Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[curious4]

Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Another Look at the Lusk Kidney
What, then, of the Bright's disease, which we are told infected both the Lusk Kidney and Eddowes= remaining right kidney? The condition of "Bright's disease " ...
www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-cmdlusk.html

This gives an account of what Kate probably suffered from. I don't think her kidneys were grossly enlarged.

Best wishes
C4

[Errata]

I wouldn't I have no need to. I have proved my point many times over the past few years on this topic with both text and visual evidence to support it. But some have their own agenda thankfully they are in the minority.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I assume you took her Bright's disease into account? Arterial constriction, hypertension, lots of problems affecting circulation and blood chemistry.

Which reminds me, her kidneys must have been about twice their normal size if her disease was apparent enough to be found without blood tests (she may have had them, but that would be unusual for her class). So it was quite a bit easier to find than the average kidney. And more defined, so getting them out might not have required AS much skill as removing a healthy kidney.

Maybe that's why he took it. It was never going to get easier. Maybe the anomaly intrigued him

[Hunter]

Hello Packer. Should that be Nichols and Chapman? Their cuts were described as skillful, Eddowes's were not.

None of the medicos described Nichols cuts as skillful and quite frankly, from the information we are left with, I'm at a loss to see how that could be determined as such. She was cut and maybe stabbed...that's it.

I fail to see the point from a evidentiary perspective.

[Wickerman]

Trevor
Proving your theory to yourself is no great challenge, when you prove it to others you can claim your laurels.

[lynn cates]

Polly

Hello Packer. Should that be Nichols and Chapman? Their cuts were described as skillful, Eddowes's were not.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would you do such a thing?

I wouldn't I have no need to. I have proved my point many times over the past few years on this topic with both text and visual evidence to support it. But some have their own agenda thankfully they are in the minority.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

Have you ever stabbed a human body in the abdomen several times with a long bladed knife and then drawn it up so as to see whether or not the abdomen will fill with blood?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would you do such a thing?

[Trevor Marriott]

Have you ever opened up a carcass with a knife, Trevor?

Have you ever stabbed a human body in the abdomen several times with a long bladed knife and then drawn it up so as to see whether or not the abdomen will fill with blood?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Kate Eddowes' killer would not have contended with much blood until the renal artery was severed during extraction of the left kidney ( which can be totally done by feel because the kidney is more firm than any surrounding organs.)

Very well put.

Now,if Kate had been strangled and dragged into the Square proper from behind the gate.....

[Abby Normal]

And that could well have accounted for much of what happened. Fantasy repeated with a little of acquired knowledge fueled by that fantasy...i.e.- Ed Gein. Might account for some similarities as well as inconsistencies.

The problem will always remain since there are really too few samples in this series to draw any definitive conclusions. Skill/knowledge or not, these were less than ideal conditions to demonstrate much...except possibly how quick the eviscerations were done. And despite what Phillips said about Chapman, I believe they were done quickly...even Kelly possibly under 15 minutes.

That so many in the medical profession seem - then and now - in awe of how quick the mutilations on Eddowes were inflicted shows they have no idea how a lot of haste and a little skill can be managed in low light. A poacher would laugh at them.

sorry you two
Ed gein? Poacher?

You both could be no further from the truth.

I think your professions may have biased your analysis.

[Hunter]

Have you ever opened up a carcass with a knife, Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone who has eviscerated a carcass (and you obviously have not) knows there is very little blood in the abdomen once the cardiovascular system ceases to function, unless a major vessel (all which lay against the spine) has been severed. Kate Eddowes' killer would not have contended with much blood until the renal artery was severed during extraction of the left kidney ( which can be totally done by feel because the kidney is more firm than any surrounding organs.)

Of course there has to be blood in the abdomen even after death anyone severing arteries or blood vessels randomly with a long bladed knife would cause blood to run into the abdomen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

In drawing the knife down the abdomen, would it have occurred to you to avoid the umbilicus?
It is a seemingly insignificant detail, yet the implication may appeal more to the professional than the interested layperson.

The kidney was also, if I recall, removed "with care", and at night, with the apprehension of being interrupted or discovered.
The ability or knowledge to locate and remove a kidney is one thing, but to remove it in a professional manner (with care) surely speaks more to a practiced hand?

It would have occurred to me, especially If I hadn't yanked the waistband of the skirt down so there were buttons right there. Which might more explain the mess made of Eddowes more than avoiding the belly button. She was wearing like, three layers of buttons. It was like a minefield.

I couldn't take out a kidney like that. Not that fast, probably not at all. Maybe a different method, but it wouldn't look that neat. On the other hand, I'm not saying this guy didn't have practice. But he could have gotten it from stray dogs. It's not a perfect analog, but the basic anatomy is generally the same.And strays are easy to dispose of. Nor is it unusual for serial killers to explore their interest in anatomy on helpless animals. Sometimes merely dissecting those already dead, sometimes sadistic and brutal torture.

Parts of these murders not only suggest a more practiced hand, they seem to demand it. But other parts seem to exclude it.The kidney removal is expert. Cutting the colon is a rookie move. The incision into Annie Chapman is relatively neat. The incision into Katherine Eddowes looks like he chewed his way in, though he did skirt the belly button. And the cuts in Nichols are both purposeful and purposeless at the same time. Like he was trying something, but who knows what because it seems random. The throat cuts are personal. Even rage induced. The other mutilations are pretty clinical.Though some are well executed and some aren't. Why would a professional take part of the bladder?

This guy isn't obviously anything. And I'm not saying that we should rule out the idea of him being some kind of professional. But I don't think it's a given. So looking at other options doesn't hurt.

[Hunter]

It all gets back to knowledge, the ordinary man in the street would not know where to start and would be inhibited by the darkness and the blood filled abdomen and the time factor.

Anyone who has eviscerated a carcass (and you obviously have not) knows there is very little blood in the abdomen once the cardiovascular system ceases to function, unless a major vessel (all which lay against the spine) has been severed. Kate Eddowes' killer would not have contended with much blood until the renal artery was severed during extraction of the left kidney ( which can be totally done by feel because the kidney is more firm than any surrounding organs.)

[Hunter]

...Or he might have gone over it so many times in his head that when it came time to act he was comfortable with it...

And that could well have accounted for much of what happened. Fantasy repeated with a little of acquired knowledge fueled by that fantasy...i.e.- Ed Gein. Might account for some similarities as well as inconsistencies.

The problem will always remain since there are really too few samples in this series to draw any definitive conclusions. Skill/knowledge or not, these were less than ideal conditions to demonstrate much...except possibly how quick the eviscerations were done. And despite what Phillips said about Chapman, I believe they were done quickly...even Kelly possibly under 15 minutes.

That so many in the medical profession seem - then and now - in awe of how quick the mutilations on Eddowes were inflicted shows they have no idea how a lot of haste and a little skill can be managed in low light. A poacher would laugh at them.