The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[DaveMc]

"I may be a butcher
I may be a Yid
But I'm not a doctor
Nor a mortuary attendant..."

Amitiés,
David

Oh, where does that come from?
Don't tease me.

[DaveMc]

Trevor’s theories rarely stand up to scrutiny.....his theories include "The apron dropped in goulston street was a make-shift sanitary pad" or "a dog found the body first and ran away with the organ".

I get the impression Trevor is so desperate to bring something to the table that he will be coming out with crackpot theory after crackpot theory until doomsday.

His theory that the organs were removed in the mortuary for commercial reasons is just the latest in a long line of.......stab's in the dark.

Though I agree, I don't want to be insulting towards Trevor at all.
The truth, if you throw enough rocks in the dark, you'll hit something.

This case is as speculative as any could be.
A group NEEDS that kind of thinking to fuel new prospects.
I admire that.

.... and I like the guy. He presents well.

[Natalie Severn]

Phil,
Excellent post.
Like you I think its important to consider Trevor"s ideas which have always brought interesting questions to the case.Mind as Caz once said I doubt the theory of the apron piece given that it was such a big piece of apron to have been tearing it up and tucking in her knickers or whatever she was supposed to do with it. Kate couldnt easily use it as a giant sized pad to soak up menstrual blood -unless she was "flooding" -possible if she was anaemic I suppose but it seems a bit unlikely since it was apparently her one and only apron and she had ready a dozen pieces of prepared rag-found on her person- rags that would surely have been more suitable.

But there are many imaginative suggestions Trevor makes that take us away from the boring old stuff about "canonicals" and how may "canonicals " there were in total and whether Dr Bond could better determine than Dr Phillips whether there was any evidence of surgical skill in the extraction of Annie"s uterus or Dr Brown in the case of Kate"s kidney------when those two police surgeons were there and saw their injuries and Dr Bond was not there and had not seen any of the injuries save for the barbaric butchery of Mary Kelly"s corpse.Ditto whether the Swanson jottings amounted to anything more than a few fireside doodles by an old chap long retired and evidencing some failings in memory in these particular jottings etc.
There always seem to be a lot of hisses and boos when someone comes up with a few alternative ways of looking at the case.I think its a great pity.

[DaveMc]

I would say medical research not commercial reasons, there is a big difference

As to your suggestion of secrecy I would suggest that perhaps there was none. I cannot say what the proceedure were for taking body parts. Obvioulsy the bona fide people were known to mortuary staff and were perhaps just pointed in the direction of bodies which had come in overnight. i would have imagined that the bona fide people were at the mortuary on a daily basis.

At least the theory has some credibilty and i have backed it up with evidence from modern day medical experts, so its not just a stab in the dark.

There is no corroboration to the theory that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene. The first time the organs were found to be missing was at the post mortem 12 hours after the bodies had been left there. So you cannot dismiss my theory. The biggest mistake made was the doctors who attended the Eddowes crime scene. They did not examine the body in greater detail had they done so then they would have seen if any organs had been removed. This is a major mistake by them as they were aware that Chapman was missing her uterus,it would only have taken a few moments--perhaps they didnt because they didnt have proper lighting !!!!!

Now all you people who keep beleiving that the killer took the organs come forward with any evidence in support of that. You are all entitled to your opinions but opinions wont solve the case. We have seen to much of opinions with regards to Abberline,Monro, Anderson, Macnaghten amd their suspects which many choose to accept at being the truth.

As to the apron piece i have challenge people to come forward with evidence to corroborate the various theories which have been suggested. Again all we get is opinions. All we know is that it was cut/torn from the orginal. Again i have used medical experts to cast a doubt about the various theories and have photographs in support of that. Therre is no more i can do and in my eyes when you are able to negate a theory there has to be others which must be looked at and considered and not scorned.

i would suggest reading pages 388-408 of "The Evil Within" statements from Forensic pathologist/Consulatant Gynecologist/Eviscrator/Master Butcher may make you change your views

Trevor,

The corroboration is in the official reports.
The investigation has to be established on something.
It's just an insult to start with corruption or incompetence on the behalf of those officials.
That period of London society was the finest in the world.
We owe our modern world to their determination and it's not something to be failed in respect.
They were extraordinarily persistent towards logic and willing to defy the Pope and all of humanity by its account.

Beyond that, I find some reason in your concepts.
Because there was ample supply of cadavers for research does not fulfill the perspective need.
People not qualified by the government to pursue research may very well have hired Workhouse Inmates to collect organs.

The argument is lost when you don't supply just who (whom?) may have committed the act, nor show any remarkable result.
What inmate was shown to be profitable from the act.
What hint? What clue?

You absolutely must move the point beyond your own imagination to gain any credibility.

As I just posted before, I admire your thinking.
But you have to support it.

[Ben]

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

Some doctors said so, but others couldn't detect any evidence of knowledge at all.

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

No. The debate over whether he had knowledge at all most assuredly qualifies as a "real debate".

Anyone practiced in butchering pigs would be able to find their way around a human abdominal cavity.

They're normally pretty good at skeletal dismemberment, which the ripper clearly wasn't.

Best regards,
Ben

[DaveMc]

Phil,
Excellent post.
Like you I think its important to consider Trevor"s ideas which have always brought interesting questions to the case.

Oh, I do like you for that bit.
If this should ever run out of questions, it would be done.

[Natalie Severn]

Some doctors said so, but others couldn't detect any evidence of knowledge at all.



No. The debate over whether he had knowledge at all most assuredly qualifies as a "real debate".


They're normally pretty good at skeletal dismemberment, which the ripper clearly wasn't.

Best regards,
Ben

The ripper was working at top speed,on the ground,usually in the dark,Ben.
Dr Phillips was the most senior and experienced police surgeon to examine the victims in H division,especially Annie where the Ripper had light and Dr Phillips was unequivocal about knowledge of surgery and skill with the knife.Dr Brown of the City of London Police was also a highly qualified Police Surgeon and he examined Catherine Eddowes and thought he definitely saw evidence of skill and anatomical knowledge.
Dr Bond who Anderson introduced to the crime scene upon the death of Mary Kelly ,which was the final "mutilation" type murder,thought differently.But he had never seen the injuries to the other victims and seems to have been wholly influenced by the terrible butchery to the corpse of Mary Kelly.No other senior doctor disputed surgical or anatomical knowledge as was evidenced in the Journal of the Medical Profession,"The Lancet" ,which summarised the case as one where there was evidence of surgical and anatomical knowledge.
Best
Norma

[DaveMc]

Some doctors said so, but others couldn't detect any evidence of knowledge at all.



No. The debate over whether he had knowledge at all most assuredly qualifies as a "real debate".


They're normally pretty good at skeletal dismemberment, which the ripper clearly wasn't.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

It was only one doctor that I'm aware of (Brown) the said there was no anatomical knowledge, and his statement is debatable as to his meaning.
I believe he meant "medical" knowledge. To that I agree.

As to the "real debate" I think you echoed me.

To the skeletal effect, the killer showed little effort to make me think it was an important part of his intent.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

The corroboration is in the official reports.
The investigation has to be established on something.
It's just an insult to start with corruption or incompetence on the behalf of those officials.
That period of London society was the finest in the world.
We owe our modern world to their determination and it's not something to be failed in respect.
They were extraordinarily persistent towards logic and willing to defy the Pope and all of humanity by its account.

Beyond that, I find some reason in your concepts.
Because there was ample supply of cadavers for research does not fulfill the perspective need.
People not qualified by the government to pursue research may very well have hired Workhouse Inmates to collect organs.

The argument is lost when you don't supply just who (whom?) may have committed the act, nor show any remarkable result.
What inmate was shown to be profitable from the act.
What hint? What clue?

You absolutely must move the point beyond your own imagination to gain any credibility.

As I just posted before, I admire your thinking.
But you have to support it.

You replies have gone way off target

1. It is a fact that the doctors never examined the body of Eddowes at the
the scene whetehr that amounts to incompetence or not is irrelevant.
The point being that if they had done so and found the organs missing we
could catergorically say the killer removed the organs.

2. It is a fact that bone fide persons i.e medical students.trainee doctor etc
had lawful access to bodies and body parts. The mortuary attendants
were not involved in any medical practices, they washed the blood away
and moved the bodies around.

3. It is also a fact that the bodies were left for 12 hours at the mortuaries
before the post mortems.

4. It is also a fact that the abdomens of both eddowes and Chapman were
entered in different ways. That to me suggests two different people. The
kidney of Eddowes was removed with some anatomical knowledge
you only have to see where it is located and surrounded by renal fat to
see how difficult it is to get out under normal conditions.

5. It is also a fact that the bodies were taken to two different mortuaries.

Now to me that raises a serious doubt about the original theory of the killer removing the organs

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

Yes, but Phillips was also inclined to attribute no anatomical skill to the killer of Eddowes, an observation which led Wynne Baxter to conclude that the two women (Chapman and Eddowes) were murdered by different people. If Phillips was incorrect in his determination - and he almost certainly was - then it stands to reason that he could have been equally wrong about the amount of skill required to perform the Chapman mutilations and eviscerations.

No other senior doctor disputed surgical or anatomical knowledge

This is absolutely false. Dr. Sequeira was a "senior doctor" as was Dr. Saunders, and neither man detected any evidence of anatomical skill from Eddowes' wounds. Dr. Brown was in the conspicuous minority of opinion on the subject of anatomical knowledge evinced by the Eddowes murder, with three out of four medical professionals being of the opinion that little or none was required. The preponderance of medical evidence is emphatically and irrefutably against the notion that the killer had appreciable knowledge.

As an aside, I wouldn't invest much stock in the old chestnut that the killer "had light" when committing the Hanbury Street murder. 5:30am on a September morning in the shadowy corner of a yard - nah.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

It was only one doctor that I'm aware of (Brown) the said there was no anatomical knowledge, and his statement is debatable as to his meaning.

Dr. Bond stated that none of the victims from Nichols through to Kelly suffered mutilations that evinced anatomical knowledge, not even that of a butcher, and there is no ambiguity as to intended meaning. Drs. Sequeira, Saunders and Phillips detected little to no anatomical knowledge from the mutuilations inflicted uon Kate Eddowes.

To the skeletal effect, the killer showed little effort to make me think it was an important part of his intent.

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.

Best regards,
Ben

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Norma,

Yes, but Phillips was also inclined to attribute no anatomical skill to the killer of Eddowes, an observation which led Wynne Baxter to conclude that the two women (Chapman and Eddowes) were murdered by different people. If Phillips was incorrect in his determination - and he almost certainly was - then it stands to reason that he could have been equally wrong about the amount of skill required to perform the Chapman mutilations and eviscerations.


This is absolutely false. Dr. Sequeira was a "senior doctor" as was Dr. Saunders, and neither man detected any evidence of anatomical skill from Eddowes' wounds. Dr. Brown was in the conspicuous minority of opinion on the subject of anatomical knowledge evinced by the Eddowes murder, with three out of four medical professionals being of the opinion that little or none was required. The preponderance of medical evidence is emphatically and irrefutably against the notion that the killer had appreciable knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

The entery to the abdomianl cavity of Eddowes has been described as being consistent with a post mortem proceedure. If that is correct more ammuntion for beleiving the organs were removed at the mortuary. Furthermore one must consider that if that is corrcet then how much more damage did this do to the original wounds made by the killer ? Food for thought !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Good Michael]

Trevor,

All these 'facts' you point out about different entry wounds and the same organ taken from two victims, don't point to different people necessarily. They do point to a non-doctor who isn't familiar with anatomy, trying to figure out what he needs to do because he is A) inexperienced and B) working without much light. What I see here is a killer experimenting and figuring out things. That is about the simplest answer and simplicity is often the answer to many things, isn't it? As for Kelly, with the lighting he got, he didn't need that anatomical knowledge methinks.

Cheers,

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

re Dr Sequeira

You are quite wrong here Ben re Dr Sequeira and his conclusions

Dr Sequeira- the first medical man to arrive at the scene [ in Mitre Square] at five minutes to 2.He saw the position of the body and "entirely agreed with Dr Gordon Brown"s evidence given at the opening of the inquest."

But wait----

Mr Crawford: Have you formed any particular opinion that the murderer had any particular design with respect to any particular organ?

Dr Sequeira:No I do not. WHAT!!!!

This was stated by Dr Sequeira on 11th October 1888

FIVE DAYS LATER MR LUSK RECEIVED HIS "KIDNEY"! 16th October 1888



Isnt there something of a "faut pas" here for a doctor to state the ripper had no design on a particular organ?

[Ben]

You are quite wrong here Ben re Dr Sequeira and his conclusions

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"

Have another look at that quote you're attributing to Sequeira regarding his supposed agreement with Dr. Brown. It reads, in full:

"I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect."

An agreement with Brown about the position of the body does not equate to an agreement regarding the murderer's anatomical skill, or lack thereof.

Isnt there something of a "faut pas" here for a doctor to state the ripper had no design on a particular organ?

No, not remotely.

Hope the above has cleared up some of the confusion.

All the best,
Ben