Surgical knowledge?

[Hunter]

The idea that the murderer was interrupted in Bucks row started with Wynne Baxter. For his anatomical specimen theory to have been workable, the killer had to have been interrupted in his quest for a specimen to sell. Baxter even thought the other mutilations in Chapman's case were a ruse to cover the murderer's real intent. And if it hadn't been for Phillips' diligent examination, the ploy might have worked.

The genitalia were stabbed in both Tabram's and Nichols' cases. The uterus was removed from Chapman with no report of stabbings. Eddowes had her uterus removed and her exterior genitalia were stabbed.

[Ben]

Looking back through the last few pages of posts I find I'm in complete agreement with Hunter and Errata on this issue. The "butcher" argument is seriously weakened by the evident failure of the killer to decapitate Chapman, despite an obvious effort on his part to do so.

But the idea that he developed a passion for stealing uteri in seven days is a bit much.

But why, Tecs?

As you acknowledge, there must have been a point in time when he thought that organ extraction might be a worthwhile thing to try. He didn't require a week to come up with the idea, nor did he require more than ten seconds. The notion of the serial killer as a ready-made product who gets everything perfect from the outset is effectively refuted by other serial cases. Even the most "organized" serial offenders with apparently fine-tuned "MOs" will have started off a more chaotic footing, and their earlier crimes will often bear little relation to their later ones. When modern commentators attempt to rule out Tabram, for instance, on the grounds that her murder involved stabbing as opposed to slashing, they are flying in the face of everything we ought to have learned about serial killers over the decades.

The vast majority of serial killers discover their specific likes and dislikes as they explore and escalate. Andrei Chikatilo did not eviscerate his earlier victims but did so with some of the later ones. Jeffrey Dahmer experimented with vampirism at some point during his killing spree but abandoned the practice shortly thereafter. In short, there is absolutely no reason to think that JTR had organ extraction as a preconceived agenda before he killed everyone, and certainly no good reason to think he was interrupted in Buck's Row.

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

object?

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Object, perhaps?

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Although that is not exactly what I consider when I think of goal, very well, if you wish.

Cheers.
LC

It's a goal, just not a mission.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,

If he had only just opened up the abdominal cavity as appears to have happened and then heard someone approaching then surely that would mean he didn't have time to remove an organ?

I might be missing something but it would surely take several more cuts and more time to remove the uterus by which time Cross/Lechmere is standing over him?

Or have I missed something?

Regards,

Well, we don't know what order the mutilations came in, nor how many exactly were deep enough to expose the abdominal cavity. Anytime you make a cut in a taut surface, it gets increasingly slack. Thus the later cuts are much harder than the early ones. And take quite a bit longer to achieve. A dozen long slashes probably takes longer then a one long midline cut. If it were a matter of a simple interruption of a Chapman type mutilation, you would expect to see a long midline cut, the most direct way of accessing an organ. But that's not what happened. If the organ was the goal, he took a very peculiar route trying to get to it. Now, there is nothing to say that the sight of the interior of Nichols didn't inspire the desire to take the uterus, but he didn't go into Nichols with that goal in mind. The mutilations are too indirect.

[lynn cates]

stayed personality

Hello (again) Lucky. Thanks.

In which case, even less reason to plead impediment to organ removal, IF that were his object.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

making sense

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

"But imagine if the killer stopped after Nichols and we were left with just the unsolved murders of Smith,Tabram and Nichols, we wouldn't be mentioning extracted organs at all, the common theme would be stabbed in the genitals. Which the killer achieved in the Nichols case, therefore he wasn't interrupted!!"

Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn/Bridewell

Nichols' stays were both 'short' and 'not tight fitting' according to Helson and Spratling.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Errata,

If he had only just opened up the abdominal cavity as appears to have happened and then heard someone approaching then surely that would mean he didn't have time to remove an organ?

I might be missing something but it would surely take several more cuts and more time to remove the uterus by which time Cross/Lechmere is standing over him?

Or have I missed something?

Regards,

Hi Tecs,

The killer hadn't just opened up the abdominal cavity, he had done two massive cuts lenghtways almost up to her ribs, opening up the abdomen and then a series of other various cuts across abdomen, also he slashed her stomach lining several times and stabbed her genitals twice, but there was no noticable attempt to extract her uterus, yet he had time to start the work at least.

So, the assumption he wanted to remove her uterus is retroactively applied from the Chapman killing. He didn't do this to Nichols, therefore he was interrupted, goes the argument.

But imagine if the killer stopped after Nichols and we were left with just the unsolved murders of Smith,Tabram and Nichols, we wouldn't be mentioning extracted organs at all, the common theme would be stabbed in the genitals. Which the killer achieved in the Nichols case, therefore he wasn't interupted!!

[lynn cates]

clothing cut

Hello Colin. Thanks.

Interesting, but may not be relevant in Kate's case. After all, her clothes were cut through.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Stays

Hello Colin.

"Could it not be that the killer's intentions were the same in both cases, but the fact that Nichols wore stays frustrated his endeavours?"

But surely he could unfasten them? Especially since he knew how to lift her dress.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I confess to having no knowledge of the difficulties presented by stays or of the ease or difficulty in removing same but:

Nichols: Stays worn. Abdominal mutilation but no organs removed.

Chapman: No stays worn. Uterus & entrails removed.

Stride: Not Known? No abdominal mutilation at all.

Eddowes: No stays worn. Uterus entrails & left kidney removed.

Kelly: No stays & no other clothing except a flimsy shift. More mutilation than ever before.

It may be coincidence but the amount of abdominal mutilation seems to be inversely proportionate to the amount of clothing worn.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

stay a bit

Hello Colin.

"Could it not be that the killer's intentions were the same in both cases, but the fact that Nichols wore stays frustrated his endeavours?"

But surely he could unfasten them? Especially since he knew how to lift her dress.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

simplicity

Hello Tecs. Thanks.

Not sure why that is the simplest answer. There are many simpler.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Although that is not exactly what I consider when I think of goal, very well, if you wish.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

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 wasn't representative of the killers ultimate goal.

Hi Michael,

Could it not be that the killer's intentions were the same in both cases, but the fact that Nichols wore stays frustrated his endeavours?

Regards, Bridewell