Surgical knowledge?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Mike,



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

Hi Ben,

The "pumped up butcher" idea was just a throw out there, I didnt mean for it to be considered as my opinion on the matter. I dont know if the killer intended to decapitate the victim Ben, so I dont know that Phillips was incorrect when he suggested it. I do know that the nicks could have been created for reasons other than that though. So as my post indicated, we cant say for certain those markings were a sign of intended decapitation, which apparently the killer couldnt accomplish. This speaks to the level of skill the man had, and thats why I contested it as a "fact" in these cases.

Even if the man intended decapitation Ben, he could have changed his mind....he could have decided with the brief time he had he'd rather mutilate the abdomen and access organs. My point was only that the markings do not allow us to see the decapitation theory as factual.

I believe in both these cases, and likely Eddowes, the immediate conditions affected the killers abilities to some degree, even if the man had "processed" thousands of animals before this, he'd didnt have to kill them silently and work rapidly in darkness in publicly accessible places.

Cheers Ben, all the best.

[Bridewell]

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.

What about the nose? Taken or left? (I'm not trying to be clever here. I just don't know the answer).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

What about the nose? Taken or left? (I'm not trying to be clever here. I just don't know the answer).

Regards, Bridewell.

Oh god I never thought of that. It's like the world's worst game of "Got Your Nose"

[Cogidubnus]

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.

Hi Errata...so what's liver damage to do with Bob Hinton's theory that the killer simply extracted various organs/entrails en-masse, and a passing feral cat may've made off with a kidney?

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

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

Hi Jon

Yes I've a Jack Russell...and I'm also aware a Jack Russell recently attacked, mauled and killed a baby in the UK...animals aren't predictable at the best of times, especially when hungry and confronted with fresh meat.

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Hi Errata...so what's liver damage to do with Bob Hinton's theory that the killer simply extracted various organs/entrails en-masse, and a passing feral cat may've made off with a kidney?

All the best

Dave

It's two-fold. If the argument is that the killer did not extract the kidney, and instead a feral cat was feeding off the corpse, the knife marks on the liver make that improbable.

On the other hand, if the argument is that the killer took out things en masse, then it also makes very little sense to leave a large bulky liver in, and take out a hidden and hard to get to kidney. Somewhat akin to trying to take out the heart through an incision in the neck. If he was stripping the abdomen, the bladder, the liver, the large intestine, all would have come out before the kidney. And the liver, possibly the pancreas even the stomach and the spleen would actively be in the way. Yanking all of that out would be easier than navigating through all of that mass. So he's taking out the kidney the very hard way. Why leave it at the scene after going through so much trouble? Especially when he didn't have the time to be experimenting with doing things the long and slow way?

And if he had taken out all of the above organs, the cat would have gone for the liver, not the kidney.

[Errata]

Hi Jon

Yes I've a Jack Russell...and I'm also aware a Jack Russell recently attacked, mauled and killed a baby in the UK...animals aren't predictable at the best of times, especially when hungry and confronted with fresh meat.

All the best

Dave

Sound like a job for Inspector Tabbyline. This is one Springer Spanieled Jack that won't get away!

Dear god make the dog puns stop.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Errata

Fair enough...seems a reasonable counter-argument...something to think about anyway...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

It could be anyone....

Sound like a job for Inspector Tabbyline. This is one Springer Spanieled Jack that won't get away!

No, seriously...the recent UK example with a Jack Russell proves that even a dog only nine inches to a foot off the ground can be mortally dangerous if the circumstances are right...

In turn, even the most innocent looking person or creature might be behind JtR...

Dave

[Bridewell]

And if he had taken out all of the above organs, the cat would have gone for the liver, not the kidney.

Why did the killer not go for the liver rather than the kidney? As you say, the kidney was much the harder organ to access. It obviously had a significance to the killer. I wish we knew why.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Wickerman]

Why did the killer not go for the liver rather than the kidney? As you say, the kidney was much the harder organ to access. It obviously had a significance to the killer. I wish we knew why.
.

Because the kidney is inside a fatty membrane, only someone with knowledge would be able to find it. And, the suggestion the kidney was removed with care(?), might suggests he had abilities above the ordinary layperson.

Corny as it might sound, I wondered if the killer was sending a message to the doctors who do the autopsy. Its nothing that the ordinary public, or maybe even the police might appreciate, but to remove a kidney from inside the membrane (assuming that is what was meant), and not injure it in any way might speak volumes to a doctor.

On the one hand he carves up Eddowes like the lunatic he is said to be, yet also removes a kidney in a professional manner as if to say, lunatic, I am not!

A pause for thought issue.

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

Why did the killer not go for the liver rather than the kidney? As you say, the kidney was much the harder organ to access. It obviously had a significance to the killer. I wish we knew why.

Regards, Bridewell.

Well, my personal bet is that he took it to eat. My guess is that your average person of that day knew what livers and kidneys looked like (and generally where they were located in say, a sheep), since they were something of a food staple. And there isn't a lot of variance in shape between animals and humans. If Eddowes was an alcoholic, my guess is that her liver was in pretty rough shape. I don't know if you've ever seen the liver of an alcoholic, but it looks like a normal liver shrunken and covered in corn smut. And there's no way anyone looks at that and thinks it's safe to eat, even if for some unfathomable reason they thought it looked tasty. I'm thinking he cut her open, was going to take liver and kidneys, but the liver grossed him out so he just took a kidney. And that process was difficult enough that he didn't bother going after the other one. If so, whatever message he was intending to send got very very garbled.

[Wickerman]

If Eddowes was an alcoholic, my guess is that her liver was in pretty rough shape. I don't know if you've ever seen the liver of an alcoholic, but it looks like a normal liver shrunken and covered in corn smut. And there's no way anyone looks at that and thinks it's safe to eat, even if for some unfathomable reason they thought it looked tasty.

Sorry Errata, but it almost seems like you are saying this killer analyzed her liver while it was still in her body, and in the dark too.

[Ben]

Because the kidney is inside a fatty membrane, only someone with knowledge would be able to find it.

Not really, Jon.

Anyone fumbling around in the dark with their hands and a knife could easily find it by accident without knowing what it was, as Dr. Sequeira's evidence implies. Remember that only one of the four doctors who examined the body thought the kidney extraction indicated expertise or even knowledge, and an additional fifth doctor - Thomas Bond - studied the autopsy notes and came to the same conclusion as the three doctors who didn't detect any anatomical knowledge.

Since the kidney was never found, it cannot be stated that he did not "injure it in any way". His knife may have made a complete mess of it during its excision for all we know.

As for his preference for a kidney over a liver, Errata's suggestion is just as good as any. He might also have considered it too large to transport.

The preponderance of evidence indisputably supports the contention that the killer did not have "abilities above the ordinary layperson".

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Not really, Jon.

Anyone fumbling around in the dark with their hands and a knife could easily find it by accident without knowing what it was,

Ben, the kidney is covered by every other organ in the abdomen, because it is attached to the spine (effectively), it is the lowest organ to reach for when the body is laying on its back.
It is not an organ that can be seen from the killers point of view. This does not mean he could not have blindly reached down to grab anything hard (firm), which he could have. But equally, given that it is out of sight, and the abdomen swimming in blood and soft organs, it is difficult to remove that which you cannot see.

Remember that only one of the four doctors who examined the body thought the kidney extraction indicated expertise or even knowledge, and an additional fifth doctor - Thomas Bond - studied the autopsy notes and came to the same conclusion as the three doctors who didn't detect any anatomical knowledge.

Ok, well your numbers do not add up, there were only three doctors who examined the body.

"The post-mortem examination of the body, which took place at the Mortuary, Golden-lane, and was conducted by Dr. Phillips, Dr. Gordon Brown, and Mr. G.W. Sequeira, occupied nearly four hours, but as to the results the doctors declined to speak."

(perhaps you confused "four hours" with "four doctors"?)

Doctor Bond only worked from the same notes that were compiled by these three doctors (more likely only those of Gordon Brown & Phillips). You cannot determine experience from notes, so Bond is only commenting on that which was written down by his colleagues.

Commenting on Stride & Eddowes (unsourced):
"Dr. Phillips has stated that the injuries inflicted upon these women have been apparently performed by a person possessing some anatomical knowledge."

That pretty much leaves us with the exchange between Gordon Brown and the Coroner:

[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

The fact Sequeira made this comment:
"I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill." does not in any way detract from the words of Gordon Brown, who made no allusion to "great" skill or "specific" design on any organ.

Once an organ has been removed, how can anyone claim to determine whether the killer intended to take that organ, or not? - the statement has no value.
Sequeira is apparently trying to calm any public suspicions that this killer had a market for the uterus - that is all his comment was intended to convey.

Since the kidney was never found, it cannot be stated that he did not "injure it in any way".

By not leaving any small slices of kidney within the membrane, it was removed complete?

The preponderance of evidence indisputably supports the contention that the killer did not have "abilities above the ordinary layperson".

Gordon Brown & Phillips together imply that there is a position below the surgeon, but above the layperson, who may hold sufficient experience.

We don't have to believe the killer was a doctor to accept what Gordon Brown & Phillips have deduced.
Phillips also thought there was less experience shown with the mutilations of Eddowes when compared to Chapman, but, Chapman was killed in the early morning dawn, Eddowes was killed in the darkest corner in the middle of the night. Of course there was still sufficient light to conduct the mutilations, but apparently not sufficient light to make every cut as clean as he previously did.

All the best...

Jon S.