Surgical knowledge?

[Michael W Richards]

I do not agree that the blade work in excising Chapman's uterus contrasted the apparent inefficiency of the neck wounds.

First, it was not necessary for the killer to remove the intestines to access the uterus. The killer did this for some other demented reason.

Second, although it was logical for Phillips to deduce that the uterus was targeted, the method of just coring the whole section out - as I described earlier about the deer hunters, displays no skill or proficiency. The removal of Kate Eddowes' uterus showed more precision as the bladder wasn't even damaged and was probably done in more challenging circumstances for the killer.

Point 3, Many Ripperologists have failed to notice this because of their misinterpretation of Sequeira and Saunders - who were only responding to Baxter's theory with their answers. In Eddowes' case, the cervix was left, leaving the uterus useless as a medical specimen. The reality had become apparent that whoever removed the uterus in each case had some other reason to do so.

Point 4, This mis-judgment in Chapman's case is understandable given that they had never seen anything like this before. Phillips was a practical man. He knew nothing about criminal psychology beyond basic cause and effect. For example: When he was asked how long it would take for Chapman's killer to perform the mutilations, he related how long it would take him (Phillips) to do it. He could not imagine a killer without some logical motive. He did not have the ability to surmise any other way.

These were uncharted waters for all of them.

Hi Hunter,

I used the above numbering to address these specific points in your post;

Point 1, I never suggested that the killer was of sound mind, so actions that defy explanation could be assumed due to his mental illness.

Point 2, we are talking about gutting someone outside in public, so I would imagine certain more subtle extraction methods might have been set aside here. If the killer intended to remove Kate uterus complete, as the killer of Annie did, he blew it...and the kidney is only a remarkable feat if one assumes he sought it out specifically.

Point 3, see point 2 rebuttal above. If the killer of Annie wanted an intact uterus, as he seems to have done, then I dont see why he would settle for 3/4 of one in a later victim. Assuming he still wanted uteri....which I believe the killer of Annie and Polly did. Not to sell though.

Point 4, I believe Phillips did in fact suggest a target, the uterus, ...and Baxter offered that action as a motive,... but I dont recall that Phillips made the suggestion in that manner. I submit that to a person of diminished mental capacity a motive for killing need not relate directly to the actions performed during that murder.

Meaning, the fact that the uterus was targeted based on the incisions and actions performed doesnt mean that was the only motivation for the killer.

Cheers Hunter

[Errata]

.

I do not agree that the blade work in excising Chapman's uterus contrasted the apparent inefficiency of the neck wounds.
First, it was not necessary for the killer to remove the intestines to access the uterus. The killer did this for some other demented reason.
Second, although it was logical for Phillips to deduce that the uterus was targeted, the method of just coring the whole section out - as I described earlier about the deer hunters, displays no skill or proficiency. The removal of Kate Eddowes' uterus showed more precision as the bladder wasn't even damaged and was probably done in more challenging circumstances for the killer.

Many Ripperologists have failed to notice this because of their misinterpretation of Sequeira and Saunders - who were only responding to Baxter's theory with their answers. In Eddowes' case, the cervix was left, leaving the uterus useless as a medical specimen. The reality had become apparent that whoever removed the uterus in each case had some other reason to do so.

This mis-judgment in Chapman's case is understandable given that they had never seen anything like this before. Phillips was a practical man. He knew nothing about criminal psychology beyond basic cause and effect. For example: When he was asked how long it would take for Chapman's killer to perform the mutilations, he related how long it would take him (Phillips) to do it. He could not imagine a killer without some logical motive. He did not have the ability to surmise any other way.

These were uncharted waters for all of them.

I think your assessment is dead on.

It's odd that no doctor, no autopsy, no report mentions the fate of the ovaries. Which any consideration of skill requires. If the killer successfully extracted ovaries, that's actually damned impressive given the conditions. I cannot for the life of me understand how the ovaries didn't rank a mention at all. Which does not speak especially highly of the evaluation process of the killers skill. Or every single person was functioning under the same set of assumptions about what was and was not there, which is unlikely.

[Hunter]

We agree about the Torso murders. In Swanson's initial report on the Pinchin St. one, he describes how the head and limbs were removed; they were "jointed", which is the method I was trying to describe. Any butcher, slaughterman, medical person or hunter would have readily known how to do this. I believe this is what influenced Thomas bond in his assessment of these murders, having been recently involved in the Whitehall case.

I do not agree that the blade work in excising Chapman's uterus contrasted the apparent inefficiency of the neck wounds.
First, it was not necessary for the killer to remove the intestines to access the uterus. The killer did this for some other demented reason.
Second, although it was logical for Phillips to deduce that the uterus was targeted, the method of just coring the whole section out - as I described earlier about the deer hunters, displays no skill or proficiency. The removal of Kate Eddowes' uterus showed more precision as the bladder wasn't even damaged and was probably done in more challenging circumstances for the killer.

Many Ripperologists have failed to notice this because of their misinterpretation of Sequeira and Saunders - who were only responding to Baxter's theory with their answers. In Eddowes' case, the cervix was left, leaving the uterus useless as a medical specimen. The reality had become apparent that whoever removed the uterus in each case had some other reason to do so.

This mis-judgment in Chapman's case is understandable given that they had never seen anything like this before. Phillips was a practical man. He knew nothing about criminal psychology beyond basic cause and effect. For example: When he was asked how long it would take for Chapman's killer to perform the mutilations, he related how long it would take him (Phillips) to do it. He could not imagine a killer without some logical motive. He did not have the ability to surmise any other way.

These were uncharted waters for all of them.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Hunter,

Im glad you addressed the possibility that the killer intended to decapitate the victims,...though its most apparent with the first 2 victims its also apparent in the case of Mary Kelly.

Personally, I agree with your contention that IF the man did intend to commit that act he didnt seem to know how to do it effectively. That point for me signifies that we are probably not looking at anyone involved with the Torso murders prior to and after the Autumn of Jack for these particular murders.

Contrasting those nicks however is the blade work done to excise the uterus, seemingly skillfully executed. With minimal cuts. Like one would expect from a butcher. As you know being a hunter, which Im not by the way, proper cutting requires not only the knowledge of where to cut, but also how much force needs to be used. Cutting too deeply is a mistake that could have been caused by the lack of light, the tension in the killer, any number of factors, and not accurately represent the killers actual skill set.

The cuts on the body were relatively straight and with clean lines from what I can ascertain, for me they overrule what may be construed as lacking skill by the throat cuts.

I believe that victim 1 and 2 had 2 cuts, and with the depth they had, because those double artery cuts facilitated the quick death and also the bleeding out. The nicks were a result of a killer anxious to move quickly along to the most important phase of the murders,.. in near darkness.

All the best Hunter

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,
I appreciate your thoughts.
I asked to lay aside contemporaneous opinions on skill or anatomical knowledge for a moment because I believe it has commonly been misinterpreted and misrepresented, and all of this was an evolving investigation on a series of crimes that none of the participants had ever experienced. But with the benefit of hindsight and some of the actual details of the injuries inflicted upon the victims available, there are substantial clues to be ascertained and discussed. I agree that Mr. Phillips should not be tainted with Baxter's theory and I stressed this in the NIR article on Phillips in detail... but let's look at the actual evidence and I've singled out your opening comment as it is a good place to lead off.

Ok, if we set aside Phillips, (and frankly I think thats a mistake, because Phillips testified to the wounds observed, he shouldnt be tainted with the the American Doctor obtaining uteri theory, which were the words of the coroner), and set aside all contemporary opinions, in my laymans opinion the overall methodology and the knife work convinces me that the first 2 Canonical were done by one kinda crazy butcher. How effectively he was subduing the women might be a sign that he was familiar with causing death quickly and efficiently with the throat cut...could be butcher background, and he moved steadily toward a goal which apparently was accessing the internal organs,.. something a butcher would do naturally. The way the intestines were just placed above the victim and out of his way when he was mutilating Annie seems a utiltarian move, something that someone unfamiliar with the feel of wet warm organs let alone the lifting of them without them spilling out of your hands might be hesitant about. Handling that kind of material means we have a med student, doctor, butcher or slaughterhouse man. Maybe even a recreational hunter.

The idea that the killer may have been a butcher or the other occupations you stated was promulgated at the time. Swanson's Nov. report, which included his summary of Brown's and Phillips' conclusions on the Eddowes murder is an essential read, yet often overlooked.

But we can review the descriptions of the injuries ourselves, and we can focus on the Nichols and Chapman murders as reference. Both victims' throats were deeply cut. In Chapman's case, Phillips noted that the vertebrae were notched and goes on to detail what appeared to be an attempt to separate the bones:

There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck.

He doesn't directly state this, but it is implied that there was an effort at decapitation. If that was the case, I find it strange that if this killer had medical knowledge, was a butcher, slaughterman, or even a hunter, that this was the way the murderer attempted it.

From my own experience as a hunter, I am familiar with how to decapitate large mammals with a knife. I don't remember the proper name and I don't have any skeletal charts with me at the moment, but there is a socket at the base of the skull where the spinal column begins. All one has to do is severe all of the muscular attachments, pry and cut at this location simultaneously, and the head is removed fairly easily. Any one of the aforementioned types of individuals would have known that. So, if this killer was trying to decapitate this victim, it was a futile attempt and displays no knowledge of the proper method.

[Errata]

Very well. And all can do is go with the sketch. One wonders why Annie's leg was not "kicked out" as well.

Cheers.
LC

All things people equal, people take extra actions only when necessary. If he performed his mutilations between the legs, the upright knees wouldn't really be in the way. And I think with Eddowes he was untangling like, four skirts to try to get to the apron, which means he was on the side and needed some room. All I can speculate is that Chapman's leg wasn't in the way. Or conversely because of her positioning wedged between the stairs and the fence, EVERYTHING was so inconvenient that the upright legs just didn't make as much of a difference given all the other things in the way.

[lynn cates]

Annie

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"But I disagree that Kate was not found that way. I think she was in that position. The sketches of the scene show that one leg was fact in that position, and the other not. But I think the straightened leg got kicked out. And I think it happened when the killer was unraveling her clothing to get to the relatively clean apron. I think her knee was in the way, so he kicked it straight. I don't mean kicked literally, although it could have been. He also could have shoved the knee down, straightening the leg.

It's a theory. I can't prove it."

Very well. And all can do is go with the sketch. One wonders why Annie's leg was not "kicked out" as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"to me the hallmark of a Ripper killing is the position of the body. Where the legs were bent at the knees, spread apart but for no apparent reason."

Would not a desire to access the reproductive organs be a good reason?

"It's not something a copycat would know to do . . ."

Agreed. And, as you observe, Kate was not found that way. And I consider her the only genuine copycat of the 5.

Cheers.
LC

I think that is the reason. I think that is how he located the uterus. The exact same way an OB/GYN checks a woman's cervix. Given the uterus is tucked behind the pubic bone, I think a digital manipulation of the cervix would pop the appropriate organ into view.

But I disagree that Kate was not found that way. I think she was in that position. The sketches of the scene show that one leg was fact in that position, and the other not. But I think the straightened leg got kicked out. And I think it happened when the killer was unraveling her clothing to get to the relatively clean apron. I think her knee was in the way, so he kicked it straight. I don't mean kicked literally, although it could have been. He also could have shoved the knee down, straightening the leg.

It's a theory. I can't prove it.

[Errata]

Its the nature of the cuts, this is to answer Ben as well, that defines the skill of the cutter, not the mapping of the cuts. Repetition of precision breeds more precision, and as a result one can achieve fairly precise results even with poor lighting.

My best regards Hunter, Ben.

Keep in mind that Catherine Eddowes was wearing quite a bit more clothing than any of the others. Three layers on top, all buttoned. Four or five layers on the bottom, all worn at about the level of the navel, never mind the pockets. So in her case, her killer is cutting through about a quarter inch of cloth above the navel, with hidden layers of buttons, and as much as an inch of cloth below the navel, with buttons and drawstrings. I can guarantee you that the edge of his knife was gone. Nothing dulls a knife quite like cloth. The jaggedness of her abdominal wound seems completely consistent with cutting, hitting a button, changing direction, trying to get back to a center cut, hitting another button, there are evidence of skips... I think even a surgeon in such a scenario would start getting pretty frustrated by the lack of swift progress.

Whether or not her killer was the Ripper, judging his skill based on her abdominal cuts is probably fruitless. I think he was defeated by skivvies.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,

Let's set the medical and coroner opinions aside for a moment. I'm sure we'll get to Phillips and that will be fine by me... but for now, which two murders do you think exhibited more skill than the others, and on what basis looking at the forensic evidence?

Hi Hunter,

My apologies for the delay in responding, a busy few days.

Ok, if we set aside Phillips, (and frankly I think thats a mistake, because Phillips testified to the wounds observed, he shouldnt be tainted with the the American Doctor obtaining uteri theory, which were the words of the coroner), and set aside all contemporary opinions, in my laymans opinion the overall methodology and the knife work convinces me that the first 2 Canonical were done by one kinda crazy butcher. How effectively he was subduing the women might be a sign that he was familiar with causing death quickly and efficiently with the throat cut...could be butcher background, and he moved steadily toward a goal which apparently was accessing the internal organs,.. something a butcher would do naturally. The way the intestines were just placed above the victim and out of his way when he was mutilating Annie seems a utiltarian move, something that someone unfamiliar with the feel of wet warm organs let alone the lifting of them without them spilling out of your hands might be hesitant about. Handling that kind of material means we have a med student, doctor, butcher or slaughterhouse man. Maybe even a recreational hunter.

Those 2 women were killed in quiet areas with people sleeping very close by....yet no-one heard any dramatic scuffling or crying out. Liz Stride was killed almost under a second floor window that had singing and likely piano playing pouring out and the murder took so little time it would be difficult to estimate that killers strengths as far as skill and knowledge go. His skill at choosing a private spot after supposedly having killed 2 women previously seems to have abandoned him at Berner Street. Kate Eddowes, to me, seems like a cheap imitation of the murder of Annie Chapman, but the inclusion of superfluous cutting is what I believe signifies a new killer. I dont believe there are any signs in the first 2 murders that that killer intended or desired to make cuts that weren't necessary to achieve an objective. Mutilating Kates face, like in Marys case, to me signifies some kind of pre-existing relationship of killer and prey. I dont believe there are any indications that the killer of Polly or Annie knew them before the act.

Mary Kelly was angrily obliterated then taken apart...again, I believe that indicates a personal relationship of some kind.

The knife acts themselves, in each case after the first, could have been inspired by the previous published accounts of the horrors, and a thug who uses a knife could easily attempt a replication of some of the more focused cutting, but he would reveal himself by the nature of the cuts. Clean vs jagged, straight vs twisted. The killer of Kate may have accidentally cut under her eyes while slicing her nose almost off, seems sloppy to me. Surely a more precise cut would be in keeping without someone skilled by training with a knife.

Its the nature of the cuts, this is to answer Ben as well, that defines the skill of the cutter, not the mapping of the cuts. Repetition of precision breeds more precision, and as a result one can achieve fairly precise results even with poor lighting.

My best regards Hunter, Ben.

[lynn cates]

position

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"to me the hallmark of a Ripper killing is the position of the body. Where the legs were bent at the knees, spread apart but for no apparent reason."

Would not a desire to access the reproductive organs be a good reason?

"It's not something a copycat would know to do . . ."

Agreed. And, as you observe, Kate was not found that way. And I consider her the only genuine copycat of the 5.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Cris. Thanks. Sounds idyllic. Here locally, they have placed a bounty on feral hogs. Seems they are proliferating and making a nuisance of themselves. You should pop round for a visit.

I agree about locating organs. Kate's killer had to know where to find what.

Cheers.
LC

This is going to sound strange, but to me the hallmark of a Ripper killing is the position of the body. Where the legs were bent at the knees, spread apart but for no apparent reason. No penetration, no wounds to the external genitalia or upper thighs. A killer wouldn't position them like that without a reason, but the obvious reasons don't apply. It's not something a copycat would know to do, and it's not something seemingly significant. But I think it is significant, I think it answers some questions. It is very subtly odd. Martha Tabram was in that pose, Annie Chapman was in that pose, Catherine Eddowes apparently had been in that pose, but a leg was kicked out. Mary Kelly was also in that pose, but her thighs and external genitalia were mutilated, so that's a bit less conclusive. If the killer wasn't skilled, he was accomplishing quite a bit without skill, and I think that pose tells us how.

[lynn cates]

info

Hello Dave. Thanks.

I know what you mean, but I cannot help believe that Baxter, in spite of his "pomposity," etc., derived most of his information from Bagster.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Fair enough Lynn...but whilst I respect Bagster, I'm not sure I'd give Baxter the time of day.

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

lux fiat

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"Chapman didn't have that, but Eddowes did."

And that has been my guiding light for some time.

Cheers.
LC