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

[Karl]

I offered the suggestion from a perspective of the need for different instruments depending on what organ was being removed. But of course, this is to conduct an operation where the patient is expected to live, so perhaps 'Jack' was not being so choosy.

Not just where the patient is expected to live - the same instruments are used for the same purpose in pathology as well.

Ok, but I do not recall reading any doctors opinion on that score, so I'm not sure of your source.

I am not a medical man myself, but I do have sources close at hand. I have both friends and family, as well as colleagues, in the medical profession either as MDs or nurses, from two different hospitals. Owing mostly to my choir singing hobby, as these professions are strangely over-represented in the two choirs I attend. And it also doesn't hurt that my fiancé is also a medical doctor. These make good sources for me, but naturally I accept that they are no more than hear-say to you. And naturally Jack the Ripper isn't something which comes up a lot in conversation, but I do become entangled in shop talk quite a bit.

I did, however, find one old thread where a certain Doctor X (no longer active on these forums) strikes me as having a medical background, and not just because of his name:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=403

That aside, if what you say is true, perhaps 'Jack' was a failed medical student, or an imposter - one who likes to think himself a surgeon.

Perhaps - or perhaps he saw himself as a hunter, or indeed a butcher. I see Jack the Ripper as someone who truly hated his victims, and that being the case he is motivated by a desire to damage his victims - not to play doctor or coroner.

I don't recall reading that myself.
I could name two or three doctors at the time who made remarks that could be interpreted as acknowledging a 'skilled hand at work', or something along those lines, but I wouldn't say there was a consensus.
The rigid class society being what it was I suspect most skilled surgeons would publicly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that 'one of their class' was responsible - the embarrassment, an outrage.

It may well be true that if a doctor recognised a doctor's skill in JtR's work, that he might keep this opinion to himself, for the reasons you mention. But without his confessing as much, either to another person or a diary, we cannot conclude that such was the case.

[Wickerman]

That's another thing: why wouldn't he be having the proper instruments with him, if he was associated with the surgical profession

I offered the suggestion from a perspective of the need for different instruments depending on what organ was being removed. But of course, this is to conduct an operation where the patient is expected to live, so perhaps 'Jack' was not being so choosy.

Just to make it clear, I am not advocating 'Jack' was a surgeon, though I do believe he had some medical experience along those lines.

When you operate, you have a plan in mind. Every incision counts and has a specific purpose. None of the corpses show signs of a surgeon's deliberation, but every sign of a killer mutilating corpses. No more, no less.

Ok, but I do not recall reading any doctors opinion on that score, so I'm not sure of your source.
That aside, if what you say is true, perhaps 'Jack' was a failed medical student, or an imposter - one who likes to think himself a surgeon.

So where does the claim that most doctors feel the killer had surgical experience come from?

I don't recall reading that myself.
I could name two or three doctors at the time who made remarks that could be interpreted as acknowledging a 'skilled hand at work', or something along those lines, but I wouldn't say there was a consensus.
The rigid class society being what it was I suspect most skilled surgeons would publicly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that 'one of their class' was responsible - the embarrassment, an outrage.

[Karl]

Simply because he is not operating in daylight, in an operating room with assistants, his instruments, and all the time he needs.

That's another thing: why wouldn't he be having the proper instruments with him, if he was associated with the surgical profession

But that assumes the kidney was the first organ targeted, it may not have been. Plus taking the kidney may have been an afterthought.

When you operate, you have a plan in mind. Every incision counts and has a specific purpose. None of the corpses show signs of a surgeon's deliberation, but every sign of a killer mutilating corpses. No more, no less.

Never thought it necessary.

So where does the claim that most doctors feel the killer had surgical experience come from?

[Wickerman]

Ok, then, "some". Why would there be any, if he knew what he was doing?

Simply because he is not operating in daylight, in an operating room with assistants, his instruments, and all the time he needs.

I was rather thinking he extract the kidney from the back/side before he cut her front open.

But that assumes the kidney was the first organ targeted, it may not have been. Plus taking the kidney may have been an afterthought.

Have you kept track of any statistics to that effect?

Never thought it necessary.

[Karl]

Would you care to quote precisely from the court record. I don't recall reading anything towards that end. What I did read was that (the intestines over the shoulder)..."were smeared with some feculent matter".

"some"?

Ok, then, "some". Why would there be any, if he knew what he was doing?

The kidney sits within a fatty membrane, "left kidney carefully taken out and removed" may refer to the kidney taken out of the fatty membrane while still attached to the body.

That is probably it, but when you have to dig through the intestines to get to it, I would not consider that a "careful" process.

Once you have the corpse on her back with her intestines out, the kidney is right there, but you think the killer should have rolled her over on her front, spilling the abdominal contents out all over the place, then proceed to cut through all her clothing to access the kidney through her back?

That sounds like a great deal of work, time, and mess, when all he needs to do is reach into her abdomen for the kidney.

I was rather thinking he extract the kidney from the back/side before he cut her front open.

Yes, some agree with Prosector and some disagree, though Prosector was a surgeon who taught surgery - those who disagreed with him are typically layperson's as far as surgical experience goes.
So it is hard to quantify the value of their disagreement.

Have you kept track of any statistics to that effect? Because immediately I am reminded of this thread, in which Doctor X explains why the kidney can be hard to locate (which made it seem impressive to Dr. Brown), but where he disagrees that this was the work of someone with a background in medicine. I do not know enough about Doctor X to say whether he is a doctor or not, but from his posts he strikes me as more than just a lay person.

[Wickerman]

Except there were loads of feces in the abdominal cavity.

Would you care to quote precisely from the court record. I don't recall reading anything towards that end. What I did read was that (the intestines over the shoulder)..."were smeared with some feculent matter".

"some"?

What was careful about it? The killer had to cut loose the intestines and pull them out in order to get to it. Had the kidney been surgically extracted, he would have gone in through her back or side, rather than her front.

The kidney sits within a fatty membrane, "left kidney carefully taken out and removed" may refer to the kidney taken out of the fatty membrane while still attached to the body.

Once you have the corpse on her back with her intestines out, the kidney is right there, but you think the killer should have rolled her over on her front, spilling the abdominal contents out all over the place, then proceed to cut through all her clothing to access the kidney through her back?

That sounds like a great deal of work, time, and mess, when all he needs to do is reach into her abdomen for the kidney.

Dr. Brown is describing lefts and rights from her perspective -

It is always the convention to speak from the point of view of the body - her left/right.

I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion, myself.

Yes, some agree with Prosector and some disagree, though Prosector was a surgeon who taught surgery - those who disagreed with him are typically layperson's as far as surgical experience goes.
So it is hard to quantify the value of their disagreement.

[Pierre]

Hello Karl.

Any thoughts on why he changed his technique from Chapman to Eddowes regarding how he opened her abdomen? With Chapman, he portioned her belly into 4 pieces (I believe). With Eddowes, he bisects her abdomen down the middle, skirting her navel to the left.

Hi Robert,

Murdering and mutilating people is not a frequent event in a person´s life. It is not like driving a car, which you do every day, and it is not like being a butcher, cutting pieces of meat several times every day, every week and perhaps a whole working life.

Murdering and mutilating people may occur 5 times in the life of a serial killer. It is nothing they get paid for, there is no school were you can learn it and no criteria for being a better or worse serial killer, performing better or worse cuts or mutilations.

Considering all of this, there is the risk of over interpreting the historical sources and trying to define the perfect signature of the killer. There may not have been a perfect signature on a micro level, where all the details fits the model of a specific practice or where all the details can be explained by knowledge or motive.

Regards, Pierre

[Karl]

Hello Karl.

Any thoughts on why he changed his technique from Chapman to Eddowes regarding how he opened her abdomen? With Chapman, he portioned her belly into 4 pieces (I believe). With Eddowes, he bisects her abdomen down the middle, skirting her navel to the left.

I'd say he was simply learning his craft. With Chapman, he had no idea what he was doing. With Eddowes, he would have had some experience... and also he must have heard talk among people about how Chapman was cut up - perhaps with people adding their own thoughts as to how well he compared with a butcher, hunter, surgeon, etc. And someone could easily have opined that, "no, a butcher would have cut her up lengthwise because such-and-such".

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Karl.

Any thoughts on why he changed his technique from Chapman to Eddowes regarding how he opened her abdomen? With Chapman, he portioned her belly into 4 pieces (I believe). With Eddowes, he bisects her abdomen down the middle, skirting her navel to the left.

Hi
Part of my post in reply to questions asked of me on another thread I am glad to see you are on the ball

"modern day medical experts who have reviewed the post mortem reports on both victims note that two different methods were used to access the abdomens, so that suggests that if it had been the same remover then the same method of removal would be evident in both cases.. So we have two different victims, two different removers of organs from two different mortuaries. Sound like a perfect match to me, and not one killer who removed the organs from both"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

Hello Karl.

Any thoughts on why he changed his technique from Chapman to Eddowes regarding how he opened her abdomen? With Chapman, he portioned her belly into 4 pieces (I believe). With Eddowes, he bisects her abdomen down the middle, skirting her navel to the left.

[Karl]

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.

Except there were loads of feces in the abdominal cavity. And as a medical procedure, it had only just been developed in Germany. It was first recorded used in Scotland in 1910, independently of Sonnenburg who was possibly the first to use it, but who never published this technique. But to quote my fiancé, who happens to be a medical doctor:

"But dear me, there are numerous reasons that could have happened naturally, why would anyone assume it was done intentionally in that particular case?"

And indeed, no one did. Most likely, this was a medical condition of Eddowes', rather than something that was actually done to her.

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.

What was careful about it? The killer had to cut loose the intestines and pull them out in order to get to it. Had the kidney been surgically extracted, he would have gone in through her back or side, rather than her front.

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.

Why on earth not? If anything, I'd say the opposite is true. Removing the kidney the way the Ripper did is precisely what I would have done, lacking expertise.

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.

Not only is the navel harder to sew, it is also considerably harder to cut. Cutting around it is something the killer would do, as a matter of instinct. The deviation around the navel in a post mortem can be done on either side, by the way. In this case it was on the left (her right), and seems rather erratic:

"The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum."

That's from the autopsy report. Judging by the photo of the stitched up Eddowes, Dr. Brown is describing lefts and rights from her perspective - although the navel area is a bit difficult to judge, based on his description. At any rate, nothing to indicate a surgeon's deliberation. Seems like he met some resistence as he got to the navel and changed direction.

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

I arrived at the exact opposite conclusion, myself. Other clues to indicate medical incompetence: feces in the abdominal cavity, the uterus was cut through horizontally and removed, along with some of the ligaments, and leaving behind a 3/4 inch stump of the uterus. Liver and pancreas had both been damaged by incidental cuts, and the liver had also been stabbed. The anterior wall of the abdominal aeorta had been cut.

I know Dr. Brown attributed to the killer "a great deal of medical knowledge", but he thought it required "a great deal of medical knowledge" just to know where the kidney was located, and that just strikes me as odd. Of course, it wasn't until the late 1800s that kidney punches started to be banned in boxing, so who knows. But I do not think a mere knowledge of the location of the kidneys should not be considered exceptional.

[Jeff Leahy]

And apparently the ability to hypnotize his victims because there is no evidence of her fighting or attempting to flee. No broken nails, no torn hair, no claw marks at her throat, no scrapes on the ground. Nothing.

That's how strange this is. Not just that it happened, not just the way it apparently happened, but how easily it happened. Like she was unconscious, or hypnotized, or a willing participant. And not just Stride. All of them.

Sure Bigfoot. Or aliens. It can't be stranger than 5 different women apparently shutting off their survival skills.

Yes it appears Strange.... People like Lynn and I have tried to re-inact what happened and its strange

The only possible conclusion as far as I'[m concerned was an extreme amount for violence that left the victim totally over welmed...without time to react.

What ever happened to Stride happened in a time frame we cant 'realise' or 'understand'..... ever been in a car crash? slow motion in factions of a second

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

Thats not actually true. The evidence suggests something rather stranger.
.....

So if this man was Strides killer its possible he was disturbed by both Schwartz and the man with a pipe (Possibly the man seen by Brown)

The two men Schwartz and Pipeman then run off... but for all the BSM knows is they have gone for the police...

So he either drags her or carries her a couple of steps into the darkness cuts her throat (once) and leaves as quickly as possible taking less than one or two seconds to do so....and walks back down Berner street passed Fanny's door..

None of which requires any great medical expertise, simply a sharpe knife a lot of strength and a cool or psychotic mind set.

And apparently the ability to hypnotize his victims because there is no evidence of her fighting or attempting to flee. No broken nails, no torn hair, no claw marks at her throat, no scrapes on the ground. Nothing.

That's how strange this is. Not just that it happened, not just the way it apparently happened, but how easily it happened. Like she was unconscious, or hypnotized, or a willing participant. And not just Stride. All of them.

Sure Bigfoot. Or aliens. It can't be stranger than 5 different women apparently shutting off their survival skills.

[Jeff Leahy]

You seem to believe that an interruption could not be detected if it existed, and that's patently incorrect. An interruption at the very second he was preparing to move to his next activity would still be visible in some form...manipulation of the clothing, change of body position after that single cut, which is critical here...she wasn't moved a hair...evidence of a hasty departure in the form of witness accounts, (Fanny Mortimer was at her door continuously from 12:50 until 1am and she saw no-one, including Louis's arrival supposedly at 1am)....etc.

Again, for the umpteenth time, there is as much evidence that Liz Stride was killed by Bigfoot as there is for an interruption.

Thats not actually true. The evidence suggests something rather stranger.

Schwartz turns into Berner street from commercial road...and sees a man walking ahead of him (as if drunk) Schwartz view is from the rear and the man in front...

According to Schwartz the man stopped when he reached Dutfirld yard and was in conversation with a woman (probably Stride)

They appear to have argued. The man grabbed the woman and throw her to the ground. Schwartz crossed the road trying to avoid the situation.

The man turned and shouted 'Lipski' and another man appeared,, position unknown...

So if this man was Strides killer its possible he was disturbed by both Schwartz and the man with a pipe (Possibly the man seen by Brown)

The two men Schwartz and Pipeman then run off... but for all the BSM knows is they have gone for the police...

So he either drags her or carries her a couple of steps into the darkness cuts her throat (once) and leaves as quickly as possible taking less than one or two seconds to do so....and walks back down Berner street passed Fanny's door..

None of which requires any great medical expertise, simply a sharpe knife a lot of strength and a cool or psychotic mind set.

But there certainly is more evidence that the killer was disturbed than the killer was Big Foot, as we have Swansons Home Office report giving what Schwartz claimed to have seen Stride attacked at 12.45

Yours Jeff

PS as Schwartz crossed the road he would reach a position 180 degrees looking into Outfield yard alleyway.... So it might be difficult to determine whether BSM and Stride were on the pavement or had moved position further into the yard? If the BSM man was further inside the Ally way then it would better explain the position of the body being strangled and lowered to the ground but also question how good a view Schwartz would have of the mans face, the Ally being dark.... So perhaps Schwartz only ever had a rear view of the killer? Which is why he wouldn't have been able to identify the killer...just a thought

[Wickerman]

"Gently laid down" is consistent with strangulation while standing, the body going limp, and quietly laid down.
Not thrown down, not consistent with a struggle, she had no opportunity to fight back.
If so, this is more consistent with another assailant other than the violent staggering drunk known as BS-man.