Someone with medical knowledge

[Scott Nelson]

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".

I also recall Drs. Thomas Ind and Mike Villa (Villon?). Ind was a OB/GYN who opted towards a Ripper with rudimentary anatomical knowledge and little to no skill. Villa, an Internist, thought the Ripper had considerable anatomical knowledge and some skill.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think I have. If you think about it logically, myself & others here can only contest the points you have raised yourself. And, in my book that is fair game.
If your arguments don't suffice to convince anyone of your theory, how can you reasonably expect anyone to buy your book?
You know yourself you have made some highly controversial claims with few if any takers for your side of the argument.

I would expect others to buy the book and then contest the contents, what I orginally posted was a mere taster which you and others have made a big issue of contesting, but hey thats to be expected on here if anything doesnt sit well with someones own theory then the line taken is lets get rid of it by whatever means possible.

Dr. Ind was asked:
"Were the uteri removed carefully or by a random ‘slash’?"

To which he replied:
"Although JTR managed to precisely remove a kidney he completely failed to perform an adequate hysterectomy. In Chapman’s case he excised part of the bladder and in Eddowes case he only performed a subtotal hysterectomy (leaving the cervix behind).

According to the Mammoth book Kelly had her uterus placed under her head. There is no comment as to what was attached to the uterus and whether it included the cervix. Does anyone know the answer to this?

I am sure you are aware that there was no anatomical knowledge shown by the killer of Eddowes

In my opinion there was nothing careful nor informative concerning the uterine excisions.

Thats not the point the point is that two differnet methods were used in the process of removing the uterus from both victims, if it was the same killer then we should not see a change in his method of attempting the removal.

In the case of Chapman the fallopian tubes which were attached to the uterus were also removed, and you still think these ora#gans were removed by the same killer I think you need to take a re think

Most hysterectomies involve removing the corpus (main body) and the cervix (neck). Although I must add that there is a small current trend for women to request that their cervix is left behind in the unfounded theory that it contributes to orgasms. Some involve removing the ovaries as well and others do not.

Mr Neale- In the case of Catherine Eddowes, I note the cervix of the uterus was left behind. Today this would be termed a subtotal hysterectomy as the cervix is seen as an integral part of the uterus. The obstetricians and midwives of the 19^th century were aware of the importance of the cervix in childbirth, but I have no knowledge of Victorian anatomist’s gynaecological view of the cervix.

The danger in performing a hysterectomy include damaging the vessels of the pelvic side wall and the ureters (tube connecting the kidneys to the bladder). In most non-cancerous cases this is avoided by keeping the excision close to the uterus as well as identifying the above structures. Do we know from the post mortems if there was any damage to the ureters during the uterine excisions or damage to the other structures on the pelvic side wall? These structures are the external iliac vein and artery, the internal iliac vein and artery, the obturator nerve and vessels, the psoas muscle and the genitofemoral nerve.

Mr Neale "I agree with the suggestion made at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but, interestingly, it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish, and a longer time frame needed"

Mr Neale-"In concluding and with regards to the removal of the organs from Eddowes and the time needed for them to have been removed at the crime scene. In my opinion, it would not be the skill that would be needed, but the level of anatomical knowledge, which would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. If the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge otherwise he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window” as stated by Dr Brown."

To remove the cervix you need to mobilise the bladder caudally. If you do not it is almost inevitable that you will also remove part of the bladder. This is what JTR did during Chapman’s hysterectomy."

Correction that is what the person did who removed the uterus not necessarily the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk