Someone with medical knowledge

[clark2710]

I have heard many say that the Ripper had at least SOME rudimentary knowledge of anatomy and such as that. This may be best answered by butchers, hunters, and surgeons, but are there ways of doing what the Ripper did and not have a whole lot of blood get on him? Could he have cut and such in such a way to minimize a mess?

[Wickerman]

Are you familiar with the poster Wynne Weston-Davies?

Back around 2013 Mr Weston-Davies joined Casebook under the name Prosector, he admitted he was a surgeon & teacher of anatomy.

Prosector gave the group a few interesting pointers that suggest the Whitechapel Murderer had a degree of medical knowledge.

Some of the points he shared, if I can quote from his posts (I chose to hi-lite certain lines in red for emphasis).

"...And by the way, the question of whether he deliberately removed the descending colon to get at Eddowes's left kidney is, I think, answered in Brown's post mortem report. He states that a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if the have to excise the descending colon".



"The left kidney is deep behind the posterior abdominal peritoneum embedded in very firm fat (called suet if it's a cow). You can't get hold of it by inserting your hand into the abdominal cavity. It is simply not there to be got hold of. You have to know exactly where it is and then go looking and digging for it. And the easiest way is to remove the descending colon, which is what he did. Not instinctive or accidental, you need knowledge. Ask anyone who has actually done it and see what they say."


"This is an interesting point and I don't think anyone has ever commented on it before. When medical students, pathologists or surgeons open an abdomen using a midline incision they always skirt round the umbilicus to the right. Even if they are naturally left handed it is always to the right. The reason that the umbilicus is avoided is that it is a very tough and fibrous structure. When it comes to sewing up at the end of the operation or autopsy it is very difficult to stitch through the umbilical tissues. Of course Jack wasn't going to sew up afterwards but it seems to have been embedded somewhere in his psyche".



The text in italics above is taken from Prosector's posts between July 12-14 2013.
What follows below is my summary at the time.

"Points to note:

1 - Where a section of colon was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum.

Our surgeon explained that this is precisely what surgeons & pathologists do when they have to remove the descending colon. Which is done to stop faeces from oozing back into the abdominal cavity.

2 - The careful removal of a kidney, located at the rear of the body and enveloped within a fatty membrane is something that comes with experience. Removing the descending colon in order to access this organ is not the kind of procedure that comes to someone who has no medical training.

3 - In any normal procedure for accessing the abdominal cavity by using a midline incision the normal practice is to skirt the cut around the umbilicus (belly button) but to the right.

This is standard practice for a surgeon when he is expected to sew up the patient after the operation or autopsy. The umbilicus is too tough to sew up so it is avoided and always to the right.
This is what we see done by the killer.

Conclusion, whoever killed and mutilated those women was no stranger to the medical profession".

[JeffHamm]

Interesting. I hadn't seen the original post. I did a quick search for Mr. Weston-Davies (just wanted to check out his credentials) and found this Daily Mail article about him that appears to have just come out today! He claims that Mary Kelly was actually his Great-Aunt Elizabeth Weston-Davies, and JtR was her husband, Francis Spurzheim Craig, who was seeking revenge for her leaving him and returning to prostitution. The other murders were committed to create cover for hers, to hide the fact she was the primary victim. Anyway, the article verifies he is a retired surgeon. Interesting, despite his above suggestions that JtR had medical knowledge of surgery, his theory that JtR was Francis Craig implicates a journalist. Anyway, he's written a book (The Real Mary Kelly) where he presumably presents the evidence for his claim. He's trying to get permission to exhume the body to do some DNA tests, but is being blocked from doing so by the owners of the cemetary.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8610349/Bid-unmask-Jack-Ripper-forensic-evidence-final-victim-thwarted-Catholic-church.html

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

This is standard practice for a surgeon when he is expected to sew up the patient after the operation or autopsy. The umbilicus is too tough to sew up so it is avoided and always to the right.
This is what we see done by the killer.

Correction, what we see are the results of the post mortem, and the inferences that have been drawn suggesting all the wounds were inflicted by the killer, that may not have been so as I have stated many times before.

There was no proper exmanination of the bodies at the crime scenes, and no detailed records made of the wounds, nor was there any evidence to show that the organs were found to be missing at the crime scenes. If as I suggest the organs were removed illegally at the mortuaries then some of the initial wounds made by the killer could have been enhanced in order to remove the organs at the mortuary, thereby misleading the post mortem examination and reserchers ever since.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

[DJA]

There was a drawing though .....

[Trevor Marriott]

There was a drawing though .....

But it doesnt show the full extent of the wounds as described at the post mortem

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased. It was lying in the position described by Watkins, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near. The clothes were thrown up. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress had been torn open. The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body. There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around.
By Mr. Crawford: There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket.
By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon. There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime. There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts. There were abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of six or seven inches.
[Coroner] Can you tell us what was the cause of death? - The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.
[Coroner] There were other wounds on the lower part of the body? - Yes; deep wounds, which were inflicted after death.
(Witness here described in detail the terrible mutilation of the deceased's body.)
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.
[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.
[Coroner] Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle? - I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.
[Coroner] Would any noise be heard, do you think? - I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.
[Coroner] Does it surprise you that no sound was heard? - No.
[Coroner] Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds? - No, I should not. I should say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
[Coroner] Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face? - It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.
A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis.

[erobitha]

Interesting. I hadn't seen the original post. I did a quick search for Mr. Weston-Davies (just wanted to check out his credentials) and found this Daily Mail article about him that appears to have just come out today! He claims that Mary Kelly was actually his Great-Aunt Elizabeth Weston-Davies, and JtR was her husband, Francis Spurzheim Craig, who was seeking revenge for her leaving him and returning to prostitution. The other murders were committed to create cover for hers, to hide the fact she was the primary victim. Anyway, the article verifies he is a retired surgeon. Interesting, despite his above suggestions that JtR had medical knowledge of surgery, his theory that JtR was Francis Craig implicates a journalist. Anyway, he's written a book (The Real Mary Kelly) where he presumably presents the evidence for his claim. He's trying to get permission to exhume the body to do some DNA tests, but is being blocked from doing so by the owners of the cemetary.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8610349/Bid-unmask-Jack-Ripper-forensic-evidence-final-victim-thwarted-Catholic-church.html

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.

I think that article is dated August 2020?

I actually would be inclined to agree with your statement.

I do not doubt Dr Weston-Davies's knowledge of such details. He is clearly highly-qualified to make such opinions. However, as you say, it is very much at odds that his candidate for JtR was a journalist - is there evidence of any medical training?

Perhaps it will be in the book. If anyone knows, please advise.

Regards,

ero

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

https://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=110

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

I think that article is dated August 2020?

I actually would be inclined to agree with your statement.

I do not doubt Dr Weston-Davies's knowledge of such details. He is clearly highly-qualified to make such opinions. However, as you say, it is very much at odds that his candidate for JtR was a journalist - is there evidence of any medical training?

Perhaps it will be in the book. If anyone knows, please advise.

Regards,

ero

Hi erobitha,

Ah, yes. The Daily Mail's web site must show today's date at the top of the page, which I mistook for the article date. My mistake.

And yes, he has the qualifications and so his opinion must be considered, though his claimed connection to the case and the fact he has a book also has to be viewed as making him a bit close to the case to be considered an impartial opinion. It does strike me as odd that, to my knowledge, no other medical professional, either of those who examined the body or modern reviews of the case notes, have ever mentioned how the removal of the colon followed standard medical procedure. That doesn't mean it's not the case, but given he's not distant from the case and has a book to sell and a suspect in mind, it would be nice to have his interpretations looked at by an impartial medical expert to see if his claims are reasonable. I certainly don't have the knowledge to evaluate his interpretations, and so I'm not saying he's wrong, but a sort of "peer review" of his ideas would be of benefit.

- Jeff

[DJA]

It is not standard medical procedure.
Eddowes was dead.

[Wickerman]

...And yes, he has the qualifications and so his opinion must be considered, though his claimed connection to the case and the fact he has a book also has to be viewed as making him a bit close to the case to be considered an impartial opinion.

At the time Prosector was sharing his experience, as the archive will show, I asked him if his opinion was impartial, or did he have a suspect of his own. At that point he admitted that he did, which took the wind out of any impact his posts had for me. However, Prosector did not expand on his theory in any way.

Motive's aside, the opinion of a surgeon must be appreciated on a forum where none of the posters are personally qualified to dispute Prosector's knowledge.

It might be as well to mention, we also had a doctor Thomas Ind on Casebook (Jan. 2000) some years before Prosector.
Dr. Ind's qualifications were:
"I am the Senior Registrar in Gynaecological Oncology Surgery at the Royal Hospitals Trust in London (Barts & the Royal London Hospitals)."

Dr Ind gave a detailed explanation as to how a Gynaecologist will approach the removal of a uterus from a professional's view, in the end he wrote:
"In summary, I think JTR could have done all the mutilations with no expert knowledge at all. I think he was a lay person anatomically. That he opened his victims abdomen; had a feel around; and removed what he could feel".

In contrast, and prior to Dr. Ind, we had a Dr. Villon who exchanged views with Dr Ind, but admitted to his superior knowledge. However Dr Villon was of the opinion that:

"... it would be impossible for someone without human anatomical training and experience to remove the uteri ventrally under the dark conditions of the murders. The uterus is simply embedded too deeply in the pelvis to permit this--it would just be totally unthinkable for anyone other than a skilled, experienced person to accomplish it".

That's about as far back as I can remember with regards to professional medical opinions shared on Casebook.

[erobitha]

At the time Prosector was sharing his experience, as the archive will show, I asked him if his opinion was impartial, or did he have a suspect of his own. At that point he admitted that he did, which took the wind out of any impact his posts had for me. However, Prosector did not expand on his theory in any way.

Motive's aside, the opinion of a surgeon must be appreciated on a forum where none of the posters are personally qualified to dispute Prosector's knowledge.

It might be as well to mention, we also had a doctor Thomas Ind on Casebook (Jan. 2000) some years before Prosector.
Dr. Ind's qualifications were:
"I am the Senior Registrar in Gynaecological Oncology Surgery at the Royal Hospitals Trust in London (Barts & the Royal London Hospitals)."

Dr Ind gave a detailed explanation as to how a Gynaecologist will approach the removal of a uterus from a professional's view, in the end he wrote:
"In summary, I think JTR could have done all the mutilations with no expert knowledge at all. I think he was a lay person anatomically. That he opened his victims abdomen; had a feel around; and removed what he could feel".

In contrast, and prior to Dr. Ind, we had a Dr. Villon who exchanged views with Dr Ind, but admitted to his superior knowledge. However Dr Villon was of the opinion that:

"... it would be impossible for someone without human anatomical training and experience to remove the uteri ventrally under the dark conditions of the murders. The uterus is simply embedded too deeply in the pelvis to permit this--it would just be totally unthinkable for anyone other than a skilled, experienced person to accomplish it".

That's about as far back as I can remember with regards to professional medical opinions shared on Casebook.

Quite impressive level of recall none the less.

[Abby Normal]

Interesting. I hadn't seen the original post. I did a quick search for Mr. Weston-Davies (just wanted to check out his credentials) and found this Daily Mail article about him that appears to have just come out today! He claims that Mary Kelly was actually his Great-Aunt Elizabeth Weston-Davies, and JtR was her husband, Francis Spurzheim Craig, who was seeking revenge for her leaving him and returning to prostitution. The other murders were committed to create cover for hers, to hide the fact she was the primary victim. Anyway, the article verifies he is a retired surgeon. Interesting, despite his above suggestions that JtR had medical knowledge of surgery, his theory that JtR was Francis Craig implicates a journalist. Anyway, he's written a book (The Real Mary Kelly) where he presumably presents the evidence for his claim. He's trying to get permission to exhume the body to do some DNA tests, but is being blocked from doing so by the owners of the cemetary.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8610349/Bid-unmask-Jack-Ripper-forensic-evidence-final-victim-thwarted-Catholic-church.html

- Jeff

hi jeff
wait i thought weston-davies ancestor was a dr, not a journalist? hence the medical knowledge seen in the wounds?

[Wickerman]

Quite impressive level of recall none the less.

Poor choice of words.
I meant 'recall' with respect to the names of the qualified members we've had here on Casebook.

I was sufficiently impressed by Dr. Ind to copy most of the exchanges we had with him, likewise with Prosector.
I have simply here copied & paste a few relevant quotes, the files are quite long but, if no-one minds I could post the entire files I kept from both doctors.
My file for exchanges with Dr Ind is 16pgs, the file I have for Prosector is 7 pgs.

If anyone would like to see both files I can send them, or post them here.