Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Great insight from Prosector regarding anatomy, and he gives also a insight into the possible motive for the killings, which was to give the impression that they were the work of one man, which would lead up to Mary Kelly.which was his main objective.
I have to ask the following.
How did the killer with this Modus, feel sure that he would not have been caught, either red handed, or detected during that period?
Clearly anyone with this design, would have had to have known his final victim, and had a passionate hatred of her, and was relatively in her circle of associates, for him to attempt to draw suspicion away from himself?
If this associate had medical knowledge, then if he was so paranoid to attempt to fool authorities by taking this speculative route, he would hardly have shown his hand by expert knife mutilations, there are other less acts of murder that are non traceable .to strangle for instance..
I am not suggesting, that the killer was not a person with a knowledge of anatomy, and indeed he may well have been a medical man, but if so I would somehow doubt he took the path as suggested.
Regards Richard.

[Prosector]

I make no claim to be able to do it in that sort of time - that's one reason why I don't think he was a surgeon, just a very dextrous person with good anatomical knowledge. A surgeon would probably have striven to be neater. Phillips said that a surgeon would take longer than he himself would don't forget (after Chapman).

I'm not sure that the eyelid nicks etc. weren't accidental - seven or eight inch blade flailing around in the darkness. I collect surgical antiques and I may try posting a picture of the type of knife I think he used, they had needle sharp tips.

At the end of the day does it matter if he performed the Eddowes killing in 1 minute or 10? He did it and we know that he certainly couldn't have taken more than about 10 minutes. Or is anyone suggesting that he had an assistant? I certainly don't espouse that possibility.

Prosector

[Jon Guy]

So how did he manage to push up a tight bodice and yet still stab her through the bottom part of it ? ?

The bottom of the bodice is around the waist, so that fits in with the killer cutting it whilst he was cutting through material around the waist.

Also how do you explain the 6.5 in cut going down from the waistband and the 10.5 inch cut also going down from the waistband ? making those cuts would not have helped him manoeuvre the clothing would they ?

The killer had pushed the clothing up as far as he can and then cut through the bunched up folds.

[Prosector]

Hi Richard
Of course he had no certainty that he would not be caught before he achieved his final objective. I think he chose this route to make sure that the killings were clearly seen as the wiork of one man. Strangling alone wouldn't have achieved that - anyone can strangle someone, not everyone knows where to find the left kidney. I emphatically do not believe that he was a doctor, just a talented amateur. I think he probably wanted people to think he was a doctor because that would make people look in the wrong places.

I think the Dear Boss letters (including the two that few people seem to know about, the one following the Whitehall killing and the one received in 1896) were all by Jack and were designed to reinforce the notion that he and he alone was responsible for the killings and to further the impression that he was nothing but a homicidal maniac.

Yes, I think he did know MJK and had a burning hatred for her (which he didn't for the others). I don't think he was a member of her immediate curcle though.

Prosector

[Prosector]

A general point regarding the clothing. These were unfortunates, they needed to permit relatively easy access to their nether regions if they were conducting their business standing up in back alleys and the like. Polly Nichols was wearing stays although these were loose enough to be pushed up fairly easily.

Prosector

[Trevor Marriott]

I make no claim to be able to do it in that sort of time - that's one reason why I don't think he was a surgeon, just a very dextrous person with good anatomical knowledge. A surgeon would probably have striven to be neater. Phillips said that a surgeon would take longer than he himself would don't forget (after Chapman).

I'm not sure that the eyelid nicks etc. weren't accidental - seven or eight inch blade flailing around in the darkness. I collect surgical antiques and I may try posting a picture of the type of knife I think he used, they had needle sharp tips.

At the end of the day does it matter if he performed the Eddowes killing in 1 minute or 10? He did it and we know that he certainly couldn't have taken more than about 10 minutes. Or is anyone suggesting that he had an assistant? I certainly don't espouse that possibility.

Prosector

Hi well

Its nice to concur on the nicking of the eye lids I would also go so far as to say the facial wounds were incurred in the same way whilst she was trying to stop her throat being cut.

But of course as I have previously stated why go to the lengths to make a half hearted attempt to remove the organs if you have the knowledge then why not make a good job of it. After all the kidney one of the most difficult organs to locate and remove if he were wanting to prove a point other organs far more accessible.

Not withstanding two different ways were used to remove both victims uteri that suggests two different people.

Are you aware of my theory that the killer did not remove the organs but that they were removed by someone from the medical profession at the mortuary before the post mortems were carried out hence the limited anatomical knowledge shown if it were a medical student or an inexperienced doctor ?

[Trevor Marriott]

The bottom of the bodice is around the waist, so that fits in with the killer cutting it whilst he was cutting through material around the waist.

The killer had pushed the clothing up as far as he can and then cut through the bunched up folds.

Oh come on take another close look at the evidence. work it out take the blinkers off.

[Jon Guy]

Oh come on take another close look at the evidence. work it out take the blinkers off.

Even with blinkers on it`s all bleedin obvious.

[Trevor Marriott]

Even with blinkers on it`s all bleedin obvious.

There are none so blind as they that cannot see or shall I add don't want to see !

[Jon Guy]

There are none so blind as they that cannot see or shall I add don't want to see !

You`ve resorted to your mangled proverbs sooner than I expected.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Richard
Of course he had no certainty that he would not be caught before he achieved his final objective. I think he chose this route to make sure that the killings were clearly seen as the wiork of one man. Strangling alone wouldn't have achieved that - anyone can strangle someone, not everyone knows where to find the left kidney. I emphatically do not believe that he was a doctor, just a talented amateur. I think he probably wanted people to think he was a doctor because that would make people look in the wrong places.

I think the Dear Boss letters (including the two that few people seem to know about, the one following the Whitehall killing and the one received in 1896) were all by Jack and were designed to reinforce the notion that he and he alone was responsible for the killings and to further the impression that he was nothing but a homicidal maniac.

Yes, I think he did know MJK and had a burning hatred for her (which he didn't for the others). I don't think he was a member of her immediate curcle though.

Prosector

Hi prosector
I have always thought the dear boss letters had a good chance of being from the ripper and the 1896 one as a possibility.
What is the one you mention after Whitehall?

As I mentioned before in the first dear boss in the ps he writes they say I am a dr now. Haha.

Why did he write this do you think?

And who was it? I really would like to see your suspect on this.

[Trevor Marriott]

You`ve resorted to your mangled proverbs sooner than I expected.

Being conventional and logical with you clearly isn't working so I will withdraw,

[richardnunweek]

Hi
I too would like to ask the same question ''Who does Prosector believe may have been responsible? he may have course have an open mind..like many of us.
As long as it is not a certain Doctor, who allegedly had a certain affair with Mary Kelly..I trust not LOL.
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

butchers and butchers

Hello Michael.

"suggest that the crude anatomical knowledge of the murderer seems to exonerate butchers who would have been much better than surgeons at evisceration because they did it daily"

Well, what KIND of butcher? Just as a home builder may or may not know a certain operation with building a house, so also with butchers. Some were mere slaughterers, some did cutting up. I presume there were further sub-specialties.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure that the eyelid nicks etc. weren't accidental - seven or eight inch blade flailing around in the darkness.

It is likely worth remembering though that both at the Chapman Inquest (Sept. 19th), and in the press (20th-22nd), conjecture had been voiced concerning photographing the eyes of the victim.

I suspect this is the reason he sliced the eyelids with Eddowes. He may have just assumed the cuts were deep enough to penetrate through to the eyeball.