Surgical knowledge?

[pinkmoon]

Whoever our killer was he knew how to kill quickly and efficiently of that there is no doubt.

[John G]

Even modern experts are divided on this issue: Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologists didn't believe that the perpetrator exhibited any surgical skill, for instance. Mind you, one of my favourite suspects, Francis Thompson, trained for 6 years as a surgeon, so maybe I should be in the "yes" camp!

[DJA]

Reckon it's both.

[packers stem]

No reason to doubt, but also no reason to abandon our own judgement entirely. Is my considered opinion on kidney extraction as good as a surgeons? Absolutely not. But my grandfather built helicopters with a fourth grade education and the only mechanical training he had was on a farm. The man had a gift. And anyone would swear that what he built was made by an engineer, but he wasn't one. And I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it does happen. Skills are rarely unique to one trade, savants pop up occasionally, and there are those who can replicate what they have only observed. And sometimes people assign significance to accident.

Do I believe a surgeon who says he sees surgical skill? I believe he sees it. And that has significance to me. Do I take that as gospel truth? No. Anymore than I would expect someone to take my analyses on mental health or knife use as gospel truth. We don't know. We are all giving it our best guess. And many of them are very good guesses. But still guesses.

Hi errata
I'd say yes and no.There are some things in life you can build up a skill with practice and that would be the case with your grandfather being 'self taught' which can happen.Your grandfather clearly made himself into an engineer over time same as non music reading Lennon and McCartney made themselves into fine musicians over time.It's about practice.
There's a difference when you talk about practising and self teaching on a human body I would say.
For me the likelihood is that surgical skill was shown rather than anything else

[Errata]

Hi Sherlock
It's very much backed up by ripperologists who are themselves surgeons that jtr not only displayed anatomical knowledge but indeed surgical skill.
I'm more than happy to bow to their expertise in this field as should all of us who are not surgeons ourselves. We've no real reason to doubt the experts

No reason to doubt, but also no reason to abandon our own judgement entirely. Is my considered opinion on kidney extraction as good as a surgeons? Absolutely not. But my grandfather built helicopters with a fourth grade education and the only mechanical training he had was on a farm. The man had a gift. And anyone would swear that what he built was made by an engineer, but he wasn't one. And I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it does happen. Skills are rarely unique to one trade, savants pop up occasionally, and there are those who can replicate what they have only observed. And sometimes people assign significance to accident.

Do I believe a surgeon who says he sees surgical skill? I believe he sees it. And that has significance to me. Do I take that as gospel truth? No. Anymore than I would expect someone to take my analyses on mental health or knife use as gospel truth. We don't know. We are all giving it our best guess. And many of them are very good guesses. But still guesses.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Mike,

There are reports that suggest the section was cut and torn free. I think one of the most relevant thoughts on the acquisition of the liver posted recently pondered why someone who knew what they were doing would'nt simply have flipped her over to access the organ. It appears to me the positioning of Kates body reflects the earlier murders where the pelvis and abdomen hold the killers attention, yet he botches a complete uterus removal, he sections her colon....introducing fecal matter into the mix, and if he intended to remove her nose completely he failed at that as well.

The upward cut is so roughly done in comparison with some of the earlier cases that it does not seem confidently made. As other cuts, on Annie for example, did.

Cheers

The differences point to two different people removing the organs. The bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were taken to two different mortuaries

[packers stem]

The idea of the killer having had surgical knowledge was only ever put forward by one person, that person was Dr. Baxter- Philips, who made his examination of the body in the near darkness. Much like the Ripper's commission of the crime against Eddowes in the darkest corner of Mitre Square on the night of the night of the "double event" (Sept. 30 1888)

Regards
Mr Holmes

Hi Sherlock
It's very much backed up by ripperologists who are themselves surgeons that jtr not only displayed anatomical knowledge but indeed surgical skill.
I'm more than happy to bow to their expertise in this field as should all of us who are not surgeons ourselves. We've no real reason to doubt the experts

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'm not sure he botched the uterine extraction. He might have, but women's anatomies vary considerably in that area. If she had a shorter cervix, or an inverted cervix, he may not have been able to take the cervix without risking the body of the uterus itself. Or he may have had no interest in the cervix at all. It's only botched if his idea of an intact uterus was the same as yours.

The idea of the killer having had surgical knowledge was only ever put forward by one person, that person was Dr. Baxter- Philips, who made his examination of the body in the near darkness. Much like the Ripper's commission of the crime against Eddowes in the darkest corner of Mitre Square on the night of the night of the "double event" (Sept. 30 1888)

Regards
Mr Holmes

[Errata]

Hi Mike,

There are reports that suggest the section was cut and torn free. I think one of the most relevant thoughts on the acquisition of the liver posted recently pondered why someone who knew what they were doing would'nt simply have flipped her over to access the organ. It appears to me the positioning of Kates body reflects the earlier murders where the pelvis and abdomen hold the killers attention, yet he botches a complete uterus removal, he sections her colon....introducing fecal matter into the mix, and if he intended to remove her nose completely he failed at that as well.

The upward cut is so roughly done in comparison with some of the earlier cases that it does not seem confidently made. As other cuts, on Annie for example, did.

Cheers

I'm not sure he botched the uterine extraction. He might have, but women's anatomies vary considerably in that area. If she had a shorter cervix, or an inverted cervix, he may not have been able to take the cervix without risking the body of the uterus itself. Or he may have had no interest in the cervix at all. It's only botched if his idea of an intact uterus was the same as yours.

[Michael W Richards]

Errata,

It's possible that the liver was tugged free after being cut a bit. There are many interpretations possible. As an aside, I'm reminded of the apron that was "cut" away. Anyone who cuts fabric with the grain knows that once started with scissors, a cut is more of a tear than anything else. It looks nice and neat because it's going along the grain (not the correct word, but you understand). I believe so many doctors' and police interpretations are much like when two people watch a football game and one sees a foul and the other sees it differently. There is no truth to any of the autopsy reports except for an individual's truth which is almost always lacking for others.

Mike

Hi Mike,

There are reports that suggest the section was cut and torn free. I think one of the most relevant thoughts on the acquisition of the liver posted recently pondered why someone who knew what they were doing would'nt simply have flipped her over to access the organ. It appears to me the positioning of Kates body reflects the earlier murders where the pelvis and abdomen hold the killers attention, yet he botches a complete uterus removal, he sections her colon....introducing fecal matter into the mix, and if he intended to remove her nose completely he failed at that as well.

The upward cut is so roughly done in comparison with some of the earlier cases that it does not seem confidently made. As other cuts, on Annie for example, did.

Cheers

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

It's possible that the liver was tugged free after being cut a bit. There are many interpretations possible. As an aside, I'm reminded of the apron that was "cut" away. Anyone who cuts fabric with the grain knows that once started with scissors, a cut is more of a tear than anything else. It looks nice and neat because it's going along the grain (not the correct word, but you understand). I believe so many doctors' and police interpretations are much like when two people watch a football game and one sees a foul and the other sees it differently. There is no truth to any of the autopsy reports except for an individual's truth which is almost always lacking for others.

Mike

[Errata]

I'm 99% positive that the cuts to the underside of the liver were due to the killer's knife being double edged. The stab I think is a slip. What doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the other damage in the area, or lack of damage. The liver was cut up. That makes sense. Gall bladder intact. That makes sense. Cut pancreas, cut renal artery, makes sense. I mean, logic dictates that if you are getting a kidney out of somebody not expected to survive the procedure, you go straight at it. But the spleen was actually retracted, not removed. It was cut just enough to move it out of the way, detached. That doesn't make a lot of sense. And there is no mention of the knife at any point puncturing her back. That's damned odd. Even sweeping the knife under the kidney to free it should have poked between the ribs. And there's no mention of any nicks or cuts to the ribs. It's really a bizarre combination of frenzy and care.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Cris. Thanks. Much obliged.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hi Errata,



When considered alongside Eddowes' other injuries, it tells us that he was an unskilled mutilator slashing and grabbing at anything that felt interesting, and this was the majority verdict amongst the 1888 doctors. There's no good reason to think he knew where the kidney was in the body. More likely he was fumbling around and found something firm.

It seems unlikely, since he had to go through several organs to get to the kidney. I mean, it's essentially hanging off the spine, and for the right kidney there's a couple of ribs, glands, about 4 organs and a whole lot of stray tissue just to get to it. Then you have to dig it out of it's protective layer (which makes it not so much feel like an organ). Slashing and grabbing at anything doesn't get you a kidney. It gets you some liver, a lot of intestines, some spleen, you might get the stomach. It doesn't dig a kidney out of the back while leaving the rest relatively intact. I don't know if he knew he had a kidney, or if he knew where one might be in the body. But he wasn't slashing and grabbing randomly.

[Hunter]

There were interior cuts in the liver, pancreas and spleen and then a cut through the peritoneal lining; a concentration of cuts directly above the left kidney. Then the kidney was extracted by severing the renal artery. This was no groping, but deliberate. The uterus was extracted by cutting and peeling a wedge of the 'pubes' back; extracting the uterus without damage to the bladder, which rest on top of it.

I've said this before, but what the medicos said and why they said it in the wake of the Eddowes murder has been misinterpreted. None of these physicians were in disagreement here. "No design on a particular organ" meant in relation to what Baxter espoused at the Chapman inquest just 3 days before the 'double event.' It was THE topic of discussion on the eve of this double murder. The questions and answers to and by the medicos concerning 'skill' or 'knowledge' were because of that topic of the day.

Obviously, there was some reason why the killer took these organs, because he did just that... extricated them and deliberately took them. It just wasn't for the reasons Baxter had asserted. They rightly stated that they didn't know why they were taken - logical conclusion. They didn't know what they were dealing with here, but they were certain that it wasn't for anatomical specimens.

Brown was the only surgeon specifically asked to provide the details of the mutilations because he was the physician of record. If any of the others had been asked for specifics, they would have said the same thing that Brown said. They simply said - in summary - that they concurred with Brown's findings.

The only thing close to an official opinion by Mr. Phillips in regard to the mutilations of Catherine Eddowes is found in a Nov. 6 report on that medical evidence by Inspt. Swanson. Someone should read it, or when I get a chance I'll post it. Otherwise, a purchase of the last edition of the New Independent Review is very inexpensive and contains a nearly 50,000 word detailed article on this subject as well as a chronology of Bagster Phillips' involvement with nearly 100 references to peruse. And there's a darned good article by Lynn Cates there that offers some alternative viewpoints to consider.