Surgical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

Baxter

Hello Ben. Indeed. But Baxter did refer to Nichols's mutilations as "skilful"--just like Annie's. Kate's were "unskilful." This lead him to interject, "possibly the work of an imitator."

Make of it what you will.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

If one looks at what was going on at that time with Baxter, it is easy to make of what Baxter was saying. He had proposed his Burke and Hare theory during his summary of the Chapman inquest on Wednesday, Sept. 26. The killer had to be 'skillful' for his theory to hold water. He even went so far as to suggest the murderer was acquainted with the autopsy room. He included Nichols because it was generally considered that both murders were by the same hand. But there is no evidence that Nichols' injuries showed any 'skill'. With what was done to her there was no evidence to suggest that.

On the eve of the double murder, Baxter was catching hell from all quarters - especially the medical community. The Lancet especially went after him. Then the double murders happened and it was obvious by all who examined Eddowes' body that anatomical specimens weren't the purpose for that murder, even though Eddowes' uterus was singularly removed instead of simply cored out as was done with Chapman. The testimony of the medicos at the Eddowes inquest was in response to Baxter's theory. That was the purpose for the line of questions by City Solicitor, Crawford, and the answers given by Saunders and Sequeira. Brown went into more detail because he was the only one asked about the specific injuries.

Baxter was not going to admit he might have been wrong about his theory so he turned the testimony of the medicos at the Eddowes inquest into a proposal that her murderer was less skilled and might be an imitator. Who knows who killed any of these women, but comparing the actual forensic evidence of the Chapman and Eddowes murder shows that Chapman's injuries did not display more skill than Eddowes - if there was any 'skill' really at all in either of them. There was some anatomical knowledge displayed in both because the killer knew where specific organs were. But he could have gained than knowledge anywhere... just like Gein did.

Baxter had dug himself into a hole. He went on to inject that Stride's killer may have been the same as Chapman and Nichols by stating this regarding Stride:

“In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skillful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful.”

What he said there..."the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection," could be applied to Eddowes as well... and Stride wasn't even mutilated.

Baxter was trying to dig himself out of that hole. All one has to do is look at the actual forensic evidence in each case and see that his logic is problematic.

[Errata]

Sometimes I think "skillful" really meant "professional". And the only reason Eddowes injuries weren't "skillful" is because he was not as business like in the handling of the body as the others. He made extraneous cuts not related to ether death or procurement of organs. So Eddowes killer was being unprofessional, and messing with the body instead of immediately getting down to business.

[lynn cates]

carving

Hello Cris. Thanks. Quite possible. But what caused him to come up with that cornball theory in the first place?

You are a hunter. I am sure you can tell the difference in someone who can carve and someone who cannot?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mutilations

Hello Errata. But that is not what he said. He referred to "mutilations" only.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hello Cris. Thanks. Quite possible. But what caused him to come up with that cornball theory in the first place?

You are a hunter. I am sure you can tell the difference in someone who can carve and someone who cannot?

Hi Lynn,
As a matter of fact that's what I'm doing now...perched over a beautiful hardwood bottom with a crystal clear spring running through it. Just saw a hawk do some amazing acrobatics negociating the trees to catch a squirrel. Amazing how they can see something that small from so far.

This may relate to hunting and the topic... Once I volunteered to help in a does survey. Hunters were asked to bring the uteri in from harvested does so the biologists could determine if they had been bred. Each hunter had illustrated instructions to guide them on how to remove a deer's uterus.

Well, you wouldn't believe what all was presented at the checkpoints. Some brought the bladder instead.Some simply started at the vagina and cored the whole area out and said, "maybe you'll find it in there somewhere." Some managed to extract most of the uterus but didn't have the ovaries- which made it useless. And a few actually followed the instructions and did it right.

The point is someone better at least know something about a female mammal's uterus if they really want it for something.
Gotta go...I here something coming.

[Cogidubnus]

Sometimes I think "skillful" really meant "professional". And the only reason Eddowes injuries weren't "skillful" is because he was not as business like in the handling of the body as the others. He made extraneous cuts not related to ether death or procurement of organs. So Eddowes killer was being unprofessional, and messing with the body instead of immediately getting down to business.

Hello Errata. But that is not what he said. He referred to "mutilations" only.

I suspect the distinction Phillips made wasn't just in cutting, or even the method of the excisions, but more so the fact that in Eddowes the bowel was cut...resulting in a mess...

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Hello Errata. But that is not what he said. He referred to "mutilations" only.

Cheers.
LC

But that's what I mean. A certain amount of mutilation is necessary to accomplish the task of removing organs. Anything beyond that indicates a lack of control, or a diversion of focus. Chapman didn't have that, but Eddowes did. Therefor it was less professional, meaning goal oriented and focused on the task at hand.

[lynn cates]

hunting

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

[lynn cates]

second place

Hello Dave. Actually, both Bagster and Baxter were on about organ removal. But, for me, that is a distant second to how one makes cuts (mutilations).

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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]

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

[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]

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