19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Pierre]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor. Another question if you donīt mind. Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Trevor,

I have read your response carefully but I am having difficulty in finding the answers to my two questions.

Certainly the first question has not been answered.

If it helps, forget about the different mortuaries, can you just answer this simple question for me:

Q1. Why did some person or persons remove organs from the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes?

I don't care if it was done under the Anatomy Act or not. Why did they do it?

Q2. As for my second question, the other examples you mention only make sense if the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed "lawfully, and under the anatomy act" by "bona fide persons". So are you saying that the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed lawfully under the Anatomy Act? If so, who would have authorised this? If not, why do you mention such removals?

And if the organs were not removed lawfully under the Anatomy Act am I right in thinking that the organ removals in the case of Chapman and Eddowes are the only two examples of unlawful organ removals from mortuaries of which you are aware or believe you are aware?

[DJA]

Trevor prolly needs to acquaint himself with the Anatomy Act 1832.

[Karl]

Mr. Marriott, your quoting methodology leaves a lot to be desired. I have to resort to a bit of copying and pasting to get the quotes a-right:

Perhaps he only wanted one and a uterus !

If he had need of a kidney, why wouldn't he take both when he had the opportunity? But the uterus was certainly not extracted by a professional by any stretch of the imagination. The cervix remained in the body, 3/4 of an inch's worth.

The remover could have gone there with a lawful intent but saw the opportunity to save the money he would need to pay for organs when the opportunity presented itself to take the organs without anyone knowing and without making payment.

And that's an argument to get both kidneys rather than just the one. But I don't know how the quoted text above relates to the position in my post in which you placed it.

So why was Dr Brown concerned enough to ask an expert on female anatomy to carry out an experiment to see how quick it would take him to remove a uterus, note Dr Brown didnt attempt this himself.

Do you have a link to this experiment, and Dr. Brown's conclusions from it?

The doctors were in conflict with each other so you take your pick on which one you decide to accept, bearing in mind we know that victorian doctors were in the habit giving opinions based on guesswork and people believed what they said------- A bit like today on here !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The doctors statements on the time the killer would have had is open to interpretation as to whether they referred to the murder, and the mutilations, or to include the removal of the organs in that statement.

Agreed.

There wasnt the time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done in the Eddowes murder.

But what do you base this on? If, as you said, the doctors' statements on the time the killer would have had is open to interpretation?

[caz]

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.

You may be right, Karl. But the degree of toughness surely depends on the tool employed and it has been said before on these boards that the knife used on the victims would easily have been sharp enough to slice in a straight line right through the navel and was therefore guided round it by the killer's hand. In short, what was very tough for the needle was not likely to give the blade any resistance.

Not sure where an expensive education comes into this. I believe anyone could observe the dissecting room procedures for a modest fee, and I doubt the killer was a fully qualified medical man or surgeon.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

You're flogging a dead horse, Trevor, and putting the cart before it. The victims' abdomens were mutilated for the express purpose of gaining access to the internal organs. But of course, when Mary Kelly's killer ripped her out innards, that's because it was a different murderer this time. Well... isn't that convenient?

Be that as it may, you believe what you want to believe. The old accepted theory is there to be proved or disproved. In the light of what is now known I see little evidence to prop up that old theory.

You need to take the blinkers off !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Interesting points, but certain questions remain unanswered: why was Catherine Eddowes missing just the one kidney? Why not the other one as well?

Perhaps he only wanted one and a uterus !

If it was done by bona fide personell who acted lawfully, they would not have abandoned the second kidney for fear of getting caught. And if they were noticed and told, "oy, lay off that one, we're doing a post mortem on it in a bit", then that would explain why only one kidney was removed - but then the removal of that kidney would have been known and Mr. Brown might have noted this in his PM:

The remover could have gone there with a lawful intent but saw the opportunity to save the money he would need to pay for organs when the opportunity presented itself to take the organs without anyone knowing and without making payment.

Not forgetting the bodies were left for 12 hours


"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose."

Also, Dr. Brown did not say the killer did not have sufficient time, but the exact opposite:

"I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes."

So why was Dr Brown concerned enough to ask an expert on female anatomy to carry out an experiment to see how quick it would take him to remove a uterus, note Dr Brown didnt attempt this himself.

The doctors were in conflict with each other so you take your pick on which one you decide to accept, bearing in mind we know that victorian doctors were in the habit giving opinions based on guesswork and people believed what they said------- A bit like today on here !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The doctors statements on the time the killer would have had is open to interpretation as to whether they referred to the murder, and the mutilations, or to include the removal of the organs in that statement.

There wasnt the time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done in the Eddowes murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

You're flogging a dead horse, Trevor, and putting the cart before it. The victims' abdomens were mutilated for the express purpose of gaining access to the internal organs. But of course, when Mary Kelly's killer ripped her out innards, that's because it was a different murderer this time. Well... isn't that convenient?

[Karl]

There is plenty of evidence of organs being removed from dead people at mortuaries but lawfully, and under the anatomy act, which gave licence for bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and obtain not only body parts, but in some case bodies themselves. It was noted that each morning there was a stream of bona fide personnel seeking out the aforementioned body parts and bodies at the various mortuaries.

As to your question regarding Chapman and Eddowes. Firstly 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.

I am not going to comment on every other body that was sent to a mortuary simply because they are of no relevance to the matter in hand and most bodies are likely to be covered by the anatomy act.

As you aware none of the other Whitechapel Victims had organs removed and this was not proven until the post mortems, so you may ask why did they have none removed and only Chapman and Eddowes.

The answer again is simple. If the killer only intended to kill and mutilate his victims with no design on the removal of organs, and if the organs were taken away at the mortuary in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes then the lack of ripped open abdomens in the cases of the others would prevent this because any tampering would have been discovered at the point of post mortem, whereas with Eddowes and Chapman a cursory examination at the crime scenes showed both abdomens had been ripped open, so any tampering of the abdomens would be difficult to spot.

Finally the witness timings relative to the Eddowes murder coupled with the experiment of the removal of a uterus by Dr Browns expert suggest that the killer would not have had sufficient time to remove those organs.

I am fully aware that this theory cannot be conclusively proven. But the old accepted theory of the killer removing these organs does not stand up to close scrutiny at all now.

So there has to be another plausible explanation I am sure even you must agree on that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Interesting points, but certain questions remain unanswered: why was Catherine Eddowes missing just the one kidney? Why not the other one as well? If it was done by bona fide personell who acted lawfully, they would not have abandoned the second kidney for fear of getting caught. And if they were noticed and told, "oy, lay off that one, we're doing a post mortem on it in a bit", then that would explain why only one kidney was removed - but then the removal of that kidney would have been known and Mr. Brown might have noted this in his PM:

"Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids. Left kidney could not be examined because some cheeky bastard made off with it before the PM."

Dr. Brown did not write that, however, nor does it seem like he allowed for that possibility. Something I think he would have if it was as common or likely as all that. Instead, he shows no doubt whatsoever in attributing the missing kidney to the killer:

"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose."

Also, Dr. Brown did not say the killer did not have sufficient time, but the exact opposite:

"I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes."

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

There is plenty of evidence of organs being removed from dead people at mortuaries but lawfully, and under the anatomy act, which gave licence for bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and obtain not only body parts, but in some case bodies themselves. It was noted that each morning there was a stream of bona fide personnel seeking out the aforementioned body parts and bodies at the various mortuaries.

As to your question regarding Chapman and Eddowes. Firstly 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.

I am not going to comment on every other body that was sent to a mortuary simply because they are of no relevance to the matter in hand and most bodies are likely to be covered by the anatomy act.

As you aware none of the other Whitechapel Victims had organs removed and this was not proven until the post mortems, so you may ask why did they have none removed and only Chapman and Eddowes.

The answer again is simple. If the killer only intended to kill and mutilate his victims with no design on the removal of organs, and if the organs were taken away at the mortuary in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes then the lack of ripped open abdomens in the cases of the others would prevent this because any tampering would have been discovered at the point of post mortem, whereas with Eddowes and Chapman a cursory examination at the crime scenes showed both abdomens had been ripped open, so any tampering of the abdomens would be difficult to spot.

Finally the witness timings relative to the Eddowes murder coupled with the experiment of the removal of a uterus by Dr Browns expert suggest that the killer would not have had sufficient time to remove those organs.

I am fully aware that this theory cannot be conclusively proven. But the old accepted theory of the killer removing these organs does not stand up to close scrutiny at all now.

So there has to be another plausible explanation I am sure even you must agree on that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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 !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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?

[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

[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

[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.