Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[Doctored Whatsit]

In 1891, the widow Maria Forsdike was working as a horse flesh dealer, not a knacker. Horse flesh dealers received boiled meat from the knackers, already separated from bones and organs. They then cut up the meat (likely with some fat a gristle), placed the meat on wooden skewers, and sold it.

This required less anatomical skill than carving up a holiday turkey.

Agreed. She was never a horse slaughterer, and I may be wrong, but I don't think there is good evidence that she was even involved in dealing horse flesh in 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

The assumption that killer was looking for specific organs is part of the assessments made by the doctors. Arguing against those assessments are organs that were stabbed or cut in two, instead of neatly removed.

Well if all the victims who were found missing organs, and it is suggested that they were all killed by the same killer, why do we see so many different methods used to extract the organs? if the killer had the anatomical knowledge to locate the organs why do we not see the same methods of extraction?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Human anatomical knowledge -- yes, but very limited.

Skill using knife -- wasn't afraid to make cuts and remove what he found.

There is one victim who apparently lost an organ that was specifically sought after Scott. Not insignificant. That same victim had cuts that seemed to the medical investigation summary that were skillfully done. The fact we have this evidence should be a cautionary tale to those who seek to bundle a number of victims under one killer. The killing of Annie was unique in many ways.

The fact that the very next victim had the same organ taken, although partially, is relevant to determining who gets grouped under this killer.

[Fiver]

Well if all the victims who were found missing organs, and it is suggested that they were all killed by the same killer, why do we see so many different methods used to extract the organs? if the killer had the anatomical knowledge to locate the organs why do we not see the same methods of extraction?

"The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose." - Dr Fredrick Gordon Brown.

[Michael W Richards]

Well if all the victims who were found missing organs, and it is suggested that they were all killed by the same killer, why do we see so many different methods used to extract the organs? if the killer had the anatomical knowledge to locate the organs why do we not see the same methods of extraction?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thats the reason we see various methods and possible skill sets. A "suggestion" that has been unprovable for over 135 years.

[FrankO]

Well if all the victims who were found missing organs, and it is suggested that they were all killed by the same killer, why do we see so many different methods used to extract the organs? if the killer had the anatomical knowledge to locate the organs why do we not see the same methods of extraction?

What's anatomical knowledge got to do with the question of whether the killer should extract complete or incomplete organs from a body?

[Trevor Marriott]

What's anatomical knowledge got to do with the question of whether the killer should extract complete or incomplete organs from a body?

Well, the killer would have to have known the location of the organs to be able to try to remove them unless, of course, the killer did not remove them. and that is why we see different methods of extraction with the different victims, the uterus of Chapman was removed in a different way to that of Eddowes, So my question was if it was the same killer why did he resort to using two different methods of extraction of the same organ from two different victims. If he did then we are looking at a killer with exceptional anatomical knowledge

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats the reason we see various methods and possible skill sets. A "suggestion" that has been unprovable for over 135 years.

The answer is quite simple, the killer did not remove the organs from the victims at the crime scenes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

"The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose." - Dr Fredrick Gordon Brown.

Depends what any professional purpose would be

Of course Brown is not going to go public confirming that there was a killer on the loose taking organs thereby creating even more public hysteria. that's why the missing organs were played down

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

Depends what any professional purpose would be

You are familiar with the definition of the word "any"?

"The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose." - Dr Fredrick Gordon Brown.

Of course Brown is not going to go public confirming that there was a killer on the loose taking organs thereby creating even more public hysteria. that's why the missing organs were played down

Your theory doesn't match the facts

Missing organs were already public knowledge from the Chapman inquest. At the Eddowes inquest, Dr Brown not only went "public confirming that there was a killer on the loose taking organs", Brown also repeatedly emphasized that he thought the killer had a lot of anatomical knowledge.

"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.' - Dr Brown

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

"It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane." - Dr Brown

[Michael W Richards]

Trevors theory that the organs were taken from the victims while in the morgue would address the inconsistencies seen in skill sets. Different men, different skill sets. But a much simpler idea is that the organs were taken from the victims by the killer, and the inconsistencies just suggest different men as the killer.

Lets not forget how many had organs taken at all.....just 3 of the 5 victim "Canonical" group. A complete uterus and partial bladder, then a partial uterus and relatively complete kidney, then a heart. The way the organ extractions have been discussed is as if there was commonality among them, clearly, there is very little. I believe the best way to decipher who was killed by who is to look at the methodology of the kill. Who, where, what weapon, ...those kinds of parameters. The skill sets vary, no getting around that. Why.....could be as simple as different men.

[John Wheat]

Trevors theory that the organs were taken from the victims while in the morgue would address the inconsistencies seen in skill sets. Different men, different skill sets. But a much simpler idea is that the organs were taken from the victims by the killer, and the inconsistencies just suggest different men as the killer.

Lets not forget how many had organs taken at all.....just 3 of the 5 victim "Canonical" group. A complete uterus and partial bladder, then a partial uterus and relatively complete kidney, then a heart. The way the organ extractions have been discussed is as if there was commonality among them, clearly, there is very little. I believe the best way to decipher who was killed by who is to look at the methodology of the kill. Who, where, what weapon, ...those kinds of parameters. The skill sets vary, no getting around that. Why.....could be as simple as different men.

I'd suggest that perceived differences in skill level could be to do with differences in how much alcohol the killer had before killing each victim. Rather than the idea that there were several similar killers running around a small area of London at the same.

[Fiver]

I'd suggest that perceived differences in skill level could be to do with differences in how much alcohol the killer had before killing each victim. Rather than the idea that there were several similar killers running around a small area of London at the same.

Other factors that would affect this are the killer's level of excitement or agitation, the amount of light available, and how rushed the killer felt. Other possible factors are killer's general health and the possibility that in the frenzied attacks, the killer might have cut themselves.

[Fiver]

Another variable is that different doctors examining the same victim came to different assessments of the anatomical skill of the killer.

[FrankO]

Well, the killer would have to have known the location of the organs to be able to try to remove them unless, of course, the killer did not remove them. and that is why we see different methods of extraction with the different victims, the uterus of Chapman was removed in a different way to that of Eddowes, So my question was if it was the same killer why did he resort to using two different methods of extraction of the same organ from two different victims. If he did then we are looking at a killer with exceptional anatomical knowledge

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I meant, Trevor, was that he could have had all the anatomical knowledge in the world and still have extracted the organs the way he did, either completele by choice or also influenced by (some of) the circumstances mentioned above by John and Fiver. As long as we don't know his motive it's perfectly possible that the killer, and one killer only, was responsible for the organ extractions and certainly doesn't necessarily point to anything else.