Surgical expertise, anatomical knowledge. So on and so forth..

[FutureM.D.]

A two part question, following some exposition

I've seen the postmortem photos, the crime scene sketches and body sketches. I've read the reports. As someone who works in healthcare, I'm constantly flabbergasted that some people thought (others, still do) that the Ripper possessed anything near surgical skill. If the crimes happened today and I heard the doctors give reports such as those from zPhillips or Baxter, it would be like saying the killer performed a transvaginal hysterectomy and sutured the patient.. Then killed her.

In so far as anatomical 'knowledge'... Victorians knew the bible. Many references to womb. Assuming JTR was a male who had an (albeit extremely unhealthy) sexual interest in women, wouldn't he know a rough configuration of female genetalia? I mean, the uterus is basically a one point access... Surely the killer saw pregnant women! As far as kidneys.. eating such organs is a British thing right? 😎 Would any Britton, be so ignorant of their location? All of this assuming it wasnt a slash and grab job I the first place.

So my questions...

1) I'm no expert in Victorian surgical practice. Do you feel that Phillips and Baxters reports are a reflection of their era? To them, did the mutilations really suggest skill? (I pity their patients, if so.)

2) Do you think I'm on point with my thoughts in anatomical knowledge? Would this knowledge (uterine, kidney position) have been pedestrian knowledge in 1888 London?

3) If you still maintain surgical skill, or anatomical knowledge leanings; I'd truly like to know why. It's always good to have our convictions challenged. But if you're such a person, please try to reconcile numbers 1 & 2 in your reply.

Have a great day!

[DJA]

Worthwhile reading "Prosector's" comments.

He is/was an expert and lecturer.
Top person in the Auto Immune field.

Obviously way above anyone you have encountered in your chosen field.

[FutureM.D.]

Thanks for the lead!

Read a few posts, and I find it to be begging the question.

He postulates scenarios that would be difficult for a modern surgeon. In an O.R. With a full team. And bright lights. With hours at disposal.

The Ripper was alone (most probably). In the dark. Working in measures of minutes. Not hours.

I've always ascribed to the, slash and grab what you can Ripper.

I haven't read all of prosecutors posts, but based on what I have; I feel my opinion is reinforced. I'm forced to contend with a ripper who either fits my opinion, or one of almost supernatural skill. Such skill that would even baffle his contemporaries, and modern practitioners.

*Begging the question wasn't an accurate characterization*

[DJA]

How would more than 50 post mortems researching Cholera and it's intestinal workings in June 1866 be for a starting point!
Jack was 30 back then.

Quite sure Dr Phillips recognised his handy work.

[DJA]

I haven't read all of prosecutors posts, but based on what I have; I feel my opinion is reinforced.

You either do not know what a Prosector is or cannot spell.
Prolly both!

Training and expert opinion.....zilch. Fail!

Stand in line with "Pierre".

Next!

[FutureM.D.]

You either do not know what a Prosector is or cannot spell.
Prolly both!

Training and expert opinion.....zilch. Fail!

Stand in line with "Pierre".

Next!

Dude. WTF? ��

A: my tablet autocorrected 'Prosector' (that's how you spelled it. That's what turned up on the search function THAT LEAD ME TO HIS POSTS). To prosecutors. A word that, for my part, I've encountered far more often than 'prosector'

B: I in no way impugned 'Prosector's' training, or expert opinion. I merely suggested his training caused him to see the trees, before the forest. No expert, gets it right; 100% of the time. But apparently you and prosector, have the crimes 100% understood.

C: You're a p****' for comparing me to Pierre. Have I forwarded a solution to the crime, without sharing it? No. Have I spoken in riddles? No. I offered some thoughts, and asked for comment on them.

You, haven't addressed my points; in either post. You simply referred me to someone 'way above yourself.' See?! I can be passive aggressive too!

If my points are wrong, kindly educate me as to why YOU, think the way you do. Without the attitude. That's what I asked for. Don't point to someone else, and say 'this guy knows.' Especially when your replies, don't address my objections.

BIG PICTURE: I in no way intended to be rude, or pretentious by pointing out my healthcare work. I simply spoke toward my experience, and the resulting opinions I've formulated. This is supposed to be a discussion board. Where we share, speculate and discuss. Shouting down and being rude to your peers; really doesn't further that objective.

[Wickerman]

As someone who works in healthcare, I'm constantly flabbergasted that some people thought (others, still do) that the Ripper possessed anything near surgical skill. ...

There are three details of significant importance, as highlited by Prosector (Surgeon), I summarize below:

1 - Where a section of colon was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum.

Our surgeon explained that this is precisely what surgeons & pathologists do when they have to remove the descending colon. Which is done to stop faeces from oozing back into the abdominal cavity.

2 - The careful removal of a kidney, located at the rear of the body and enveloped within a fatty membrane is something that comes with experience.

Removing the descending colon in order to access this organ is not the kind of procedure that comes to someone who has no medical training.

3 - In any normal procedure for accessing the abdominal cavity by using a midline incision the normal practice is to skirt the cut around the umbilicus (belly button) but to the right.

This is standard practice for a surgeon when he is expected to sew up the patient after the operation or autopsy. The umbilicus is too tough to sew up so it is avoided and always to the right.
This is what we see done by the killer.

Conclusion, whoever killed and mutilated those women was no stranger to the medical profession.

[DJA]

OP.

Your first two questions were ridiculous.

Your third was answered.

[DJA]

Dude. WTF? ��

A: my tablet autocorrected 'Prosector' (that's how you spelled it. That's what turned up on the search function THAT LEAD ME TO HIS POSTS). To prosecutors. A word that, for my part, I've encountered far more often than 'prosector'

So...you have a magical auto corrector.

You are not my peer.

[Sam Flynn]

This is standard practice for a surgeon when he is expected to sew up the patient after the operation or autopsy. The umbilicus is too tough to sew up so it is avoided and always to the right.
This is what we see done by the killer.

Conclusion, whoever killed and mutilated those women was no stranger to the medical profession.

Whoever killed Eddowes, maybe, but why were such "professional" features not present in the other murders? At the very least, there was nary a midline abdominal incision in sight until Mitre Square, and none thereafter.

[FutureM.D.]

So...you have a magical auto corrector.

You are not my peer.

... Not sure how's that's magical. It took the first five letters, and auto filled prosecutors.

But whatever.

For the sake of argument, I'll consider my first question answered. Good on you. The doctor and surgeon, are simply forwarding the same line of thinking as prosector. Fair enough. I'm misinformed.

But as to whether or not the general populace had such anatomical knowledge (as I presented it); you truly didn't address. Others certainly know something I don't know in regards to the removal of the organs. But as to whether the populace might have had anatomical knowledge of their position? This might be a poor question, but it certainly isn't ridiculous.

Yep. My third question, and perhaps my foolishness, was answered. By Wickerman.

You on the other hand, were rude. Perhaps Pierre and the like, have people on edge. I was being genuine, and polite to the best of my ability. Even if you consider yourself above me, it speaks very poorly of you that you don't try to help. You condescend. You seek to stop discussion, before it reaches you.

Sadly, Pierre is looking good by comparison. But you know what, that's your issue. I'll just leave this where it sits. Maybe we can have more productive dialogue in future.

[Wickerman]

Whoever killed Eddowes, maybe, but why were such "professional" features not present in the other murders? At the very least, there was nary a midline abdominal incision in sight until Mitre Square, and none thereafter.

In all honesty, "we" had not recognised anything approaching the hand of "experience" at work with Eddowes, until it was explained by Prosector.

"We" appeared to be quite content to accept the opinion of Dr Phillips who suggested the Eddowes murder was less skillful (a copycat?), which perhaps goes to show we cannot simply rely on one opinion.

Until Prosector, or another surgeon makes an analysis of the mutilations on Chapman or Kelly we can't say for sure that there are no other signs of "experience".
That said we might do well to recall Phillips reply to the Coroner at the Chapman inquest....

[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.

[DJA]

I didn't come on board as FutureM.D. ROFL!

Most of what you are asking is easily found.

Baxter was a coroner,not a doctor.

Dr Phillips was a peer of Jack's and described a tool of trade used on Chapman.
You imply your knowledge is superior.

I was asked to form a professional kangaroo shooting team.
Spotlighting at night time. Integral coolroom/trailer.
No way I could do what Jack did.

Thought the Cholera piece might have been of interest.
Something few have been afforded.

You come across as a delusional brat.

[Sam Flynn]

In all honesty, "we" had not recognised anything approaching the hand of "experience" at work with Eddowes, until it was explained by Prosector.

Much as I welcomed them, I remain unconvinced by Prosector's suggestions, Jon - mainly because they revolve around Eddowes, leaving unanswered the rather cruder "procedures" wrought upon Nichols, Chapman and Kelly. To single out one victim doesn't give us much of a sample size by which to judge the killer's alleged skill. Even within the bounds of the Eddowes murder, singling out one or two aspects as evidence of surgical skill, whilst ignoring the crudeness of the rest of her killer's handiwork, is perhaps to miss a rather large elephant in the room.

[Sam Flynn]

That said we might do well to recall Phillips reply to the Coroner at the Chapman inquest....

[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.

Which is very odd - and, I think, instructive - in the context of the Mitre Square murder, where the killer arguably had the least time on his hands yet, if we accept Prosector's argument, he produced the nearest thing to a "textbook" procedure yet seen in the entire series of murders, and the like of which would not be seen again.