Surgical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

dressing

Hello Tecs. Thanks. Well, he claimed they were sheep heads. Not sure when he dressed them as he was at home only 4 hours per day. Doubt if he did that on the pavement.

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

I find it fascinating that the division on the issue of skill is based on medical opinion from both sides,... its simply a matter of whom you believe and whose opinion should be tossed out the door.

So, lets start with the uterus for sale idea. Baxters, not Phillips... the man who actually saw the victims dead and examined them. So no need to usurp Phillips comments based on this fellows conjectures. Do the nicks on the spine indicate that it is certain the killer attempted to remove the head? We dont know that, it could just as easily been a result of an adrenaline pumped butcher using too much force to sever both arteries. Did the killer intend to do more to Polly? Not based on the physical evidence of her murder, theres no suggestion of it anyway. Does that mean he did not intend to do more to Polly? No, we dont know if he did or didnt. Did the killer acquire Annies uterus using some knife skills? Yes, you can argue it all you like but Ill usually take the word of the man who saw the woman dead before any modern theorist. Unless of course he was unskilled himself....something that is not suggested in anything Ive read about our Dr Phillips. Do we know if the killer murdered Annie to get her uterus specifically? No, we know the doctor thought so. Were the women found to be in the same state physically when someone comes across them? No, Polly was still partially warm and thought to be barely breathing by one of 2 witnesses. Annie was stiffening.

Setting that aside, Is there sufficient circumstantial and physical evidence to associate these two womens death with a single killer, or killers? Almost everyone can agree on that,.. yes.

Can we say unequivacably that this killer or killers did not intend to get Pollys uterus? No.
Can we say that Annies killer did not intend to acquire her uterus before he killed her? No.

All Im trying to illustrate here is that without any additional facts or evidence neither "side" can win this argument. We can use logic and reason and imagination and life/work experiences to choose what makes the most sense to ourselves, but we cannot choose to assume a theory is incorrect if it can not be proven so.

So...no-one is right or wrong....yet...this is an exchange of perspectives and ideas. Mine is that the same man killed Polly and Annie, and he didnt kill any other Canonical, that he had some knife skill and anatomical knowledge, that he was of course insane with some grey matter malady, and that the reason he killed the women had to do with women, making the choice of a uterus within reason.

Cheers all

[lynn cates]

decapitation

Hello Tecs. In your steps, you omitted the attempt at decapitation.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

broad agreement

Hello Mike. In which case we largely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

A little more of the same sir?

Hi Lynn

I found this one from Mrs Beeton and thought of you

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X...20head&f=false

I did try sheeps head soup many years ago and very tasty it was too, but I can't say I fancy this dish much!

Bon apetit!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Organ removal

Wasn't it Bob Hinton, some years back now, who suggested that whilst there was evidence of progressive organ removal (in the sense of extracting abdominal contents) there was none really of organ removal (suggesting that body parts could easily have been squashed underfoot at unsupervised crime scenes, lost en route to the mortuary (or even at the mortuary), carried off by rats, cats and other marauding vermin etc?

I've got "From Hell" handy and think I'll give it a fresh read...as I recall it's a refreshingly "different" sort of book...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Like the piece of ear that was sliced off, yet fell from Eddowes clothing while being moved?
A piece of ear maybe, but a kidney, uterus, or even a heart?

Local workers or even Constables were detailed to clean the murder site up afterwards, and, .....the piece of ear, though severed, was not actually lost.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

savoury pies

Hello Dave. Thanks. The locals sell hog heads in the market for "tamales" but just TRY to find a good kidney for steak and kidney pie. . .

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Well who's to tell Jon...the tip of an ear gets caught in a fold of the clothing and perhaps randomly survives the transit, whilst a juicy succulent kidney is carried off, pre discovery, by a passing cat? Or trodden into the ground by a passer-by?

Dunno mate...like I said, I think it was Bob Hinton's theory and his book goes to work with me tomorrow for a re-read on the bus, and at lunchtime...

By the by...check out who ACTUALLY cleaned up at least part of the Bucks Row crime scene...

All the best

Dave

[robert newell]

Looks good.....

[Errata]

Well who's to tell Jon...the tip of an ear gets caught in a fold of the clothing and perhaps randomly survives the transit, whilst a juicy succulent kidney is carried off, pre discovery, by a passing cat? Or trodden into the ground by a passer-by?

Dunno mate...like I said, I think it was Bob Hinton's theory and his book goes to work with me tomorrow for a re-read on the bus, and at lunchtime...

By the by...check out who ACTUALLY cleaned up at least part of the Bucks Row crime scene...

All the best

Dave

Well, Eddowes had cuts on the interior of the liver, so that would be one bad ass cat. I would look for attendant dog stabbings in the neighborhood.

And suddenly I don't my cat sleeping up here anymore...

[lynn cates]

Can't get no . . .

Hello Robert. Thanks.

Wonder if it was satisfying? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I would look for attendant dog stabbings in the neighborhood.

That must be, Jack Russell, the terrier of Mitre Sq.?

...

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Yes, you can argue it all you like but Ill usually take the word of the man who saw the woman dead before any modern theorist.

Phillips also believed that the killer attempted to separate the bones in the neck, whereas your "modern theory" is that "it could just as easily been a result of an adrenaline pumped butcher using too much force to sever both arteries". If Phillips may have been mistaken in his interpretation of these wounds, as you now argue, he could just as easily have been mistaken in other areas too, such as the level of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer, or his conclusion that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different people. It's rather difficult to argue that Phillips' judgment must be accepted because he was a doctor who was there at the time etc...oh, but he was probably wrong about this bit!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

As I always say, it's not impossible.

Not impossible, Tecs, just not very probable.

It's always a mistake to ascribe a "motive" to a serial killer beyond the depraved kicks they derive from murder and mutilation. It might be tempting for an an 1888 coroner to theorize along the organs-for-dosh lines, but he wouldn't have a century's worth of insight into serial crime to inform his judgment. Baxter, in a sense, has an "excuse", whereas we don't.

Even at the Chapman murder (and certainly thereafter with Eddowes and Kelly) he engaged in mutilations that were totally superfluous to any organ-extracting agenda.

All the best,
Ben