Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Errata]

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 ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He didn't.

There were two of them. An angry throat slasher at the head rocking the body the composed man between the legs was trying to dissect. The throat guy finished by the time the organ removal started, and was biding his time by mutilating the face. And was pulled out of his rage by his partner, who needed to work in relative peace.

Twice the manpower, half the time. And it would explain oddities like the pancreas being cut, and the liver being stabbed because the surface the skilled cutter was working on was being jostled by, technically, the killer.

Despite the fact nobody believes it, it's a damn good theory I think.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely Sleuth 1888. I doubt Jack had any specific medical training but even if he did his mutilating was not about medical technique but the pleasure he got from butchering and ripping his victims.

Cheers John

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 ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Jack the Ripper wasn't interested in performing any medical procedure on any of his victims. He just butchered, multilated and ripped his victims. He was acting out his fantasies, he was in a violent, aroused mood and the only sinister pleasure he got was from the complete attack of the body and not from practising any particular medical technique.

Jack the Ripper was a sick puppy, a sick man and he did terrible things to people.

Absolutely Sleuth 1888. I doubt Jack had any specific medical training but even if he did his mutilating was not about medical technique but the pleasure he got from butchering and ripping his victims.

Cheers John

[lynn cates]

skint

Hello Caroline. Bring a bottle? Well, normally I would buy, but right now I'm a wee bit skint, so perhaps I could do you the favour of letting you buy? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Rosella]

Jack certainly wasn't mentally well or he wouldn't have been a serial killer. I do think it is interesting to speculate on just how much anatomical and surgical knowledge he had though, even if he was on a high while he mutilated.

Would a medical student necessarily have surgical skills? At what time during their training, (which I know was incredibly brief by our standards today,) would an 1880's medical student be able to observe hospital operations and take notes?

[Sleuth1888]

Jack the Ripper wasn't interested in performing any medical procedure on any of his victims. He just butchered, multilated and ripped his victims. He was acting out his fantasies, he was in a violent, aroused mood and the only sinister pleasure he got was from the complete attack of the body and not from practising any particular medical technique.

Jack the Ripper was a sick puppy, a sick man and he did terrible things to people.

[Errata]

Er, okay. I think I'll decline the invitation thanks. And Queen's on BBC4 tonight.

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah I would.

I'm the one who mentioned it being orgiastic. In terms of being an act rooted solely in a wanton pursuit of pleasure. He wanted to, he enjoyed it, got a bit of a high off it. I don't see that as a loss of control, but there is room for interpretation of the meaning of the word.

[caz]

Ok. Just remember please that I worked for an anthropologist who studied serial killers and sex crimes. I means I had a lot of deeply weird assignments.

One of which was at an orgy. And I'm a liberal minded soul, and as long as it's consenting adults who am I to judge? I mean, I volunteered for this, because no one else raised their hand, and I figure I taught sex ed, and it's not like I haven't seen sex before.

Years of therapy. Not kidding. Deeply traumatic, even though I was sure I could handle it.

They are in control. Not always aware, but in control. Potential partners get rejected which is one thing if you're still at a bar, but another thing when they are already naked with you. So there are some tantrums. Protection was used, so that had to be refreshed. There is a hierarchy. People get elbowed in the face, there's some person sitting at the side naked because they are the odd man out or waiting. It's just sex. With a lot of people around you also having sex. And you switch around, but it's still just sex. And it no more pleasurable than two people in a bedroom, but apparently "it just feels more decadent, more rebellious". But one of them was a friend of my Dad's, and he just looked up and gave me a wave and a wink, and my brain broke.

The original orgies which didn't include sex but a lot of wine and drugs, those I imagine were out of control. But the deeply disturbing "silver fox" version I saw was just traumatic. Because I swear to god, I think they were all bored.

I don't know why I'm telling you this. I just apparently am.

Er, okay. I think I'll decline the invitation thanks. And Queen's on BBC4 tonight.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Caz

So you would believe that the killer risks arrest and detection to take away organs in what can only be described as almost impossible circumstances with little time available to him. Yet when he had unlimited time to remove almost every organ and take away every organ he fails to do so. I think your logic in your answer has gone a bit wayward.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trev,

If you are looking for a logical and consistent killer, I'm not sure 1888 Whitechapel is the right place for you.

How about this orgy? Sounds interesting.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz

Never been to an orgy, or likely to be but I shouldn' t imagine those who do are particularly in control.

Best wishes
C4

Eh? Who mentioned an orgy? Don't think it was me. Where is it? Should I bring a bottle?

Love,

Caz
X

[DJA]

but the eyebrows?
Best wishes
C4

Might be worth checking your facts.

[curious4]

"Blood was everywhere and pieces of flesh were scattered about the floor". (The Definitive Story, Paul Begg). I can see no motive for many of the cuts made: he removed the eyelids. Ok, he wanted whoever his victims represented to him to "see" what he could do, but the eyebrows? He may have started in a fairly controlled way, placing body parts in a ritualistic way, but then seems to have completely lost it, cutting off flesh and stabbing at the body. What was he going to do with what he cut off from the thighs? No chance that they would "fit into a tea cup". The Times states that every body part was accounted for, Central News is equally sure that the heart was missing. So possibly no "souvenir" this time.

No, I stick to my opinion that Jack lost control and only came to himself when either an accomplice outside warned him that he was likely to be discovered or noises outside made him realise this. If you want to believe that he was completely in control despite the carnage he left behind him, you are welcome to your opinion.

Best wishes
C4

[Errata]

Hello Errata

I would say that not knowing when to stop points to a loss of control. And I wouldn't call what he did meticulous. Matter of opinion though.

Best wishes
C4

I guess my question would be, how do you know that he didn't know when to stop? When was he supposed to stop? The first (few) times he took nothing. The second time just the uterus. The third time the uterus and the kidney. So what was supposed to be this stopping point that he blew past?

[Errata]

PS Wouldn't at all want to belittle your experience. Don't really know what to say, but it seems to me that you were young and coersed into this as is easily done with the young. If your employer persuaded you into this, he/she has a lot to answer for.

Not at all. It was his meeting but he got called in to court to refute testimony. He asked if one of us wanted to take it, and if not he would reschedule. I was certain I was more than up to the task. And the interview was supposed to be in the office, but the guy wanted to be in the room since his security guard needed to take care of something else. I could wait in the office or go with him, and I was just so bloody sure it would be like watching a nature film. And it might have been if the whole "Hey, that's Carl" thing hadn't happened. This was me being stubborn and thick headed.

[curious4]

Hello Errata

I would say that not knowing when to stop points to a loss of control. And I wouldn't call what he did meticulous. Matter of opinion though.

Best wishes
C4

PS Wouldn't at all want to belittle your experience. Don't really know what to say, but it seems to me that you were young and coersed into this as is easily done with the young. If your employer persuaded you into this, he/she has a lot to answer for.