Surgical knowledge?

[Bridewell]

And if he had taken out all of the above organs, the cat would have gone for the liver, not the kidney.

Why did the killer not go for the liver rather than the kidney? As you say, the kidney was much the harder organ to access. It obviously had a significance to the killer. I wish we knew why.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

It could be anyone....

Sound like a job for Inspector Tabbyline. This is one Springer Spanieled Jack that won't get away!

No, seriously...the recent UK example with a Jack Russell proves that even a dog only nine inches to a foot off the ground can be mortally dangerous if the circumstances are right...

In turn, even the most innocent looking person or creature might be behind JtR...

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Errata

Fair enough...seems a reasonable counter-argument...something to think about anyway...

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Hi Jon

Yes I've a Jack Russell...and I'm also aware a Jack Russell recently attacked, mauled and killed a baby in the UK...animals aren't predictable at the best of times, especially when hungry and confronted with fresh meat.

All the best

Dave

Sound like a job for Inspector Tabbyline. This is one Springer Spanieled Jack that won't get away!

Dear god make the dog puns stop.

[Errata]

Hi Errata...so what's liver damage to do with Bob Hinton's theory that the killer simply extracted various organs/entrails en-masse, and a passing feral cat may've made off with a kidney?

All the best

Dave

It's two-fold. If the argument is that the killer did not extract the kidney, and instead a feral cat was feeding off the corpse, the knife marks on the liver make that improbable.

On the other hand, if the argument is that the killer took out things en masse, then it also makes very little sense to leave a large bulky liver in, and take out a hidden and hard to get to kidney. Somewhat akin to trying to take out the heart through an incision in the neck. If he was stripping the abdomen, the bladder, the liver, the large intestine, all would have come out before the kidney. And the liver, possibly the pancreas even the stomach and the spleen would actively be in the way. Yanking all of that out would be easier than navigating through all of that mass. So he's taking out the kidney the very hard way. Why leave it at the scene after going through so much trouble? Especially when he didn't have the time to be experimenting with doing things the long and slow way?

And if he had taken out all of the above organs, the cat would have gone for the liver, not the kidney.

[Cogidubnus]

That must be, Jack Russell, the terrier of Mitre Sq.?

Hi Jon

Yes I've a Jack Russell...and I'm also aware a Jack Russell recently attacked, mauled and killed a baby in the UK...animals aren't predictable at the best of times, especially when hungry and confronted with fresh meat.

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Well, Eddowes had cuts on the interior of the liver, so that would be one bad ass cat. I would look for attendant dog stabbings in the neighborhood.

Hi Errata...so what's liver damage to do with Bob Hinton's theory that the killer simply extracted various organs/entrails en-masse, and a passing feral cat may've made off with a kidney?

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

What about the nose? Taken or left? (I'm not trying to be clever here. I just don't know the answer).

Regards, Bridewell.

Oh god I never thought of that. It's like the world's worst game of "Got Your Nose"

[Bridewell]

Local workers or even Constables were detailed to clean the murder site up afterwards, and, .....the piece of ear, though severed, was not actually lost.

What about the nose? Taken or left? (I'm not trying to be clever here. I just don't know the answer).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,



Phillips also believed that the killer attempted to separate the bones in the neck, whereas your "modern theory" is that "it could just as easily been a result of an adrenaline pumped butcher using too much force to sever both arteries". If Phillips may have been mistaken in his interpretation of these wounds, as you now argue, he could just as easily have been mistaken in other areas too, such as the level of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer, or his conclusion that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different people. It's rather difficult to argue that Phillips' judgment must be accepted because he was a doctor who was there at the time etc...oh, but he was probably wrong about this bit!

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The "pumped up butcher" idea was just a throw out there, I didnt mean for it to be considered as my opinion on the matter. I dont know if the killer intended to decapitate the victim Ben, so I dont know that Phillips was incorrect when he suggested it. I do know that the nicks could have been created for reasons other than that though. So as my post indicated, we cant say for certain those markings were a sign of intended decapitation, which apparently the killer couldnt accomplish. This speaks to the level of skill the man had, and thats why I contested it as a "fact" in these cases.

Even if the man intended decapitation Ben, he could have changed his mind....he could have decided with the brief time he had he'd rather mutilate the abdomen and access organs. My point was only that the markings do not allow us to see the decapitation theory as factual.

I believe in both these cases, and likely Eddowes, the immediate conditions affected the killers abilities to some degree, even if the man had "processed" thousands of animals before this, he'd didnt have to kill them silently and work rapidly in darkness in publicly accessible places.

Cheers Ben, all the best.

[Ben]

As I always say, it's not impossible.

Not impossible, Tecs, just not very probable.

It's always a mistake to ascribe a "motive" to a serial killer beyond the depraved kicks they derive from murder and mutilation. It might be tempting for an an 1888 coroner to theorize along the organs-for-dosh lines, but he wouldn't have a century's worth of insight into serial crime to inform his judgment. Baxter, in a sense, has an "excuse", whereas we don't.

Even at the Chapman murder (and certainly thereafter with Eddowes and Kelly) he engaged in mutilations that were totally superfluous to any organ-extracting agenda.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Yes, you can argue it all you like but Ill usually take the word of the man who saw the woman dead before any modern theorist.

Phillips also believed that the killer attempted to separate the bones in the neck, whereas your "modern theory" is that "it could just as easily been a result of an adrenaline pumped butcher using too much force to sever both arteries". If Phillips may have been mistaken in his interpretation of these wounds, as you now argue, he could just as easily have been mistaken in other areas too, such as the level of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer, or his conclusion that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different people. It's rather difficult to argue that Phillips' judgment must be accepted because he was a doctor who was there at the time etc...oh, but he was probably wrong about this bit!

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I would look for attendant dog stabbings in the neighborhood.

That must be, Jack Russell, the terrier of Mitre Sq.?

...

[lynn cates]

Can't get no . . .

Hello Robert. Thanks.

Wonder if it was satisfying? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Well who's to tell Jon...the tip of an ear gets caught in a fold of the clothing and perhaps randomly survives the transit, whilst a juicy succulent kidney is carried off, pre discovery, by a passing cat? Or trodden into the ground by a passer-by?

Dunno mate...like I said, I think it was Bob Hinton's theory and his book goes to work with me tomorrow for a re-read on the bus, and at lunchtime...

By the by...check out who ACTUALLY cleaned up at least part of the Bucks Row crime scene...

All the best

Dave

Well, Eddowes had cuts on the interior of the liver, so that would be one bad ass cat. I would look for attendant dog stabbings in the neighborhood.

And suddenly I don't my cat sleeping up here anymore...