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

[DJA]

Interesting Jon, that you should suggest that the victims were strangled from the rear. From my reading of the inquest testimony and the autopsies I had envisaged his hands on the front of their throats. But once they were rendered insensible, I agree with the coroner's summary for Chapman, that "There are no meaningless cuts". In my view the killing was never the objective, the objective was the mutilation. If the motive was revenge for having passed on a syphilis infection, would not just the murder have sufficed?

Best regards, George

Rear naked choke - Wikipedia

Not how it was probably done,however shows how quickly a victim can be subdued.

Stage hypnotists used to restrict blood flow from the front by "gesturing hypnotically".
Melvin Powers mentioned this in one of his books in the 1960s.Something that interested me in my early teens.

I've worked with a criminologist who was also a hypnotherapist.
Jim Drysdale also went over to England at Scotland Yard's request.
Brilliant man and a valued friend.RIP.

[Wickerman]

Interesting Jon, that you should suggest that the victims were strangled from the rear. From my reading of the inquest testimony and the autopsies I had envisaged his hands on the front of their throats.

That's been my view George, for quite some time.
It's also my belief he used a cord, the most effective way is from the rear.
Chapman had scratches on her neck, just below her left ear. Phillips (in his usual poetic way) described as:

"...He came to that conclusion because on the left side, on the lower jaw, were scratches one and a half to two inches below the lobe of the ear, and going in a contrary direction to the incision in the throat."

I think he means the scratches were vertical. Which I see caused by her own finger nails in trying to release something tight around her throat.
I know none of the victims had marks of the cord around their throat, but four of the five had more than one cut, which will remove any evidence of a cord.

But once they were rendered insensible, I agree with the coroner's summary for Chapman, that "There are no meaningless cuts". In my view the killing was never the objective, the objective was the mutilation. If the motive was revenge for having passed on a syphilis infection, would not just the murder have sufficed?

I can't speak to motive, yes there was a reason for the mutilation, but who can say what they reason was.

[GBinOz]

Yes, all indications are this was his approach. The only struggle they had was while being suffocated/strangled, which would have still been strenuous for the victim, arms flailing around, especially if applied from the rear. But there was no frenzied attack with the knife.

I've said many times, it's very likely the victims never saw a knife. That this killer was primarily a strangler, who brought a knife with him.

Interesting Jon, that you should suggest that the victims were strangled from the rear. From my reading of the inquest testimony and the autopsies I had envisaged his hands on the front of their throats. But once they were rendered insensible, I agree with the coroner's summary for Chapman, that "There are no meaningless cuts". In my view the killing was never the objective, the objective was the mutilation. If the motive was revenge for having passed on a syphilis infection, would not just the murder have sufficed?

Best regards, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave,

I was quoting what was said in Trevor's video. I watch every you-tube video available and the attacks are usually depicted as a frenzied stabbing and slashing. That is contrary to my perception.

Which raises the same question, how accurate is the video?

I think of him strangling the victim until her blood pressure drops so that there would be a minimum of arterial spray, then cutting the throat, and then proceeding with an relatively orderly disembowelment where technique is sacrificed due to time constraints.

Yes, all indications are this was his approach. The only struggle they had was while being suffocated/strangled, which would have still been strenuous for the victim, arms flailing around, especially if applied from the rear. But there was no frenzied attack with the knife.

I've said many times, it's very likely the victims never saw a knife. That this killer was primarily a strangler, who brought a knife with him.

[Wickerman]

This was 1888 not 2022, we dont know fully what took place at the crime scenes back then, but there was no medical protocol to adher to but I take your point but still refer back to the following with regard to the murders of Chapman and Eddowes

Trevor, Virchow's Post-Mortem Examinations was already well known. I have the 1885 edition, so we can see the standard being promoted in the years leading up to the murders. Though, we only need to look at the other Whitechapel murders, with the exception of Kelly, we known Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, were not investigated beyond being pronounced dead, then put on an ambulance, and taken to the mortuary. All the testimony we have indicates Brown followed the same procedure with Eddowes.

Did the killer have time to remove organs, look at the time Phillips states it would have taken him. and if it is accepted that she was killed at the later time then that time would not have been available to the killer because people were up and about.

Phillips worked in a controlled environment, slow & methodical, with the full expectation his patients will live.
If you would like to know more about speedy operations, look into how operations & amputations were conducted on the battlefield in the US Civil War, 1860's.

Did the killer have sufficient light for him to remove the organs, Eddowes crime scene almost total darkness? Chapman pitch black or still dark depending on time of death

Wasn't it Sequiera who said light was sufficient in Mitre Square?
Richardson 'could see all over the place' in Hanbury St. an hour before the murder.

Did the killer have sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to remove the organs from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness. Sufficient knowledge is twofold the first having the knowledge to locate the organs, secondly having the knowledge of how to remove them.

As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
If the organs are missing at the crime scene, then that question is already answered.
So, really, that is an invalid question.

[GBinOz]

There is absolutely no evidence of a frenzied attack!

Hi Dave,

I was quoting what was said in Trevor's video. I watch every you-tube video available and the attacks are usually depicted as a frenzied stabbing and slashing. That is contrary to my perception. I think of him strangling the victim until her blood pressure drops so that there would be a minimum of arterial spray, then cutting the throat, and then proceeding with an relatively orderly disembowelment where technique is sacrificed due to time constraints.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

There is absolutely no evidence of a frenzied attack!

[Trevor Marriott]

The frenzied attack followed by the surgical removal afterwards could be explained by Trevor's theory, but it doesn't explain the umbilical circumvention.

The surgical removal and umbilical circumvention could be explained by Dave's theory, but would a surgeon engage in a frenzied attack?

Cheers, George

Edit: Trevor, if the later time is accepted for Chapman, the murder took place in (broad?) daylight.

and if organ removal was the objective, and I dont buy that theory based on there were other victims that could have had organs removed but did not

And if organ removal was the objective why carry out the mutilations in such frenzied attacks to the abdomens, a course of action that would damage any intended organs sought for removal.

The umblical cirumvention may not have been as is suggested as is stated the victim was stabbed in the abdomen and the knife drawn down that if effect causes a jagged wound which may have looked like the procedure described. or if the organs were taken at the mortuary and whoever took them might have had to cause further damage to the abdomen in removing them. After all the PM hadnt been carried out at that point and when it was any additional injuries would have been attributed to the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

What frenzied attack?

[GBinOz]

The frenzied attack followed by the surgical removal afterwards could be explained by Trevor's theory, but it doesn't explain the umbilical circumvention.

The surgical removal and umbilical circumvention could be explained by Dave's theory, but would a surgeon engage in a frenzied attack?

Cheers, George

Edit: Trevor, if the later time is accepted for Chapman, the murder took place in (broad?) daylight.

[Trevor Marriott]

But Trevor, you know very well no surgeon conducts an autopsy, or even investigates the body, at a crime scene.
Because the surgeon was following procedure, now you say "Aha!", this proves my case. No organs were found to be removed at the scene" - of course not. No-one was looking, that doesn't mean they were still intact.

This was 1888 not 2022, we dont know fully what took place at the crime scenes back then, but there was no medical protocol to adher to but I take your point but still refer back to the following with regard to the murders of Chapman and Eddowes

Did the killer have time to remove organs, look at the time Phillips states it would have taken him. and if it is accpeted that she was killed at the later time then that time would not have been available to the killer because people were up and about.

Did the killer have sufficient light for him to remove the organs, Eddowes crime scene almost total darkness? Chapman pitch black or still dark depending on time of death

Did the killer have sufficient anatomical knowledge to be able to remove the organs from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness. Sufficient knowledge is twofold the first having the knowledge to locate the organs, secondly having the knowledge of how to remove them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George.

I would be more than happy to deal with that video, issue by issue, but after watching for only 15 minutes I have listed several points that can be contested.
In talking about Eddowes, Trevor has his guest comment on what was possible in only 9 minutes?

This is not the case if the woman in Duke St. was not Eddowes. Even the police were not certain, Lawende only offered a general description of the clothes, he wasn't allowed to see the body because he never saw the woman's face.
Trevor has his own theory, his guests are considering what was possible from what Trevor thinks happened.

If Eddowes & her killer were the people seen in St James Place at 1:30 am., not Duke St., then Trevor's timing is all out the window.

Just to put the record straight that was an error which went undetected that statement represented the time from when Lawende saw the couple 1.35am to when Watkins found the body 1.44am- 9 mins. Harveys time was not factored into that which reduces the 9 mins to approx 5 mins.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[Wickerman]

Thanks Jon. That answers the question I was asking. The part of Trevor's video that particularly interested me was the footage from about 19min to about 22min.

Ok, I'll look again.

I agree with your previous comments about the couple seen by Lawende. So unless the murder took place elsewhere and the body transported to the location where it was found, the time boundaries for the murder and mutilations are that of Watkins beat, less a little time for Jack and Cathy to arrive at the scene. Thirteen to fourteen minutes at most. Would you agree?

Yes, they could have seen Watkins leave the court via Mitre Street. Not likely I know, but that provides a maximum.
Then we have to deal with whether Harvey could have seen across the square or not.

When you referred to the people seen in St James Place at 1:30 am, are they the couple seen coming from Aldgate Station, with the man returning shortly afterwards alone?

No, St. James Place is in the opposite direction, diagonally opposite from the spot where the body was found.

[Wickerman]

The abdomen holds the abdominal organs under pressure, by that I mean if you slice the abdomen open, the intestines erupt out of the cavity, and blood will escape.
Just like when you cut your finger, you lose blood, so the abdomen doesn't fill, it empties.

Sorry George, I should have put more thought into your question.
I was only thinking of Chapman, her build being quite large.
Eddowes looks more frail, the effect may not have been quite so noticeable with one who has less abdominal mass.