19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Pierre]

Hi,

There are discussions going on here about the anatomical skill of Jack the Ripper, based on the statements of doctor´s at the inquests. But what was "anatomical skill" in 1888?

Historically the concept of "anatomical skill" should be defined differently in the 19th Century compared to how it can be defined today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...y-surgery.html

This must be historically considered when we read about the view of the doctor´s on the "anatomical skill" of the killer in 1888.

My question is: How difficult was it for the killer to reach a level of "anatomical skill" in 1888 - given what "anatomical skill" was in his time?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi,

There are discussions going on here about the anatomical skill of Jack the Ripper, based on the statements of doctor´s at the inquests. But what was "anatomical skill" in 1888?

Historically the concept of "anatomical skill" should be defined differently in the 19th Century compared to how it can be defined today:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...y-surgery.html

This must be historically considered when we read about the view of the doctor´s on the "anatomical skill" of the killer in 1888.

My question is: How difficult was it for the killer to reach a level of "anatomical skill" in 1888 - given what "anatomical skill" was in his time?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Of course there would be differences, unfortunately the newspaper article you quote is mainly based around the 1840's and has little significance to 1888.

It is a sad fact, but many surgical advances have come about as the result of wars, this is particularly true of amputation, wound treatment and basic cutting technique.

The article talks of the 1840's in general, has I have already said, and therefore misses: The Crimean War, The American Civil War and The Franco-Prussian War, all of which contributed to medical knowledge and surgical skills.
It is therefore of little help assessing skill sets in 1888.


However in an attempt to answer your question, it would not be significantly easier to have reached an high level of anatomical skill than today.
The basic skill set would be very similar, how to cut, where to cut, how to stop arterial bleeds etc.
The anatomical knowledge of where organs, muscles and blood vessels were has not changed.

This would all be very true up until the mid/late 20th century.
Great advances in medicine since then mean obviously it would not be the same as present day, with specialist procedures such as transplants, or plastic or micro surgery.

So the answer is it would not have been particularly easy to gain high level of anatomical skill


However the real question is was the killer skilled or not?

The Doctors at inquests were certainly mixed on this, and made comparisons to how long it would have taken them to do similar damage.
Of course these comments were based on a surgeons viewpoint, a butcher would have a very different view and I have seen nothing in the wounds which would point more to a surgeon than a butcher.

Given that we have been discussing both the Whitechapel murders and the Torso murders much recently, let me make a few observations on each.

The Whitechapel murders, with the exception of MJK, could have been done in a few minutes, the doctors estimates are faulty, that is they are comparing how long it would take them, one assumes they are thinking of using the correct procedures, remember that the purpose of human surgery is that the patient survives, that means a very different approach.

For instances I have no doubt what so ever that the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes could have been completed in well under 10 minutes, the injuries are not surgical cuts, they are are done to allow access to the internal organs.

Indeed the witness timings in the Eddowes case would suggest this amount of time(10 minutes) may have been longer than was actually required.

However there is skill shown in the use of the knife, and it does appear that the killer has some knowledge of anatomy. what level, it is impossible to say.

The Torso murders demonstrate skill with a knife, they also show a knowledge of how to remove limbs efficiently.
The degree of actually anatomic knowledge is hard to estimate due to the nature of the bodies, and we should not assume great knowledge of such, although it is indeed probably that the killer did have some.


Just so the answer I gave to the question does not get lost, to achieve a high level of anatomical skill in 1888 would require either study in medicine
or work in a war hospital.

Even a Butcher would require some years of training.

steve

[Trevor Marriott]

For instances I have no doubt what so ever that the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes could have been completed in well under 10 minutes, the injuries are not surgical cuts, they are are done to allow access to the internal organs.

Indeed the witness timings in the Eddowes case would suggest this amount of time(10 minutes) may have been longer than was actually required.

However there is skill shown in the use of the knife, and it does appear that the killer has some knowledge of anatomy. what level, it is impossible to say.

Hi Steve
Did you bother to read post #980 on the Did the killer have anatomical knowledge thread?

If you didnt then might I suggest you take a look, it relates to the time available to the killer, to do all that he is supposed to have done.

With that in mind it is generally accepted that some anatomical knowledge was shown in the removal of the organs.

Again, you may or may not know but I dont believe that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene, the time available to him, and the time it would have taken in my opinion simply dont allow for the removal of Eddowes organs.

So where does the anatomical knowledge emanate from. The answer is quite simple. If the organs were removed by someone with a degree of anatomical knowledge at the mortuary, and taken away before the post mortem was carried out, then that would explain where the degree of anatomical knowledge came from when the post mortems were carried out.

It must also be considered with that theory, that as we know the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes were opened up significantly in the course of the murder, making it easy to access the abdomen and obtain quickly the organs. So did the remover of those organs cause additional cuts to the abdomen in addittion those made by the killer in the course of the mutilations in order to effect quick removal.

This cannot be disproved because no detailed examination of the body was carried out at the crime scene, and we know that the bodies were left for up to 12 hours before the doctors came back to do the post mortems.

In the case of Chapman her body was left outside on a trolley !!!!!!

I also accept that this cannot also be proved, but it is nevertheless something to be considered, but again as has been the case before on many occasions those diehards on here who foolishly want to accept without question all the old accepted theories will again dismiss it out right.

Dismiss it they may but it will not go away

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

My question is: How difficult was it for the killer to reach a level of "anatomical skill" in 1888 - given what "anatomical skill" was in his time?

Regards, Pierre

That is a very good question, and I think that link alone shows that surgical skill is - was - far more sophisticated than many people would imagine, and a far more exact science than they imagine. Even back in ancient times, surgery was far more precise than they give credit for. And that link only goes as far as the mid-1800s.

And no, the precision required in those operations were not remotely to be seen in Jack's work.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
Did you bother to read post #980 on the Did the killer have anatomical knowledge thread?

If you didnt then might I suggest you take a look, it relates to the time available to the killer, to do all that he is supposed to have done.

With that in mind it is generally accepted that some anatomical knowledge was shown in the removal of the organs.

Again, you may or may not know but I dont believe that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene, the time available to him, and the time it would have taken in my opinion simply dont allow for the removal of Eddowes organs.

So where does the anatomical knowledge emanate from. The answer is quite simple. If the organs were removed by someone with a degree of anatomical knowledge at the mortuary, and taken away before the post mortem was carried out, then that would explain where the degree of anatomical knowledge came from when the post mortems were carried out.

It must also be considered with that theory, that as we know the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes were opened up significantly in the course of the murder, making it easy to access the abdomen and obtain quickly the organs. So did the remover of those organs cause additional cuts to the abdomen in addittion those made by the killer in the course of the mutilations in order to effect quick removal.

This cannot be disproved because no detailed examination of the body was carried out at the crime scene, and we know that the bodies were left for up to 12 hours before the doctors came back to do the post mortems.

In the case of Chapman her body was left outside on a trolley !!!!!!

I also accept that this cannot also be proved, but it is nevertheless something to be considered, but again as has been the case before on many occasions those diehards on here who foolishly want to accept without question all the old accepted theories will again dismiss it out right.

Dismiss it they may but it will not go away

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dear Trevor,


Firstly I have read your post on the timings, I personally prefer the timings of Gavin Bromley, we all have different views.

No one can be certain of exact timings.
I personally do not accept the timings you give, nor the conclusions you draw, however I have no intention of getting into a heated debate on this.


I do not argue that there was no anatomical knowledge, I said there was, but the degree to which is unknown.

As for how long it would take to remove organs, I prefer to base my assessment on my own experiences in organ removal and dissection, not in humans I will add, but the principles are the same, and the cuts required are the same.
In addition, to remove the organs does not require the skill of a surgeon, it does require a knowledge of the position of the organs, and a familiarity with using a knife.

And using that experience, I can say 100% that those injuries could be carried out in the time frame, even the one you use in post 890, there is no need for any elaborate theories to account for the organ removal.

I am sure we will not agree on this.

Regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

That is a very good question, and I think that link alone shows that surgical skill is - was - far more sophisticated than many people would imagine, and a far more exact science than they imagine. Even back in ancient times, surgery was far more precise than they give credit for. And that link only goes as far as the mid-1800s.

And no, the precision required in those operations were not remotely to be seen in Jack's work.

Karl

That is a very good answer, far more concise than mine.

I agree with your final comment, all i would add is that the killer had skill in using a knife.

regards


steve

[Errata]

Karl

That is a very good answer, far more concise than mine.

I agree with your final comment, all i would add is that the killer had skill in using a knife.

regards


steve

I would also point out that skill with a scalpel does not translate into skill with a hunting knife or dagger any more than the ability to use a pencil means you can use chopsticks efficiently. Different muscles, different skills, just different.

[DJA]

The knife that Phillips described in the Chapman murder was no scalpel.

[caz]

Was it a coincidence that the killer of Eddowes (and Chapman?) appeared to use the post-mortem procedure of not cutting through the tough area of the navel, but skirting round it, to allow for the sewing up afterwards? I don't suppose anyone solely involved with butchering animals, and who merely wanted fast access to the innards of his human victims, would have known or ever needed this technique, unlike, say, a dissecting room student or observer who had seen it being done routinely and may have reproduced it automatically, almost without thinking.

Could it be a clue of some sort, to the kind of person who did this?

Posters named Trevor Marriott need not respond, for obvious reasons. (Hi Trev )

Love,

Caz
X

[Karl]

Was it a coincidence that the killer of Eddowes (and Chapman?) appeared to use the post-mortem procedure of not cutting through the tough area of the navel, but skirting round it, to allow for the sewing up afterwards? I don't suppose anyone solely involved with butchering animals, and who merely wanted fast access to the innards of his human victims, would have known or ever needed this technique, unlike, say, a dissecting room student or observer who had seen it being done routinely and may have reproduced it automatically, almost without thinking.

Cutting round the navel is easier than cutting through it - tough is tough, whether you have an expensive education or not. It might not even have been intentional, but simply a case of the knife cutting along a path of least resistance.

[Errata]

The knife that Phillips described in the Chapman murder was no scalpel.

No it was not. My dad was a surgical OB/GYN, so if anyone was going to pull this off, one could easily argue it would be someone like my dad.

But watching him carve a turkey pretty much blows that out of the water. It looks like the carcass got mauled by a bear rather that surgical precision, provoking cries of "Oh, The humanity!". The man can't use a large knife to save his life. I took over from the surgeon when I was 20.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385257]Pierre,

Of course there would be differences, unfortunately the newspaper article you quote is mainly based around the 1840's and has little significance to 1888.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your discussion, it is great to read it. I know that you are qualified to make relevant points on this matter.

Therefore i also have some questions.

What differences do you know of, that would exist between the techniques of surgeons in 1888 and those of the killer?

It is a sad fact, but many surgical advances have come about as the result of wars, this is particularly true of amputation, wound treatment and basic cutting technique.

The article talks of the 1840's in general, has I have already said, and therefore misses: The Crimean War, The American Civil War and The Franco-Prussian War, all of which contributed to medical knowledge and surgical skills.
It is therefore of little help assessing skill sets in 1888.

However in an attempt to answer your question, it would not be significantly easier to have reached an high level of anatomical skill than today.
The basic skill set would be very similar, how to cut, where to cut, how to stop arterial bleeds etc.
The anatomical knowledge of where organs, muscles and blood vessels were has not changed.

So analysing the cuts of Jack the Ripper, would Jack the Ripper have been a candidate for a position as a surgeon in 1888 - given that you think he possessed the same "basic skill set" as the surgeons?

Could they have given him a position as a surgeon from the "skills" he had? I do not postulate that they did! But could they have done so and that would have worked just as good as any surgeon?

This would all be very true up until the mid/late 20th century.
Great advances in medicine since then mean obviously it would not be the same as present day, with specialist procedures such as transplants, or plastic or micro surgery.

So the answer is it would not have been particularly easy to gain high level of anatomical skill

However the real question is was the killer skilled or not?

The Doctors at inquests were certainly mixed on this, and made comparisons to how long it would have taken them to do similar damage.
Of course these comments were based on a surgeons viewpoint, a butcher would have a very different view and I have seen nothing in the wounds which would point more to a surgeon than a butcher.

Given that we have been discussing both the Whitechapel murders and the Torso murders much recently, let me make a few observations on each.

The Whitechapel murders, with the exception of MJK, could have been done in a few minutes, the doctors estimates are faulty, that is they are comparing how long it would take them, one assumes they are thinking of using the correct procedures, remember that the purpose of human surgery is that the patient survives, that means a very different approach.

For instances I have no doubt what so ever that the injuries to Chapman and Eddowes could have been completed in well under 10 minutes,

the injuries are not surgical cuts,

Do you mean that they were not surgical cuts compared to surgical cuts in 1888?

they are are done to allow access to the internal organs.

Indeed the witness timings in the Eddowes case would suggest this amount of time(10 minutes) may have been longer than was actually required.

However there is skill shown in the use of the knife, and it does appear that the killer has some knowledge of anatomy.

what level, it is impossible to say.

So you mean that it is impossible to analyse the level of the skill. Why? What are the historical problems with doing so?

The Torso murders demonstrate skill with a knife, they also show a knowledge of how to remove limbs efficiently.

What are the minimum criteria for performing the removing of the limbs "efficiently" would you say?

What types of knowledge and how many times must one have done it before?

Is it possible to learn to do it at once, by trial an error?

Could cutting up animals have been sufficient?

The degree of actually anatomic knowledge is hard to estimate due to the nature of the bodies, and we should not assume great knowledge of such, although it is indeed probably that the killer did have some.

This is interesting. You say we should not assume "great knowledge" and you say "some". Since you say that, what exactly do you draw it from? What do you think are the indications for those concepts?

Where would you draw the line for his knowledge?

What sort of knowledge is a minimum criteria?

Do you think he had a specific technique - or something that was equal in the way he performed the mutilations?

Just so the answer I gave to the question does not get lost, to achieve a high level of anatomical skill in 1888 would require either study in medicine
or work in a war hospital.

Absolutely. And what is it in the way of cutting that makes it clear to you, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he did not study medicine and/or work in a war hospital?

Even a Butcher would require some years of training.

That is certainly correct. Do you think the cuts and mutilations he did required "years of training"? Or not? What would it require, what would have been the absolute minimum criteria? The minimum criteria that makes it possible to do what he did to the C-5? And to the torso cases - is there a difference in that criteria?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Steve
Did you bother to read post #980 on the Did the killer have anatomical knowledge thread?

If you didnt then might I suggest you take a look, it relates to the time available to the killer, to do all that he is supposed to have done.

With that in mind it is generally accepted that some anatomical knowledge was shown in the removal of the organs.

Again, you may or may not know but I dont believe that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene, the time available to him, and the time it would have taken in my opinion simply dont allow for the removal of Eddowes organs.

So where does the anatomical knowledge emanate from. The answer is quite simple. If the organs were removed by someone with a degree of anatomical knowledge at the mortuary, and taken away before the post mortem was carried out, then that would explain where the degree of anatomical knowledge came from when the post mortems were carried out.

It must also be considered with that theory, that as we know the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes were opened up significantly in the course of the murder, making it easy to access the abdomen and obtain quickly the organs. So did the remover of those organs cause additional cuts to the abdomen in addittion those made by the killer in the course of the mutilations in order to effect quick removal.

This cannot be disproved because no detailed examination of the body was carried out at the crime scene, and we know that the bodies were left for up to 12 hours before the doctors came back to do the post mortems.

In the case of Chapman her body was left outside on a trolley !!!!!!

I also accept that this cannot also be proved, but it is nevertheless something to be considered, but again as has been the case before on many occasions those diehards on here who foolishly want to accept without question all the old accepted theories will again dismiss it out right.

Dismiss it they may but it will not go away

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I think your hypothesis is interesting. But the problem as I see it is the mutilations performed on Kelly. What is your view on that?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

My questions for Trevor would be:

1. Why did someone remove the organs of Chapman and Eddowes at two different mortuaries?

And, most importantly:

2. Why did they apparently only do this for two women in September 1888 as opposed to every other body that appeared at these mortuaries over a longer period of time?

Or perhaps Trevor is saying there is evidence of organs being removed from other bodies held in these mortuaries?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I think your hypothesis is interesting. But the problem as I see it is the mutilations performed on Kelly. What is your view on that?

Regards, Pierre

The simple answer could be that Kelly was not killed by the same hand as others !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk