The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Tom_Wescott]

Me too. I remember an episode of the TV show Good Times about that.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[doris]

The Anatomy Act allowed bona fide persons to take organs and bodies freely from morturies and workhouse mortuaries for research.

The way the uterus was removed from chapman suggests it was removed for research.

Someone posted on here that almost any organ could be obtained from any of these locations by 10am every morning.

The bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were left at the mortuaries for some 12 hours before post mortems were carried out, need i say anymore

Do you really, honestly think that ripper victims orgams were removed PM for research purposes?

Or am I missunderstanding you ?

doris

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you really, honestly think that ripper victims orgams were removed PM for research purposes?

Or am I missunderstanding you ?

doris

Hi Doris
No you are not misunderstanding me my belief is that after the bodies were taken to the mortuaries and left for over 12 hours before the actual postmortems were carried out. Whilst there the organs were removed by persons who fit into the bona fide catergory for research purposes. Those persons could have been a medical student.doctor.trainess doctor or any other anataomical researcher.

As I have alreday stated the bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and coincidentally two different methods of entering the abdominal cavitys were used and the uteri of both victims were removed in two different ways.

I thinkg there is sufficient there to cause a majot doubts about the original theoryof the killer removing the organs. In fact there is nothing at all to corroborate this theory. But our armchair medical experts seem to know different.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=DirectorDave;123370

"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.[/QUOTE]

Are you now trying to suggest that the killer carried two knives.

Again I re iterate you cannot get at the kidney and remove as it lies in the abdomen with a six inch knife other than by slashing and cutting.. As has been said before it was the left kidney and even more difficult to get at because of the liver.

Now i cant make it any clearer than that what part of that do you not understand. If you are still in any doubt go to page 396 of my book "The Evil within" it is fully explained there together with a photo showing the difficulty involved by using a six inch knife.

In relation to the previous test you referred to whether blood was on a hand covered by a surgical glove or on a bare hand would not make any difference to the amount on a cloth after wiping the hands. If the killer did have his hands inside the body of Eddowes then they would have been heavily bloodstained ( Nobody please suggest he was wearing gloves) But of course if you doubt it feel free to cut conduct your own test.

[DVV]

The expert in the mortuary was obviously not gifted...
The upper of the vagina... 2/3 of the bladder...

I wonder what he would have done, had he performed the job in Hanbury Street, at around 5:00 am...
Perhaps the head would have been still attached to the uterus.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

I am actually quite surprised at your interpretation of these matters, Ben.

There's really nothing to be surprised about, Norma.

All I'm doing, essentially, is endorsing the majority verdict amongst the contemporary medical fraternity that the killer(s) had little to no anatomical or medical knowledge. The alternative is necessarily predicated on a very selective approach to the evidence. For example, in order to justify the "surgical skill" argument, you'd need to explain why only one doctor out of several reported such skill, at only one crime scene, with no other doctor attesting to surgical skill anywhere. Or if you want to champion Phillips' views on Chapman, you're compelled to do an equally good job of explaining why you don't pay equal heed to his dismissal of Eddowes killer as an unskilled operator.

Dr. Brown's opinion that Eddowes' killer deliberately targetted her kidney and extracted it with "skill" was contradicted by all three of his colleagues who attended the autopsy. I go with the 75% majority.

I've noticed that various other double standards keep cropping up in these recent attempts to advance the "medical knowledge" theory. For example, inordinate attention is paid to the seniority of Dr. Brown, who only examined one corpse and who everyone disagreed with on the subject of Eddowes' killer's medical knowledge. Why isn't equal attention paid to Dr. Bond, who also examined only one corpse personally, and who went on record as stating that the killer had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever? He was at least as "senior" as Brown, if not more so.

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

But I've just explained that this can't possibly have been the case. You cannot secure all that the ripper pilfered from Annie's corpse with one sweep of the knife. It isn't possible. He'd need chainsaw.

The unsigned Lancet article was simply a regurgitation of Dr. Phillips' views on the Chapman murder.

[DirectorDave]

Wow Trevor you really have a gift for Hyperbole don’t you?

"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."

Neither Brown nor I are suggesting that two different knifes must have been used, it is simply saying the evidence suggests that the knife must have pointed and sharp to cause the abdominal cuts and at least six inches or more to do the internal cuts.

As has been said before in this thread (Although you fail to address it) it is possible to remove the kidney by both cutting and clawing.

"Now i cant make it any clearer than that what part of that do you not understand. If you are still in any doubt go to page 396 of my book "The Evil within" it is fully explained there together with a photo showing the difficulty involved by using a six inch knife"

I understand you perfectly Trevor, but what part of "I don't believe you" do you not understand?

"In relation to the previous test you referred to whether blood was on a hand covered by a surgical glove or on a bare hand would not make any difference to the amount on a cloth after wiping the hands"

Amount perhaps no difference, blood pattern almost definitely.

And after your little performance here Trevor I won't be rushing out to read your book.....even if my local library did have it.

And for that reason….I’m out!

[DaveMc]

I think he ate the bits he took. I don't believe it mattered to him what it was just so it was part of the victim.

Mike

I'm beginning to believe that, too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wow Trevor you really have a gift for Hyperbole don’t you?

"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."

Neither Brown nor I are suggesting that two different knifes must have been used, it is simply saying the evidence suggests that the knife must have pointed and sharp to cause the abdominal cuts and at least six inches or more to do the internal cuts.

As has been said before in this thread (Although you fail to address it) it is possible to remove the kidney by both cutting and clawing.

"Now i cant make it any clearer than that what part of that do you not understand. If you are still in any doubt go to page 396 of my book "The Evil within" it is fully explained there together with a photo showing the difficulty involved by using a six inch knife"

I understand you perfectly Trevor, but what part of "I don't believe you" do you not understand?

"In relation to the previous test you referred to whether blood was on a hand covered by a surgical glove or on a bare hand would not make any difference to the amount on a cloth after wiping the hands"

Amount perhaps no difference, blood pattern almost definitely.

And after your little performance here Trevor I won't be rushing out to read your book.....even if my local library did have it.

And for that reason….I’m out!

The tests we carried out were specifically aimed at people like yourself who firmly belived in the killer removing the organs theory and to try to disprove that theory. In my opinion the tests have been positive and having photographed the various parts of the tests I now beleive the results together with the statements made by the experts clearly cast a major doubt about the theory that the kiler removed the organs.

You are fully entitled to your opinion but sadly you have nothing to corroborate it.

As far as my book is concerned if you are not prepared to read the relevant entries appertaining to matters discussed here. I would suggegst you refrain from commenting on them in future posts.

perhaps your time would be best spent by trying to take off the blinkers and removing the rose tinted spectacles.

[harry]

I do not think the killings and mutilations show either a frenzy of thought or action.The meeting,the cutting of the throat,the laying down of the corpse,the lifting of the clothes,the cut down the torso show,to me at least,an orderly state of mind,and an obsession with the inner parts.None of the above needs medical knowledge or skil.It does need control,and I believe,except for Kelly,there was no severe inner mutilation of a frenzied nature.A controlled person,but not neccessarily a medical one.

[DirectorDave]

"The tests we carried out were specifically aimed at people like yourself who firmly belived in the killer removing the organs theory and to try to disprove that theory."

You see Trevor, that’s part of the problem with your viewpoint.....I don't "firmly believe" that the organs were removed at soc by the Killer....I just don’t "firmly believe" that they were not.

"As far as my book is concerned if you are not prepared to read the relevant entries appertaining to matters discussed here. I would suggegst you refrain from commenting on them in future posts."

I never brought up the subject of your book; I'm only taking you up on the comments you made in Rippercast.

Your "sanity pad" theory was an inventive one, but looking at what was found on her possession, and the value of clothing it just makes no sense.

Your "Removed at the mortuary" is an interesting take on things, but your evidence does not support your theory that the organs could not have been removed at soc.

You are the one who is sticking to a static position here....not me.

But then again I have no book to plug......so I have the ability to reach the opinion of "inconclusive"

Perhaps your time could also be better spent yes?

[Natalie Severn]

Dr. Brown's opinion that Eddowes' killer deliberately targetted her kidney and extracted it with "skill" was contradicted by all three of his colleagues who attended the autopsy. I go with the 75% majority.

Ben,
This is so not true!

If you are going to make such a misleading statement as this it is important to quote,from the inquest testimony itself,exactly where these "three" colleagues "contradicted" him .

They did not.Not at any time.

[DaveMc]

A medical examiner will use a scalpel to remove organs.
Twice the doctors suggest the blade could be longer than 6 inches.

There seems to be some confusion over what it's like inside the abdomen of a deceased body.
It's not the pile of the messy, bloody, goo I was led to believe it was.
It's actually quite neatly packed and everything is covered in membrane.
Some might even think it's pretty.
Surgeries on living people are messy.
Postmortem dissections are not.

Most remarkable is how little blood there is on the doctors' gloves and clothing, even after the entire contents of the torso have been removed.

This is an image from a very sad autopsy.
The young ladies throat had been cut.
I doubt I could find a better example of what the abdomen would look like if it's opened without lacerating the intestines.

DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK IF YOU'RE SQUEEMISH

http://www.charonboat.com/2008/12/charonboat_dot_com_rape_victim_autopsy11.jpg

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just a thought that has come to mind.
Look at the amount of clothes that Eddowes is wearing, together with all the stuff in her pockets....

Now look at the cuts to the body.
Then compare the cuts themselves to the mentions, of the garments she is wearing.

Something strikes me as odd. To enable a person to "enter" the body with those cuts, the killer obviously didn't undo all the clothes..so therefore, in all this haste he had, he would have cut through the clothing. One straight "rip" with a knife would not have been sufficient for him to enter the body itself and flesh out an organ. The clothes would have to be ripped apart to leave the body open for cutting. There are many layers, including buttons and waistbands..

Look at this lot...

Black Cloth Jacket, imitation fur edging etc... (No rips or cuts)

Chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband.... jagged cut 6.1/2 inches long, from waistband, left side of front

Brown Linsey Dress bodice, metal buttons down front...clean cut bottom of left side. 5 inches long from right to left...

Grey stuff peticoat, white waist band...cut 1.1/2inches long, thereon in front

Very old green Alpaca skirt... jagged cut 10.1/2 inches long in front of waistband downward

Very old ragged Blue skirt, red flounce, light twill lining... jagged cut 10.1/2 inches long through waist band, downward

White calico chemise... apparently torn thus in middle of front

Mans white vest, buttons to match down front, 2 outside pockets..torn at back

Now, apart from a tear to the white vest, (at the back!) and an apparent tear to the chemise in middle of front, we have three jagged cuts, one clean cut (dress bodice) and a small 1.1/2 inch cut (the petticoat).
Without physically reconstructing the clothing and the rips/tears/cuts, there is something that strikes me as odd. I can't put my finger in what though. Any ideas?

best wishes

Phil

[DirectorDave]

Hi Phil,

For a woman who was about to sell her body, she still had a lot of clothing in the way.