JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Sam Flynn]

There are no quality photographs. The descriptions are more descriptive. For example there is no discussion as to how the kidney was removed

True, but the photographs aren't that bad - I think those of Eddowes and Kelly are good enough to get a reasonable idea of what we're up against. In addition, there is arguably enough detail in terms of the damage left behind - viz., tongue-like cut to the aorta, two slashed colons, bit of belly wall attaching navel, jabs and stabs to the spleen, cuts to pancreas and liver, torn lung, hacked stomach, stump of bladder etc. - from which to draw reasonable inferences too.

[Doctor X]

Did he suffer from "Mutilatus interruptus", or did he have some undiscovered fetish that involved draping intestines over someone's shoulder and running away?

Surely premature evisceration. . . .

It is this latter point that brings us back to this thread's subject proper - whether Jack only partly mutilated/eviscerated his victims or not, or whether third parties finished off where Jack started, did he (or they) exhibit any sophisticated skill in doing so? It's the same question, whether we're talking about one murderer, two independent murderers, or a combination of either with third-party organ-thieves independently completing his work.

Yeah . . . I would have to see some evidence that that could happen.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Var,

I have suggested prior to the post mortem the doctors could only then report on what they found when conduting the post mortems and automatically assumed that the killer had removed the organs at the crime scene.

Trevor Marriot

What is the basis of this view and was it common in the Victorian period ? If it was common or at least in one of the East End cases you got an article which says it was done then can you post it ? It would be a twist to this thread's question.

Only in the sense that, if the evisceration were carried out by later by third parties unknown, then the killer only needed sufficient skill to open up his victims' abdomens and heave their intestines out of the way. Why did he do all that, if he had no intention of going further? Did he suffer from "Mutilatus interruptus", or did he have some undiscovered fetish that involved draping intestines over someone's shoulder and running away?

One also needs to consider that, because not all the victims were taken to the same mortuaries, one has to believe that different third parties were gripped by the desire to remove different organs at different times, demonstrating arguably indifferent expertise at every turn.

It is this latter point that brings us back to this thread's subject proper - whether Jack only partly mutilated/eviscerated his victims or not, or whether third parties finished off where Jack started, did he (or they) exhibit any sophisticated skill in doing so? It's the same question, whether we're talking about one murderer, two independent murderers, or a combination of either with third-party organ-thieves independently completing his work.

[Doctor X]

And now for something completely different. . . .

We ["We?"--Ed.] are going to be stuck because there is no evidence that investigators and enthusiasts can objectively view now. There are no quality photographs. The descriptions are more descriptive. For example there is no discussion as to how the kidney was removed--the incision of the peritoneum and tougher fascia covering the kidney--"Gerota's fascia" if you want to be sniffy. Was is a nice clean incision demonstrating "skill" or did he hack/slice through it?

As I have blathered repeatedly, the abdominal incisions demonstrate ignorance of practical entrance to the cavity. However, is Jack more driven to mutilate--as he does to Eddowes' face--than a "skilled" procedure?

There is really no way to give a definitive answer.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

What I object to is how you immediately treat me as an inferior. . . .

--J. "Come and See the Violence Inherent in the System!" D.

[Varqm]

Th truth is that none of the doctors examined the bodies in any great detail whilst the bodies were in situe so their subsequnt findings when conducting the post mortems cannot be corroborated in relation to the removal of the organs.

Taking the hypotheis that persons or persons removed the organs in the way I have suggested prior to the post mortem the doctors could only then report on what they found when conduting the post mortems and automatically assumed that the killer had removed the organs at the crime scene.

Trevor Marriot

What is the basis of this view and was it common in the Victorian period ? If it was common or at least in one of the East End cases you got an article which says it was done then can you post it ? It would be a twist to this thread's question.

[Ben]

Nick Warren who is both a qualified and practising surgeon as well as having authored a work on the Whitechapel murders,contends from personal experience that because the kidney is so difficult to expose from the front of the body the keller must have possesssed some anatomical experience

Hi Nats - That still assumes that the killer was targetting specific organs, and the other doctors (besides Brown) and who were there (unlike Warren*) weren't remotely sure that he was. But if we're citing modern commentators, I believe Richard Whittington-Egan, who can boast - if I recall - some medical history, did not believe the killer was medically trained. The kidney extraction was heavily offset by an irrefutably botched removal of the uterus, and even in the former instance, we have no idea how much damage was sustained to the kidney itself upon exit.

A visit to Kew and a sight of the Whitechapel Murder files makes it
clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the police for a long time were almost exclusively concentrating on finding a doctor.

Which, in the wake of the Hanbury Street murder and the views of Dr. Phillips, is understandable. By that stage, it was all they had to go on, and it is unfortunate in the extreme that there was no second or third opinion in that case as there was with Mite Square, for example. If, as a consequence, they sustained their focus "exclusively" on doctors, they were shooting themselves in the foot.

But I'm sure they weren't.

Ben

*Didn't Warren also say that Kelly's legs were split with an axe, or something?

[The Good Michael]

The liver is not "attached" to those structures such that it is not easily freed. You do not have to dissect off/cut around a peritoneum covering it whilst holding back the same structures you cite to get to the left kidney. Now, make no mistake, it is not impossible; it is just harder than with a liver.
.

Abberline: Maybe it's just a question of where one grips it?

Phillips: It's not a question of where he grips it. It's a simple matter of weight ratio. A 75 kilo man has no problem pulling out a 12 ounce kidney!

Palin: Of course the kidney had been nailed there. If I hadn't nailed it down, it would've muzzled up to those ribs and woooshh!

Cleese: Woosh? Mate, it wouldn't have wooshed if you'd put a million volts in it.


Mike the Helper

[Sam Flynn]

Done it.

In fact, go to the store and pick one up--not human . . . unless you live in Royston Vessey.

Very easily smuggled.

I shall bite no longer. Good night, sweet prince.

[Dan Norder]

Unlike most of the people here at least Edwards is unbiased as he throws up both sides of the coin in the matter and uses factual evidence and infomation about the case to back it, rather than using guess work.

That is the most outrageously false claim posted on these boards in a while.

Ivor Edwards is one of the most biased people in the field. He ignores all evidence and experts who get in the way of his idea that the Ripper was a practicing black magician trying to perform magic spells... and that gets in the way of a whole hell of a lot of evidence and experts.

[Doctor X]

Sorry, but the liver is a voluminous organ, no matter how much you "fold" it - it's hardly amenable to being smuggled away in a pocket.

Done it.

In fact, go to the store and pick one up--not human . . . unless you live in Royston Vessey.

Very easily smuggled.

Floppy thing it is.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

you can hide it in whatever apron/cloth you could hide a uterus and a kidney.

Sorry, but the liver is a voluminous organ, no matter how much you "fold" it - it's hardly amenable to being smuggled away in a pocket.

[Doctor X]

Yeah, and I have to go too . . . however, the liver comes out nicely--does fold--and you can hide it in whatever apron/cloth you could hide a uterus and a kidney.

Now, what I need is a theory as to why he did not take the liver . . . something to do with the zodiac I think. . . .

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Not really, you just have to lift and separate.

...now I know what the "X" stands for

I'll just leave a metaphorical comparison. "Liver = watermelon"; "kidney = tomato". The fava beans I'll leave to you.

[Doctor X]

Thanks, DrX, but that's only the front surface - the liver "cups" the stomach, pancreas and duodenum and extends backwards and behind them

Not really, you just have to lift and separate. The pancreas is retroperitoneal so is not a bother. You have to do all off this:

In order to liberate the liver you've got to get your hands "right in there" in order to sever the various attachments, and it's a pretty tight space in which to work.

and more to free the left kidney. The liver is not "attached" to those structures such that it is not easily freed. You do not have to dissect off/cut around a peritoneum covering it whilst holding back the same structures you cite to get to the left kidney. Now, make no mistake, it is not impossible; it is just harder than with a liver.

"FAR more easy than the left kidney"? I respectfully disagree, DrX.

Unfortunately, it is not easy to "provide an opportunity" to demonstrate the difference . . . unless you have access to cadavers . . . or . . . well . . . let us not go there! Reminds me of a Gahan Wilson cartoon where a guy is writing. Stops. Thinks. Gets up and leaves. Returns about an hour later and starts typing, "It is not easy to cut the heart out of a young women with a dull knife. It takes time. It takes a good fifteen minutes."

Anyways, the only way to "solve" that is to view a dissection which you may not easily be able to do.

That will still not solve the expertise problem, because we do not have accurate photographs of the crime scene, et cetera so modern investigators could see how "skilled" the kidney removal actually was.

Fava beans anyone? Chianti?

--J.D.

P.S. JSchmidt: Yup. That is one possibility. Certainly that came to the mind of the author of the "From Hell" letter to Lusk--whoever he was. . . .