Dr Ripper or not?

[chudmuskett]

Is it taken as a definite that JTR had surgical knowledge or just a theory? One of the reasons I ask is that I used to work in an operating theatre and I wouldn't think it was that difficult to remove an organ, even in the dark. Once the body is open there isn't much in there apart from a lots of organs all squashed together, so just take your pick and cut around it.

[The Grave Maurice]

This point will probably be debated forever, Chud. I tend to agree with what you say but, then, we'll always have to deal with comments from people like the Bagster who said that, at least in Chapman's case, the killer showed sufficient anatomical expertise to secure the pelvic organs with "one sweep of the knife". I mean, the guy was a doctor and he saw the body. That makes it hard to discount his opinion completely.

[lynn cates]

debate

Hello Chud. The surgical skill/knowledge of the killer/s of the C5 is still hotly debated on the threads.

Baxter and Bagster opined that Polly and Annie were skillfully mutilated whilst Kate was unskillfully mutilated. Why? Well, it seems that Annie's uterus came out cleanly whereas Kate's did not. At any rate, Wynne Baxter noted that Kate's mutilation was possibly the work of an imitator.

Bond, if I recall properly, thought that MJ's mutilations showed no skill at all.

Good luck in finding a definitive answer.

Cheers.
LC

[kensei]

Is there any reason why someone with medical knowledge could not be self taught? All one needs do is get hold of a textbook or two. Plus practice can be done on animals. It would also make sense that the work of such a person would tend to be rather inconsistent in skill.

[Rubyretro]

[

Plus practice can be done on animals. It would also make sense that the work of such a person would tend to be rather inconsistent in skill.

[/QUOTE]

I agree with that Kensei..a mammal is close enough to gain some sort of skill
(I'm not thinking of a professional butcher)..yet it's not a person, so 'different'..add adrenalin, speed, excitement, darkness adding to mistakes..
and you would get "inconsistancy in skill".

Enough to sometimes convince the Doctors that you knew what you were doing..and enough to work like an amateur.

[kensei]

Exactly what I was thinking, Ruby.

[corey123]

Hello Ruby,Kensei,

I would agree that many pysical problems(adrenaline, the lighting, fear of being caught, time crunch) all these things would weigh on his success.

( of coarse adrenaline being a big one, we all know the side effects, shaking, increased heart beat, increased sence of awareness.)

[joelhall]

To answer your question: there is no evidence that the killer had the slightest clue about human anatomy, or even animal. To rip out organs in this manner, as long as you have the stomach for it, is almost ridiculously easy for your avergae fit adult male. Given the state of living at the time - more physical than today - I dare say most men at the time would have been able to do this with very little difficulty (apart from the psychological).

Obviously the killer was only going to remove the first small part he came across. To escape trying to hide the large or small intestines is doomed to failure before you even leave, and there is no chance you would get away with this. By contrast a kidney or uterus would easily fit in your pocket.

Any assumptions at the time from surgeons probably originally took into account the polices view of a sexual killer and that a certain organ was the aim of the mutilation, which would seem to be the case at first. However (apologies if this is too graphic for some, but this is a site about Jack the Ripper), if you were to rip a woman's abdomen open and pull away the first thing you grabbed (which would be the intestines, they would be pretty obvious) you wouldn't have much trouble finding the very small uterus in the cavity simply by feeling around in the dark. You would probably notice the bladder first which is more anterior, but taking this out would be a little more difficult. The 'one sweep of the knife' remark merely suggests to me he had a sharp knife and was fairly strong - although we're not by any means talking Charles Atlas strong.

Notice that in one muder the killer has sliced through the bladder to remove the uterus. There is not very much need for this if the killer knew what he was doing, but demonstrates that the killer simply sliced away to take something small, and didn;t even have the knowledge to pull the bladder towards him.

The abdominal incisions themselves are not the work of someone with previous training if we look at the Eddowes sketch. But as with the extraction itself, anyone with a knife and a good old chunk of force could do this no problem. I dare say the knife wasn't too sharp as clearly the Langer lines of the skin and the abdominal muscles have upset what would in a surgeons or butcher's hands be a fairly neat cut with a good sharp knife. This is someone with poor experience of cutting cadavers, despite earlier murders.

The uterus, or kidney in the Eddowes case, would be what one would expect an untrained killer to pull out. Close to where he is kneeling and easy to find, small and easy to hide, and not very difficult to rip out with a knife and some force. This is not how a surgeon would extract the organ - far too messy. If the killer had known what he was looking for there would be no point in pulling out the intestines for instance.

What does look strange is the abdominal cut looks as if it may have been done by a left handed person, which incidentally is the way the cuts are described on the abdomen of Polly Nichols by Baxter. Note I said may, before the whacky theories begin - other doctors disagreed. Also in the case of Nichols, there were transverse and well as the sagittal cuts, which showed the killer was probably slashing in a haphazard manner as there were several cuts, and later we see massive longitudinal cuts.

The transverse cut made by surgeons performing an abdominal hysterectomy (a total hysterectomy) is quite small (much smaller than the killer's) and allows easy access to the organ. This is done quite low down, just above the pubic bone where the uterus is located. Anyone who has had a caesarian birth will be familiar with this (known as a Pfannenstiel incision). This suggests that the killer was not a surgeon or had any surgical experience.

From the descriptions of how the organs were extracted I agree with the later views of doctors at the time - absolutely no practicle use whatsoever, no knowledge of anatomy (the fact he removed part of the bladder of one victim says this on its own) and could have taken very little time indeed, even for an untrained person in the dark. Someone hell bent on ripping someone open and taking anything could have done the whole job, from grabbing the victim to finishing up, in merely a couple of minutes and left the scene.

All in all your observations from theatre are correct - it really is a much easier job than people believe, and not suggestive of the killer having much skill, if any.

[corey123]

Well Joel I believe this pretty much sums it up.

Good post.

[ianincleveland]

im pretty certain he had no medical training whatsoever.Its possible hed been trained as a butcher but even thats debatable.

The Gull theory has always fell down for one reason with me and thats hed have more pride in his surgical skills than to slash and rip like JTR did lol

[chudmuskett]

First off, thanks to all for your great replies.

Before I start I dont mean any disrespect to any surgeons out there.

I have to say that from my experience dealing with surgeons (especially old school) there is an element of "your on my turf now, dont question me, I have a degree". It is difficult to explain but some have a way of talking that is rarely questioned by the patient. The amount of trust is phenomenal. We just tend to sit there and nod and agree with these people which can in turn have a negative effect which can make the individual (the surgeon in this case) try to make the justification of what he is saying even stronger thus "Oh yes, the man that did this must have had surgical knowledge". For example if you was to tell a fib and the person you was telling it to just nodded without a reaction then the fib is reinforced with a stronger fib to try to justify what you have said. I can just imagine what the surgeon was thinking "a common man doesnt have the brains to do this" thus he must have surgical knowledge.

I hope that made some sense. Glad I got it off my chest