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

[drstrange169]

>>That is often misunderstood. Paul pulled the dress FURTHER down - but it was already down beyond the genital area when Lechmere arrived. Or so he claimed, at least.<<


The actual facts,

"Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach."

Robert Paul's testimony Times 18th Sept. 1888

[Pcdunn]

But as to whether or not the general populace had such anatomical knowledge (as I presented it); you truly didn't address.

Hello, Future MD,

I asked a similar question some time ago on another thread. Anatomy would not have been a general subject of study in schools yet, and only medical students would have had access to teachers (and demonstrations of dissections). Anatomy textbooks would have been available in libraries (very tattered and dirty persons were barred from entering them, as the poet Francis Thompson discovered), but poor people might not have been able to purchase them.

That said, people with agricultural experience of farm animals, butchers, hunters, and soldiers would have had varying knowledge of internal organs. Many of these types of people could be found in the city, of course. But overall, knowledge of the inner workings of human beings were reserved for doctors, surgeons, midwives, military medics, and so forth.
Hope this helps!

[Pcdunn]

This physician?

Sounds like Henry Gawen Sutton, perhaps?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gawen_Sutton

Also found a biographical entry on him at the site for the Royal College of Physicians, London Hospital at http://munksroll.rcplondon.ac.uk/Biography/Details/4302

Seems to have been fairly renowned in his lifetime. Very interesting.

[Fisherman]

But i thought Paul is the one who pulled the dress down

That is often misunderstood. Paul pulled the dress FURTHER down - but it was already down beyond the genital area when Lechmere arrived. Or so he claimed, at least. Paul managed to pull the dress further down, but it would not go any further than down to the knees.
The unmistakeable conclusion is that the killer had hidden the wounds - and that, to me, points in Lechmeres direction.

The killer of Tabram, of Chapman, of Eddowes and of Kelly did not bother to hide the wounds - on the contrary, he seemed to take pride in what he had done, if anything.

So if it was the same killer in Bucks Row, why would he hide his work there? Who stood to gain from such a thing?

You tell me...

[Sam Flynn]

The thing I don't get is when Paul and Cross saw Polly, they couldn't even tell she was ripped up because it was so dark. How could the ripper possibly perform the mutilations in these conditions. Was he working by feel, or did he have a light source?

It seems that her killer "merely" deeply slashed Polly's abdomen a few times, Rocky. Doesn't take much illumination to be able to do that.

[RockySullivan]

The darkness was not the reason that Paul could not see the mutilations - they were hidden by the clothes. Even Neil and Llewellyn missed them, though guided by light.
Paul said that the body was perfectly easy to see, so it was not pitch dark. My guess is that the killer used the ambient light there was.

But i thought Paul is the one who pulled the dress down

[Pierre]

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.

Well said.

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

The thing I don't get is when Paul and Cross saw Polly, they couldn't even tell she was ripped up because it was so dark. How could the ripper possibly perform the mutilations in these conditions. Was he working by feel, or did he have a light source?

The darkness was not the reason that Paul could not see the mutilations - they were hidden by the clothes. Even Neil and Llewellyn missed them, though guided by light.
Paul said that the body was perfectly easy to see, so it was not pitch dark. My guess is that the killer used the ambient light there was.

[Observer]

The thing I don't get is when Paul and Cross saw Polly, they couldn't even tell she was ripped up because it was so dark. How could the ripper possibly perform the mutilations in these conditions. Was he working by feel, or did he have a light source?

Hi Rocky

Who's this Ben guy, have you heard of him? In answer to your question, I believe a bit of both, there would have been a small amount of ambient light available, and he also felt his way by touch.

[Observer]

Yes.

Who's this ben guy?

Don't you know? Never heard of him. Bond was spot on by the way.

[RockySullivan]

The thing I don't get is when Paul and Cross saw Polly, they couldn't even tell she was ripped up because it was so dark. How could the ripper possibly perform the mutilations in these conditions. Was he working by feel, or did he have a light source?

[Observer]

I wasn't aware it was possible to enter Mitre Square via 6 Mitre street, that is none of the houses on Mitre Street had a door with access to the square. What did she do jump out the window? More to the point what was she doing visiting 6 Mitre Street? And even more to the point how in the hell can you be certain that Eddowes visited 6 Mitre Street, nothing, and I mean nothing has passed down to us whether it be police reports or newspaper articles which suggest such a thing transpired.

[DJA]

Ehhhh ? Come again, you're talking in riddles. It's a straightforward question, less of the gibberish. Do you believe Doctor Bond to have ben mistaken when he stated that he did not believe the killer to have any ssurgical skills ?

Yes.

Who's this ben guy?

[DJA]

I think Eddowes entered the Square via 6 Mitre Street.

Doubt Lawende saw Jack that morning.

[Observer]

What!
One of us kill these unfortunate women!
That Sir is an insult!

Ehhhh ? Come again, you're talking in riddles. It's a straightforward question, less of the gibberish. Do you believe Doctor Bond to have ben mistaken when he stated that he did not believe the killer to have any ssurgical skills ?