Surgical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

parts

Hello Sherlock. Thanks.

"If he did want the organs he (supposedly) removed; for what purpose did he want them?"

Any of several reasons. I personally believe he sold Annie's parts for offal at market.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

I hear the train a comin'

Hello Lucky. Thanks. That was about the time the train passed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Harrison and Barber

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

I take it you are agreeing about not knowing intentions.

"I am not sure I know what you mean here in general, and what's the significance of the 'different stages of their work'."

There was a Harrison and Barber near each of the first two murder sites. Horses were killed there. At some point, they were disemboweled.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

The abdominal injuries were not discovered until after the body had arrived in the mortuary building itself, Nichols had been moved on to the ambulance at the scene and then onto the floor/slab (in some sources) or into a shell once inside the mortuary. This movement of the body may have caused the intestines to protrude through the gash in her abdomen.



Not sure I agree with you here, if you mean 'careful' as in 'carefully considered where the cut should go' but I agree the wounds were concentrated on her abdomen. He didn't target the area under the stays, for example, just the area exposed by raising her skirt.

Best Wishes

As for the first part, this is true. But I wouldn't think it would be enough movement to look disemboweled. I mean, I assume one guy grabbed her arms, one her legs, and they just hoisted her into a cart, and got her out of it the same way. That would be compression movements on the area of interest. Not the kind of motion most likely to cause the organs to bloop out (yes, that is totally the medical term. Don't ask me how I know, it's not a fun story), but then again, if say, they dropped her at some point, that would totally do it.

I don't mean careful as in well thought out or considered, though the cuts may have been. I mean careful in that there is a pattern. A sort of symmetry to it. And I also mean that this was not striking out blindly. These aren't long sweeping gashes, the wounds don't wander all over the place, they don't appear to intersect... I mean, if you do you best Psycho impression on a pad of paper with a pen, the marks will be all over. They will cross each other, they will go out of bounds, it will look really random. That's not what this killer did. He did place his cuts. Not with a particular amount of care, I mean he didn't etch the Mona Lisa on her torso or anything, but he was aware of where he was cutting. There are about three vertical cuts on either side, and about four or five horizontal cuts in the center. Thats a pattern. I don't know that it's a meaningful one, or if he was just a bit fussy, but it is a pattern.

Think of it this way. I don't particular put a lot of consideration in how I carve a turkey. But I do it in a pattern, defined by the anatomy of the turkey. I may make a total hash of carving it, making it look shredded, but I still followed the pattern. Cutting the legs off, cutting the wings off, carving into the breast... no matter my skill level, or what kind of day I am having, the end result will always look essentially the same. No arms, no legs, and a semi triangular turkey carcass.

And the reason there is a pattern at all is because I am trying to accomplish something. The pattern I use is the one I know works. If we assume that the man who killed Nichols is the same as the man who killed Chapman, then I think we have to assume he used that pattern for a reason. Not necessarily a well thought out one, I don't think it was somehow a clue, or significant to the killer on some psychological level. But if all he wanted to do was mutilate her, there was no reason to conform to any pattern at all. So he could have been like a kid cutting up a dead frog, where the only purpose is to see what's inside. It could indicate that he made the cuts while in different positions around the body, and he was somewhat limited in his movement in each position. It could mean he was looking for something, and he made multiple types of cuts to try and expose it. He could have been a little compulsive and the idea of random slashes just didn't appeal to him visually. There's a lot of reasons why there would be a pattern that don't require some kind of scientific precision or reason. He was careful only in that he was not out of control. But the pattern is significant. It means something, even if it just means that he learned to not cut from a position where he has to rest his weight on one hand. It wasn't necessarily significant to him, anymore than how I carve a turkey is significant to me. But it reveals something about him, which should make it significant to us.

[lynn cates]

routine

Hello Errata.

"If we assume that the man who killed Nichols is the same as the man who killed Chapman, then I think we have to assume he used that pattern for a reason. Not necessarily a well thought out one, I don't think it was somehow a clue, or significant to the killer on some psychological level."

I think of it as the way he would normally cut up an animal. We do not normally think about how we pour tea from a pot to a cup, but we usually use the same hand to do it. Just routine.

Cheers.
LC

[Sherlock Holmes]

What pattern? If you don't mind my asking

Mr Holmes

[lynn cates]

pattern

Hello Sherlock. Not sure that was addressed to me, but I shall give a response.

Nichols and Chapman both had been strangled (clear signs) and their throats cut twice.

Cheers.
LC

[Sherlock Holmes]

It was dear Lynn

Why twice?
Some sort of sick ritual?
Routine?
What?

Mr Holmes

P.S. Please address your replies to Mr Holmes and not Sherlock because there is a Sherlock on this site and I don't want him replying to posts left for me ok thanks

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

Im still on this bit about murder interruptus, lets see if I can convince Lynn of the ideas practicality.

If we assume that murder 1 and 2 were committed by the same person, which I do...and all of the Canonical believers also believe,..then either the killer acquired a taste for internal organs within 10 days, or the first kill wasnt representative of the killers ultimate goal.

It appears to me that the murder, the double throat cuts, and the abdominal wounds went very similarly in both murders, but the condition that the women were found in differ.

When Cross and Paul were standing over Polly, Paul remarked that he thought the woman was still breathing..."but it is a little if she is". Her arms above the elbow and her legs were still warm. When Phillips examined Annie at 6:30am, he remarked that "stiffness had commenced" in her limbs. If Polly was still warm, and Annie was stiff, and one assumes, cold,...then they were found within different time frames after the attack. Polly.. almost immediately after hers, Annie...after some time had elapsed.

Based on that, and the fact that Polly has only abdominal cuts but no extractions, one might suspect that the reason her murder was shorter in overall duration to Annies was because the killer was unable to stay the length of time required to facilitate the field surgery goals with Polly.

That shows the interruption idea would have some physical evidence to support it, unlike the Diemshitz suppositions.

I think we can safely suppose that if the same man killed both women and only the second womans murder revealed the killers intentions, abdominal mutilation leading to organ extraction,... then it is logical to suppose that the murder of Polly achieved less than was ultimately desired by the killer. I lean towards an interruption rather than a sudden bout of cold feet, or a desire for organ extraction that suddenly occurs within the killer between those 2 kills.

Best regards all

[Michael W Richards]

It was dear Lynn

Why twice?
Some sort of sick ritual?
Routine?
What?

Mr Holmes

P.S. Please address your replies to Mr Holmes and not Sherlock because there is a Sherlock on this site and I don't want him replying to posts left for me ok thanks

One presumes Mr Holmes that the killer sought to be sure he had severed both major arteries in the neck because it facilitated a very fast death and a rapid bleed out of the body. Which makes organ extracting and handling far easier.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Errata.

"If we assume that the man who killed Nichols is the same as the man who killed Chapman, then I think we have to assume he used that pattern for a reason. Not necessarily a well thought out one, I don't think it was somehow a clue, or significant to the killer on some psychological level."

I think of it as the way he would normally cut up an animal. We do not normally think about how we pour tea from a pot to a cup, but we usually use the same hand to do it. Just routine.

Cheers.
LC

And if I came into your kitchen and found it empty,.... but with the kettle warm, a tea bag in the cup or pot, and some milk out on the table...I would assume that you intended to have tea but were interrupted for some reason.

You need not have the tea steeping to see that.

Cheers mate.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

I take it you are agreeing about not knowing intentions.

No, sorry, not at all. I'm agreeing that the usual theory 'no organs were remove, therefore the killer was interrupted' is an example of putting the cart before the horse.

There was a Harrison and Barber near each of the first two murder sites. Horses were killed there. At some point, they were disemboweled.

Was there a dead body near every knackers-yard? or just the two closest to home perhaps?
I think I agree, the horses would have been disemboweled at some point, but were they throttled first ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

One presumes Mr Holmes that the killer sought to be sure he had severed both major arteries in the neck because it facilitated a very fast death and a rapid bleed out of the body. Which makes organ extracting and handling far easier.

Cheers

About how quick do you think the bleed out would have been?

Mr Holmes

[Mr Lucky]

As for the first part, this is true. But I wouldn't think it would be enough movement to look disemboweled. I mean, I assume one guy grabbed her arms, one her legs, and they just hoisted her into a cart, and got her out of it the same way. That would be compression movements on the area of interest. Not the kind of motion most likely to cause the organs to bloop out (yes, that is totally the medical term. Don't ask me how I know, it's not a fun story), but then again, if say, they dropped her at some point, that would totally do it.

Hi Errata

It depends on what the witnesses were meaning by the 'intestines protruding' phrase, perhaps it was only a minor bloop out?

[lynn cates]

a cut above

Hello Mr. Holmes. Thanks.

No, not a ritual. One cut to bleed; one cut to decapitate.

Cheers.
LC