19th Century "anatomical skill"

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Trevor, All. If one wishes to argue that Kate's kidney were removed by a trained medical person post mortem, one needs do little to convince me. After all, it was removed "carefully" in contrast to the hack and mangle job performed on the rest of Kate.

However, the uteri are a very different story. Annie's done with skillful mutilations; Kate's, unskillful.

Why are both sides in the argument insisting on "all or none"?

Cheers.
LC

Yes but there was a stark sea change because the medical establishment didn't like the implication that the killer could be a member of their community. So, although early on, the idea was bandied about that the murderer had surgical skill and anatomical knowledge, later it was stated that the perpetrator had no medical skills whatsoever.

As an example of the later view, Dr. Thomas Bond stated in his report of 10 November 1888 assessing the five canonical murders --

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals."

Best regards

Chris

(Home Office file A49301/21, dated stamped 13 November 1888)

[lynn cates]

first impressions

Hello Chris. Thanks.

Indeed. But the good Dr. Bond saw ONLY "MJK" and none of the rest. Baxter (although much maligned) had actually seen BOTH Polly and Annie. And Dr. Phillips had seen Annie and Kate, so could compare.

In my mind, Baxter's remarks at the inquest for Liz are still definitive. And, of course, it jibes with the snippet Howard Brown posted a couple years back--it dismissed Kate as by a different hand.

Sometimes, our first impressions are most reliable. Just ask Wordsworth--heh-heh.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Yes but there was a stark sea change because the medical establishment didn't like the implication that the killer could be a member of their community. So, although early on, the idea was bandied about that the murderer had surgical skill and anatomical knowledge, later it was stated that the perpetrator had no medical skills whatsoever.

As an example of the later view, Dr. Thomas Bond stated in his report of 10 November 1888 assessing the five canonical murders --

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals."

Best regards

Chris

(Home Office file A49301/21, dated stamped 13 November 1888)

Indeed and astute observation Chris!
Ive often said, Ithink theres a good chance the medicos wanted to distance themselves and there profession from that of a killer!

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor, All. If one wishes to argue that Kate's kidney were removed by a trained medical person post mortem, one needs do little to convince me. After all, it was removed "carefully" in contrast to the hack and mangle job performed on the rest of Kate.

However, the uteri are a very different story. Annie's done with skillful mutilations; Kate's, unskillful.

Why are both sides in the argument insisting on "all or none"?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Another medical comment which is of great interest which would appear to have come from Dr Brown which appeared in The Star, Oct 1st

Q “How long would it have taken him to "mutilate" the body as you found it?”

A “At least five minutes.”

I suggest this interview could have taken place before the post mortem as he makes no mention of any removals, or gives any hint of removals, he simply answers a direct question with a direct answer.

In support of that the Star also carried a sub heading which read "NO PART OF THE BODY WAS MISSING" So again we must assume Brown was interviewed before the post mortem, because the organs were not found to be missing until then.

So we get back to the 5 mins which is suggested by some to be ample time to carry out all that he is supposed to have done fact or fiction ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

how long

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I can agree about the kidney; however, the uterus was little more than hacked out, so should not take long.

Cheers.
LC

[Elamarna]

Dear Trevor

it can take 3 mins or 5 or up to 7 minutes, I say that because I believe the window for the murder and removal is from 7-10 mins .

so 5 minutes is certainly not fiction!

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I can agree about the kidney; however, the uterus was little more than hacked out, so should not take long.

Cheers.
LC

Where does this term hacked out come from ? It seems to be term used by researchers, and not by any medical men? Perhaps in an attempt to negate anatomical knowledge aspect.

The main point in that post was to establish that the 5 mins Brown was talking about in the interview could only have related to the murder and mutilations. When he gave that interview before the post mortem and said 5 mins. He could not have been aware of the organs being found missing

Here are some comments and observations from a modern day medical expert in relation to the kidney.

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Elamarna]

Where does this term hacked out come from ? It seems to be term used by researchers, and not by any medical men? Perhaps in an attempt to negate anatomical knowledge aspect.

The main point in that post was to establish that the 5 mins Brown was talking about in the interview could only have related to the murder and mutilations. When he gave that interview before the post mortem and said 5 mins. He could not have been aware of the organs being found missing

Here are some comments and observations from a modern day medical expert in relation to the kidney.

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

Trevor my friend,

The post did not established anything with regards to what Dr Brown is talking about; We have been given an interpretation, which is certainly worth looking into, of some of the available sources

However once again a suggestion is presented as if is fact.

It is not.
It is one man's opinion.

By all means propose the suggestion, argue the pros and cons of the idea, however it should not be presented as fact, which is what has just happened.


I note the unnamed expert says: ( or course not to give the name of the expert does somewhat undermine the statement).

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge,"

Such a statement of course does not claim a high level of knowledge, just "a degree of" which of course is open to debate as to its meaning.

It also is agreeing to the "suggestion", nothing more.

The comment makes no mention of skill, just knowledge.
A pig butcher would have that, not that I am suggestion the killer was, far from it.



The comment about which kidney to take is interesting, however it is somewhat of a qualified statement, in that the expert says probably, not a definitive certainly.

Obviously the expert does not feel positive enough to commit his/her self

Finally on the expert view, I see there is no comment on the uterus.




In addition you asked Lynn:


"Where does this term hacked out come from"


Dr Brown description does not indicate that the organ had been removed clinically or surgically:


"The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments."



The uterus was not removed intact, part was left behind,

And while hacked may not be a very technical term, it seems a fairly good descriptive term to use based on Browns report in my professional opinion.



Steve

[Columbo]

Hello Karl.

"Personally I dismiss Elizabeth Stride, and I also now tend to dismiss Mary Jane Kelly. The police did not speculate a different killer than Jack because of the mutilations involved, because after all: "who other but he?" And indeed, that is the only reason to assume it was JtR. But to me MJK looks more like a murder made to look like a Ripper murder. Already there had been an unusually long pause since the last one, and there was no murder afterwards either, attributed to Jack."

Good thinking. Now, include Kate Eddowes and you shall be near the truth.

Cheers.
LC

I never understood why people think MJK is a copycat murder. It went beyond just taking out a few organs and cuts on the face. Why the extreme mutilation when it wasn't needed?

Columbo

[Errata]

Where does this term hacked out come from ? It seems to be term used by researchers, and not by any medical men? Perhaps in an attempt to negate anatomical knowledge aspect.

Medical men don't use language they can't use in front of their patients (even coroners, each of whom has heard a damn good story as to why they shouldn't), so they don't get in the habit of professionally referring to things as having been hacked out, ripped off, no thingamabobs of every shape and description... even if to the trained and untrained eye the phrase would seem to fit.

So no. Docs don't say that. Researchers are perfectly free to do so.

[Rosella]

If the easier to access left kidney was taken from Eddowes rather than her right, doesn't that speak the killer not necessarily being a professional medical man? I'd love a person experienced in killing animals for a living, preferably pigs, to give an opinion.

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I was referring to the uterus.

You seem to be talking about the kidney? As I said previously, the kidney was done in a manner VERY different from the kidney.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the difference

Hello Steve. Thanks for the support.

Yes, the uterus WAS removed in a very amateurish manner--as opposed to the kidney, and Annie's uterus. Could be coincidence, but, as you say, worthy of looking into.

But I have often downplayed the organ removal, preferring, instead, to focus on the difference in mutilations (cuts). Baxter (rightly or wrongly) averred that there was a HUGE difference in Annie and Kate, with respect to skill in cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

copycat

Hello Columbo. I tend to agree. I really don't think of "MJK" as a "copycat"
--only Kate.

I think your argument, however, shows how problematic "MJK's" inclusion in the canon is. After all, it was QUITE different from the others.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Barnard Hughes

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I recall the Paddy Chayefsky classic, "The Hospital." There, the surgeon refers to "hacking out" uteri. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC