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

[milchmanuk]

Hi post #23
thanks for Trevor's YouTube film link.
at 16.36 min into film.
Jack the Ripper | Documentary - YouTube
is a gruesome picture of Catherine Eddowes face.
does any one else see this as clowns face.
murderer making fun.
tormenting the victim in death.
i dont know history of clowns or circuses!
maybe nothing in it.

[DJA]

There is no evidence to show that any in depth examination at the crime scenes which revealed that organs had been taken before the bodies were taken to the mortuaries

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I am glad that you have chosen to participate in this discussion, despite the cacophony of dissent that it sure to follow. I am open minded on this topic at present, but the extracts from the Chapman inquest that I posted earlier do seem to indicate that something untoward was afoot. There is the coroner's question to Phillips "You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?" and to Sergeant Baugham :[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? . Add to that the fact that Baugham stated that the body was left locked in the shed but the nurses said that they found it in the yard.

I also note that the coroner was asking questions at the Eddowes inquest as to whether the body parts were of any commercial value. The doctor's replied in the negative, but I suspect at that time they were trying to dissociate the medical profession from any involvement.

I have to say that I found the comments of the medical experts that you recruited for your video quite compelling.

I am, at this stage, not persuaded that the missing of the umbilicus was an accidental result of the ripper's activity. Do you have any evidence, other than what I have laid out above, that no organs were found to be missing at any of the crime scenes?

Cheers, George

There is no evidence to show that any in depth examination at the crime scenes which revealed that organs had been taken before the bodies were taken to the mortuaries

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

well if as I postulate the organs were removed at the mortuary, and they were not found missing until that point, and the umbilicus procedure you refer to was not documented or identified until then, that would show that that procedure would add more weight to prove that the organs were not removed by the killer but by someone at the mortuary.

rememeber no organs were found to be missing at any of the crime scenes !!!!!!!!!!

Of course another explantion would be that this missing of the umbilicus was not as pronounced as is suggested, and that it could have simply been caused by the killer stabbing her in the abdomen and drawing the knife down creating that effect, and we know that the killer did stab her in the abdomen and draw the knife down.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I am glad that you have chosen to participate in this discussion, despite the cacophony of dissent that it sure to follow. I am open minded on this topic at present, but the extracts from the Chapman inquest that I posted earlier do seem to indicate that something untoward was afoot. There is the coroner's question to Phillips "You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?" and to Sergeant Baugham :[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? . Add to that the fact that Baugham stated that the body was left locked in the shed but the nurses said that they found it in the yard.

I also note that the coroner was asking questions at the Eddowes inquest as to whether the body parts were of any commercial value. The doctor's replied in the negative, but I suspect at that time they were trying to dissociate the medical profession from any involvement.

I have to say that I found the comments of the medical experts that you recruited for your video quite compelling.

I am, at this stage, not persuaded that the missing of the umbilicus was an accidental result of the ripper's activity. Do you have any evidence, other than what I have laid out above, that no organs were found to be missing at any of the crime scenes?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon,

I consider myself impartial, and I have agreed with Trevor on some things, and disagreed on others. But Trevor is a retired professional, whereas most of us are armchair detectives. In relation to this topic, I located the video that Trevor made, to which I previously referred, and it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=965s&ab_channel=dickcopy

In that video Trevor consulted a number of highly qualified and experienced medical professionals whose opinions cannot be lightly discarded. Their conclusion was that the organs that were taken away could not have been extracted from the bodies at the murder site under those conditions. We're talking about Chapman and Eddowes. Trevor postulated that their organs may have been harvested after the fact for the black market organ sales , but he is usually howled down whenever he mentions that opinion on this forum, despite the example of Burke and Hare. However, looking through Chapman's inquest there are some red flags. It appears that there are suggestions that the fact that the uterus was missing may not have been noticed at the murder site, only at the autopsy:

Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips: I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was laying ready on the table. It was under great disadvantage I made my examination.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips: Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner.
Inspector Chandler: I did not instruct the nurses to undress the body and to wash it.

Coroner: Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming.

His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room.

From these extracts it can be seen that some considerable anatomical skill and knowledge was being acknowledged, but a suggestion that said skill may not have been exercised at the murder site. I have no looked thoroughly at this aspect for the Eddowes murder, but the cut on her that avoided the umbilicus point to skills being exercised at the site of that murder.

Cheers, George

19 minutes into the video show the medical experts opinions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Hi Dave,

Apart from your favoured suspect, are there others that you might think fit into this category? Thompson? Robert Lees Suspect #124? .......?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Did a lot of my own "Devil's Advocate" research, before my first face to face meeting with a well connected script writer (who still owes me thousands of dollars).
That was almost 16 years ago to the month.

Dr John Williams topped the list.

Honestly,every clue points to one person.Look at Nichols and Eddowes who reconnected in Thrawl Street 22 years after being Sutton's inpatients,with Nichols moving next door to Eddowes who then went hop picking.
After Nichols was murdered close to the London Hospital,Eddowes returned seeking a reward.
Eddowes' wounds are testament to Sutton's research with her as a patient.

Ciao,

Dave.

[Trevor Marriott]

I take his point as meaning a layperson wouldn't even think of it.

If the aim was to open up the abdomen, an ordinary person might just run the knife across it, and when the knife doesn't cut through he might run a second or third cut just over that point until the skin starts to separate.
We don't see any of that, who ever made that cut knew to avoid the umbilicus.

And, to Dave's point (post 19), that this was a time before abdominal surgery was common. The most likely culprit would be one who conducts autopsies, as they are required to sew the wound together again.

well if as I postulate the organs were removed at the mortuary, and they were not found missing until that point, and the umbilicus procedure you refer to was not documented or identified until then, that would show that that procedure would add more weight to prove that the organs were not removed by the killer but by someone at the mortuary.

rememeber no organs were found to be missing at any of the crime scenes !!!!!!!!!!

Of course another explantion would be that this missing of the umbilicus was not as pronounced as is suggested, and that it could have simply been caused by the killer stabbing her in the abdomen and drawing the knife down creating that effect, and we know that the killer did stab her in the abdomen and draw the knife down.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

As there was next to no abdomen surgery at that time,it is most likely that we are looking at a hospital lecturer.

Hi Dave,

Apart from your favoured suspect, are there others that you might think fit into this category? Thompson? Robert Lees Suspect #124? .......?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Over the years I've learned to be highly suspicious of anything Trevor has asserted, it shouldn't be that way but for some reason.....
You might notice, very few people, especially those who are impartial, ever agree with Trevor.
Given his background he should be a leading voice of rationality, so why does he come up with thee most unbelievable theories.

I think it is evident that the medical profession did react that way, but as far as modern theorists putting all their eggs in that one basket - that the killer must have had medical training. I wouldn't say it is proven.
It might be an attractive solution, and I wouldn't argue against it, it's just that so much of the medical evidence is open to interpretation.

Hi Jon,

I consider myself impartial, and I have agreed with Trevor on some things, and disagreed on others. But Trevor is a retired professional, whereas most of us are armchair detectives. In relation to this topic, I located the video that Trevor made, to which I previously referred, and it is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=965s&ab_channel=dickcopy

In that video Trevor consulted a number of highly qualified and experienced medical professionals whose opinions cannot be lightly discarded. Their conclusion was that the organs that were taken away could not have been extracted from the bodies at the murder site under those conditions. We're talking about Chapman and Eddowes. Trevor postulated that their organs may have been harvested after the fact for the black market organ sales , but he is usually howled down whenever he mentions that opinion on this forum, despite the example of Burke and Hare. However, looking through Chapman's inquest there are some red flags. It appears that there are suggestions that the fact that the uterus was missing may not have been noticed at the murder site, only at the autopsy:

Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips: I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was laying ready on the table. It was under great disadvantage I made my examination.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips: Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner.
Inspector Chandler: I did not instruct the nurses to undress the body and to wash it.

Coroner: Her rings had been wrenched from her fingers and have not been found, and the uterus has been removed. The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been some one accustomed to the post-mortem room. The conclusion that the desire was to possess the missing part seems overwhelming.

His object is clearly divulged. His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room.

From these extracts it can be seen that some considerable anatomical skill and knowledge was being acknowledged, but a suggestion that said skill may not have been exercised at the murder site. I have no looked thoroughly at this aspect for the Eddowes murder, but the cut on her that avoided the umbilicus point to skills being exercised at the site of that murder.

Cheers, George

[Scott Nelson]

Especially since we had at one time, two doctors posting here, Ind and Villa. Ind said no anatomical knowledge, but rudimentary skill; Villa said knowledge and moderate (?) skill.

[Wickerman]

The incision in Eddowes abdomen does seem to indicate someone who has engaged in, or observed, surgical procedure. I recall see one of Trevor's videos where he had a group of medical professionals commenting that there wasn't sufficient time or light for the murderer to have extracted Eddowes kidney in the fashion in which it was extracted (Trevor, can you supply a link to that video please. I can't find it). Their conclusion, IIRC, was that the doctor's had missed the fact that the organs were not missing at the crime scene. But they could not have missed that incision at the crime scene.

Over the years I've learned to be highly suspicious of anything Trevor has asserted, it shouldn't be that way but for some reason.....
You might notice, very few people, especially those who are impartial, ever agree with Trevor.
Given his background he should be a leading voice of rationality, so why does he come up with thee most unbelievable theories.

I find Harry D's suggestion that the medical profession would have been very keen to dismiss the possibility that Jack was a doctor or surgeon very viable. So are we entitled, from the evidence, to place more confidence in the possibility that Jack was part of the medical fraternity? Were we to apply that filter, which suspects would remain?

I think it is evident that the medical profession did react that way, but as far as modern theorists putting all their eggs in that one basket - that the killer must have had medical training. I wouldn't say it is proven.
It might be an attractive solution, and I wouldn't argue against it, it's just that so much of the medical evidence is open to interpretation.

[Wickerman]

I totally get it. But then who else other than a surgeon would be taking a knife around an umbilicus? Maybe its just what happens when you cut into someone in that area? Can't imagine you would cut through the belly button (From a quick self inspection, it feels pretty grisly!

I take his point as meaning a layperson wouldn't even think of it.

If the aim was to open up the abdomen, an ordinary person might just run the knife across it, and when the knife doesn't cut through he might run a second or third cut just over that point until the skin starts to separate.
We don't see any of that, who ever made that cut knew to avoid the umbilicus.

And, to Dave's point (post 19), that this was a time before abdominal surgery was common. The most likely culprit would be one who conducts autopsies, as they are required to sew the wound together again.

[DJA]

As there was next to no abdomen surgery at that time,it is most likely that we are looking at a hospital lecturer.

[GBinOz]

We had a pathology surgeon on here who remarked on the cut to Eddowes abdomen. We see this in a photo of Eddowes from the morgue, and we can see how the cut starts high up on the chest and runs straight down across the abdomen, yet circles around the belly-button to continue down the center-line to the pubic area.
He commented that this is how a surgeon cuts open a body, taking the knife around the umbilicus (belly-button), as if it was done in a mortuary by a professional.
We wouldn't expect a lay-person to do this.
Yet this killer seems to have done that perhaps out of habit?

The umbilicus is avoided because the surgeon needs to sew the body back together after the autopsy and a needle will not easily go through the umbilicus as it is too thick.
He said it's a small point, but one of a few small points he had noticed that made him think the killer was educated in both anatomy and surgery.
As Dr Phillips said (re Chapman), skill was only less evident in consequence of haste. Which was certainly the case with Eddowes.

Hi Jon,

Firstly, commenting on your post after this one, I entirely agree that Phillip's did seem to enjoy engaging in elaborate verbosity. Why use 5 words if you can use 32. Reminds me of WC Fields proposal:
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t". That's not to say he was talking bulls**t.

The incision in Eddowes abdomen does seem to indicate someone who has engaged in, or observed, surgical procedure. I recall see one of Trevor's videos where he had a group of medical professionals commenting that there wasn't sufficient time or light for the murderer to have extracted Eddowes kidney in the fashion in which it was extracted (Trevor, can you supply a link to that video please. I can't find it). Their conclusion, IIRC, was that the doctor's had missed the fact that the organs were not missing at the crime scene. But they could not have missed that incision at the crime scene.

I find Harry D's suggestion that the medical profession would have been very keen to dismiss the possibility that Jack was a doctor or surgeon very viable. So are we entitled, from the evidence, to place more confidence in the possibility that Jack was part of the medical fraternity? Were we to apply that filter, which suspects would remain?

Best regards, George