The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Uncle Jack]

The debate about Jack's anatomical knowledge is quite a controversial one. Opinions were differing at the time as we know. I think that the attempt of identicaton of the Ripper rests quite a lot on whether he had anatomical knowledge or not because of the fact that if he did, it rules out a lot of the suggested suspects. But first we have to distinguish what sort of knowledge, if any, that he possessed.

The term anatomical knowledge does not mean that he knew what he was doing. A knowledge of anatomy is basically knowing where parts of the anatomy is. But does this knowledge allow an adverage joe like Jack the ability to cut out a kidney? I know where a kidney and uterus are located in the body. Does this mean I have anatomical knowledge? Knowing the basic facts about where these organs are located, would I be able to remove a uterus? To be honest I am not sure but common sense tells me that I couldn't. If the term "anatomical knowledge" is a reference that Jack knew where the organs were located, then that suggests hundreds if not thousands of people. But if Jack's knowledge went beyond that, then we can begin to narrow it down. Does the skill displayed in th cutting of the victims simply suggest that he would have experience being a butcher or was there no skill at all? Your thoughts and opinions are sought and welcomed.

[Ben]

Hi UJ,

It depends to a large extent on whether or not the killer was deliberately targetting specific organs, as opposed to rumaging around the abdominal cavity for anything of interest. While a certain amount of knowledge may be required to know the location of the kidney with a view to extracting it, no knowledge whatsoever is required to chance upon it as a result of fumbling around in the dark. I think the latter explanation is most consistent with the evidence, as well as the majority of medical opinion from the period.

The killer's evident failure to sever the spinal column in Chapman's case - presumably in an effort to remove her head - is not consistent with the premise that the killer may have been a butcher.

Best regards,
Ben

[JackDaw]

Hello Uncle Jack,

"I know where a kidney and uterus are located in the body. Does this mean I have anatomical knowledge?"

To me, yes that does suggest anatomical knowledge. You are quite clearly Jack the Ripper!


"Does the skill displayed in th cutting of the victims simply suggest that he would have experience being a butcher or was there no skill at all?"

- If Jack the Ripper wrote a note before each murder stating clearly that he was going to remove 'a kidney' or a 'womb' or whatever else, and then actually went ahead and did it - then I would say he knew what he was about.
But he didn't.

His explorations of the bodies seems just like that - exploration. He just seemed a very curious lad. The organ removals weren't clean but messy.

Somebody intending to take a 'trophy' would probably just grab the object that looked both small enough to fit in a pocket and familar in shape to an everyday object like an orange or apple or whatever.
I just think he took what he could carry and that looked 'interesting' as far as he was concerned.

How many medically-skilled serial killer's who remove body parts has there been? Or serial-killing slaughter men/butchers who have done likewise?

My feeling is that his anatomical knowledge was that of a cook preparing animals or fish and no more.



BTW: In Ireland there is a surgeon who was removed from practicing a couple of years back that was addicted to constantly removing healthy wombs from patients. It was claimed that he had an unnatural fear of blood (odd for a surgeon) and a 'God complex'. He got away with it for years despite being a total loony.
If he could get away with it in the comfort of a hospital for years then I can't see why a crazy doctor couldn't get away with the same in London 1888, rather than bothering prowling the dangerous streets for helpless victims.

[DaveMc]

The first reason to believe the killer possessed anatomical knowledge is that the doctors said so.

There's no reason to doubt the medical opinion of a 19th Century English Surgeon.

The only real debate could be over what kind of anatomical knowledge.

Anyone practiced in butchering pigs would be able to find their way around a human abdominal cavity. I would consider someone like that to be "knowledgeable".

[Trevor Marriott]

The first reason to believe the killer possessed anatomical knowledge is that the doctors said so.

There's no reason to doubt the medical opinion of a 19th Century English Surgeon.

The only real debate could be over what kind of anatomical knowledge.

Anyone practiced in butchering pigs would be able to find their way around a human abdominal cavity. I would consider someone like that to be "knowledgeable".

Knowledgable but almost impossible to carry out having regard to lighting, slippery organs wet with blood. also the danger of cutting himself fumbling around with a long sharp knife in a small area in almost total darkness.

Sorry folks but i have to repeat again "it just didnt happen "!

[harry]

What didn't happen?Why open the door then not go inside?Couldn't see because of the dark,so the only course left was to feel.Rummaging around for what?

[claire]

The only basis that I can discern for assuming anatomical knowledge was that organs were removed. There was little consistency in the dexterity with which this was achieved, it seems; I would imagine that any surgeon of reasonable skill would be able to achieve excision quite cleanly even in conditions of low lighting...and to be honest, as JackDaw notes, why bother trawling the streets to do what you could do at work quite readily?

We always seem to assume complete darkness for the murderer's work...but I am not quite convinced that this was the case. The only murder that, it seems, would have no discernible (ambient) light at all was Eddowes'...although we can't guarantee that he wouldn't have taken a candle or a match or whatever. It beggars belief that anyone would choose to work in complete blackness, and of course, in most cases, he did not.

[The Good Michael]

We always seem to assume complete darkness for the murderer's work...but I am not quite convinced that this was the case.

Claire,

I believe we assume that there was very little light. That would make for some difficulty in organ extraction, and that's why I believe the killer wasn't after anything specific. I think he felt around and cut about where he felt one organ begin and another end. This was until Kelly, in which it appears he created an abundance of light. This is surely evident in the damage he did. Of course this is all assuming that Kelly was an escalation.

As to the anatomical question: If he was looking for specific organs in dim lighting, then anatomical knowledge would have been necessary. I don't think he was, so I don't believe he needed to have any.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

The only basis that I can discern for assuming anatomical knowledge was that organs were removed. There was little consistency in the dexterity with which this was achieved, it seems; I would imagine that any surgeon of reasonable skill would be able to achieve excision quite cleanly even in conditions of low lighting...and to be honest, as JackDaw notes, why bother trawling the streets to do what you could do at work quite readily?

We always seem to assume complete darkness for the murderer's work...but I am not quite convinced that this was the case. The only murder that, it seems, would have no discernible (ambient) light at all was Eddowes'...although we can't guarantee that he wouldn't have taken a candle or a match or whatever. It beggars belief that anyone would choose to work in complete blackness, and of course, in most cases, he did not.

I am sorry to be flippant but according to your theory the killer must have been an octopus. One hand to hold the candle/light,one hand to hold the knife,another hand to locate the organs,another hand to grip them. and so on !

The reality is that the killer did not remove the organs from the victims at the crime scene.

[claire]

Mike, I agree with you.

Trevor, I am uncertain why you say 'my' theory means the killer must have been an octopus. That is utterly absurd. For one, it's not my theory that the killer removed organs...that's kind of accepted...hence organs, intestines strewn around crime scenes. Second, okay, fine. Have it your way. I definitely said that he would need to hold the light-source, didn't I? Because, whenever I light a candle, I stand in my room holding it until it burns down. If you honestly believe that someone needs one hand to hold the excising knife, another to locate an organ, another to get a hold of it (and so on...whatever that means), then there's really little I can say. Hands aren't kleenex--you don't use them once and chuck them away, needing a new one for the next job.

Or what are you suggesting? Mary Jane's killer took her body away from the crime scene, got a mate or two (or three, for the required eight hands) to help remove all the organs, and then shuffled off back to Miller's Court to arrange them around her corpse? Sometimes I despair.

[Trevor Marriott]

Mike, I agree with you.

Trevor, I am uncertain why you say 'my' theory means the killer must have been an octopus. That is utterly absurd. For one, it's not my theory that the killer removed organs...that's kind of accepted...hence organs, intestines strewn around crime scenes. Second, okay, fine. Have it your way. I definitely said that he would need to hold the light-source, didn't I? Because, whenever I light a candle, I stand in my room holding it until it burns down. If you honestly believe that someone needs one hand to hold the excising knife, another to locate an organ, another to get a hold of it (and so on...whatever that means), then there's really little I can say. Hands aren't kleenex--you don't use them once and chuck them away, needing a new one for the next job.

Or what are you suggesting? Mary Jane's killer took her body away from the crime scene, got a mate or two (or three, for the required eight hands) to help remove all the organs, and then shuffled off back to Miller's Court to arrange them around her corpse? Sometimes I despair.

My comments were in relation to Chapman and Eddowes. and why do you accept so readily that the killer removed the organs from those two victims ?

A uterus is not something you can fumble around in the dark and get hold of an extract you have to know where it is located. Furthermore in the case of one of the victims not only was the uterus removed but its appendages.

[claire]

Well, in the Chapman case, it seems intuitive that, given her intestines were lying next to her body, that the attempt to excise had taken place in situ. Similarly, on PC Watkins' account, Eddowes' intestines had been 'removed and laid around the throat,' so clearly the abdominal cavity had been accessed to some degree.

The only possible attraction of your theory (presumably, that organs were removed or reported to have been removed after the bodies were transported to the mortuary) is that it renders MJK a copycat (or a supposed copycat), which neatly explains the discrepancies between her murder and the others.

I am not quite convinced, though, that the killer necessarily needed to have 'targeted' the uterus to have removed it--its selection, in a latter-day reading, is a real icon to misogyny. In reality, he could have just randomly grabbed at it, taking what he got his hands on. That said, in its everyday state, it's such a small, indistinct little organ that I wonder if a killer just hunting for trophies would have even recognised it in the half-light for what it was (ie. an organ at all), and not just another part of the intestinal tract.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, in the Chapman case, it seems intuitive that, given her intestines were lying next to her body, that the attempt to excise had taken place in situ. Similarly, on PC Watkins' account, Eddowes' intestines had been 'removed and laid around the throat,' so clearly the abdominal cavity had been accessed to some degree.

The only possible attraction of your theory (presumably, that organs were removed or reported to have been removed after the bodies were transported to the mortuary) is that it renders MJK a copycat (or a supposed copycat), which neatly explains the discrepancies between her murder and the others.

I am not quite convinced, though, that the killer necessarily needed to have 'targeted' the uterus to have removed it--its selection, in a latter-day reading, is a real icon to misogyny. In reality, he could have just randomly grabbed at it, taking what he got his hands on. That said, in its everyday state, it's such a small, indistinct little organ that I wonder if a killer just hunting for trophies would have even recognised it in the half-light for what it was (ie. an organ at all), and not just another part of the intestinal tract.

Its not un common that when a victim has their stomach ripped open for the intestines to recoil outwards. So just because they were outside the bodies doesnt mean to say that suggests the killer removed them. read the Chapman inquest report 3 different conflicting accounts as to how and where the intestines were found at the crime scene.

To remove a uterus one doesnt have to remove the intestines. Out of all the organs the killer could have taken he picks one of the smallest ! and if you were the killer and feeling around you would have great difficulty in locating it.

If as is being suggested the organs were removed by the killer then why were the uteri from both victims removed in different ways ? and if he was fumbling around and got lucky on the first murder why take another organ exactly the same.

Take it from me the organs which were removed from chapman and eddowes were removed by two different people at two different locations not connected to the murders

[The Good Michael]

If as is being suggested the organs were removed by the killer then why were the uteri from both victims removed in different ways ? and if he was fumbling around and got lucky on the first murder why take another organ exactly the same.

Trevor,

I think you answered your own question.


Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I think you answered your own question.


Mike

I do know the answer but others on here need to take off the blinkers and the rose tinted spectacles before they answer.