Did the murderer have anatomical knowledge beyond that of say a butcher?

[mpriestnall]

How's the book going? Seems like forever waiting for your big reveal.

Al, thanks for asking. ETA Forever and a day.

[mpriestnall]

Someone half the size of a human.

With hairy feet.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Guess who said that?

Sure as hell wasn't poor old Tom Bombadil, no one ever quotes him.

[DJA]

Someone half the size of a human.

[mpriestnall]

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Guess who said that?

I couldn't guess but had to google it. It was...

[Abby Normal]

"Believe Nothing You Hear, and Only One Half That You See."

"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Guess who said that?

[mpriestnall]

"Believe Nothing You Hear, and Only One Half That You See."

[Aethelwulf]

I'm curious as to the impact of Prosector's posts.

Reading these boards, prior to his/her posts, my memory tells me the overwhelming consensus was that the murderer didn't have a great deal of knowledge of human anatomy.

What was instructive to someone like me with less than a good knowledge of the murders, was Prosector's posts which made it clear that the two doctors who thought he did possess that knowledge were the two doctors with the most experience in these matters and it follows the two doctors whose opinions carried the most weight. From memory, Prosector detailed certain procedures involved in the murders that required more than the skills/knowledge of say a butcher.

'Just wondering: did these posts change a few minds? what is today's general consensus?

Thanks in advance.

Daily telegraph 1st Oct 1888

"It is now thought, if not, indeed, fully conceded, that the perpetrator of the crimes is not a scientific anatomist, as had been suggested by a portion of the testimony in the case of the woman Annie Chapman, the fourth victim in this series of outrages. The police view is that he is a man armed with a keen and fearful weapon, which he wields with a strong arm, and possessed by a maniacal fury against the lower class of street walkers. No anatomist would be likely to slash and cut with the rapidity and wildness which must have been employed in hacking and mutilating the poor creature found in the corner of Mitre-square. Medical opinion is almost unanimous, too, in regarding the murderer as an unskilled person and a mere fiendish butcher. Indeed, many of the shrewdest police officers, after seeing the bodies of the victims, assert that the murderer will yet be found to be a vulgar pig-sticker, if, in fact, he is not actually some slaughterhouse workman. Whatever may be the case, it is now generally held by both the police and the doctors that the murderer is possessed of very little anatomical skill, but uses his knife with mere savage ferocity. There is even a doubt expressed whether the disappearance of the uterus from the remains of Victim No. 4 was not due more to chance and accident, owing to the rough and gouging manner in which the knife was used.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Thanks. I'll check it out. I have an idea about the handedness of my suspect which made me wonder about this.

How's the book going? Seems like forever waiting for your big reveal.

[mpriestnall]

I think it's in YouTube.Both choke and cut from the back,cut left to right,if I remember right.

Thanks. I'll check it out. I have an idea about the handedness of my suspect which made me wonder about this.

[Varqm]

Hi Varm. Can any conclusions be made from Dr Ekert's demostration regarding:

1. From where was the throat cut made? Front or back?

2. Jtr using his left or right hand?

Hope you don't mind the questions Just trying to understand this better.

I think it's in YouTube.Both choke and cut from the back,cut left to right,if I remember right.

[mpriestnall]

Post #262 here:https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e18#post796004 has some interesting information regarding anatomical knowledge and Dr Bond.

To get back to the interesting OP you put forward, I found this post from Prosector, a practicing surgeon:

As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

Cheers, George

Thanks for the quote and link.

[mpriestnall]

Forensic pathologist Dr. William Eckert demonstrated how Nichols was killed,choke the victim first with the hand from behind,then cut the throat.Peter Ustinov's JTR show.

Hi Varm. Can any conclusions be made from Dr Ekert's demostration regarding:

1. From where was the throat cut made? Front or back?

2. Jtr using his left or right hand?

Hope you don't mind the questions Just trying to understand this better.

[Varqm]

Forensic pathologist Dr. William Eckert demonstrated how Nichols was killed,choke the victim first with the hand from behind,then cut the throat.Peter Ustinov's JTR show.

[GBinOz]

Post #262 here:https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...e18#post796004 has some interesting information regarding anatomical knowledge and Dr Bond.

To get back to the interesting OP you put forward, I found this post from Prosector, a practicing surgeon:

As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

Cheers, George