Surgical skill in the late 19th century

[MrTwibbs]

Between the murder of JTR victims and the disection/operating table of the late 19th century there was little difference between them so a Dr would attribute the murder to JTR because their own skills were limited. Is this a true statement? as I heard if on a documentary about JTR called conspiracies.(or perhaps not in those exact words but it was suggested because of surgeons/Doctors rudimentary understanding of the time)

If it is then I fathom that the doctors who examined the bodies may have been biased somewhat in their assessments of attributing the murder to someone of considerable skill. After all, if organs were removed and the Dr then said "no skill needed, anyone could have done this". it does raise a question that you don't have to be either educated or be a Dr to be able to remove a couple of organs. Anyone can do it so Dr's are not that special.
You sometimes have this line of thinking from computer technicians. I have worked in the IT environment and perhaps it is a rough cast to draw comparisions between a qualified IT technician with MCSE and MCSA, cisco to his name and a degree to boot, but one thing I did learn from them was that they were loathe to share knowledge and were very snobbish/elitist in their behaviour as if only them and them alone could build a computer or put together a server rack. It's defending their profession.

I just wondered if this could have been the case with the various statements by Philips, Bond and any others? which leads to the mistaken belief that JTR would have had to have good or skills anatomical knowledge as well as have been a surgeon?

If anyone can answer this question and also where I can get copies(of the time) of the following would be grateful
"police news", the star, sun and the times and The Lancet

Is it worth me visiting the London archives in Kew and the berkshire records office re: Broadmoor/Cutbush. Or does someone have this information already to hand?

thanks

[bolo]

Hi Twibbs,

here are some remarks by the medicos, taken from Philip Sugden's The Complete History Of Jack The Ripper, revised paperback 2002:

Polly Nichols:

- "Must have had some rough anatomical knowledge, for he seemed to have attacked all the vital parts" (Llewellyn).

Annie Chapman:

- "No trace of these parts [uterus, upper portion of the vagina, two thirds of the bladder and parts of the belly wall] could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert - of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of of a knife..." (The Lancet, unsigned piece, 29 September 1888).

- "I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, in under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall in the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole interference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body" (Philips).

Kate Eddowes:

The doctors' opinions differed in this case, bottom-line was "his handiwork had evidenced some degree of skill".

Mary Kelly:

"In each case, the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or 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" (Bond to Anderson during the MJK investigation).

.

With the possible exception of Dr Bond's reply to Anderson, none of these quotes give me the impression of a group of doctors who tried to downplay the "work" of the murderer in order to protect themselves or their profession.

If anyone can answer this question and also where I can get copies(of the time) of the following would be grateful
"police news", the star, sun and the times and The Lancet

Relevant articles from these and other publications can be found on Casebook: http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/ .

Regards,

Boris

[lynn cates]

wynne baxter

Hello MrTwibbs. Here is what coroner Wynne Baxter had to say at the Stride inquest.

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator"

(Daily Telegraph--from Casebook.)

Cheers.
LC

[MrTwibbs]

Thanks for the information on this.
I noticed there was something like a 30-40 minute gap between the finding of the bodies of Stride and Eddowes.
is it possible that JTR was not able to carry out his full mutilations as he/she was disturbed and so with the blood lust pumping through his veins he proceeded onto Mitre Square some 10 minutes away walking distance and found Eddowes?
Could JTR been on his way home and by providence came across Eddowes?

Am I presuming too much or is it more likely that Stride was the victim of a domestic argument that "got out of hand"?

It just seems so coincidental that two murders in one night, both very bloody and then the letter arrives mentioning the "double event"

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Mr Twibbs. Well, we all make presumptions. Of course, the evidence is better to consider.

I'm not sure that Stride was a victim of domestic violence. Recall, she was some distance from her lodgings at Flower and Dean st. How did she meet a domestic partner on Berner st?

Was her assailant interrupted? That is a popular and venerable theory. It might even be true. But there is no evidence to substantiate it. And its very reason for being suggested is on the assumption that her assailant wished to mutilate her. Looks like a petitio principii to me.

As for the note, well, it is widely thought to be a hoax based upon the early edition of the paper or witness information.

Cheers.
LC

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Mr Twibbs,
I dont think it was coincidental actually because they delivered local post on the same day in 1888--and often made two or three deliveries apparently!
Cheers
Norma

[MrTwibbs]

Hello Mr Twibbs. Well, we all make presumptions. Of course, the evidence is better to consider.

I'm not sure that Stride was a victim of domestic violence. Recall, she was some distance from her lodgings at Flower and Dean st. How did she meet a domestic partner on Berner st?

Was her assailant interrupted? That is a popular and venerable theory. It might even be true. But there is no evidence to substantiate it. And its very reason for being suggested is on the assumption that her assailant wished to mutilate her. Looks like a petitio principii to me.

As for the note, well, it is widely thought to be a hoax based upon the early edition of the paper or witness information.

Cheers.
LC

Hi

I appreciate and thank you for what you're saying. The murder date for the double event was 30th sept and the letter was posted 1st october (as per post mark)and said tomorrow you'll hear about my double even. Not a direct quote but it was along those lines.

[MrTwibbs]

Hi Mr Twibbs,
I dont think it was coincidental actually because they delivered local post on the same day in 1888--and often made two or three deliveries apparently!
Cheers
Norma

cor blimey they were more efficient in those days than they are now. even locals

[lynn cates]

double event

Hello Mr Twibbs. Thank you for your kind remarks.

"The murder date for the double event was 30th [S]ept and the letter was posted 1st [O]ctober (as per post mark) and said tomorrow you'll hear about my double even[t]."

Indeed. Close enough. Is there anything in this inimical to the claim that the letter was composed and posted AFTER having received intelligence of the event?

Cheers.
LC

[MrTwibbs]

Hello Mr Twibbs. Thank you for your kind remarks.

"The murder date for the double event was 30th [S]ept and the letter was posted 1st [O]ctober (as per post mark) and said tomorrow you'll hear about my double even[t]."

Indeed. Close enough. Is there anything in this inimical to the claim that the letter was composed and posted AFTER having received intelligence of the event?

Cheers.
LC

Yes I understand what you're suggesting unless of course the letter was written on the 30th september and also either posted in the same evening or the morning of the 1st. if it was posted late the 30th Sept it would bear a postmark showing "1st October"
So either way I find it difficult to fathom it could be deemed fake based on the post mark.

Have I missed something?
I appreciate anything any one has to say. I don't know half as much as what most of you and including yourself know about JTR. I'm what someone would call a newbie.

[lynn cates]

postings

Hello Mr. Twibbs. You are far too kind with your remarks. I fear you overestimate my knowledge of the case (or cases).

The consensus seems to be that the "Saucy Jack" postcard was posted in the wee hours of the day, just after the "double event."

Which Ripper tomes are you currently reading? There is a good explanation of the correspondence in several works. You might start with the A-Z and then read Sugden. And Stewart Evans has a book dedicated to the "Ripper letters."

Cheers.
LC