Surgical knowledge?

[Errata]

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.

I submit that it doesn't require analysis, merely placing a hand on the organ would have caused some serious doubts as to it's wholesomeness.

[Bridewell]

Liver Was Healthy

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.

Dr Frederick Gordon Brown:

"There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side and another cut at right angles to this which was about an inch and a half deep and 2 1/2 inches long. Liver itself was healthy"

I think, as it was not easy to get at, that the killer wanted the kidney specifically.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

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

Well put Ben. Since we have a killer who also sliced Kate's colon in sections, (perhaps in error one imagines.....and wonders aloud about the need for a section of cloth from the victim)...and the sloppy upward cut he made, we must lean toward a fortuitous acquisition rather than a targeted one.

Even the nicks on Kates face may have been just collateral damage when he cut her nose,....another faux pas for the skill and knowledgeable.

Cheers mate

[Wickerman]

We might be reminded by the words of Doctor Phillips concerning Chapman's mutilations:

Coroner:Was any anatomical knowledge displayed?
Phillips: I think there was; there were indications of it. I think the anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated by being hindered in consequence of haste.

When Eddowes was mutilated it was much darker at 1:40 am that it was between 5-6:00 am, just breaking dawn.
Any reason to think he may not have operated in haste at Mitre Sq., and with the added hinderence of darkness? He probably risked loosing a finger...
And you complain about nicks and scratches?

You might want to read up on the collateral damage caused by battlefield surgeons in the Civil War, ...and they were experienced.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

it is the lowest organ to reach for when the body is laying on its back

Exactly, which is why anyone possessed of actual anatomical knowledge would have flipped the body over and accessed the kidneys from the back. It really doesn't matter whether the organs could be seen or not. If he was fumbling around for anything that might be interest, the chances of him alighting on a kidney were hardly very slim considering that he was operating within the confines of a small woman's abdominal cavity. It's not as though he had a whole array of visceral options or places to explore.

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

Nope. Four.

Brown, Phillips, Sequeira and William Sedgwick Saunders. The last mentioned did not believe that the perpetrator possessed any anatomical skill, basically echoing Sequeira. As for Dr. Bond, there seems to be a persistent, weird misconception that his observations are undermined because he only looked at the notes. This is, of course, complete nonsense. Unless the other doctors either deliberately withheld details of Eddowes' injuries or didn't file a full report for some reason (incompetence?), the notes were just as good as a first-hand viewing.

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.

"Unsourced" - there's your clue.

It's nonsense.

It is perfectly clear from other sources (real ones!) that Phillips believed the Eddowes murder to have been committed by an unskilled copycat of the Chapman murder. In this respect, he once again influenced Baxter's theorizing.

"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.

If you describe an actor as having "no great talent", you're basically saying he's crap, and the same is true of Sequeira's assessment of the perpetrator's anatomical knowledge. He was passing an irrefutably negative opinion on the level of "skill" evinced by the mutilations, and had he wished to convey the impression that he thought the killer had "some" skill, he would have said so explicitly. When he referred to no "design on any particular" organ, he meant that no particular organ was targeted for extraction - the implication being that the killer stumbled upon the kidney without knowing where it's located or even what it was.

He certainly wasn't commenting on any future plans the killer might have had for the kidney thereafter. The issue of what might be done with the targeted organ thereafter was quite simply not his area of expertise to venture an opinion on. That was a matter for the coroner and for the police, and had Sequeria offered an opinion as to what financial or specimen-related plans the killer might have had for the organ, it would have been interesting but completely irrelevant to the autopsy he was being specifically queried about. Hence, I think we can be fairly sure that notwithstanding Baxter's funny ideas from the Chapman inquest, Sequeira was saying that in his opinion, the killer did not appear to be in pursuit of any particular organ. This would certainly tally with his view that the mutilations took three minutes.

"We don't have to believe the killer was a doctor to accept what Gordon Brown & Phillips have deduced."

No, no, there's no "Gordon Brown & Phillips". This creates the very misleading impression that they shared the same opinion. They did not. Phillips believed that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by different people. Brown - outnumbered four to one - believed that Eddowes' killer had anatomical skill. Phillips did not. These two doctors are at odds, as as such, they do not "join forces" to create imaginary evidence that Jack the Ripper had medical knowledge.

It is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that the Whitechapel murderer had anatomical skill without deliberately cherry-picking the minority-endorsed opinions as correct whilst discarding the bulk that argues otherwise. It just can't be done.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Exactly, which is why anyone possessed of actual anatomical knowledge would have flipped the body over and accessed the kidneys from the back.

Yes Ben, I have heard that opinion before, but such a methodical assumption does not allow for the shock value that a disemboweled body presents when laid out prostrate on its back.
This argument also assumes the killer intended to take a kidney from the outset. His decision to take the kidney may have been made while he was in the process of mutilation, intending to take the uterus certainly, but for added mystique, "I'll remove a kidney too, this'll give the buggers something to talk about".

Nope. Four.

Brown, Phillips, Sequeira and William Sedgwick Saunders.

Saunders was only 'sent' the stomach contents, he was not present at the autopsy - three doctors only.

As for Dr. Bond, there seems to be a persistent, weird misconception that his observations are undermined because he only looked at the notes.

They were.
Warren chose to have Anderson hire Bond in October, in order to determine the nature of the wounds. It was pure fortune or misfortune, that another murder took place in early November which enabled him to actually be present at one of the autopsies, but that was never the intention.

Any modern surgeon will tell you that it is very difficult to determine the degree of skill used in mutilations unless you are able to see the body first hand, as much of your opinion is based on visual evidence.

It is perfectly clear from other sources (real ones!) that Phillips believed the Eddowes murder to have been committed by an unskilled copycat of the Chapman murder. In this respect, he once again influenced Baxter's theorizing.

Phillips did not talk to the press, he was above all that. Therefore, unless his opinion was given at an Inquest, or as hearsay, from his assistant Mr Clark, I am suspicious about anyone offering opinions from Dr. Phillips.

The two bodies which were in the worst condition with respect to any absence of skill were the two who were mutilated in the dark, Polly Nichols and Kate Eddowes.
Both Chapman and Kelly were mutilated under better lighting conditions, therefore, we should quite reasonably expect to see less evidence of ability displayed with the two mutilated in the dark.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Saunders was only 'sent' the stomach contents, he was not present at the autopsy - three doctors only.

Ok, I apologise for that, yes Saunders was according to Inquest testimony, also present at the autopsy.

However, this same paragraph from Saunders himself also makes it clear that Saunders agreed with Gordon-Brown and Sequeira contrary to the opinion of Dr. Phillips who thought there was less expertise.
I took your earlier post to suggest Gordon-Brown stood alone, the Inquest testimony makes it clear that Saunders & Sequeira were actually in agreement with him.

"Having ample opportunity of seeing the wounds inflicted, he agreed with Dr. Brown and Sequeira that they were not inflicted by a person of great anatomical skill...".
(my emphasis)

Regards, Jon S.

[Errata]

So what does it mean that he went for the kidney through the front? He still would have had to get the uterus from the front, so it's not like he would have had to sacrifice one presentation for the other. We are sort of juggling several ideas as though they were the same thing, but they aren't. Anatomical knowledge tell him where the kidney is in the body. Evidently he had that. But that can be gained through observation. Surgical knowledge tells him how to extract the kidney from the encasement without having to take out everything else. This can also be Butcher's knowledge, both of which can still be had through observation, or exceptional spatial sense. Surgical EXPERIENCE is what would tell him to flip the corpse over and take the kidneys out from the back. That he apparently did not have. So he wasn't a practicing surgeon. But anyone who has paid attention to a butcher or a couple of autopsies could take out the kidneys from the front.

[Wickerman]

Surgical EXPERIENCE is what would tell him to flip the corpse over and take the kidneys out from the back. That he apparently did not have. So he wasn't a practicing surgeon. But anyone who has paid attention to a butcher or a couple of autopsies could take out the kidneys from the front.

And that is pretty consistent with the opinions of Brown, Saunders & Sequeira, and a handful of us on the boards.
More than the average layperson but less than a professional, and only in the field of anatomical knowledge, although clearly handy with a knife, yet no surgical experience.

[Ben]

Hi Errata,

So what does it mean that he went for the kidney through the front?

When considered alongside Eddowes' other injuries, it tells us that he was an unskilled mutilator slashing and grabbing at anything that felt interesting, and this was the majority verdict amongst the 1888 doctors. There's no good reason to think he knew where the kidney was in the body. More likely he was fumbling around and found something firm.

[Hunter]

There were interior cuts in the liver, pancreas and spleen and then a cut through the peritoneal lining; a concentration of cuts directly above the left kidney. Then the kidney was extracted by severing the renal artery. This was no groping, but deliberate. The uterus was extracted by cutting and peeling a wedge of the 'pubes' back; extracting the uterus without damage to the bladder, which rest on top of it.

I've said this before, but what the medicos said and why they said it in the wake of the Eddowes murder has been misinterpreted. None of these physicians were in disagreement here. "No design on a particular organ" meant in relation to what Baxter espoused at the Chapman inquest just 3 days before the 'double event.' It was THE topic of discussion on the eve of this double murder. The questions and answers to and by the medicos concerning 'skill' or 'knowledge' were because of that topic of the day.

Obviously, there was some reason why the killer took these organs, because he did just that... extricated them and deliberately took them. It just wasn't for the reasons Baxter had asserted. They rightly stated that they didn't know why they were taken - logical conclusion. They didn't know what they were dealing with here, but they were certain that it wasn't for anatomical specimens.

Brown was the only surgeon specifically asked to provide the details of the mutilations because he was the physician of record. If any of the others had been asked for specifics, they would have said the same thing that Brown said. They simply said - in summary - that they concurred with Brown's findings.

The only thing close to an official opinion by Mr. Phillips in regard to the mutilations of Catherine Eddowes is found in a Nov. 6 report on that medical evidence by Inspt. Swanson. Someone should read it, or when I get a chance I'll post it. Otherwise, a purchase of the last edition of the New Independent Review is very inexpensive and contains a nearly 50,000 word detailed article on this subject as well as a chronology of Bagster Phillips' involvement with nearly 100 references to peruse. And there's a darned good article by Lynn Cates there that offers some alternative viewpoints to consider.

[Errata]

Hi Errata,



When considered alongside Eddowes' other injuries, it tells us that he was an unskilled mutilator slashing and grabbing at anything that felt interesting, and this was the majority verdict amongst the 1888 doctors. There's no good reason to think he knew where the kidney was in the body. More likely he was fumbling around and found something firm.

It seems unlikely, since he had to go through several organs to get to the kidney. I mean, it's essentially hanging off the spine, and for the right kidney there's a couple of ribs, glands, about 4 organs and a whole lot of stray tissue just to get to it. Then you have to dig it out of it's protective layer (which makes it not so much feel like an organ). Slashing and grabbing at anything doesn't get you a kidney. It gets you some liver, a lot of intestines, some spleen, you might get the stomach. It doesn't dig a kidney out of the back while leaving the rest relatively intact. I don't know if he knew he had a kidney, or if he knew where one might be in the body. But he wasn't slashing and grabbing randomly.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Cris. Thanks. Much obliged.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I'm 99% positive that the cuts to the underside of the liver were due to the killer's knife being double edged. The stab I think is a slip. What doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the other damage in the area, or lack of damage. The liver was cut up. That makes sense. Gall bladder intact. That makes sense. Cut pancreas, cut renal artery, makes sense. I mean, logic dictates that if you are getting a kidney out of somebody not expected to survive the procedure, you go straight at it. But the spleen was actually retracted, not removed. It was cut just enough to move it out of the way, detached. That doesn't make a lot of sense. And there is no mention of the knife at any point puncturing her back. That's damned odd. Even sweeping the knife under the kidney to free it should have poked between the ribs. And there's no mention of any nicks or cuts to the ribs. It's really a bizarre combination of frenzy and care.

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

It's possible that the liver was tugged free after being cut a bit. There are many interpretations possible. As an aside, I'm reminded of the apron that was "cut" away. Anyone who cuts fabric with the grain knows that once started with scissors, a cut is more of a tear than anything else. It looks nice and neat because it's going along the grain (not the correct word, but you understand). I believe so many doctors' and police interpretations are much like when two people watch a football game and one sees a foul and the other sees it differently. There is no truth to any of the autopsy reports except for an individual's truth which is almost always lacking for others.

Mike