JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[JSchmidt]

While I admit to a somewhat black humour, the possibility of cannibalism as a motivation exists. Albert Fish and Fritz Haarmann come to mind.

[Sam Flynn]

Ah . . . no. Look, it is literally right there. The liver is anterior to those structures

Thanks, DrX, but that's only the front surface - the liver "cups" the stomach, pancreas and duodenum and extends backwards and behind them - that's what I meant by those organs "crowding into its space". 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.

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

[Doctor X]

It's also large enough to make smuggling it away in a coat or trouser pocket a little bit tricky, DrX!

It folds easily. . . .



No more than a kidney and a uterus. The uterus is far harder to free than a liver, incidentally. Anyways, my point was that if he just wanted "an organ of opportunity" the liver is "right there." Does not have to take the whole thing, of course.

Not to mention the fact that the liver is less accessible - stomach, small intestine, pancreas and colon all crowding into its space to greater or lesser degrees.

Ah . . . no. Look, it is literally right there. The liver is anterior to those structures:



the colon, small intestines, pancreas are all ventral--or behind--the omentum. The liver is most anterior.



It is right there. Incidentally, "Right is left" on a CT scan--you are looking "up" so that organ to which the arrows point that demonstrate "partial thrombosis" and "biliary ductal dilatation" is the liver. It is right there. Not trying to be pedantic [He is, and pretentious.--Ed.] Shh! You cannot miss it.

The liver also has more numerous and complex connections

Which you do not care about if you are removing it with no consideration for the "patient!" Comes out quite easily . . . whack! Whack!

So this is important to correct:

in the form of blood-vessels, ducts and ligaments - and is thus less easy to "set free" than the left kidney.

FAR more easy than the left kidney. See that bright object on the right of the picture. Near the spine? That is the left kidney. You have to free it from under the membrane that covers it, then free it from the large vessels to which it is attached--Renal artery and vein.

Now, as I blathered above, it is not impossible or difficult in that you must be a trained surgeon, et cetera. However, removing the liver is far more easy than the left kidney.

Just ask these guys:





Yours truly,

--J.D.

P.S. JSchmidt: Actually, that was on of the suggestions a poster sent me privately--he may have posted them publicly; I do not know.

[Sam Flynn]

If he wants a "trophy," the liver is rather obvious!

It's also large enough to make smuggling it away in a coat or trouser pocket a little bit tricky, DrX! Not to mention the fact that the liver is less accessible - stomach, small intestine, pancreas and colon all crowding into its space to greater or lesser degrees. The liver also has more numerous and complex connections - in the form of blood-vessels, ducts and ligaments - and is thus less easy to "set free" than the left kidney.

[JSchmidt]

Must not make jokes about kidney recipes...

[Doctor X]

With all due respect to Mr. Warren, I think he over estimates the level of skill required to find and remove a human kidney--with no concern about the surrounding tissue and the survivability of the "donor!"

As you quote, "Now he did admit that such knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals."

Or, frankly, one who simply knows where it is located.

I am not saying Mr. Warren is wrong; he may be correct. The problem is there is a broad range possible from "looked at an anatomy atlas to know where it is located" all the way to "qualified surgeon."

That, of course, assumes the kidney was an intentional find rather than an organ-of-opportunity.

I, personally, fall somewhat in the middle. As I argued previously, Jack used the wrong tools for a "qualified surgeon" or anyone with experience in dissection. He made the wrong abdominal incision--particularly if you accept "the Five" were killed by the same person which not everyone HERE accepts. I do not buy some neophyte with a long knife randomly rooting around and finding the kidney either, in the dark, and in those time constraints! I also feel the kidney was intentional. Jack has the uterus. If he wants a "trophy," the liver is rather obvious! Why would he want a kidney? I do not have a firm idea, but there are, as you know, a lot of theories.

Which, I think, leaves us with a very broad range.

--J.D.

[Natalie Severn]

[QUOTE=Ben;8711]It wasn't encumbent upon any of those three to prove a negative. If they didn't detect any evidence of anatomical skill, they had only to say so, citing as evidence the description of the wounds already published. That's what Bond did; he described Kelly's horrific injuries in meticulous detail and went on to deduce from that that the killer possessed no anatomical knowledge. Did Phillips give any "reason" for disagreeing with Bond?

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.
He doesnt go quite so far as Dr Brown did in the particular case of Catherine Eddowes,who concluded he had both anatomical and surgical skill.But he based his case primarilly upon "the careful extraction of the the left kidney"."I should say someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.....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.....
Now he did admit that such knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals.Chief Inspector Swanson therefore ,in his report, stated that both doctors---he didnt even mention to the other two only the City police doctor[Brown] and the metropolitan police doctor[Phillips], concurred that the medical evidence so far showed that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter,a butcher,a slaughterman,AS WELL AS a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon.Brown was particularly persuaded by the fact that the kindney is a difficult organ to locate in the first place and for the same reason is difficult to "carefully extract"-which was how the removal of the kidney was described by Brown.This is because it is hidden by membrane.
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.In the files you will find numerous records of them trailing and tracking down certain doctors in France as well as England.Clearly there was something in the manner of strangulation/throat cutting and or mutilation that had given rise to such suspicion.

[Doctor X]

He apparently believes in geometric patterns of an occult nature deliberately carved into the East End landscape by the killer. That, I'm afraid, is worse than guesswork - it's patent nonsense.

I found that most unfortunate after his attack on straw Ripperologists for cherry-picking data to support a particular suspect and theory.

That and posting long quotes in Bold renders the material difficult to read. It is almost as annoying as TYPING IN ALLCAPS WHICH IS SLIGHTLY MORE ANNOYING THAN POSTIN without any capitalization. and using fragments.

--J.D.

[Ben]

Yep, and three other medical professionals who examined the corpse disagreed. And he seemed to labouring under the presupposition that the killer deliberately targetted the kidney.

[jc007]

Browns post mortum report:

I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. Such a knowledge might be possessed by some one in the habit of cutting up animals.

[jc007]

Uh Sam aren't you going a little off topic which you have criticised myself and others for doing so???

[Sam Flynn]

You sure Sam?

The actual quote is:

Dr Brown: "He [the killer] must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

No mention of medical or surgical skill. This exchange then followed...

Mr. Crawford: "Would not such knowledge be likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals?"

Dr Brown: "Yes."

[Sam Flynn]

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.

He apparently believes in geometric patterns of an occult nature deliberately carved into the East End landscape by the killer. That, I'm afraid, is worse than guesswork - it's patent nonsense.

[jc007]

Ivor Edwards is not a primary source, unfortunately.

Most of the things he lists as "misconceptions" are nothing of the sort.

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.

[jc007]

Brown himself only suggested that the killer had anatomical knowledge.

In the case of Eddowes, Mitre Square, Aldgate. Dr Sequeira and police surgeon Dr. Gordon Brown were called out to the crime scene. Brown's post-mortem report can be seen at the C.L.R. [or here] It is interesting to note that Dr. Brown observed that there was no sign of sexual connection. He wrote, "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them." He also wrote, "It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to knowwhere it was placed.

You sure Sam?