Surgical knowledge?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[lynn cates]

Polly

Hello Mike. I was wondering why you thought Polly's uterus was targeted? I don't personally see any evidence for it.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. I was wondering why you thought Polly's uterus was targeted? I don't personally see any evidence for it.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Well, it was the only internal organ taken from Annie in its complete form, and its removal did impress Phillips. His quote from the Inquest,.... "I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body".

A little more dramatically noted by Baxter,.... "There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found."

I think its clear that the physician who examined the dead woman and the coroner in charge of the Inquest both believed that the killer intended to extract the organ he took away intact before he even killed the woman.

Im not saying I believe in the Uterus for Sale premise, I dont in fact. But I do believe that the man intended to take the uterus...his motivation for doing so is unclear. Maybe its symbolic to him, maybe he wants to try the Thief Candle making idea, maybe he simply hates women, and what differentiates them better than their primary organ of regeneration.

Best regards Lynn,

[Wickerman]

Im not saying I believe in the Uterus for Sale premise, ....

...but maybe "he" did?

[lynn cates]

Point A to Point P

Hello Mike. Thanks. My point is that I'm not sure how we get from Annie to Polly--at least as far as the uterus is concerned.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I think that many of us may have different definitions of an intact uterus. My father, an OB/GYN who I got to for a lot of these questions, considers both instances removal of an intact uterus, but notes that as he is more GYN than OB, his definition of intact would differ from the "baby catchers". He said a more OB oriented interpretation would be that neither were intact, because for that to be true they would expect a radical hysterectomy, which was not done.

Strictly speaking, the uterus tends to be defined by the lining. The endometrium. The cervix has no endometrium, therefore is not part of the uterus. It is it's own separate structure with its own separate duties to fulfill. So the cervix is no more the uterus than the stomach is the duodenum. Surgically, for a hysterectomy, they do everything humanly possible to leave the cervix intact. Back then they often did not, but since the preservation of the cervix is to preserve the ability to have sex without having to change the structure of the vagina, I wouldn't expect Victorian surgeons to try to protect the cervix on a woman who will never again bear children. But Victorians rarely defined the cervix as part of the uterus. It was more often considered part of the vagina. Which also isn't technically true, but whatever.

Really the only thing that matters is what the killer thought an intact uterus was, and that largely would depend on what he was doing with them. He was not selling them. In order for a uterus to be a useful medical specimen, it has to include the vagina, cervix, uterus, fallopian tubes and the ovaries. Just a uterus without the attendant structures are useless. I suspect he ate them. And if that's the case, then it makes perfect sense that he would not take the cervix the second time. It's a hard muscular structure, probably denser than the heart. Seriously not good eating, to be blunt. But for all we know, he was making little hats out of them, so it's hard to speculate.

So really, one man's intact uterus is another man's hack job. I think it's possible that Polly Nichol's uterus was targeted, but not the way you think. These were deep incisions, exposing the contents of the lower abdomen. I think it might have been a test run. I dont think he was trying to take her uterus, I think he was trying to figure out the best way to go about it.