated that the Kidney was not removed for any "professional purpose"

Dave

As far as the picture is concered the kidney is clearly seen encased in renal tissue whether you want to be politically correct and say renal capsule or for the laymen I would say renal fat.

Did he do all of that on his own with no light and a long six inch knife. Because you cannot do that with a long bladed knife. We did a test and it is nigh on impossible to do that even in normal conditions.

And as for feeling warm and cold organs that statement beggars belief. Everything in the abdomen would be still warm the blood and the organs.

[DirectorDave]

“And as for feeling warm and cold organs that statement beggars belief. Everything in the abdomen would be still warm the blood and the organs.”

Show me where I said that?

The organs as I have said before are warmer due to the blood flow. If you are going to start misquoting me Trevor then fair enough, but don't expect me to help you see the error of your theories anymore.

Whatever you choose to call it, the fat surrounding the Kidney Capsule is easily got through once the peritoneal lining is severed (Which it was).

"Did he do all of that on his own with no light and a long six inch knife. Because you cannot do that with a long bladed knife. We did a test and it is nigh on impossible to do that even in normal conditions."

I once again point you to the post mortem which states "The wounds on the face and abdomen prove that they were inflicted by a sharp, pointed knife, and that in the abdomen by one six inches or longer."

And as for your test I don't know the conditions but if it was performed in a similar fashion to your bloodspot tests for hands (While wearing rubber gloves) I would take any findings with a pinch of salt.

[DVV]

Did he do all of that on his own with no light and a long six inch knife. Because you cannot do that with a long bladed knife. We did a test and it is nigh on impossible to do that even in normal conditions.

Hi Trevor,

thank God, the victim of your test has now completely recovered.
She's currently busy writing a book - "Surviving a serial killer".

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor,

Interesting stuff you are posting, but why couldn't a large bladed knife have done the trick?

Dr. Phillips did, at the outset, clearly believe that Eddowes was the work of an imitator, but in later times he seems to have become more open to the idea that one man could have committed the 'canonical five' murders, and possibly others. However, based solely on medical evidence, he and Dr. Percy Clark believed that only Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly could definately be attributed to one hand, and that's understandable if he was basing his opinion primarily upon organ extraction. In the case of Stride, he cautiously accepted her based upon the fact that her killer knew how to efficiently cut a throat. However, while he was suitably impressed with how the Ripper extracted Chapman's uterus and Kelly's heart, he was not at all impressed with the work done on Eddowes. But again, as time went on, he seemed to come around to the probability that these women were killed by one man, although medically he could not be so certain.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

The kidney can be extracted by a long knife. Hunters do it all of the time as hunting knives are generally long and rigid. The kidney can be found despite the soft tissue around it because it is a hard lump. There is no other organ in that area that feels like that.

As far as someone other than the killer removing the organs:

From the inquest-
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - [ Dr. Brown] None whatever.

It has already been stated that Dr. Squeira thought that there was enough light at the murder scene and he was the first medico there.