Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Errata]

That position would put you diametrically opposed to those of the most relevant contemporary investigators at least for the month of September, 1888. Its a matter of record that after the death of Annie Chapman the police sought out information on any medical students or practitioners that might have perceived psychological issues. The determination of the examiners and the investigators was, at that time, that the killer must have had some training to excise the organs from Annie in the manner chosen, and in near darkness.

When the alledged series "continues", that thinking is set aside, because clearly if you are to accept Liz Stride as another victim of the same person that killed Annie....and most probably Polly, you could not use "skillful knife use" or "anatomical knowledge" as a metric. Liz Strides murder could have been carried out by someone without any of those attributes, and probably was.

If you insist on having a series of Five in your own theorizing, then you have to accept a killer that has vacillating skill and knowledge, and occasional urges to acquire internal abdominal organs.

Id rather just follow the evidence that suggests that the killer of ONLY Polly and Annie had those attributes, which validated their suspect profile and investigative effort in September of that year.

Cheers

I personally don't insist on a lot of things. I don't even insist he's not a surgeon. I'm just mostly sure he's not.

[Wickerman]

...
If you insist on having a series of Five in your own theorizing, then you have to accept a killer that has vacillating skill and knowledge, and occasional urges to acquire internal abdominal organs.

Didn't Phillips declare that skill was less evident, in consequence of haste?

Why would we expect someone medically trained to deconstruct a body that is dead in the same way as he is expected to operate on a body that is alive?

Should we ever hear of an Architect involved in demolition, would we expect him to disassemble a house brick by brick, just because he is an architect?

I personally never believed 'Jack' was a surgeon, they were generally too slow. Though I do accept he had some medical training, to what degree is the question.

[Wickerman]

You shouldn't try to be to smart and try to join two unrelated posts together and ask one question.

The first post regarding butchery applied to the Kelly murder where no anatomical knowledge was shown.

The second is in relation to Eddowes where if you are to be believed, the killer removed the organs at the crime scene with what was described as a some degree of anatomical knowledge.

Perhaps two different killers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The second (retrace back through John Wheat & Sleuth) were general comments concerning all the murders, where the angle begins with...
"Jack the Ripper wasn't interested in performing any medical procedure on any of his victims."

Perhaps you just thought that observation concerned Eddowes alone.

[Michael W Richards]

I will say, to get back on topic, that whatever skill this guy had, and however he got them, I'm almost sure it wasn't a surgeon. Frankly, I don't think this guy had ever removed a uterus, or even seen it done. The pose of the victims says he needed help, the cuts say he didn't know what he was doing, even though they were well made. Cutting the uterus through the cervix is like cutting a rope through the one knot in it. Why would you do that? It's usually cut through the vagina. You could cut through the neck of the uterus. But the cervix is not easy. That's a lot muscle at the end of your knife's sharpness. That's a rookie move. A surgeon doesn't do that. It's not even a hasty move, because it takes longer. And I'm not sure cutting the bladder is easier than cutting the connective tissue.

I don't think it was a surgeon.

That position would put you diametrically opposed to those of the most relevant contemporary investigators at least for the month of September, 1888. Its a matter of record that after the death of Annie Chapman the police sought out information on any medical students or practitioners that might have perceived psychological issues. The determination of the examiners and the investigators was, at that time, that the killer must have had some training to excise the organs from Annie in the manner chosen, and in near darkness.

When the alledged series "continues", that thinking is set aside, because clearly if you are to accept Liz Stride as another victim of the same person that killed Annie....and most probably Polly, you could not use "skillful knife use" or "anatomical knowledge" as a metric. Liz Strides murder could have been carried out by someone without any of those attributes, and probably was.

If you insist on having a series of Five in your own theorizing, then you have to accept a killer that has vacillating skill and knowledge, and occasional urges to acquire internal abdominal organs.

Id rather just follow the evidence that suggests that the killer of ONLY Polly and Annie had those attributes, which validated their suspect profile and investigative effort in September of that year.

Cheers

[curious4]

Overhead lighting? You've lost me!

C4

[Errata]

I will say, to get back on topic, that whatever skill this guy had, and however he got them, I'm almost sure it wasn't a surgeon. Frankly, I don't think this guy had ever removed a uterus, or even seen it done. The pose of the victims says he needed help, the cuts say he didn't know what he was doing, even though they were well made. Cutting the uterus through the cervix is like cutting a rope through the one knot in it. Why would you do that? It's usually cut through the vagina. You could cut through the neck of the uterus. But the cervix is not easy. That's a lot muscle at the end of your knife's sharpness. That's a rookie move. A surgeon doesn't do that. It's not even a hasty move, because it takes longer. And I'm not sure cutting the bladder is easier than cutting the connective tissue.

I don't think it was a surgeon.

[Errata]

That's the lamp man's job :-)

Why on earth would you think the killer needed overhead lighting? Because it's more flattering? That lamp is on the ground. You only need about a three foot circle of illumination at best.

Sheesh.

[Errata]

The we would have a Victorian equivalent of "The Ripper Crew"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not impossible. Merely improbable.

I can make a good case for it actually. I made an indifferent case for it before, and dropped it. But thinking about it, I can get more specific with it if I try.

The funny thing is, as much as we try to get past the image of the man in the top hat and gladstone bag, we are a little ruled by that image. I think we all reject things that contradict that image. We may engage intellectually, but our gut says "Nope. Doesn't fit the picture in my head." And I do it too, or I would take my theory more seriously. But still, we stick to single man with a long knife in the fog of the evening. Despite the fact it likely was not that long of a knife.

This didn't have to be a man. It didn't have to be a single man. It didn't even have to be a series of single men. Your theory is based on the idea that it was not one man. That the murder and organ removal were separate events. Two men, one victim. The difference between your theory and mine are time and distance. The addition of it makes your theory. The lack of it makes mine.

4 million people in that city, two guy could have gotten together and done this. I mean if Toole and Lucas could find each other in Jacksonville, a sadist and washed up medic could meet in London.

[curious4]

havent you forgot the look outs ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's the lamp man's job :-)

[Trevor Marriott]

Which is it Trevor, "no anatomical knowledge", or "some degree of anatomical knowledge"?

We should attempt to stick to one interpretation to avoid being perceived as confused.

You shouldn't try to be to smart and try to join two unrelated posts together and ask one question.

The first post regarding butchery applied to the Kelly murder where no anatomical knowledge was shown.

The second is in relation to Eddowes where if you are to be believed, the killer removed the organs at the crime scene with what was described as a some degree of anatomical knowledge.

Perhaps two different killers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

There was no care, no anatomical knowledge shown, the body was simply butchered.

I agree with you and that begs a question, and that is how could such a killer, who clearly killed and mutilated in a frenzy. Suddenly stop, regain his composure sufficiently enough to be able to the remove vital organs with some degree of anatomical knowledge in such a short time, and in almost total darkness ?

Which is it Trevor, "no anatomical knowledge", or "some degree of anatomical knowledge"?

We should attempt to stick to one interpretation to avoid being perceived as confused.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry Trevor.

The we would have a Victorian equivalent of "The Ripper Crew"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

havent you forgot the look outs ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

And a third man to hold a lamp?

havent you forgot the look outs ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[curious4]

And a third man to hold a lamp?