The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

I wasn't exactly thinking of Trevor's theory, as such. I was thinking of this one thing, the cuts to the garments. And it bothers me. If I can find an answer, a plausible explanation even, it would be better. I dont know the answer at present. All I know is that the detailed inquest testimony of the length of cuts to the material directly above the skin, and the detailed description of the cuts to the body, do not match up, and I really would like to know HOW the killer can make those cuts without cutting the material directly above them.
The implications, if, and I only say IF, very tentatively, those cuts cannot be made without ripping the material in much larger holes, it is directly AGAINST the testimony of the Doctor... and brings much doubt into his testimony.

I don't by any means say this is the case, but I am intruiged enough to ask a question or two that I feel is very pertinent. How can that Z shaped cut be made if the material directly above it isn't big enough?

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

It is with regret that i have to keep reposting some very salient points, but i will do so one final time in the hope that the non beleivers will accept matters of fact, and also apply some common sense to their thinkings.

Hunter suggests it would be easy as hunters do this all the time to deer. I would not dispute they do that but there is a big difference between a deer and a human body, I.e the organs are loacted in different places. The closest anatomy to a human is that of a pig.

Just for the record and I stand to be corrected on this point is that pigs were not slaughtered in the slaughterhouses around Whitechapel.

To the poster who catergoricaly stated Eddowes was eviasrated in Mitre Square and the intestines being found outside the body lay proof to that. I would say as i have before that it is not unusual in case where victims have their abdominal walls pierced or ripped open in the case of Eddowes and Chapman for the intestines to recoil outwards. As has also been said before and is fact. Anyone with any anataomical knowledge would not need to remove the intestines to take out a uterus..

You also have to look at the how the bodies were found in the case of Chapman both legs were drawn up. In the case of eddowes one leg was drawn up. Both those positions are not in line with someone performing surgery the legs being up would make it even more difficult to effect removal of organs. Unless of course someone want to come forward and suggest the killer posed the bodies in that way. if you feel like doing that please refrain because its to ridiculous to even consider.

Again i will re iterate the times, Pc watkins came into the square at 1.30am he says there was no one else in the square. By the time it took him to walk in and out again would be almost 5 mins, that takes us to 1.35am. he then returns to the square and finds the body of eddowes at 1.44am.

Thats just 9 mins. That would mean at best that Eddowes and her killer must have walked in one end as he walked out the other. If that didnt happen immediatly then add extra mins onto that Allowing for their walking in and going to the murder spot add another 2-3 mins. That now leaves us with a max of 7 mins for the killer to kill her. mutilate her face and body and then perform major surgery on the body to remove the organs , and then to make good his escape. Which was probabaly when he heard Pc watkins returning. So at best I would say he only had a max of 6 mins to do all of that.

An impossible task for anyone to carry out. Dr Phillips stated it would take him up to 20 mins to carry out the murder and uterus removal of Chapman and he is a skilled surgeon. So those who covet the theory that the killer was a butcher, or medical student etc or just got luck fumbling around for organs inside the abdomen need to really take a closer look at your beliefs.

I hope this make things much clearer and i see no further need for discussion, however i am sure there are some that will see this out to the bitter end

[DaveMc]

Hello Simon, Trevor, all,

Indeed, as I posted earlier..the cuts THROUGH the different materials Eddowes was wearing doesn't match the cuts to her body..especially the undergarment, the chemise, with only a 5 inch cut.
Surely, it must mean that the kidney was NOT taken from the body in Mitre Square.?

From looking at the cuts made to the body, that material would be ripped from top to toe. It doesn't make sense at all.

best wishes

Phil

I'm guess I'm having trouble catching on to your meaning.

The cuts demonstrated in the postmortem photo and diagram aren't all from the attacker.
The examiner would have completed the incision to access the chest cavity.

The killer's incision is between the sternum and the belly button at it's height, according to the other descriptions.

[DVV]

That drawing against the inquest testimony
Phil

I wouldn't say so, Phil.
To me, it's the drawing and the inquest testimonies - from all those who were at the crime scene and testified that the body was ripped up like a...etc etc.

As pointed out by Hunter, who would buy an uterus in such a state ?

As to the cuts in her garments, well, I haven't thought of this so far... I don't know the implications (I'm peacefully waiting for your thoughts my friend), but I sincerely doubt anything can prove Eddowes hasn't been mutilated at the crime scene.

Even if one accepts - for the sake of discussion - Trevor's theory, do these cuts make suddenly more sense ?

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

Would you disagree with Hunter ?

Absolutely not. To do so would be suicide.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

That drawing against the inquest testimony, with specific cut lengths of EACH material? I repeat, and would really welcome an plausible explanation to my previous questions... namely..

Those cuts cannot be made if there isn't room in the cut of the material can they? I only ask? Is it possible to cut that body up without cutting the material directly above the body?

I feel that this is important.

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Phil,

speculations on the garments are interesting, it's worth discussing, indeed.
But not to deny the obvious fact that Eddowes has been mutilated in Mitre square.

Would you disagree with Hunter ?

Foster's drawing and the inquest testimony shows that 2 feet of intestines were cut out and layed between Kate's left arm and her body, so there was removal of organs left at the site. No, that it not a kidney or uterus but it shows the killer had the incentive to remove something. The drawing also shows the pubic area cut up so if the uterus was removed later it would have probably been quite worthless.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

I agree, they dont serve a purpose...but they cannot be made if there isn't room in the cut of the material can they? I only ask? Is it possible to cut that body up without cutting the material directly above the body?
Its very odd.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

The Ripper killed Eddowes, lifted her clothes, cut her open, and took her kidney away. The cut you're referring to (which was something like a 'Z' shape) is one of many other cuts to her that don't appear to serve a practical purpose. That doesn't mean it didn't serve a purpose to the killer, but it certainly is not an indicator that he didn't remove the organs. Again, the Brown diagram proves he did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom,

I am not married to the idea, but I can see no logic in the cuts through the material. If THEY don't match the cuts to the body (remember the length of the cut UP Eddowes body) then how else do you explain that removal?

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

So, when Dr. Gordon Brown (not Foster, as everyone keeps saying) made his colorful sketch on the scene in Mitre Square, and recorded her intestines over her shoulder, he was just having a laugh? Come on, guys. This is proof positive that the Ripper went a'diggin' in Eddowes' open cavity with a purpose.

Trevor's idea is very clever, there's no doubting that. But not only is their not one iota of evidence to support it, there is irrefutable evidence that completely demolishes the theory before it gets off the ground. I applaud Trevor for keeping his mind open and pursuing avenues of investigation that no one has thought of before, but I do not applaud him (or anyone) who gets prematurely married to such an idea. This one just doesn't pan out. The organs were, in fact, taken by the killer at the scene.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Hi Trevor,

Eddowes' missing left kidney and part of her uterus were not noticed by the doctors in Mitre Square.

If, as you say, the kidney ["easily overlooked" and "covered by a membrane"—Doctor Brown] cannot be found by fumbling around, then whoever took it knew exactly where to find it and how to partially extract it.

Brown agreed, replying to the coroner's question of "would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill" that the perpetrator had "a good deal of knowledge as to the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and how to remove them".

This suggests that the internal organs were removed in Mitre Square.

But if there was sufficient light in "the darkest corner of the square" to allow the murderer to see what he was doing, why couldn't the doctors see what he had done?

I think you're onto something.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon, Trevor, all,

Indeed, as I posted earlier..the cuts THROUGH the different materials Eddowes was wearing doesn't match the cuts to her body..especially the undergarment, the chemise, with only a 5 inch cut.
Surely, it must mean that the kidney was NOT taken from the body in Mitre Square.?

From looking at the cuts made to the body, that material would be ripped from top to toe. It doesn't make sense at all.

best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

But if there was sufficient light in "the darkest corner of the square" to allow the murderer to see what he was doing, why couldn't the doctors see what he had done?

Because that's why God made mortuaries. The doctors are not going to dig around inside a corpse in a dark square, nor should anybody expect them to. Come on, Simon, you know this.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

The semantics in this instance matter

Exactly, which is why it pays dividends to avoid foisting unacceptable and misleading interpretations onto standard English phraseology. There is no evidence that Drs. Saunders, Sequeira and Phillips considered Eddowes' mutilator to have been anything other than the rankest of amateurs in terms of anatomical knowledge. If they thought that the murder evinced any "skill" beyond that of an average Joe, i.e. skill that would enable the investigating authorities to narrow down potential suspects, it was encumbant upon them to state as much in plain terms.

"No particular design on any particular internal organ" means that no particular incision was made with respect to any one organ.

It most assuredly means no such thing. How can anyone honestly think this? The observation clearly means that the killer, in the opinion of Sequeira and Saunders, was not looking for any particular organ, which carries the attendant inescapable conclusion that the killer, in their opinion, chanced upon the kidney largely by accident without necessarily knowing what it was.

Why he chose to take any particular organ, they can't say

They did say. Saunders and Sequeira opined that the killer did NOT "chose" to take a "particular" organ.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Eddowes' missing left kidney and part of her uterus were not noticed by the doctors in Mitre Square.

If, as you say, the kidney ["easily overlooked" and "covered by a membrane"—Doctor Brown] cannot be found by fumbling around, then whoever took it knew exactly where to find it and how to partially extract it.

Brown agreed, replying to the coroner's question of "would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed great anatomical skill" that the perpetrator had "a good deal of knowledge as to the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and how to remove them".

This suggests that the internal organs were removed in Mitre Square.

But if there was sufficient light in "the darkest corner of the square" to allow the murderer to see what he was doing, why couldn't the doctors see what he had done?

I think you're onto something.

Regards,

Simon