19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Karl]

Peter Sutcliffe's victims ranged from 16-40.

Evenly distributed, though. With Jack the Ripper's "canonicals", you do not have an even distribution from 25-47, but an even distribution from 43-47 - and then there's the last one, at 25. That's a hefty deviation. The heights, similarly: the five "canonical" ones did not range evenly from 5' to 5'7", but the first four ranged from 5' - 5'2" tall - and then there was the last one, at 5'7". That, too, is a considerable deviation, especially if we take eye witness testimonies into account, suggesting the killer was only slightly taller than the victims of 5'2. An important criteria for the serial killer is that he feels he is capable of overpowering his victim, and would therefore hesitate to tackle someone, even a woman, who was taller than himself. Especially if that woman was, as MJK was, described as "butch".

[David Orsam]

Thank you for answering Trevor. It is interesting you have attached a news article relating to Coroner Baxter's theory because I am struck by how similar your theory is to Coroner Baxter's theory as the murderer's motive.

I mean, it's not very far is it from what you are saying to coming to the conclusion that the murderer himself removed the organs for the exact same purpose, i.e. for medical research (or to sell to others for medical research)? Is that a fair comment for me to make would you say?

And would you not regard it as unlikely that someone who was lawfully authorized to remove organs from dead bodies would unlawfully interfere with, and remove organs from, the bodies of suspected murder victims prior to a post-mortem?

But if you think they would do this, is it not a little bit surprising that we do not find a much higher number of mutilated dead bodies recorded in post-mortems during the period?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Reversed psychology- If the killer removed the organs why did he not take both kidneys when he had the opportunity? Why did the killer not take away all of the body parts from Kelly when they had all been removed in the room.

I would imagine that the thought was that when the doctors came to do the post mortems when they found organs missing they would naturally think they were removed by the killer, which is what happened. Taking to many organs would be a dead giveaway (no pun intended). By the time of the Eddowes murder it was genearl knowledge of what had supposedly been taken by the killer from Chapman

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

No, other than 3.30 mins was mentioned to remove a uterus and then we dont know if this was carried out under crime scene conditions. If it wasnt then more time must be added to this time, and then extra time added to remove the kidney

I also keep asking why Dr Brown asked his expert to look at the timings, did he inwardly believes that something was amiss with the removals, and why didn't he carry out the experiment himself. ALARM BELLS !!!!!!!!

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?

The timings are based on the witness timings being reliable and calculating how long it would take an expert to remove both a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen, with a long bladed knife.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Pierre
sorry slow to reply had a busy few days.

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

Interesting question, surgeons on the whole would make precise cuts, these would not be longer than needed, they would not make superfluous cuts they would only work on the areas required and of course the cuts would be such that the patient would survive.

In the case of the killer, in particular Chapman and Eddowes, we see long cuts, much longer than needed by a trained surgeon to do his work.
To remove the uterus, some intestine or even a kidney there is no need to open from vagina to breast bone, it is the cut of a person of limited skill/experience.

The removal of the bladder, or part of the bladder is easy to do when removing a uterus, but a trained surgeon should not do this, it would not be something they were trained to do.

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?

Sorry Pierre, I do not think I said he had the same skill set as a surgeon:

He demonstrates skill with a knife, but that is different, as was pointed out earlier, from skill with a scalpel.

He shows basic knowledge of the position of internal organs, but that is only if he was after those specific organs he took; rather than just what ever he found.

Of course we do not know the answer to that , it has been debated many times.

So no I do not think he was a candidate for the position of a surgeon, anything but!

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?

Who do you mean by "they"?

I will assume you mean those he worked with.

Easy answer NO, the skills demonstrated are very limited, certainly not those of a life saver.

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

No Pierre. I mean they were not surgical in the sense that they were not precise, they were far in excess of what was required to get the organs, they were not cuts from which someone could survive, not the cuts a surgeon was trained to make.

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

The wounds as described in the sources do not show the level of skill involved. The doctors themselves give different opinions on the degree of skill need.

We have no defining/definitive source which makes the level of skill, if any, clear.

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

Clean cuts, little or no additional damaged to bone/cartilage than needed to remove the limbs.

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

Surgeons would have the knowledge, a person working as an assistant to a surgeon in a war situation, someone working regularly in a dissecting room.
or a butcher.

Certainly several times to reach the level demonstrated, the Torso's from my limited understand show little if any damage to surrounding tissue or bone at the joints.

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

One could learn reasonably quickly, however mistakes would probably be made in early attempts, but it would be down to the individual.

Could cutting up animals have been sufficient?

A plain slaughter would probably not have the skill, but a trained butcher yes.

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?

What I meant was that we only have partial bodies for the Torso killings, none are complete, therefore we are basing the skill level purely on the dismemberment.
So I feel that is insufficient evidence to construct an hypothesis on the complete skill level of the killer.

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?

The Torso killer, knew how to dismember, that seems clear from the damage to the joints.
It is probably that the torso killer had previous experience of this type of procedure, be that in human or animal.

This or course assume all 4 were by the same had, which is probably.

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?

Let me be clear, I do not rule out the torso, killer as possibly been a surgeon, or having worked in a medical environment.
Just studying medicine would not be sufficient he would need to have carried out this procedure of dismemberment before.

However the Whitechapel killer shows no surgical skill in my opinion, see my comments to your first few questions in this post.

He appeared to have some basic anatomical knowledge so one cannot rule out that he may have studied medicine to some level.

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?

Yes there is a considerable difference in my opinion.

Both do show skill with a knife. However this need not come from either medicine or butchery.

The Torso killer demonstrates experience of dismembering, using the correct technique for the procedure.

This suggests a period of training to reach the level of proficiency shown, how long I cannot say.

Such skill could belong to a surgeon or a butcher.


The Whitechapel killer, demonstrates no surgical skill in my opinion, however he does demonstrate a basic knowledge of anatomy (this must be qualified, in that I assume he was after the organs he removed, if not the question of such knowledge is very open to question.)

The minimal criteria for the Whitechapel killer, is skill with a knife and some anatomic knowledge, however this could be very basic.


regards

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you for answering Trevor. It is interesting you have attached a news article relating to Coroner Baxter's theory because I am struck by how similar your theory is to Coroner Baxter's theory as the murderer's motive.

I mean, it's not very far is it from what you are saying to coming to the conclusion that the murderer himself removed the organs for the exact same purpose, i.e. for medical research (or to sell to others for medical research)? Is that a fair comment for me to make would you say?

And would you not regard it as unlikely that someone who was lawfully authorized to remove organs from dead bodies would unlawfully interfere with, and remove organs from, the bodies of suspected murder victims prior to a post-mortem?

But if you think they would do this, is it not a little bit surprising that we do not find a much higher number of mutilated dead bodies recorded in post-mortems during the period?

David

I wasnt there in 1888, nor were you, we simply do not know what if anything happened at the mortuaries and to the bodies within the 12 hours they were left before the post mortems.

From all that I have gathered and with the help of medical experts. It is clear that this old previously accepted theory that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene has significant flaws which I have highlighted.

So therefore if the killer didnt removed the organs there has to be another plausible explanation, which I have put forward, an explanation which I feel is far more valid than the old theory, having regards to what is now known.

Now I realise like many aspects of the ripper mystery are there are those who cannot, and will not accept the fact that some of these old theories have now been tested using 21st Century investigative methods and the use of modern day medical experts. The old theories are there to be proved or disproved and I firmly believe this is one part which has been disproved.

And in relation to the article I posted I found that long after I identified the flaws in the old theory.

There would be no array of mutilated bodies because they would not have been made available until after the post mortems had been carried out. So if a person died of a heart attack and when they came to do the post mortem it was found their abdomen had been already opened I should think someone would notice wouldn't you ? But Eddowes and Chapmans abdomens were already opened with large gaping holes allowing easy access to the internal organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Reversed psychology- If the killer removed the organs why did he not take both kidneys when he had the opportunity?

Trevor,

Two immediate options spring to mind to answer that.
And while you may not agree with either, both are plausible,even if they are not particularly probable.

1. Because both kidneys are not in the same location, while they are indeed close one is on the left hand side and one on the right, they are separated by amongst other tissues, the major vein and artery of the human body, and can be easily missed as we have all been told so many times.

2. How about the killer did not know there were two kidneys, while of course if he were trained in medicine or even butchery he would know this, someone of a lesser education and experience may not.

The timings are based on the witness timings being reliable and calculating how long it would take an expert to remove both a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen, with a long bladed knife.

Until the kidney was removed why would the Abdominal cavity be filled with blood?

regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

Trevor

Could you please enlighten me as to what type of medical research a kidney and uterus would be used for?

regards

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385482]Trevor,

Two immediate options spring to mind to answer that.
And while you may not agree with either, both are plausible,even if they are not particularly probable.

1. Because both kidneys are not in the same location, while they are indeed close one is on the left hand side and one on the right, they are separated by amongst other tissues, the major vein and artery of the human body, and can be easily missed as we have all been told so many times.

The kidney is the most difficult organ in the body to locate, as it sits at the back of the abdomen and is encased in renal fat making it difficult to see and difficult to take hold of

2. How about the killer did not know there were two kidneys, while of course if he were trained in medicine or even butchery he would know this, someone of a lesser education and experience may not.

This is a rhetrorical question. If someone was lesser trained, then it would take them even longer to effect the removals if in fact a lesser person was even capable.


Until the kidney was removed why would the Abdominal cavity be filled with blood?

Eddowes was stabbed at least 4 times in the abdomen right from the outset with a long bladed knife, that effect would cause blood vessels and probably arteries to be severed releasing blood into the abdomen

Take a look at the images on my website will give you and others a better idea

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=185

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Could you please enlighten me as to what type of medical research a kidney and uterus would be used for?

regards

Steve

I cant believe you have asked such a question !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

Reversed psychology- If the killer removed the organs why did he not take both kidneys when he had the opportunity? Why did the killer not take away all of the body parts from Kelly when they had all been removed in the room.

The killer wasn't looking to profit from organ sales; he only needed a trophy if even that. As you point out, with MJK the bits and pieces were extracted and left in the room - except for the heart, which was missing. Maybe other things were missing altogether, too; I forget. Not that MJK is of much relevance, because it seems you and I are both in doubt as to whether MJK was a Ripper job. I was thinking first and foremost of Catherine Eddowes, here. In which case there would be natural limits to how much the killer could carry with him - as well as time constraints.

I would imagine that the thought was that when the doctors came to do the post mortems when they found organs missing they would naturally think they were removed by the killer, which is what happened. Taking to many organs would be a dead giveaway (no pun intended). By the time of the Eddowes murder it was genearl knowledge of what had supposedly been taken by the killer from Chapman

But you suggested the organs were removed by someone "bona fide", and that they were removed lawfully. In which case, why would they care if their activities were known? Why try to make it look like the murderer did it? If anything, they'd leave a note explaining that they helped themselves to this or that organ; not try and conceal it.

No, other than 3.30 mins was mentioned to remove a uterus and then we dont know if this was carried out under crime scene conditions. If it wasnt then more time must be added to this time, and then extra time added to remove the kidney

Mentioned where? And when they timed the extraction of the uterus, did they remove it properly, or did they do a hasty job of it like the Ripper did, and leave a stump of it behind?

I also keep asking why Dr Brown asked his expert to look at the timings, did he inwardly believes that something was amiss with the removals, and why didn't he carry out the experiment himself. ALARM BELLS !!!!!!!!

You may well think that, but until I see the sources to that effect I could not possibly comment.

The timings are based on the witness timings being reliable and calculating how long it would take an expert to remove both a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen, with a long bladed knife.

How about an amateur? It stands to reason that an expert would do a proper job - Eddowes's uterus was not removed properly.

There would be no array of mutilated bodies because they would not have been made available until after the post mortems had been carried out. So if a person died of a heart attack and when they came to do the post mortem it was found their abdomen had been already opened I should think someone would notice wouldn't you ?

Most people who die from heart attacks are never submitted for post mortems. PMs are reserved for cases where there might be some doubt as to the causes of death, whether direct or contributory. I don't know how it is in the UK, but at least here in Norway pathologists are in constant high demand, and many bodies which should be subjected to PMs aren't, because we lack the capacity - plain and simple.

Since the Anatomy Act of 1832, however, there does not seem to have been a need to pilfer organs from corpses. The legislation seems to have served its purpose and ensured that the demand for organs were met. So much so that some mischievous medical student could send off a kidney to Lusk without it being possible to determine from which hospital it went missing, and so much so that Francis Tumblety had his own collection of uteri. Why would anyone other than the killer take Eddowes's kidney and/or uterus?

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer wasn't looking to profit from organ sales; he only needed a trophy if even that. As you point out, with MJK the bits and pieces were extracted and left in the room - except for the heart, which was missing. Maybe other things were missing altogether, too; I forget. Not that MJK is of much relevance, because it seems you and I are both in doubt as to whether MJK was a Ripper job. I was thinking first and foremost of Catherine Eddowes, here. In which case there would be natural limits to how much the killer could carry with him - as well as time constraints.

You hit the nail on the head with time constraints he did not have time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

But you suggested the organs were removed by someone "bona fide", and that they were removed lawfully. In which case, why would they care if their activities were known? Why try to make it look like the murderer did it? If anything, they'd leave a note explaining that they helped themselves to this or that organ; not try and conceal it.

The organs could not be obtained lawfully from Eddowes until after the post mortem

Mentioned where? And when they timed the extraction of the uterus, did they remove it properly, or did they do a hasty job of it like the Ripper did, and leave a stump of it behind?

I have no idea but the experiment was to re create the same scenario and in fact the doctor in trying to re create this damaged the bladder, and he was an expert so you can see the degree of difficulty involved.

How about an amateur? It stands to reason that an expert would do a proper job - Eddowes's uterus was not removed properly.

A medical student might be regarded as am amateur

Most people who die from heart attacks are never submitted for post mortems. PMs are reserved for cases where there might be some doubt as to the causes of death, whether direct or contributory. I don't know how it is in the UK, but at least here in Norway pathologists are in constant high demand, and many bodies which should be subjected to PMs aren't, because we lack the capacity - plain and simple.

I used a heart attack as an example. In 1888 if anyone dropped down dead in the street as a result of a heart attack no cause of death could be established until after the post mortem

Since the Anatomy Act of 1832, however, there does not seem to have been a need to pilfer organs from corpses. The legislation seems to have served its purpose and ensured that the demand for organs were met. So much so that some mischievous medical student could send off a kidney to Lusk without it being possible to determine from which hospital it went missing, and so much so that Francis Tumblety had his own collection of uteri. Why would anyone other than the killer take Eddowes's kidney and/or uterus?

For a medical student to send a kidney to Lusk the kidney would have had to have come from a body somewhere, it wasn't grown in a greenhouse. After all it might have been Eddowes kidney and taken from the body at the mortuary to be used as a prank by a medical student

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

Take a look at the images on my website will give you and others a better idea

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=185

Very interesting indeed, but the Pall Mall Gazette article seems to punch a hole in your theory rather than support it:

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/paper1.jpg

THE "CORONER'S THEORY."
The Pall Mall Gazette of last night says:-
"The only practical thing to be done is to keep a sharp lookout and dismiss once and for all the Coroner's theory as to the motive of the murder. The Coroner seems to have been the innocent victim of a somewhat stupid hoax. If he had made inquiries of the sub-curator of the Pathaological [sic] Museum he would have discovered that the figure named is a quite preposterous and impossible price for the missing portion of the human body. It is best to set the plain facts plainly forth, and the following letter of prices current containing latest quotations for various parts of the human body suffices to blow the coroner's theory into the air. The following are the prices which we are paying at present for anatomical subjects:-

For one corpse complete, £3 5s.
For one thorax, 5s.
For one arm, one leg, one head and neck, and one abdomen net 15s.

The prices refer to pickled dissecting-room subjects. The organ removed by the murderer can be had for the asking at any post-mortem room 12 hours after death. This being so, what comes of the coroner's theory that the murders were committed in order to secure the bonus of £20 offered by a mythical American for the organ in question.

Emphasis mine. In other words, the article scoffs at the notion that someone would be offering £20 for a uterus (this would be Tumblety, by the way), and also scoffs at the prospect of any organ being removed for any financial gain, when there was no demand for it: they could, after all, be had at any post-mortem room 12 hours after death. So there'd be no reason to be all sneaky about it.

To reiterate: your article claims that the Pall Mall Gazette mentions someone offering £20 for a uterus, but in fact it does the exact opposite: it dismisses the notion that anyone would be offering £20 for a uterus. After all, "what comes of the coroner's theory that the murders were committed in order to secure the bonus of £20 offered by a mythical American for the organ in question"? That is a rhetorical question, to which the answer is "nothing". The coroner's theory comes to nothing.

[Elamarna]

The kidney is the most difficult organ in the body to locate, as it sits at the back of the abdomen and is encased in renal fat making it difficult to see and difficult to take hold of

Yes Trevor, I said that, but not in those words, so what is the point of that comment?

It actually gives another reason why the killer would have left one kidney.

Just because something is hard to find does not mean it cannot be located by chance.

This is a rhetrorical question. If someone was lesser trained, then it would take them even longer to effect the removals if in fact a lesser person was even capable.

It is certainly not a rhetorical question, it suggests that one kidney was left because the killer did not know there were two!

The statement that it would take a lesser trained person longer is based what evidence?
This is a fable that only an expert could do the cuts in the time, it is so stale.

The cuts are not the work of a surgically trained person in my opinion.

Eddowes was stabbed at least 4 times in the abdomen right from the outset with a long bladed knife, that effect would cause blood vessels and probably arteries to be severed releasing blood into the abdomen

Sorry that is not my reading of the post mortem report.
I see nothing to say that the wounds to the liver were done before the organ removals.
If I am wrong on that and have missed something I will as always admit my mistake.

In addition, the cause of death :

"The cause of death was haemorrhage from the left common carotid artery. The death was immediate and the mutilations were inflicted after death. "


suggests to me that the amount of blood which could have bled into the abdominal cavity would have been greatly reduced.

There is nothing I see in the post mortem that backs the view that the abdomen was filled with blood.

Take a look at the images on my website will give you and others a better idea

Sorry Trevor I prefer my own experience of 35 years involved in medical schools and research departments.



regards

steve

[Karl]

You hit the nail on the head with time constraints he did not have time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

Says who? How much time would it have taken and, more to the point, how much time did he have?

The organs could not be obtained lawfully from Eddowes until after the post mortem

Why not wait? Why not obtain the kidney after the post mortem of someone else?

I have no idea but the experiment was to re create the same scenario and in fact the doctor in trying to re create this damaged the bladder, and he was an expert so you can see the degree of difficulty involved.

With respect, you seem to know an awful lot about something for which you have no source.

A medical student might be regarded as am amateur

Certainly, but so would anyone not associated with the field of medicine at all.

For a medical student to send a kidney to Lusk the kidney would have had to have come from a body somewhere, it wasn't grown in a greenhouse.

My point exactly: it came from a corpse, and it was in sufficient supply that a medical student could send one off as a prank without it being missed.

After all it might have been Eddowes kidney and taken from the body at the mortuary to be used as a prank by a medical student

That would almost have been funny
(almost)

[Elamarna]

I cant believe you have asked such a question !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dear Trevor


Why are you stunned?.

You suggested the organs could be removed for medical research, a term misused time and time again, by those who have no knowledge of the state of medical research in the 19th century.


What type of research would be carried out on these type of organs, which in case of the uterus was damaged, that is all I am asking?

If you believe it could be used for "medical research" as you call it, what type of research?

Regards

Steve